text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We re-examine the historically important decay of the neutral pion into two photons. Schwinger’s Equivalence Theorem is confirmed. We then consider radiative corrections to the famous Adler-Bell-Jackiw (ABJ) anomaly. The result depends crucially on a physically motivated regularization scheme. Our approach is largely based on Schwinger’s source (dispersion) method.'
author:
- |
Walter Dittrich\
Institut für theoretische Physik, Universität Tübingen,\
72076 Tübingen, Germany
title: 'Second-Order Radiative Corrections to the Axial Vector Anomaly'
---
plus2pt minus4pt plus2pt minus4pt plus2pt minus4pt plus2pt minus4pt
Introduction
============
From time to time people get excited about the question as to whether the classic one-loop triangle ABJ anomaly [@1] obtains higher-order loop corrections. If so, what are the consequences of this modified anomaly for the $\pi^0 \to 2 \gamma$ decay mode which is stated to one-loop order in form of a local action term [@2] $$W_{\pi^0 \to 2\gamma} =\frac{g}{m} \left( \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \right)
\int d^4x\, \phi(x)\, \mathbf{E\cdot B}(x).$$ It is almost thirty years ago that Lester L. DeRaad, Kim Milton, and Wu-yang Tsai [@3] challenged the prevalent view that the ABJ triangle anomaly is an exact statement. That no further corrections are expected is claimed by the so-called Adler-Bardeen theorem [@4]. Adler and Bardeen considered ultraviolet regularization and showed that three-particle exchange processes are not divergent and therefore do not contribute to the anomaly. But there is also the two-particle intermediate state with the pseudoscalar form factor to be taken into account. This contribution cannot be regularized in a chiral invariant way and so allows for a certain freedom in choosing a normalization point. Hence the occurrence of an anomaly correction depends crucially on the way the infrared regularization is performed. The anomaly as a short-distance or high-energy phenomenon with cutoff $\Lambda$ has to be supplemented with the lower end of the momentum scale, $\mu$. Source theoretical calculations show explicitly that it is indeed not sufficient to merely consider an ultraviolet regularization but an infrared regularization as well. Incidentally, this fact was known a long time ago to the late J. Schwinger who showed in the last chapter of his monograph, Ref. [@5], how the Equivalence Theorem on the next dynamical level becomes modified by the replacement $\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \to \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \left( 1+
\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \right)$ in the original one-loop triangle diagram.
More recently corrections to the one-loop chiral anomaly were also discussed by V.I. Zakharov [@6] and by the authors in Ref. [@7]. The greatest impetus on the matter came, however, from a new approach via the so-called average-effective action which M. Reuter published in Ref. [@8]. Although we do not have the time to enter this subject, the reader is invited to consult that paper (especially the appendix) for further details.
The Equivalence Theorem, Prehistory
===================================
In his seminal work, Schwinger [@2] proved the “Equivalence Theorem” which states that in the low-energy regime, a pseudoscalar interaction between a spinless neutral meson and a fermion leads to the same result for the meson decay into two photons as a pseudovector interaction.
For the pseudoscalar interaction between a neutral meson field $\phi$ and a fermion field $\psi$, the Lagrangian is simply given by $${\cal L}^{\text{PS}} =-{\text{i}}g\, \phi(x)\, \frac{1}{2} \bigl[ \bar{\psi}
(x), \gamma_5 \psi(x) \bigr]. \label{1}$$ In the fifties the fermion was identified with the proton; nowadays, $\psi$ should be associated with a quark appearing in three colors. In our naive model the emphasis is still on electrodynamics. The only explicit assumption of the $\psi$ and $\phi$ particles enters through the restriction $m\gg m_\pi$.
In order to describe the decay of the pion into two photons, we replace the fermion fields by their vacuum expectation value in the presence of an external electromagnetic field:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\text{PS}}\to {\cal L}^{\text{PS}}_{\text{eff}} &=&
-{\text{i}}g\, \phi(x)\, \frac{1}{2} \langle \bigl[ \bar{\psi}(x), \gamma_5
\psi(x) \bigr] \rangle^A \nonumber\\
&=& g\, \phi(x)\, {\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5 G(x,x|A). \label{2}\end{aligned}$$
This equation is diagrammatically represented in Fig. 1.
(35,35) (0,5) (10,0)[$g\gamma_5\phi(x)$]{}
The propagator $G$ satisfies the Green’s function equation of a Dirac particle $$\bigl[ m+ \gamma^\mu \Pi_\mu \bigr] G(x,x'|A)=\delta(x-x'), \label{3}$$ where $\Pi_\mu=-{\text{i}}\partial_\mu -eA_\mu$. At this point we introduce the proper-time representation for the operator $G[A]$: $$G[A] =\frac{1}{m +\gamma\Pi} = \frac{m-\gamma\Pi}{m^2 -(\gamma\Pi)^2}
=(m-\gamma\Pi) {\text{i}}\int\limits_0^\infty ds\, {\text{e}}^{-{\text{i}}s [ m^2 -{\text{i}}\epsilon -(\gamma\Pi)^2]} . \label{4}$$ Inserting this representation into Eq. [(\[2\])]{}, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\text{PS}}_{\text{eff}}&=& g\, \phi(x)\, {\text{tr}}\, \left\{
\gamma_5 \langle x| (m-\gamma\Pi) {\text{i}}\int\limits_0^\infty ds\,
{\text{e}}^{-{\text{i}}s [ m^2 -(\gamma\Pi)^2]}|x\rangle \right\} \nonumber\\
&=&gm \, \phi(x)\,{\text{i}}\, {\text{tr}}\left\{
\gamma_5 \int\limits_0^\infty ds\, {\text{e}}^{-{\text{i}}sm^2} \langle x|
{\text{e}}^{{\text{i}}s(\gamma\Pi)^2}|x\rangle \right\}. \label{5}\end{aligned}$$ Now, while identifying the loop fermion with protons, Schwinger argued that the momentum of the outgoing photons of the pion decay is much smaller than the mass of the proton. Therefore, the electromagnetic fields associated with the photons vary slowly compared to the length scale set by the Compton wavelength of the proton. As a consequence, the constant-field approximation for the proper-time transition amplitude appears to be appropriate in the present situation.
So assuming that a heavy fermion (proton) runs in the loop we simply proceed with the constant-field/low-photon-energy approximation. For this limiting situation Eq. [(\[5\])]{} yields $${\cal L}^{\text{PS}}_{\text{eff}}(x) =-\frac{1}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi}
\frac{g}{m} \, \phi(x)\, F_{\mu\nu} {{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu} =
\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \frac{g}{m}\, \phi(x)\, \mathbf{E\cdot
B}. \label{6}$$ This is the famous formula (5.25) in Schwinger’s paper [@2] of 1951.
Note that although we included the coupling of the loop-fermion to all orders to the external field, the final result [(\[6\])]{} is only of second order in the electromagnetic field strength. Hence, if we had expanded the loop perturbatively in $\alpha$, then only the graph with two external photons would have contributed to the final result. Note also that we did not encounter any singular terms while calculating $G(x,x|A)$; the dangerous terms vanished by Dirac $\gamma$-algebraic arguments. This is not true for the pseudovector interaction which we treat next. Its Lagrangian is given by $${\cal L}^{\text{PV}} =-{\text{i}}\frac{g}{2m} \, \partial_\mu \phi(x)\,
\frac{1}{2{\text{i}}} \bigl[ \bar{\psi}(x), \gamma_5 \gamma^\mu \psi(x)
\bigr]. \label{7}$$ Classically, this pseudovector interaction Lagrangian is formally equivalent to the pseudoscalar counterpart as defined in Eq. [(\[1\])]{}, since $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\text{PV}}&=&{\text{i}}\frac{g}{2m}\, \phi\, \frac{1}{2{\text{i}}} \Bigl\{
\bigl[ \partial_\mu \bar{\psi}, \gamma_5\gamma^\mu\psi\bigr] + \bigl[
\bar{\psi}, \gamma_5 \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi\bigr] \Bigr\}
+\text{surface terms} \nonumber\\
&=& -{\text{i}}g\, \phi(x) \, \frac{1}{2} \bigl[ \bar{\psi}(x), \gamma_5
\psi(x) \bigr] + \text{s.t.} \label{8}\end{aligned}$$ In the second step, we employed the equations of motion $\gamma^\mu
\partial_\mu \psi =-{\text{i}}m\psi$, $\partial_\mu \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu ={\text{i}}m\bar{\psi}$.
However, at the quantum level, things become more complicated. Proceeding in the same way as in the pseudoscalar case, we naively arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\text{PV}}_{\text{eff}}&=&-{\text{i}}\frac{g}{2m}\,
\partial_\mu\phi(x)\, \frac{1}{2{\text{i}}} \langle\bigl[ \bar{\psi}(x),
\gamma_5\gamma^\mu\psi(x) \bigr]\rangle^{A} \nonumber\\
&=&-{\text{i}}\frac{g}{2m}\, \partial_\mu\phi(x)\,
{\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5\gamma^\mu\, G(x,x|A) \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{\text{i.b.p.}}{=}&{\text{i}}\frac{g}{2m}\,\phi(x)\, \partial_\mu
{\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5\gamma^\mu\, G(x,x|A) +\text{s.t.} \label{9}\end{aligned}$$ Now we are in trouble! Not only do we have to face the problem of singularities in $G(x,x|A)$, but we also have to give a meaning to the derivative at this singular coincidence point. Schwinger solved this problem by writing $$\partial_\mu {\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5\gamma^\mu\, G(x,x|A)
\to \lim_{x'',x'\to x}
\Bigl\{ \bigl[ \partial_\mu' -{\text{i}}e A_\mu(x')\bigr]
+\bigl[ \partial_\mu'' +{\text{i}}e A_\mu(x'') \bigr] \Bigr\}
{\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5\gamma^\mu\, G(x',x''|A). \label{10}$$ Now we could follow Schwinger and evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. [(\[10\])]{} in the weak-field limit, i.e., up to second order in the field strength. This would again correspond to the triangle graph, which is known to contribute solely to the axial-vector anomaly to any finite order of perturbation theory.
Instead, we will try to maintain the coupling to the external field to all orders in order to pursue the question of possible non-perturbative contributions to the meson-photon interaction. Of course, the price we have to pay is that we are strictly tied to the slowly varying (constant) field approximation.
So, let us employ the representation of the fermionic Green’s function in an arbitrary constant electromagnetic field: $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,x'|A)&=&\Phi(x,x'|A) \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \int\limits_0^\infty
\frac{d s}{s^2} \left[ m-\frac{1}{2} \gamma^\mu
[\mathsf{f}(s) +e\mathsf{F}]_{\mu\nu} (x\!-\!x')^\nu \right]
\nonumber\\
&&\quad\times \exp\left[-{\text{i}}m^2 s -L(s) +\frac{{\text{i}}}{4}
(x\!-\!x')\mathsf{f}(s)(x\!-\!x')\right]\, \exp\left({\text{i}}\frac{e}{2}
\sigma Fs\right)\!, \label{11} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{f}(s)&=&e\mathsf{F} \, \coth (e\mathsf{F} s), \nonumber\\
L(s)&=& \frac{1}{2} \text{tr}\, \ln \frac{\sinh (e\mathsf{F}
s)}{e\mathsf{F}s} \quad\Rightarrow\quad {\text{e}}^{-L(s)} =\frac{eas\,
ebs}{\sin eas\, \sinh ebs}, \label{12}\\
a&=& \bigl( \sqrt{{\cal F}^2+{\cal G}^2} +{\cal F}\bigr)^{1/2}, \quad
b= \bigl( \sqrt{{\cal F}^2+{\cal G}^2} -{\cal F}\bigr)^{1/2},
\nonumber\\
{\cal F}&=&\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} =\frac{1}{2} \bigl(
\mathbf{B^2-E^2} \bigr), \label{13}\\
{\cal G}&=&\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}{{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu} =-\mathbf{E\cdot B},
\nonumber\\
\text{and}\quad\Phi(x,x'|A)&=&\exp\left[{\text{i}}e \int\limits_{x'}^{x}
d\xi_\mu \left(A^\mu(\xi) +\frac{1}{2} F^{\mu\nu}(\xi
-x')_\nu\right)\right] \label{14} \end{aligned}$$ completely carries the gauge dependence of the propagator. Having separated the gauge dependence in this way, we may also write $$G(x',x''|A)=\Phi(x',x''|A)\, G(x',x''|A_{\text{SF}}), \label{15}$$ where $G(x',x''|A_{\text{SF}})$ is the Green’s function evaluated in the Schwinger–Fock gauge and depends only on the field strength: $A_{\text{SF}}^\mu=-\frac{1}{2} F^{\mu\nu}(x-x')_\nu$.
Substituting all these results back into the starting point, i.e., into the effective Lagrangian in Eq. [(\[9\])]{}, we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\text{PV}}_{\text{eff}}\!&=&-\frac{1}{4}
\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{g}{m}\,\phi(x)\,{{}^\star\! F}_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
\label{16}\\
&&\qquad\times \lim_{x',x''\to x}\!\left\{\! \Phi(x',x''|A)
\!\int\limits_0^\infty\!
d s\, {\text{e}}^{-{\text{i}}m^2 s}\frac{d}{d s}
\exp\left[\frac{{\text{i}}}{4}(x'\!-\!x'')\mathsf{f}(x'\!-\!x'')\right]\!
\right\}\!. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this with our result for the pseudoscalar interaction in [(\[6\])]{}, it is obvious that an equivalence exists between the two different interactions on the quantum level if the limiting expression in [(\[16\])]{} finally reduces to 1 for any kind of constant electromagnetic field. By construction, the proper-time integration has to be performed before the limit $x',x''\to x$ can be taken. E.g., if we interchanged these processes in [(\[16\])]{}, then we would find a zero result, since $({d}/{d s}) {\text{e}}^0=0$.
To further study the integral in Eq. [(\[16\])]{} we give an explicit expression of the function $f(s)_{\mu\nu}$: $$f(s)_{\mu\nu}= \frac{1}{a^2+b^2} \bigl( a^2 \,g_{\mu\nu}
+F^2_{\mu\nu}\bigr) eb\coth ebs
+\frac{1}{a^2+b^2} \bigl( b^2 \,g_{\mu\nu}
-F^2_{\mu\nu}\bigr) ea\cot eas. \label{17}$$ For small values of $s$ we obtain $$f(s)_{\mu\nu}= \frac{1}{s}\, g_{\mu\nu} +\frac{e^2}{3}\, s\,
F_{\mu\nu}^2 +{\cal O}(s^3). \label{18}$$ and since the weak-field expansion of $f(s)_{\mu\nu}$ coincides with the small-$s$ expansion it is here that we can make contact with Schwinger’s original calculation and so produce an effective Lagrangian of a pseudovector interaction between a spinless meson and a heavy fermion field in the presence of a slowly varying [*and*]{} weak external electromagnetic field: $${\cal L}^{\text{PV}}_{\text{eff}} =-\frac{1}{4} \frac{\alpha}{\pi}
\frac{g}{m}\, \phi(x)\, F_{\mu\nu}{{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu}. \label{19}$$ This is identical to the outcome for the pseudoscalar interaction and constitutes the essence of Schwinger’s Equivalence Theorem for the low-energy regime. In this sense, the terminology “low energy” refers to the energy of the outgoing photons (variation of the field strength) as well as the strength of the field.
Now we could go one step further and prove the validity of the Equivalence Theorem without the weak-field assumption. Details of the proof can be found in our monograph [@9]. Our result is that Eq. [(\[19\])]{} holds for arbitrary electromagnetic field strengths as long as the fields vary slowly compared to the Compton wavelength of the fermionic loop particle.
It has often been emphasized in the original literature [@1] that the discovery of the ABJ axial-vector anomaly has its roots in Schwinger’s work. The ABJ anomaly states that the axial-vector current is not conserved, not only because of an explicit breaking of the axial symmetry by a mass term, but also due to the appearance of the $F_{\mu\nu}{{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu}$ term induced by quantum vacuum effects. The celebrated result reads: $$\partial_\mu\langle j_5^\mu\rangle =-2{\text{i}}m \, \langle j_5\rangle +
\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\, F_{\mu\nu} {{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu}. \label{20}$$ Employing the Equivalence Theorem, we can prove Eq. [(\[20\])]{}, but only for constant external fields. Hence Schwinger’s work on the constant-field case is only capable of deriving the anomaly in a certain energy regime, namely, the low-energy domain. Within the usual diagrammatic approach, Adler [@1] and Zumino [@10] arrive at Eq. [(\[20\])]{}, but this time without assuming that the electromagnetic field has to be constant. This restriction has also been given up in the source approach for the one-loop anomaly as presented in Ref. [@3] and [@5].
Let us conclude this chapter with an interesting observation for the constant-field case. Inserting the expression for $\langle
j_5\rangle^A$ for constant fields, $$\langle j_5\rangle^A ={\text{i}}\, {\text{tr}}\, \gamma_5 G(x,x|A) =-\frac{{\text{i}}}{4}\,
\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \frac{1}{m} \, F_{\mu\nu} {{}^\star\! F}^{\mu\nu} \quad
\Leftrightarrow\quad {\cal L}^{\text{PS}}_{\text{eff}}
\stackrel{{(\ref{2})}}{=} -{\text{i}}g\, \phi(x)\, \langle j_5\rangle^A,
\label{21}$$ into Eq. [(\[20\])]{}, we find that the divergence of the axial-vector current vanishes: $\partial_\mu \langle j_5^\mu\rangle =0$.
This result appears to be a bit unfamiliar, because it signals the conservation of the axial-vector current at the quantum level, although this current is not conserved at the classical level due to the breaking of the axial symmetry by the mass term. Therefore, the constant-field case is an exceptional situation which creates an “inverse anomaly”: a classically and explicitly broken symmetry is restored by quantum effects.
Our considerations so far are strictly at the one-loop level. Similarly to the Fujikawa [@11] or any other method, photonic fluctuations have not been taken into account. This will be done in the next chapter, in which we want to challenge the correctness of the Adler-Bardeen theorem [@4].
Radiative Corrections to $\pi^0\to 2\gamma$ Decay
=================================================
Let us begin by looking again at the lowest-order triangle process. So consider a causal arrangement in which an extended pion source emits a pair of charged fermions that eventually annihilate to produce a pair of photons.
(55,65) (0,0) (29,7)[$\pi^0$]{} (52,3)[$0_-$]{} (52,56)[$0_+$]{} (13,52)[$\gamma$]{} (40,52)[$\gamma$]{}
The primitive interaction between the neutral pseudoscalar particle (pion) and spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermions is given by $${\cal L}^{\text{PS}} =g\, \phi(x)\, \frac{1}{2} \, \psi(x)
\gamma^0\gamma_5 \psi(x), \label{22}$$ so that the total Lagrangian reads $${\cal L}=-\frac{1}{2}\, \psi \gamma^0 \bigl[ \gamma^\mu \Pi_\mu
-g\,\gamma_5\, \phi +m \bigr] \psi.$$ In the present chapter we have switched to a Majorana representation to make closer contact with the source literature.
The goal is to compute the vacuum persistence amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0_+|0_-\rangle &=&{\text{e}}^{{\text{i}}W^{\text{PS}}_{\pi^0\to 2\gamma}}
=\dots +{\text{i}}g\int d^4x\, \phi(x) \frac{1}{2}\psi(x)
\gamma^0\gamma_5 \psi(x) +\dots \nonumber\\
\text{or}\quad W^{\text{PS}}_{\pi^0\to 2\gamma}&=&
g\int d^4x\, \phi(x) \frac{1}{2}\psi(x) \gamma^0\gamma_5 \psi(x)
. \label{23}\end{aligned}$$ As for Feynman diagrams there are also standard techniques for computing causal diagrams. The result for the vacuum-to-vacuum amplitude corresponding to the causal process indicated in Fig. 2 is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0_+|0_-\rangle &=&{\text{i}}\int d^4 x\, d^4x'\, dM^2
\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \frac{g}{m} \left( -\frac{1}{4} \right) \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} F^{\kappa\lambda}(x) F^{\mu\nu}
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad \times \Delta_+(x-x';M^2)\, \phi(x')\, \frac{2m^2}{M^2} \ln
\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}.
\label{24}\end{aligned}$$ This yields for the contribution to the action $$W_{\pi^0\to 2\gamma}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \frac{g}{m} \int d^4x\,
d^4x'\, (\mathbf{E\cdot B})\, F(x-x')\, \phi(x'), \label{25}$$ where the form factor has the momentum version $$F(k^2) =\int\limits_{(2m)^2}^\infty dM^2\, \frac{2m^2}{M^2} \ln
\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}\,
\frac{1}{k^2+M^2-{\text{i}}\epsilon}. \label{26}$$ It is normalized at $k^2=0$: $F(0)=1$. In the situation under consideration $F(-m_\pi^2) =1+ \frac{1}{12} \left(\frac{m_\pi}{m}
\right)^2$, so that with $\frac{m_\pi}{m}\simeq \frac{1}{6.7}$ the correction is about $0.2\%$. Hence for $F(x-x')\simeq \delta(x-x')$ or $F(0)=1$ we again obtain the low-energy result corresponding to a local effective-action term for the pion-photon coupling: $$W_{\pi^0\to 2\gamma} =\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \frac{g}{m} \int d^4x (
\mathbf{E\cdot B})(x)\, \phi(x), \label{27}$$ which is Schwinger’s result from 1951 (with slowly varying fields) and is the anomaly.
Had we treated instead of the pseudoscalar coupling the pseudovector coupling, i.e., $g\gamma_5 \phi\to \frac{g}{2m} {\text{i}}\gamma^\mu \gamma_5
\partial_\mu \phi$, our calculation would have again resulted in expression [(\[27\])]{} – in accordance with the Equivalence Theorem.
In Eq. [(\[26\])]{} we met the expression $$\begin{aligned}
F(k^2)&=& \int\limits_{4m^2}^{\infty} \frac{dM^2}{k^2+M^2
-{\text{i}}\epsilon}\, J(M^2), \label{28}\\
\text{where}\quad J(M^2)&=& \frac{2m^2}{M^2}\, \ln
\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{M^2}}}.
\label{29}\end{aligned}$$ We also found that for the lowest-order result $F(k^2=0)\equiv
\tilde{I}=1$, and this is intimately related to the anomaly equation.
Now it is time to turn to the two- and three-particle exchange processes which we put side by side with the simple triangle:
(140,40) (0,5) (10,7)[$\pi^0$]{} (4,34)[$\gamma$]{} (13,34)[$\gamma$]{} (30,10)[$\Gamma_5$]{} (5,0)[$\tilde{I}=1$]{} (50,0)[$\tilde{I}^{(2)}$]{} (115,35)[radiative correction]{} (115,30)[to Compton process]{} (83,30)[$\hat{=}$]{}
(140,40) (0,0) (115,20)[$\tilde{I}^{(3)}$]{}
The radiative correction to the triangle process computed in Ref. [@3] is obtained by adding the two- and three-particle exchange contributions so that together with the bare triangle graph we obtain $$\tilde{I}=\tilde{I}^{(1)} +\tilde{I}^{(2)} +\tilde{I}^{(3)}
=1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} (1+\delta), \label{30}$$ where $\delta$ depends on the $\Gamma_5$ normalization point.
Miraculously, only $\delta$ is needed; all the other contributions either cancel or yield a very simple finite expression. Hence, it is indeed the on-shell pseudoscalar form factor that matters.
What, then, is the value of the quantity $\delta$? It must have something to do with the normalization of the pseudoscalar form factor $F(P^2)$. Causal analysis of diagram Fig. 5 yields $$\begin{aligned}
F(P^2)&=& 1-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\, P^2\int\limits_0^1 dv\, (1+v)\,
\frac{\ln \left( \frac{4m^2}{\mu^2} \frac{v^2}{1-v^2}
\right)}{4m^2+(1-v^2)P^2}. \label{31}\\
F(0)&=&1, \quad \mu=\text{photon mass}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
(70,50) (12,0) (28,0)[$-P^2=M^2$]{} (60,30)[$P=p'-p''$]{} (60,35)[$P$ arbitrary]{} (25,35)[$k$]{} (-12,45)[$p''{}^2+m^2=0$]{} (9,15)[$p''-k$]{} (33,15)[$p'-k$]{} (42,45)[$p'{}^2+m^2=0$]{}
Eq. [(\[31\])]{} clearly shows that the correction to the simple triangle anomaly is infrared sensitive. To work out the spectral weight function that is involved in Eq. [(\[31\])]{}, let us rewrite Eq. [(\[31\])]{} slightly: $$\begin{aligned}
F(P^2)&=& 1+\alpha \int\limits_{(2m)^2}^\infty \frac{dM^2}{2\pi}
\left( -\frac{P^2}{M^2}\right)\, \frac{a(M^2)}{P^2+M^2-{\text{i}}\epsilon},
\quad F(0)=1, \label{32}\\
\text{with}&&a(M^2) =\frac{(M^2-2m^2)}{M^2}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-4\frac{m^2}{M^2}}} \, \ln \frac{M^2-4m^2}{\mu^2}
.\label{33}\end{aligned}$$ So far our result is expressed as a form factor multiplying the original primitive interaction: $$\langle 0_+|0_-\rangle ={\text{i}}g\int d^4x\, d^4x'\, \frac{1}{2} \psi(x)
\gamma^0\, \Gamma_5(x-x')\, \psi(x) \phi(x'). \label{34}$$ In momentum space we have $$\Gamma_5(P^2) =\gamma_5 \bigl( 1+G(P^2)\bigr), \label{35}$$ where $G(P^2)$ is given by the second term in Eq. [(\[32\])]{}. Now, since the two-particle exchange contribution (with the form factor $\Gamma_5$ and massive photon) cannot be regularized in a chiral invariant way, it would appear that an arbitrary normalization point for $G(P^2)$ is allowed. Is this permitted or is there a preferred normalization point? Let us start by introducing an arbitrary normalization point $M_0\neq 0$ and write instead of $-\frac{P^2}{M^2} \frac{1}{M^2+P^2}$ in Eq. [(\[32\])]{} the subtracted form $$-\frac{P^2}{M^2} \frac{1}{M^2+P^2} -\frac{M_0^2}{M^2}
\frac{1}{M^2-M_0^2}. \label{36}$$ Then $G(P^2)$ in Eq. [(\[35\])]{} can also be written as $$\begin{aligned}
G(P^2)&=&\alpha \int\limits_{(2m)^2}^\infty \frac{dM^2}{2\pi} \left(
\frac{-P^2-M_0^2}{M^2-M_0^2} \right)
\frac{a(M^2)}{M^2+P^2-{\text{i}}\epsilon} \label{37}\\
\text{or}\quad G(P^2)&=& \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \delta +\alpha
\int\limits_{(2m)^2}^\infty \frac{dM^2}{2\pi} \left(-
\frac{P^2}{M^2} \right) \frac{a(M^2)}{M^2+P^2-{\text{i}}\epsilon},
\label{38}\\
\text{where}\quad \delta&=& -M_0^2\int\limits_{(2m)^2}^\infty
\frac{dM^2}{M^2} \, \frac{a(M^2)}{M^2-M_0^2}. \label{39}\end{aligned}$$
With $\mu:=\lambda m$ and $a(M^2)$ given by Eq. [(\[33\])]{} we have $$a(M^2)=\dots \ln \frac{M^2-4m^2}{\lambda^2 m^2} =\dots \left( \ln
\frac{M^2-4m^2}{m^2} -2 \ln \lambda \right). \label{40}$$ If $M_0$ were a finite number, $\delta$ would depend on $\ln \lambda$, which is not acceptable since $\Gamma(\pi^0\to2\gamma)= 1/\tau$ would depend on $\ln \lambda$. Hence, $M_0$ has to vanish, and then $\delta=0$. However, if $M_0\sim \ln \frac{\mu}{m}$, one can obtain finite $\delta$’s, e.g., $\delta=-1$, which produces no correction. But then we would have to normalize the pseudoscalar form factor at an infrared sensitive point. So we see that the result depends essentially on the way the infrared regularization is performed. For the above reason we consider the choice $\delta=0$ as the more physically motivated regularization and this leads to the replacement $$\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \to \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \left( 1+
\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \right)$$ in Eq. [(\[27\])]{}: $$W_{\pi^0\to 2\gamma} = \frac{g}{m}\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \left( 1+
\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \right) \int d^4x\, \phi(x) (
\mathbf{E\cdot B})(x). \label{41}$$ We have seen that there exist two mass scales in the theory, $\mu$ and $\Lambda$, the two ends of a momentum flow. So when renormalizing the theory we have to separate the renormalization constants into infrared- and ultraviolet-sensitive parts. Both ends enter with equal weight into the renormalization prescription. Furthermore, if two renormalization constants have the same singular behavior at one end, $\Lambda\to \infty$ say, then it is certainly not true that they are equal over the whole momentum range. There are jumps on both ends of the momentum flow of the renormalization constants whose difference gives rise to the finite anomaly correction $\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}$.
To make contact with the work of Adler and Bardeen [@4] we have to study the $\gamma_5$ vertex when the fermions are not on their mass shell. For this reason we write down a double spectral form for the pseudoscalar vertex function. Fig. 6 depicts the causal arrangement of the exchange, in the presence of an external pion field, of a fermion-photon pair between two extended fermion sources.
(80,60) (0,0)[ ]{} (72,3)[$0_-$]{} (72,57)[$0_+$]{} (28,20)[$\psi$]{} (28,40)[$\psi$]{} (53,27)[$\phi$]{}
The source-theoretical calculation yields the result $$\Gamma_5(p,p')=\gamma_5 \left( 1-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} (P^2+m\gamma P)
\int \frac{dM^2 dM'{}^2}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\frac{1}{(p^2+M^2)(p'{}^2+M^2)} + \text{c.t.}\right), \label{42}$$ where $$\Delta=(P^2+M^2+M'{}^2)^2-4M^2M'{}^2$$ and the region of integration is bounded by $$-\mu^2P^4+P^2[(M^2-m^2+\mu^2)(M'{}^2-m^2+\mu^2)-2\mu^2(M^2+M'{}^2)]
\geq m^2(M^2-M'{}^2)^2.$$ The contact terms (c.t.) stand for single spectral forms plus local functions, which have to be determined by imposing further physical restrictions such as gauge invariance which is stated in the form of a Ward identity: $$2m\Gamma_5(p,p)=\bigl\{ \gamma_5, G_+^{-1}(p)\bigr\}. \label{43}$$ As a further restriction to finally fix the physical $\Gamma_5$ one finds that normalization to the on-shell result is necessary. Altogether this brings us to an on-shell version of $\Gamma_5$: $$\tilde{\Gamma}_5(p,p')\to \gamma_5\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}
\right)-\gamma_5 \frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\, P^2\int\limits_{4m^2}^{\infty}
\frac{dM^2}{M^2}\, \frac{a(M^2)}{M^2+P^2}, \label{44}$$ which corresponds to $G(P^2)$ \[Eq. [(\[37\])]{}\] with $$\delta=-1, \quad \left( \frac{m}{M_0}\right)^2=\frac{2}{3} \ln
\frac{m}{\mu} +{\cal O}(1). \label{45}$$ This is identical to our former physically unacceptable result which leads to an infrared-divergent anomaly.
If instead we choose $\delta=0$ as a physical requirement, we can either retain the naive Ward identity [(\[43\])]{} and add a constant $\gamma_5 \gamma\cdot P$ renormalization, $$\Gamma_5(p,p')=\tilde{\Gamma}_5(p,p')+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \gamma_5
\frac{\gamma\cdot P}{2m}, \label{46}$$ or, alternatively, we can modify the renormalized Ward identity such that $$2m\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right) \, \Gamma_5(p,p)=\bigl\{\gamma_5,
G_+^{-1}(p) \bigr\}, \label{47}$$ which corresponds to choosing $$m_0\,Z_2=\left( 1-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right) m\,Z_{\text{D}},
\label{48}$$ where $Z_{\text{D}}$ is the pseudoscalar vertex renormalization constant.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I thank H. Gies for useful discussions and carefully reading the manuscript.
[99]{} S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 2426 (1969);\
S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nouvo Cimento [**60A**]{}, 47 (1969);\
R. Jackiw and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 1459 (1969). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951). L.L. DeRaad, Jr., K.A. Milton, and W.-y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D [**6**]{}, 1766 (1972);\
K.A. Milton, W.-y. Tsai, and L.L. DeRaad, Jr., Phys. Rev. D [**6**]{}, 3491 (1972). S.L. Adler and W.A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 1517 (1969). J. Schwinger, “[*Particles, Sources, and Fields*]{}” Vol. III, 5-9, Addison-Wesley, (1989);\
“[*Anomalies in quantum field theory*]{}”, in “Superworld III”, Proceedings of the 26th Course of the International School of Subnuclear Physics, Erice, Italy, 7-15 August 1988 (ed. A. Zichichi), Plenum, New York (1990). V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 1208 (1990). M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, Nucl. Phys. B [**365**]{}, 312 (1991);\
A.A. Johansen, Nucl. Phys. B [**376**]{}, 432 (1992). M. Reuter, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**12**]{}, 2777 (1997). W. Dittrich, H. Gies, “[*Probing the Quantum Vacuum*]{}”, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 166 (2000). B. Zumino, in “[*Proceedings of the Topological Conference on Weak Interactions*]{}”, p. 361, CERN, Geneva, (1969). K. Fujikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 1195 (1979); Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 2848 (1980).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a system of stochastic partial differential equations with slow and fast time-scales, where the slow component is a one-dimensional stochastic Burgers equation with small noise and the fast component is a stochastic reaction-diffusion equation. A Freidlin-Wentzell’s large deviation principle is obtained for the slow process, for which the weak convergence approach is applied.'
author:
- Xiaobin Sun
- Ran Wang
- Lihu Xu
- Xue Yang
title: 'Large deviation for two-time-scale stochastic Burgers equation'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we study the large deviation principle for the following stochastic slow-fast system on the interval $[0,1]$: $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{Equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} X^{\e,\delta}_t(\xi)= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}X^{\e,\delta}_t(\xi)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t\right)^2(\xi)+f\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t, Y^{\e,\delta}_t\right)(\xi),\\
\vspace{2mm}
\hspace{2cm} +\sqrt{\e}\sigma_1\left(X_t^{\e,\delta}\right)(\xi)Q_1^{1/2}\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}(t,\xi), \\
\vspace{2mm}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}Y^{\e,\delta}_t(\xi)
=\frac{1}{\delta}\big[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2} Y^{\e,\delta}_t(\xi)+g\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t, Y^{\e,\delta}_t\right)(\xi)\big]+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}\sigma_2\left(X_t^{\e,\delta}, Y_t^{\e,\delta}\right)(\xi)Q_2^{1/2}\frac{\partial W }{\partial t}(t,\xi),\\
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\e,\delta}_t(0)=X^{\e,\delta}_t(1)=Y^{\e,\delta}_t(0)
=Y^{\e,\delta}_t(1)=0, \quad t>0,\\
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\e, \delta}_0=x, \quad Y^{\e,\delta}_0=y, \end{array}\right.$$ where $\e >0,\delta=\delta(\e)>0$ are small parameters describing the ratio of time scales between the slow component $X^{\e, \delta}$ and fast component $Y^{\e,\delta}$. The coefficients $f, g,\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ satisfy some suitable conditions. $\{W_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ is a standard cylindrical Wiener process on the Hilbert space $L^2(0,1)$, and $Q_1$, $Q_2$ are trace class operators.
0.3cm The motivation for the study of multi-scale processes can be founded, for example, in stochastic mechanics (see Freidlin and Wentzell [@FW98; @FW2008]), where a polar change (or an appropriate change linked to the considered Hamiltonian) may give an amplitude evolving slowly whereas the phase is on an accelerated time scale; or in climate models (see Kiefer [@Kief]), where climate-weather interactions may be studied within the averaging framework, climate being the slow motion and weather the fast one; or in genetic switching models (see Ge et al. [@GQX]), which involves fast switching of DNA states between active and inactive states and the transcriptional and translational processes with different rates depending on the DNA states.
0.3cm The study of the averaging principle has been extensively developed in both the deterministic ($\sigma_1=0$) and the stochastic context: see, for example, Bogoliubov and Mitropolsky [@BM] for the deterministic case; Khasminskii [@K1] for a finite dimesional stochastic system; Cerrai and Freidlin [@CF] for an infinite dimensional stochastic reaction-diffusion systems. We finally refer to the recent works [@B1; @C1; @CF; @CL; @DSXZ; @FLL; @LSXZ; @L; @LSX; @WR] for more interesting results on this topic.
0.3cm
Large deviation results for multi-scale diffusions have been studied by Freidlin and Wentzell (see [@FW98] Chapter 7), Liptser [@Lip], Veretennikov [@V0] and Puhalskii [@Pu]. By using the Dupuis-Ellis’ weak convergence approach [@DE], Dupuis and Spiliopolous [@DS], and Kushner [@Ku] studied the large deviations for two-time-scale diffusions. Kumara and Popovic [@KP] studied the large deviation problems for a two-time-scale model of jump-diffusion processes by using the viscosity methods developed by Feng et al. [@FFK]. Large deviations for the slow-fast systems have been studied in [@HSS; @LL; @Sp; @WRD] and so on.
The main contribution of this work is derivation of the large deviation principle for a system of stochastic partial differential equations with slow and fast components, where the slow component is a one-dimensional stochastic Burgers equation with small noise and the fast component is a stochastic reaction-diffusion equation. Since the weak convergence method, one of the most effective methods in analyzing large deviations, is applied in this paper, the key step is to analyze the asymptotic behaviour of the controlled slow process $X^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$, which satisfies $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{R equation 1}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(\xi)= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(\xi)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)^2(\xi)+f\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t, Y^{\e,\delta,, u^{\e}}_t\right)(\xi),\\
\vspace{2mm}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_1u^{\e}_t(\xi)+\sqrt{\e}\sigma_1\left(X_t^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}\right)(\xi)Q_1^{1/2}\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}(t,\xi), \\
\vspace{2mm}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(\xi)
=\frac{1}{\delta}\big[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2} Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(\xi)+g\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t, Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)(\xi)\big]+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta\e }}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_2u^{\e}_t(\xi)\\
\vspace{2mm}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}\sigma_2\left(X_t^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}, Y_t^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}\right)(\xi)Q_2^{1/2}\frac{\partial W }{\partial t}(t,\xi), \ (t,\xi)\in [0,T]\times [0,1]\\
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(0)=X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(1)=Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(0)
=Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t(1)=0, \quad t>0, \\
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\e, \delta, u^{\e}}_0=x, \quad Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_0=y, \end{array}\right.$$ where $u^{\varepsilon}$ is a kind of square integrable process, which is usually called a control in this article.
The averaging principle asserts that, if without the control $u^{\e}$, the slow component $X^{\e, \delta}$ converges strongly to solution $\bar X$ of the corresponding averaged equation (see [@DSXZ]). When control process $u^{\e}$ occurs, due to the fact that $X^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$ depends on $Y^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$, which has an additional controlled term $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta\e }}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_2u^{\e}_t$, the convergence of controlled $X^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$ may not be obtained directly. To deal with this, the method of constructing “viable pair” $(\psi, P)$ is applied by Hu et al. in [@HSS] (see also [@DS]), where a measure $P$ is used to characterize the invariant measure of controlled fast component and controls $u$ simultaneously. But in this article, we will use a different strategy. To make sure the additional controlled term in $Y^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$ is convergent, we need to assume that $ \delta/\e\rightarrow 0$, as $\e\rightarrow 0$, which is inspired from [@HSS]. Then we intend to prove the controlled slow process $X^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$ converges to averaging controlled slow process $\bar{X}^u$ (see Eq. ) directly.
The main difficulties lie in the non-linear term in the stochastic Burgers’ equation in this article. Hence, the techniques of studying averaging principle and stopping time are applied, i.e., we have to estimate not only the controlled stochastic systems but also a pair of auxiliary processes $\left(\hat{X}^{\e, \delta}, \hat{Y}^{\e, \delta}\right)$ (see Eq. and Eq. ). The auxiliary processes play an important role in proving the weak convergence of controlled slow process. To our knowledge, there are rarely studies to deal with highly non-linear term on this topic.
0.3cm The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we introduce some notations and assumptions used throughout the paper, then give the main result and skeleton of the proof. Section 3 is devoted to the study of averaged equation and skeleton equation. In section 4, we finish the proof of large deviation principle by the weak convergence approach. In the Appendix, we recall some well-known results about the large deviation principle and the Burgers equation. Please note that, $C$ and $C_p$ denote positive constants which may change from line to line along this paper, where $p$ is one or more than one parameter and $C_p$ is used to emphasize that constant depends on $p$.
Notations and main results {#Sec Main Result}
==========================
Let $\HH: = L^2(0,1)$ be the space of square integrable real-valued functions on $[0,1]$. The norm and the inner product on $\HH$ are denoted by $|\cdot|$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$, respectively. For positive integer $k$, let $\HH^k(0,1)$ be the Sobolev space of all functions in $\HH$ whose all derivatives up to the order $k$ also belong to $\HH$. $\HH^1_0(0,1)$ is the subspace of $\HH^1(0,1)$ of all functions whose values at $0$ and $1$ vanish.
Let $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}$ be the Laplace operator on $\HH$: $$\begin{aligned}
Ax:= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}x(\xi),
\quad x\in D(A)=\HH^2(0,1) \cap \HH^1_0(0,1).\end{aligned}$$ It is well known that $A$ is the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup $\{e^{tA}\}_{t\geq0}$. Let $\{e_k(\xi):=\sqrt{2}\sin(k\pi\xi)\}_{k\geq 1}$ be an orthnormal basis of $\HH$ consisting of the eigenvectors of $A$, i.e., $$A e_k=-\lambda_k e_k\ \ \ \ {\rm with} \ \ \lambda_k=k^2\pi^2.$$
For any $\sigma\in\RR$, let $\HH_{\sigma}$ be the domain of the fractional operator $(-A)^{\sigma/2}$, i.e., $$D\left(\left(-A\right)^{\sigma/2}\right):=\HH_{\sigma}:=\left\{ x=\sum_{k \ge1} x_k e_k: (x_k)_{k\ge 1}\in \RR, \sum_{k\ge1} \lambda_k^{\sigma} |x_k|^2<\infty\right\}$$ with norm $$\ \|x\|_{\sigma}:=\left(\sum_{k\ge1} \lambda_k^{\sigma} |x_k|^2\right)^{1/2}.$$ Then, for any $\sigma>0$, $\HH_{\sigma}$ is densely and compactly embedded in $\HH$. Particularly, $\VV:=\HH_{1}=\HH^1_0(0, 1)$, whose dual space is $\VV^{-1}$. The norm and the inner product on $\VV$ are denoted by $\|\cdot\|$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{\VV}$, respectively.
Define the bilinear operator $B(x,y): \HH \times \VV\rightarrow \VV^{-1}$ by $$B(x,y):=x\cdot\partial_{\xi} y,$$ and the trilinear operator $ b(x,y,z): \HH \times \VV\times \HH \rightarrow \RR$ by $$b(x,y,z)
:=\int_0^1x(\xi) \partial_\xi y(\xi)z(\xi) d\xi.$$ For convenience, set $B(x):=B(x,x)$, for $x\in \VV$. The related properties about operators $e^{tA}$, $b$ and $B$ are listed in Section 5.
With the above notations, the system can be rewritten as: $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{main equation}
\displaystyle
\vspace{2mm}
dX^{\e,\delta}_t=\left[AX^{\e,\delta}_t+B\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t\right)+f\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t, Y^{\e,\delta}_t\right)\right]dt+\sqrt{\e}\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_1dW_t,\\
\vspace{2mm}
dY^{\e,\delta}_t=\frac{1}{\delta}\left[AY^{\e,\delta}_t+g\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t, Y^{\e,\delta}_t\right)\right]dt+\frac{1}{\sqrt\delta}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta}_t,Y^{\e,\delta}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_2dW_t,\\
X^{\e,\delta}_0=x, \quad Y^{\e,\delta}_0=y.\end{array}\right.$$ Here, $W$ denotes a standard cylindrical Wiener process on $\HH$. Since $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are trace class operators, the embedding of $Q_i^{1/2}\HH$ in $\HH$ is Hilbert-Schmidt for $i=1,2$. Let $\mathcal L_2(\HH;\HH)$ denote the space of linear operators $G$ such that $G$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator from $\HH$ to $\HH$, endowed with the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|G\|_{\HS}=\sqrt{\tr(GG^*)}=\sqrt{\sum_k |Ge_k|^2}$.
Suppose that $f, g: \HH\times \HH \rightarrow \HH$, $\sigma_1Q^{1/2}_1: \HH \rightarrow \mathcal L_2(\HH; \HH)$, $\sigma_2Q^{1/2}_2: \HH\times \HH \rightarrow \mathcal L_2(\HH; \HH)$ satisfy the following conditions:
\[A1\] $f$, $g$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are Lipschitz continuous, i.e., there exist some positive constants $L_{f}, L_{g}, L_{\sigma_1}, L_{\sigma_2}$ and $C>0$ such that for any $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2\in \HH$, $$\begin{aligned}
|f(x_1, y_1)-f(x_2, y_2)|\leq L_{f}\left(|x_1-x_2| + |y_1-y_2|\right);\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
|g(x_1, y_1)-g(x_2, y_2)|\leq C|x_1-x_2| + L_{g}|y_1-y_2|;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|(\sigma_1(x_1)-\sigma_1(x_2))Q^{1/2}_1\right\|_{\HS}\leq L_{\sigma_1}|x_1-x_2|;\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|(\sigma_2(x_1, y_1)-\sigma_2(x_2, y_2))Q^{1/2}_2\right\|_{\HS} \leq C|x_1-x_2| + L_{\sigma_2}|y_1-y_2|.\end{aligned}$$
\[A2\] There exists $C>0$ such that for any $x\in\HH$, $$\sup_{y\in\HH}\left\|\sigma_2(x,y)Q^{1/2}_2\right\|_{\HS} \leq C(|x|+1).$$
\[A3\] The smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of $-\Delta$ and the Lipschitz constants $L_g$, $L_{\sigma_2}$ satisfy $$\lambda_{1}-L_{g}>0 \quad \text{and }\quad \frac{L^2_{\sigma_2}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{L_g}{\lambda_1-L_g}<1.$$
\[A4\] $\lim_{\e\downarrow 0}\de(\e)=0$ and $\lim_{\e\downarrow 0}\frac{\de}{\e}=0.$
The Condition \[A3\] is not a sharp condition and can be weakened by more accurate calculus. The Condition \[A4\] is a very important condition to make sure that the additional controlled term in $Y^{\e,\delta, u^\e}$ converges $0$ (see Remark \[Rem 4.6\] for details).
Following the standard approach developed in [@DPZ], one can prove that under Condition \[A1\], there exists a unique mild solution to the system . More specifically, for any given initial value $x, y\in \HH$ and $T>0$, there exists a unique solution $(X^{\varepsilon,\delta}, Y^{\varepsilon,\delta})$ such that $X^{\varepsilon,\delta}, Y^{\varepsilon,\delta} \in C([0,T]; \HH) \cap L^2(0, T; \VV)$ satisfying that $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{mild solution}
\displaystyle
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\varepsilon,\delta}_t=e^{tA}x+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}B\left(X^{\varepsilon,\delta}_s\right)ds+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}f\left(X^{\varepsilon,\delta}_s, Y^{\varepsilon,\delta}_s\right)ds\\
\vspace{2mm}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1dW_s,\\
\vspace{2mm}
Y^{\varepsilon,\delta}_t=e^{tA/\delta}y+\frac{1}{\delta}\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A/\delta}g\left(X^{\varepsilon,\delta}_s,Y^{\varepsilon,\delta}_s\right)ds
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\delta}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta}_s,Y_2^{\e,\delta}\right)Q^{1/2}_2dW_s,\\
X^{\e, \delta}_0=x, \quad Y^{\e,\delta}_0=y.
\end{array}\right.$$ Let $\Gamma^{\e}$ be the functional from $C([0,T]; \HH)$ into $C([0,T]; \HH) \cap L^2(0, T; \VV)$ satisfying that $$\label{eq solu function}
\Gamma^{\e}(W):=X^{\varepsilon,\delta}.$$
Consider the following skeleton equation: $$\label{eq sk}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle d \bar{X}^u_{t}=\left[A \bar{X}^u_{t}+B\left(\bar{X}^u_{t}\right)+\bar{f}\left(\bar{X}^u_{t}\right)\right]dt+\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^u_t\right)Q_1^{1/2}u(t) dt,\\
\bar{X}^u_{0}=x,\end{array}\right.$$ where $u\in L^2([0,T];\HH)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{f}(x)=\int_{\HH}f(x,y)\mu^{x}(dy), \quad x\in \HH,\end{aligned}$$ with $\mu^{x}(\cdot)$ being the unique invariant measure for the corresponding frozen equation (see Eq. below). By Lemma \[barX\] below, Eq. adimts a unique solution, and we denote the solution as follows $$\label{eq Gamma}
\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^{\cdot} u(s)ds\right):= \bar{X}^u.$$
The main result of this paper is the following theorem.
\[main result 1\] Under \[A1\]-\[A4\], for any $x, y\in \HH$, $\{X^{\e, \de}\}_{\e>0}$ satisfies the large deviation principle in $C([0, T]; \HH)$ with the rate function $I$ given by $$I(g):=\inf_{\left\{u\in L^2([0,T]; \HH);g=\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^{\cdot}u(s)ds\right)\right\}}\left\{\frac12\int_0^T|u(s)|^2ds\right\},\ g\in C([0, T]; \HH).$$
**Proof of Theorem \[main result 1\]:** According to the weak convergence criteria in Theorem \[thm BD\], we just need to prove that two conditions (a) and (b) in Theorem \[thm BD\] are fulfilled. Condition (b) will be established in Proposition \[Prop Gamm 0 compact\] in the following section, and the verification of Condition (a) will be given by Propositions \[convergence 1\] and \[convergence 2\] in Section 4.
Frozen equation and skeleton equation
=====================================
In this section we are willing to prove the Condition (b) in Theorem \[thm BD\] to prove the large deviation principle. Before proving the compactness of solutions $\{\bar{X}^u\}$ to skeleton equations , a frozen equation is also introduced. The unique invariant measure of frozen equation is applied to define the coefficient $\bar{f}$ in skeleton equation, and the Lipschitz continuity of $\bar{f}$ is used a lot in the following discussion. Note that we assume conditions \[A1\]-\[A3\] hold in this section.
The frozen and skeleton equations
---------------------------------
For any fixed $x\in \HH$, we first consider the following frozen equation associated with the fast component: $$\label{FEQ}
dY_{t}=AY_{t}dt+g\left(x,Y_{t}\right)dt+\sigma_2 (x,Y_{t})Q_2^{1/2}d \widetilde{W}_t,\quad Y_{0}=y,$$ where $\widetilde{W}_t$ is a standard cylindrical Wiener process independent of $W_t$. Since $g(x,\cdot)$ and $\sigma_2(x,\cdot)Q_2^{1/2}$ are Lipshcitz continuous, it is easy to prove that for any fixed $x, y \in \HH$, the Eq. $\eref{FEQ}$ has a unique mild solution denoted by $Y_{t}^{x,y}$. For any fixed $x \in \HH$, $Y^{x,y}_t$ is a homogeneous Markov process, and let $P^{x}_t$ be the transition semigroup of $Y_{t}^{x,y}$, that is, for any bounded measurable function $\varphi$ on $\HH$, $$\begin{aligned}
P^x_t \varphi(y)= \mathbb{E} \left[\varphi\left(Y_{t}^{x,y}\right)\right], \quad y \in \HH,\ \ t>0.\end{aligned}$$ Under Condition \[A3\], it is easy to prove that $\sup_{t\geq 0}\EE\left[\left|Y_{t}^{x,y}\right|^2\right]\leq C(1+|x|^2+|y|^2)$ and $P^x_t$ has unique invariant measure $\mu^x$. We here give the following asymptotic behavior of $P^x_t$ proved in [@C1].
[@C1 (2.13) ]\[ergodicity\] For any $x, y\in \HH$, there exist $C, \eta>0$ such that for any Lipschitz continuous function $\varphi: \HH \to \mathbb{R}$, $$\left| P^{x}_t\varphi(y)-\int_{\HH}\varphi(z)\mu^x(dz)\right|
\leq C\left(1+ |x| + |y|\right)e^{-\eta t}\|\varphi\|_{Lip},$$ where $\|\varphi\|_{Lip}:=\sup_{x,y\in \HH, x \neq y}\frac{|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|}{|x-y|}$.
\[L3.17\] For any $x_1, x_2, y\in \HH$ and $T>0$, there exists a constant $C_T>0$ such that for any $t\in[0,T]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\left|Y^{x_1,y}_t-Y^{x_2,y}_t\right|^2\right]\leq C|x_1-x_2|^2.\end{aligned}$$
Since $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{x_1,y}_t-Y^{x_2,y}_t=&\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\left[g\left(x_1, Y^{x_1,y}_s\right)-g\left(x_2, Y^{x_2,y}_s\right)\right]ds\\
&+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\left[\sigma_2\left(x_1, Y^{x_1,y}_s\right)-\sigma_2\left(x_2, Y^{x_2,y}_s\right)\right]Q_2^{1/2}d\widetilde W_s,\end{aligned}$$ by Condition \[A1\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[|Y^{x_1,y}_t-Y^{x_2,y}_t|^2\right]\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\int^t_0\left(|x_1-x_2|^2+\EE\left[|Y^{x_1,y}_s-Y^{x_2,y}_s|^2\right]\right)ds\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+C\int^t_0\left(|x_1-x_2|^2+\EE\left[|Y^{x_1,y}_s-Y^{x_2,y}_s|^2\right]\right)ds\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T|x_1-x_2|^2+C\int^t_0\EE\left[|Y^{x_1,y}_s-Y^{x_2,y}_s|^2\right]ds.\end{aligned}$$ The Gronwall’s inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\left|Y^{x_1,y}_t-Y^{x_2,y}_t\right|^2\right]\leq C_T|x_1-x_2|^2.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is complete.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a Hilbert space endowed with norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{K}}$. For $p>1$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$, let $W^{\alpha,p}([0,T];\mathcal{K})$ be the Sobolev space of all $u\in L^p([0,T]; \mathcal{K})$ such that $$\int_0^T\int_0^T\frac{\|u(t)-u(s)\|^p_\mathcal{K}}{|t-s|^{1+\alpha p}}\;dtds<\infty,$$ endowed with the norm $$\|u\|^p_{W^{\alpha,p}([0,T]; \mathcal{K})}:=\int_0^T\|u(t)\|^p_{\mathcal{K}}\;dt+\int_0^T\int_0^T\frac{\|u(t)-u(s)\|^p_\mathcal{K}}{|t-s|^{1+\alpha p}}\;dtds.$$
The following result represents a variant of the criteria for compactness proved in [@Lions Sect. 5, Ch. I], and [@Temam; @1983 Sect. 13.3] .
\[Compact\][Let $\mathbb{S}_0\subset \mathbb{S}\subset \mathbb{S}_1$ be Banach spaces, $\mathbb{S}_0$ and $\mathbb{S}_1$ reflexive, with compact embedding of $\mathbb{S}_0$ in $\mathbb{S}$. For $p\in(1,\infty)$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$, let $\Lambda$ be the space $$\Lambda=L^p([0,T];\mathbb{S}_0)\cap W^{\alpha,p}([0,T];\mathbb{S}_1)$$ endowed with the natural norm. Then the embedding of $\Lambda$ in $L^p([0,T];\mathbb{S})$ is compact. ]{}
Let $\mathbb S=L^2([0,T]; \HH)$, and $\mathcal A$ denotes the class of $\{\FF_t\}$-predictable processes taking values in $\HH$ a.s.. Let $\mathbb S_N=\{u\in \mathbb S; \int_0^T|u(s)|^2ds\le N\}$. The set $\mathbb S_N$ endowed with the weak topology is a Polish space. Define $\mathcal A_N=\{u\in \mathcal A;u(\omega)\in \mathbb S_N, \mathbb{P}\text{-a.s.}\}$.
Recall $\bar X^u$ given in skeleton equation . The existence and uniqueness of the solution of Eq. is given in the following lemma.
\[barX\] For any $x\in \HH$, $u\in \mathbb S$, Eq. admits a unique mild solution $\bar{X}^u \in C([0,T]; \HH)\cap L^2([0,T]; \VV)$. Moreover, for any $N>0$ and $\alpha\in(0,1/2)$, there exist constants $C_{N, T}$ and $C_{\alpha, N, T}$ such that $$\label{eq skeleton estimate}
\sup_{u\in \mathbb S_N}\left\{\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\left|\bar X^u_t\right|^2+\int_0^T\left\|\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\right\}\le C_{N, T}(1+|x|^2),$$ and $$\label{eq sobolev}
\sup_{u\in \mathbb S_N}\left\|\bar X^u\right\|_{W^{\alpha, 2}([0,T];\VV^{-1})}\le C_{\alpha, N, T}(1+|x|^2).$$
**Step1. (Existence and uniqueness of the solution):** It is sufficient to prove $\bar f$ is Lipschitz continuous, then the existence and uniqueness of the solution can be proved similarly as in the case of the Burgers equation.
For any $x_1,x_2,y\in \HH$ and $t>0$, by Proposition \[ergodicity\] and Lemma \[L3.17\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\bar{f}(x_1)-\bar{f}(x_2)\right|\\
\leq&\left|\int_{\HH} f(x_1,z)\mu^{x_1}(dz)-\int_{\HH} f(x_2,z)\mu^{x_2}(dz)\right|\\
\leq&\left|\int_{\HH} f(x_1,z)\mu^{x_1}(dz)-\EE\left[ f\left(x_1, Y^{x_1,y}_t\right)\right]\right|+\left|\EE\left[ f\left(x_2, Y^{x_2,y}_t\right)\right]-\int_{\HH} f(x_2,z)\mu^{x_2}(dz)\right|\\
&+\left|\EE\left[ f\left(x_1, Y^{x_1,y}_t\right)\right]-\EE\left[ f\left(x_2, Y^{x_2,y}_t\right)\right]\right|\\
\leq&C\left(1+|x_1|+|x_2|+|y|\right)e^{-\eta t}+C\left(|x_1-x_2|+\EE\left[\left|Y^{x_1,y}_t-Y^{x_2,y}_t\right|\right]\right)\\
\leq &C\left(1+|x_1|+|x_2|+|y|\right)e^{-\eta t}+C|x_1-x_2|.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $t\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\label{eq Lip}
\left|\bar{f}(x_1)-\bar{f}(x_2)\right|\le C|x_1-x_2|.$$
**Step 2. (Proof of )**: For any $u\in \mathbb S_N$, by \[A1\], and Lemma \[Property B0\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\bar X^u_t\right|^2+2\int_0^t\left\|\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\\
=&|x|^2+2\int_0^t \left\langle B\left(\bar X^u_s\right), \bar X^u_s\right\rangle ds+2\int_0^t \left\langle \bar f\left(\bar X^u_s\right), \bar X^u_s\right\rangle ds+2\int_0^t\left\langle \sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1 u(s), \bar X^u_s\right\rangle ds\\
\le&|x|^2+C\int_0^t \left(1+\left|\bar X^u_s\right|^2\right) ds+2\int_0^t \left|u(s)\right|\cdot \left\|\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}\cdot\left|\bar X^u_s\right|ds\\
\le &|x|^2+C\int_0^t\left(1+\left|\bar X^u_s\right|^2 \right)ds+\int_0^t\left\|\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}^2ds+\int_0^t\left|u(s)\right|^2\cdot\left|\bar X^u_s\right|^2ds\\
\le &|x|^2+ C \int_0^t\left|\bar X^u_s\right|^2\left(1+ \left|u(s)\right|^2\right)ds+Ct.\end{aligned}$$ Since $u\in \SS_N$, by Gronwall’s inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\bar X^u_t\right|^2+\int_0^T\left\|\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\le& C_T\left(1+ \left|x\right|^2\right)\exp\left\{\int_0^T C\left(1+|u(s)|^2\right) ds \right\}\\
\le& \left(1+|x|^2\right) C_{N,T}<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ which yields .
**Step 3. (Proof of ):** Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar X^u_t&=x+\int_0^tA \bar X^u_sds+\int_0^tB\left(\bar X^u_s\right)ds+\int_0^t\bar f\left(\bar X^u_s\right)ds+\int_0^t\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1 u(s)ds\notag\\
&=:x+I_1(t)+I_2(t)+I_3(t)+I_4(t).\end{aligned}$$ Using the same arguments as in the proof of [@Flandoli-Gatarek Theorem 3.1], we have $$\label{eq Sob 1}
\|I_1\|^2_{W^{\alpha,2}([0,T];\VV^{-1})}\le C.$$ By Corollary \[Property B3\] and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, for any $0\le s\le t\le T$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\int_s^t B\left(\bar X^u_r\right)dr\right\|_{-1}^2\le &\left(\int_s^t\left\|B\left(\bar X^u_r\right)\right\|_{\VV^{-1}}\;dr\right)^2
\le \left(\int_s^t c\left|\bar X^u_r\right|\cdot \left \|\bar X^u_r\right\| dr\right)^2 \notag\\
\le &C\left(\int_0^T\left|\bar X^u_r\right|^2dr\right). \left(\int_s^t\left\|\bar X^u_r\right\|^2dr\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sob 21}
\int_0^T\|I_2(s)\|^2_{-1}\; ds\le& C_T \left(\int_0^T\left|\bar X^u_r\right|^2dr\right)\left(\int_0^T\left\|\bar{X}^u_r\right\|^2dr\right) <+\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sob 22}
\int_0^T\int_0^T\frac{\|I_2(t)-I_2(s)\|^2_{-1}}{|t-s|^{1+2\alpha}}dsdt\le& C_T\left(\int_0^T\left|\bar X^u_r\right|^2dr\right)
\times \int_0^T\int_0^T\int_s^t\frac{\left\| \bar X^u_r\right\|^2}{|t-s|^{1+2\alpha}}drdsdt.\end{aligned}$$ By Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and Fubini’s theorem, there exists $C_{\alpha,T}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sob 23}
\int_0^T\int_0^T\int_s^t\frac{\left\|\bar X^u_r\right\|^2}{|t-s|^{1+2\alpha}}drdsdt \le C_{\alpha,T} \int_0^T\left\|\bar X^u_r\right\|^2dr.\end{aligned}$$ Combining , , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq Sob 2}
\|I_2\|^2_{W^{\alpha,2}([0,T]; \VV^{-1})}\le C_{\alpha, T}(1+|x|^2).\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq Sob 3}
\|I_3\|^2_{W^{\alpha,2}([0,T];{\VV^{-1}})}\le C_{\alpha, T}(1+|x|^2).\end{aligned}$$
It remains to deal with the last term $I_4$. Since $u\in \mathbb S_N$, by \[A2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\left\|\int_0^t\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q_1^{1/2} u(s)ds\right\|_{-1}^2\;dt
&\le C\int_0^T \left(\int_0^t \left\|\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS} \cdot\left|u(s)\right|ds\right)^2dt\\
&\le C_T \int_0^Tc\left(1+ \left| \bar X^u_s\right|^2\right)ds \cdot\int_0^T\left| u(s)\right|^2ds\\
&\le C_{N, T}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\int_s^t\sigma_1\left( \bar X_r^u\right)Q^{1/2}_1 u(r)dr\right\|^2_{-1}&\le C\int_s^t\left\|\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_r\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}^2dr\cdot\int_s^t\left|u(r)\right|^2dr\\
&\le C_{N}\int_s^t\left(1+\left|\bar X^u_r\right|^2\right)dr.\end{aligned}$$ Similar to (\[eq Sob 2\]), the above two inequalities imply that $$\label{eq Sob 4}
\|I_4\|^2_{W^{\alpha,2}([0,T];\VV^{-1})}\le C_{\alpha, N, T}(1+|x|^2).$$ By , , and , we obtain . The proof is complete.
Compactness of solutions to skeleton equations
----------------------------------------------
Recall that for $u\in \mathbb S$, $\bar X^u$ is the solution of the skeleton equation and $$\label{solu skel}\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^\cdot u(s)ds\right)=\bar X^u.$$
\[Prop Gamm 0 compact\] For any $N<\infty$, the family $$\mathbb K_N:= \left\{\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^{\cdot} u(s)ds\right); u\in \mathbb S_N\right\}$$ is compact in $C([0,T]; \HH)\cap L^2([0,T]; \VV)$.
Choose a sequence $\{u_n\in\SS_N; n\geq 1\}$, and let $\left\{\bar X^{u_n}=\Gamma^0(\int_0^{\cdot} u_n(s)ds);n\ge1\right\}$ be a sequence of elements in $C([0,T]; \HH)\cap L^2([0,T]; \VV)$. The estimates and enable us to assert that there exist a subsequence $\{n'\}$ and $u\in \mathbb S_N$ such that
1. $u_{n'}\rightarrow u$ in $\mathbb S_N$ weakly, as $n'\rightarrow \infty$ ;
2. $\bar X^{u_{n'}}\rightarrow \bar X^u$ in $L^2([0,T];\HH)$ strongly;
3. $\sup_{n'\ge1} \sup_{0\le t\le T}\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}(t)\right|<\infty$.
Using the same argument as in the proof of [@Temam Theorem 3.1], we can conclude that $\bar X^u=\Gamma^0(\int_0^{\cdot} u(s)ds)$. Next, we will prove that $\bar X^{u_{n'}}\rightarrow \bar X^u$ in $C([0,T]; \HH)\cap L^2([0,T]; \VV)$.
Using , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq bar X}
&\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_t-\bar X^u_t\right|^2+2\int_0^t\left\|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\notag\\
=&2\int_0^t\left\langle B\left(\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s\right)-B\left(\bar X^u_s\right), \bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\rangle ds\notag\\
&+2\int_0^t\left\langle \bar f\left(\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s\right)-\bar f\left(\bar X^u_s\right), \bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\rangle ds\notag\\
&+2\int_0^t\left\langle \sigma_1\left(\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1\left[u_{n'}(s)- u(s)\right], \bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s \right\rangle ds\notag\\
&+2\int_0^t\left\langle \left[\sigma_1\left(\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s\right) - \sigma_1\left(\bar X^{u_n}_s\right)\right]Q_1^{1/2}u(s), \bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s \right\rangle ds\notag\\
=:&I_1^n(t)+I_2^n(t)+I_3^n(t)+I_4^n(t).\end{aligned}$$
For the first term, by the elementary inequality $2ab\le a^2+b^2$ for $a, b>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq bar X1}
|I_1^n(t)|\le &2c\int_0^t \left|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|\cdot\left\|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\|\cdot\left\|\bar X^u_s\right\|ds\notag\\
\le& \int_0^T \left\|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\|^2 ds+ C\int_0^t \left|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2\cdot\left\|\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$
For the second term, by the Lipschitz continuity of $\bar{f}$ and (b), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq bar X2}
\sup_{t\in[0, T]}|I_2^n(t)|\le
C\int_0^T\left|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2ds\rightarrow 0,\end{aligned}$$
For the third term, by the linear growth condition of $\sigma_1Q_1^{1/2}$, (b) and (c), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq bar X3}
&\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left|I_3^n(t)\right|\le 2\int_0^T\left\|\sigma_1\left(\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS} \cdot\left|u_{n'}(s)-u(s)\right|\cdot\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|ds\notag\\
\le & C\left(1+\sup_{0\le s\le T}\left|\bar X_s^{u_n'}\right|\right)\left(\int_0^T \left|u_{n'}(s)-u(s)\right|^2 ds\right)^{1/2}\cdot\left(\int_0^T\left| \bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2ds\right)^{1/2}\notag\\
&\longrightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
For the last term, by condition \[A1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq bar X4}
|I_4^n(t)|\le
C\int_0^t \left |u(s)\right|\cdot\left|\bar X^{u_n'}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$
By -, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{s\in[0, t]}\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2+\int_0^t\left\|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\\
\le &C\int_0^t\left(\left\|\bar X_s^u\right\|^2+|u(s)|\right)\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right|^2ds+\sup_{0\le s\le t}\left(I_2^n(s)+I_3^n(s)\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Gronwall’s inequality and (a)-(c), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_t-\bar X^u_t\right|^2+\int_0^T\left\|\bar X^{u_{n'}}_s-\bar X^u_s\right\|^2ds\rightarrow 0,\ \ \mbox{as}\ \ n'\rightarrow \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $\mathbb K_N$ is compact in $C([0,T];\HH)\cap L^2([0,T];\VV)$. The proof is complete.
Convergence of the controlled slow process
==========================================
In this section we will finish the proof of main result by verifying the Condition (a) in Theorem \[thm BD\]. Before that, a series of auxiliary results are needed to prove the convergence of the process $X^{\e, \delta, u^{\e}}$. Note that we assume conditions \[A1\]-\[A4\] hold in this section.
The auxiliary controlled equation
---------------------------------
For every fixed $N\in\mathbb{N},\e>0, \delta>0$, let $u^\e\in \mathcal{A}_N$ and $\Gamma^{\e}$ be given by . By Girsanov’s theorem, we know that $$X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}:=\Gamma^\e\left(W(\cdot)+\frac1{\sqrt{\e}}\int_0^{\cdot}u^\e(s)ds\right)$$ is a part of the solution $\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}, Y^{\e, \delta, u^{\e}}\right)$ of the following controlled equation: $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{R equation}
\displaystyle
\vspace{2mm}
dX^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t=\left[AX^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t+B\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)+f\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t, Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)\right]dt+\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_1u^{\e}(t) dt\\
\vspace{2mm}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\sqrt{\e}\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_1dW_t,\\
\vspace{2mm}
dY^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t=\frac{1}{\delta}\left[AY^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_t+g\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t, Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)\right]dt+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta\e }}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_2u^{\e}(t)dt\\
\vspace{2mm}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t\right)Q^{1/2}_2dW_t,\\
\vspace{2mm}
X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_0=x,\quad\quad Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_0=y.\end{array}\right.$$
We first prove the uniform boundedness of the solutions $\left(X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}, Y^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}\right)$ to the system for all $\varepsilon,\de \in (0,1)$.
\[PE\] For any $x,y\in \HH$, $T>0$ and $\{u^\e;\e>0\}\subset \mathcal{A}_N$, there exists a constant $C_{T}>0$ such that for all $\e,\de\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Control X}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left|X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^{2}\right)+\EE\int^T_0 \left\|X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right\|^2dt
\leq C_{T}\left(1+|x|^{2}+|y|^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Control Y}
\mathbb{E} \int^T_0\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}dt
\leq C_{T}\left(1+ |x|^{2} + |y|^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
According to Itô’s formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ItoFormu 1}
\mathbb{E} \left[\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]= \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|y|^2
-\frac{2}{\de}\mathbb{E} \int_0^t \left\|Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds +\frac{2}{\de}\mathbb{E}\left|\int_0^t\left\langle g\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}},Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right),Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right\rangle ds\right|\nonumber\\
&&+ \frac{2}{\sqrt{\e \de}}\mathbb{E}\left|\int_0^t\left\langle\sigma_2\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}},Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right)Q_2^{1/2}u^{\e}(s),Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right\rangle ds\right|\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\de}\mathbb{E} \int_0^t\left\| \sigma_2\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}},Y_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right) Q_2^{1/2}\right\|^{2}_{\HS}ds,\end{aligned}$$ where the Itô’s formula can be understood in the way that we first use Galerkin approximations to get in the finite dimensional setting, then we take the limit to obtain in the infinite dimensional setting.
By Poincaré’s inequality and conditions \[A1\] and \[A2\], it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathbb{E}\left[\left| Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
-\frac{2\lambda_{1}}{\de} \mathbb{E}\left[\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right|^{2}\right]\!+\frac{2}{\de}\mathbb{E}\left(C\left |Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right |+C \left| X_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right| \cdot \left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|+L_g\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^2\right)\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+\frac{C}{\sqrt{\e \de}}\mathbb{E}\left[\left(1+\left|X_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right|\right)\left|u^{\e}(t)\right|\cdot\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right|\right]+\frac{C}{\de}\mathbb{E} \left(1+\left|X_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using \[A3\] and Young’s inequality, we deduce that for some $\gamma\in (0, 2(\lambda-L_{g}))$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathbb{E} \left[\left|Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& -\frac{\gamma}{\de}\mathbb{E}\left[\left |Y_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]+\frac{C}{\de}\mathbb{E}\left(\left|X_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}+1\right)\\
&&+\frac{C}{\sqrt{\e \de}}\EE\left[\left(1+\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right)\left|u^{\e}(t)\right|^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ By comparison theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[\left| Y_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|y|^{2} e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}t}+\frac{C}{\de}\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}(t-s)}\left(\mathbb{E}\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^{2}+1\right)ds\\
&&+\frac{C}{\sqrt{\e \de}}\EE\int^t_0e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}(t-s)} \left(1+\left| X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right)\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\int^T_0 \left| Y_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}dt
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|y|^{2} \int^T_0e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}t}dt+\frac{C}{\de}\int^T_0\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}(t-s)}\left[\mathbb{E}\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^{2}+1\right]dsdt\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{C}{\sqrt{\e \de}}\EE\left\{\left(1+\sup_{s\in [0, T]}\left| X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}\right |^{2}\right)\int^T_0\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\de}(t-s)} \left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2dsdt\right\}\nonumber\\
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
C\left(1+|y|^{2}\right)+C\int^T_0 \mathbb{E}\left|X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}dt+\frac{C_N\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e }} \EE \left[\sup_{s\in [0,T]}\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de, u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right].\label{EY}\end{aligned}$$
Applying Itô’s formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}= \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& |x|^2-
\int^t_0 2\left\|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds+2\int_0^t \left\langle B\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right), X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\rangle\;ds\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+2\int^t_0\left\langle f\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},Y_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right),X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\rangle ds+ 2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, \sigma_1\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q_1^{1/2}dW_s\right\rangle\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+2\int^t_0 \left\langle X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, \sigma_1\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q_{1}^{1/2}u^{\e}(s)\right\rangle ds+\e\int^t_0\left\|\sigma_1\left( X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}^2ds.\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[Property B0\], \[A1\] and \[A2\], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}+\int^t_0 \left\|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds\\
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C+|x|^2+C\int^t_0\left |X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2 ds+C\int^t_0 \left| Y_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right |^2ds+2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, \sigma_1\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q_1^{1/2}dW_s \right\rangle\\
&&+C\int^t_0 \left(1+\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|\right) \left|u^{\e}(s)\right|\cdot \left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|ds+\e C\int^t_0\left(1+\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2\right)ds\\
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C+|x|^2 +C\int^t_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2 ds+C\int^t_0 \left| Y_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^2ds+2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle
X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, \sigma_1\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q^{1/2}_1dW_s\right\rangle\\
&&+\frac{1}{4}\sup_{s\in[0, t]}\left| X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by Burkholder-Davis-Gundy’s inequality and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\EE\left(\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right)+\EE\int^T_0 \left\|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\left(1+|x|^2\right)+C\EE\int^T_0 \left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2 ds+C\EE\int^T_0 \left| Y_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2ds\\
&&+C\sqrt{\e}\EE\left[\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left|\int^t_0 \left\langle X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, \sigma_1\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)Q_1^{1/2}dW_s\right\rangle\right|\right]\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)+C\int^T_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2 ds+\frac{C_N\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e }}\EE\left(\sup_{t\in[0, T]}
\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right)\\
&&+C\EE\left[\int^T_0 \left(1+\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2\right)\cdot\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2ds\right]^{1/2}\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)+C\int^T_0 \EE\left[\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2\right] ds+\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{C_N\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e }}\right)\EE\left(\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By \[A4\], taking $\e$ small enough such that $\de/\e\le \frac14$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]+\EE\int^T_0 \left\|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)+C\EE\int^T_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2 ds.\end{aligned}$$ By Gronwall’s inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\sup_{t\in[0, T]}\left| X_{t}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}} \right|^{2}\right]+\EE\int^T_0\left\|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right\|^2 ds
\leq \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_T\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right).\label{EX}\end{aligned}$$ The inequality follows by combining and . The proof is complete.
Because the approach based on time discretization will be used later, we need the following lemma, which is inspired from [@LSXZ Lemma 3.2] and plays an important role in the proof. Meanwhile, it will be very helpful to weaken the regularity requirement of initial value $x$, i.e., we drop the regularity of initial value $x\in \HH_{\theta}$ with $\theta\in (1, 3/2)$ in [@DSXZ] and only assume $x\in \HH$ here. To this purpose, we first construct the following stopping time, for any $R,\e >0$, $$\tau^{\e}_R:=\inf\left\{t>0, \sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2>R\right\}.\nonumber$$
\[COX\] For any $x, y\in\HH$, $R, T>0$ and $\e, \Delta>0$ small enough, there exists a constant $C_{R, T}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[\int^{T\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}|^2 dt\right]\leq C_{R,T}\Delta^{1/2}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2),\label{F3.7}\end{aligned}$$ where $t(\Delta):=[\frac{t}{\Delta}]\Delta$ and $[s]$ denotes the largest integer which is not greater than $s$.
By a straightforward compute, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{E}\left[\int^{T\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}\right|^2 dt\right]\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \mathbb{E}\left(\int^{\Delta}_0\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-x\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)+\mathbb{E}\left[\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right]\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_R\left(1+|x|^2\right)\Delta +2\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t}-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right).\label{F3.8}\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, we estimate the second term on the right-hand side of . Applying Itô’s formula to $Z_u:=X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_u-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}$, we have the increment of $|Z_u|^2$ over interval $[t-\Delta, t]$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^{2}\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&2\int_{t-\Delta}^{t}\left\langle A X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\!\!+B\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right), X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right\rangle ds\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+2\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\langle f\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s, Y^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right), X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right\rangle ds\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+2\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\langle \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1 u^{\e}_s, X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right\rangle ds+\e\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\|\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1\right\|_{\HS}^2ds\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+2\sqrt{\e}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\langle X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}, \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_1dW_s\right\rangle \nonumber\\
:=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&L_{1}(t)+L_{2}(t)+L_{3}(t)+L_{4}(t)+L_{5}(t). \label{F3.9}\end{aligned}$$
For the first term $L_1(t)$, by Hölder’s inequality, Corollary \[Property B3\] and the definition of stopping time $\tau^{\e}_R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{REGX1}
&&\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}|L_{1}(t)|1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\| A X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s+B\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right)\right\|_{-1}
\left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right\| ds 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\left[\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\!\!\left\|AX^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-B\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right)\right\|^2_{-1}ds1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right]^{1/2}\!\!
\left[\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\!\!\left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right\|^2 ds 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\left[\Delta\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_0\left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)1_{\{s\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}ds\right]^{1/2}\cdot\left[\Delta\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_0\left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2ds\right]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta(1+|x|^2+|y|^2),\end{aligned}$$ where we use the Fubini theorem and in the third and fourth inequalities respectively.
For $L_{2}(t)$, by condition \[A1\] and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{REGX2}
&&\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}|L_{2}(t)|1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|+\left|Y^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|\right)\left(\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|\right)ds 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}} dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta+C_{R}\mathbb{E}\int^T_{\Delta}\int^t_{t-\Delta}\left|Y^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|dsdt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta+C_{R,T}\Delta \left[\mathbb{E}\int^T_{0}\left|Y^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2ds\right]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta(1+|x|^2+|y|^2).\end{aligned}$$
For $L_{3}(t)$ and $L_{4}(t)$, it easy to see $$\begin{aligned}
\label{REGX2a}
&&\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}|L_{3}(t)|1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|\right )|u^{\e}_s|\left(\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|\right)ds 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}} dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta+C_{R}\mathbb{E}\int^T_{\Delta}\int^t_{s-\Delta}\left|u^{\e}_s\right|dsdt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta+C_{R,T}\Delta \left[\mathbb{E}\int^T_{0}\left|u^{\e}_s\right|^2ds\right]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{REGX2b}
\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}|L_{4}(t)|1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)1_{\{s\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}ds dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R, T}\Delta.\end{aligned}$$
For $L_{5}(t)$, Burkholder-Davies-Gundy’s inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{REGX3}
&&\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}|L_{5}(t)|1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left[\int_{t-\Delta} ^{t}\left\|\sigma_1(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s)Q^{1/2}_1\right\|^2_{\HS}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2 1_{\{s\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}ds\right]^{1/2}dt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T\left[\mathbb{E}\int^{T}_{\Delta}\int^t_{t-\Delta}\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)\left(\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2+\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2\right)1_{\{s\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dsdt\right]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining estimates - together, we can deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta^{1/2}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2). \label{F3.13}\end{aligned}$$ By the similar argument above, we can also get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left(\int^{T}_{\Delta}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}-X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{t-\Delta}\right|^2 1_{\{t\leq \tau^{\e}_R\}}dt\right)\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\Delta^{1/2}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2). \label{F3.14}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, , and implies holds. The proof is complete.
Some priori estimates on auxiliary process
------------------------------------------
Following the idea inspired by Khasminskii [@K1], we introduce an auxiliary process. Specifically, we split the interval $[0,T]$ into some subintervals of size $\Delta>0$, and we will let $\Delta=\delta^{1/2}$ later. With the initial value $\hat{Y}_{0}^{\e,\delta}=Y^{\e}_{0}=y$, we construct the process $\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\delta}$ as follows: $$d\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\delta}=\frac{1}{\delta}\left[A\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\delta}+g\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)},\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)\right]dt+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)},\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_2^{1/2}dW_t,$$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AuxiliaryPro Y 01}
\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\delta}=&e^{tA/\de}y+\frac{1}{\de}\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A/\de}g\left(X_{s(\Delta)}^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\delta}\right)ds\notag\\
&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A/\de}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_2^{1/2}dW_s,\end{aligned}$$ where $t(\Delta)=[\frac{t}{\Delta}]\Delta$ is the nearest breakpoint proceeding $t$. We construct the process $\hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}$ as follows: $$\frac{d}{dt}\hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}=A\hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}+B\left(\hat X_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)+f\left(X_{t(\Delta)}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)+\sigma_1\left(\hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_1^{1/2}u^{\e}(t),\quad \hat{X}_{0}^{\e,\de}=x.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AuxiliaryPro X 01}
\hat X^{\e,\de}_t=&e^{tA}x+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}B\left(\hat X^{\e,\de}_s\right)ds+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}f\left( X^{\e,\de, u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}, \hat Y^{\e,\de}_s\right)ds\notag\\
&+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\sigma_1\left(\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_1^{1/2}u^{\e}(s)ds.\end{aligned}$$
The following Lemma gives a control of the auxiliary process $\left(\hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de},\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right)$. Since the proof can be carried out almost the same way as in the proof of Lemma \[PE\], we omit the proof here.
\[AE\] For any $x,y\in \HH$ and $T>0$, there exists a constant $C_T>0$ such that for all $\e,\delta\in(0,1]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hatXHolderalpha}
\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|\hat X_{t}^{\e,\de} \right|^{2}\right)+\EE\int^T_0\left\|\hat X_{t}^{\e,\de} \right\|^2dt\leq C_T\left(1+ |x|^{2}+|y|^2\right) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \mathbb{E}\left| \hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}\right|^{2}\leq C_T\left(1+ |x |^{2}+ |y|^{2}\right).\label{hat Y}\end{aligned}$$
\[L3.1\] For any $x,y\in \HH$, $R, T>0$, there exists $C_{R, T}>0$ such that for all $\e,\delta\in(0,1]$ $$\label{eq L3.1}
\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0 \left|Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s-\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_s\right|^2 ds\leq C_{R, T}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2)\Delta^{1/2}+\frac{C_{R,T}\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{ \e}}.$$
Let $\rho_t:=Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t-\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_t$ and $\Lambda_t:=\rho_t-V_t-M_t$, with $$V_t:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta \e}}\int^t_0 e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{\delta}}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_2^{1/2}u^{\e}(s)ds$$ and $$M_t:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}\int^t_0 e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{\delta}}\left[\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)-\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)},\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)\right]Q_2^{1/2}dW_s.$$ Then it is easy to see that $\Lambda_t$ satisfies the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
d\Lambda_t=\frac{1}{\delta}\left[A\Lambda_t+g\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_t\right)-g\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{t(\Delta)}, \hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_t\right)\right]dt,\quad \Lambda_0=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}|\Lambda_t|^{2}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-\frac{2}{\delta}\|\Lambda_t \|^{2}+\frac{2}{\de}\left\langle g\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_t,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_t\right)-g\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{t(\Delta)}, \hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_t\right), \Lambda_t\right\rangle\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-\frac{2\lambda_1}{\delta}\left|\Lambda_t \right|^{2}+\frac{C}{\de}\left |X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}\right|\cdot\left|\Lambda_t\right|+\frac{2L_g}{\de}\left|\rho_t\right|\cdot\left|\Lambda_t\right|\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-\frac{2\lambda_1}{\delta}\left|\Lambda_t \right|^{2}+\frac{C}{\de}\left |X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}\right|^2+\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g)}{\delta}\left|\Lambda_t \right|^{2}+\frac{2L_g}{\de}\left|\Lambda_t\right|^2+\frac{L_g}{2\de}\left|\rho_t\right|^2\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g)}{\delta}\left|\Lambda_t \right|^{2}+\frac{C}{\de} \left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_t-X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_{t(\Delta)}\right|^2+\frac{L_g}{2\de}\left|\rho_t\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ By the comparison principle, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Lambda_t|^{2}\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{C}{\de}\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g)(t-s)}{\delta}}\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2ds+\frac{L_g}{2\delta}\int^t_0e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g) (t-s)}{\delta}}\left|\rho_s\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then by Fubini’s Theorem, for any $T>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int^T_0|\Lambda_t|^{2}dt\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{C}{\de}\int^T_0\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g) (t-s)}{\delta}}\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2 dsdt+\frac{L_g}{2\de}\int^T_0\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g) (t-s)}{\delta}}|\rho_s|^2 dsdt\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{C}{\de}\int^T_0\left(\int^T_s e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g)(t-s)}{\delta}}dt\right)\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2 ds+\frac{L_g}{2\de}\int^T_0\left(\int^T_s e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_g)(t-s)}{\delta}}dt\right)|\rho_s|^2 ds\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\int^T_0\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2 ds+\frac{L_g}{2(\lambda_1-L_g)}\int^T_0|\rho_s|^2 ds.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[COX\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\int^{T\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0|\Lambda_t|^{2}dt\leq \frac{L_g}{2(\lambda_1-L_g)}\EE\int^{T\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0|\rho_s|^2 ds+C_{R,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\Delta^{1/2}.\label{lambda}\end{aligned}$$ Now let’s estimate term $V_t$: $$\begin{aligned}
|V_t|\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\e \de}} \int^t_0\left| e^{-\frac{\lambda_1 (t-s)}{\delta}}\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q^{1/2}_2u^{\e}(s)\right|ds\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\e\de}} \left(\int^t_0 e^{-\frac{2\lambda_1(t-s)}{\delta}}ds\right)^{\frac12}\cdot\left(\int_0^t\left|\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_2^{1/2}u^{\e}(s)\right|^2ds\right)^{\frac12}\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \frac{C\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e}}\left(\int^t_0\left(1+\left|X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)|u^{\e}(s)|^2 ds\right)^{\frac12}\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \frac{C\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e}}\left(1+\sup_{s\in [0, t]}\left|X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)^{\frac12}\left(\int^t_0|u^{\e}(s)|^2 ds\right)^{\frac12}.\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $\tau^{\e}_R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|V_t|^{2}dt\leq \frac{C_{R,T}\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{\e}}\label{V}.\end{aligned}$$
For term $M_t$, noting that $\frac{L^2_{\sigma_2}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{L_g}{\lambda_1-L_g}<1$, there exist $\gamma_1, \gamma_2>1$ such that $\gamma_2\left(\frac{\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{L_g}{\lambda_1-L_g}\right)<1$. Then, by Lemma \[COX\], $$\begin{aligned}
&&\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|M_t|^{2}dt\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int^t_0e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{\delta}}
\left[\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)-\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)},\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)\right]Q_2^{1/2}dW_s\right|^2dt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\EE\int^{T}_0\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int^{t\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{\delta}}\left[\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s,Y^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s\right)-\sigma_2\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)},\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)\right]Q_2^{1/2}dW_s\right|^2dt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{1}{\de}\EE\int^{T}_0\int^{t\wedge \tau^{\e}_R}_0e^{\frac{-2(t-s)\lambda_1}{\delta}}\left(C\left|X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2+\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}|\rho_s|^2\right)dsdt\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\frac{1}{\de}\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0\left(\int^{T}_s e^{\frac{-2(t-s)\lambda_1}{\delta}}dt\right)\left(C\left|X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2+\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}\left|\rho_s\right|^2\right)ds\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{\lambda_1}\EE\left[\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0\left|X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e,\delta,u^\e}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2ds\right]+\frac{\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}}{2\lambda_1}\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|\rho_s|^2ds\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{\lambda_1,R,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\Delta^{1/2}+\frac{\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}}{2\lambda_1}\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|\rho_s|^2ds.\label{M}\end{aligned}$$ Using the following inequality, $$\rho_t^2\le \gamma_2\left(\Lambda_t+M_t\right)^2+C_{\gamma_2}V_t^2\le 2\gamma_2\left(\Lambda_t^2+M_t^2\right)+C_{\gamma_2}V^2_t,$$ and by and , we final obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|\rho_t|^{2}dt\le& \gamma_2\left(\frac{\gamma_{1}L^2_{\sigma_2}}{\lambda_1}+\frac{L_g}{\lambda_1-L_g}\right) \EE\int^{T\wedge\tau^{\e}_R}_0|\rho_t|^{2}dt\\
&+ C_{\lambda_1, R,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\Delta^{1/2}+\frac{C_{R,T}\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{ \e}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies . The proof is complete.
\[Rem 4.6\] By comparing the equations of $Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t$ and $\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_t$, it is easy to see the additional controlled term including $u^\e$ in $Y^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_t$ disappears in $\hat{Y}^{\e,\delta}_t$. Lemma \[L3.1\] implies additional controlled term takes no effect as $\e\rightarrow 0$, which is the main reason why we assume \[A4\] holds.
Combining the following two propositions, we prove the convergence of controlled sequence $X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}$ to averaged $\bar{X}^u$. This finally proves Condition (a) in Theorem \[thm BD\], so that the large derivation principle in the main result Theorem \[main result 1\] is obtained.
\[convergence 1\] For every fixed $N\in\mathbb{N}$, $\{u^\e\}_{\e>0} \in \mathcal{A}_N$,
$X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}-\hat{X}^{\e,\de}$ converges to $0$ in distribution
in $C([0,T]; \HH)\cap L^2([0,T]; \VV)$ as $\e\rightarrow0$.
Define $Z^{\e, \de}_t:=X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_t-\hat{X}^{\e,\de}_t$. According to Itô’s formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ItoFormu 01}
\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\int^t_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\|^{2}ds+2\int^t_0\left\langle B\left(X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s\right)-B\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\de}_s\right), Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\rangle ds\\
&&+2\int^t_0 \left\langle f\left(X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s, Y^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s\right)-f\left(X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}, \hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_s\right), Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\rangle ds\\
&&+2\int^t_0 \left\langle \left[\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right) -\sigma_1\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\de}_s\right)\right]Q_1^{1/2}u^{\e}(s), Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\rangle ds\\
&&+2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle Z^{\e, \de}_s, \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}d W_s\right\rangle+\e \int^t_0 \left\|\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}^2 ds\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\int^t_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right \|^{2}ds+C\int^t_0 \left|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right|\cdot\left\|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s\right\|\cdot\left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\| ds+C\int^t_0 \left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}\right|\cdot\left|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right|ds\\
&&+C\int^t_0 \left|Y^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_s\right|\cdot\left|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right|ds+C\int^t_0 \left|u^{\e}(s)\right|\cdot\left|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right|^2ds\\
&&+2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle Z^{\e, \de}_s, \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_{1}^{1/2}d W_s\right\rangle+\e \int^t_0\left \|\sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\right\|_{\HS}^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ By the Young’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^t_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right \|^{2}ds\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\int^t_0\left |Z^{\e, \de}_s\right|^2\left(1+\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2+\left\|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2\right) ds\\
&&+C\int^t_0\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2ds+C\int^t_0\left |Y^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_s\right|^2ds\\
&&+2\sqrt{\e}\int^t_0 \left\langle Z^{\e, \de}_s, \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}d W_s\right\rangle+\e C\int^t_0 \left(1+\left|X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)ds.\end{aligned}$$
For any $\e, R>0$, we define a stopping time $$\label{stopping time}
\tilde{\tau}^{\e}_R:=\inf\left\{t>0, \sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|^2+\int^t_0 \left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2ds>R\right\}.$$ By Gronwall’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \tilde \tau^{\e}_R]}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^{T\wedge \tilde \tau^{\e}_R}_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s \right\|^{2}ds\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left[C\int^{T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R}_0 \!\!\left|Y^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_s\right|^2ds\!\!+C\int^{T\wedge\tilde\tau^{\e}_R}_0\left|X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_s-X^{\e, \de, u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)}\right|^2ds+\e C\int^{T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R}_0 \left(1+\left|X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right|^2\right)ds\right.\\
&&\left.+2\sqrt{\e}\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \tilde \tau^{\e}_R]}\left|\int^t_0 \left\langle Z^{\e, \de}_s, \sigma_1\left(X^{\e,\delta, u^{\e}}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}d W_s\right\rangle\right|\right]e^{C_{R,T}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\tilde \tau^{\e}_R\leq \tau^{\e}_R$, then by Lemmas \[COX\] and \[L3.1\], and Burkholder-Davis-Gundy’s inequality, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F3.27}
&\EE\left[\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R]}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}\right]+\EE\int^{T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R}_0\left \|Z^{\e, \de}_s \right\|^{2}ds\nonumber\\
&\hspace{6cm}\leq C_{R,T}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2)\left(\Delta^{1/2}\!+\!\frac{\sqrt{\de}}{\sqrt{ \e}}\!+\!\sqrt{\e}\right). \end{aligned}$$
For any $r>0$, by the definition of stopping time $\tilde \tau^{\e}_R$ in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\PP\left(\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^T_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right \|^{2}ds\geq r\right)\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\PP\left(T>\tilde \tau^{\e}_R\right)+\PP\left(\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^T_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\|^{2}ds\geq r, T\leq\tilde \tau^{\e}_R\right)\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\PP\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t\right|^2+\int^T_0 \left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2ds>R\right)+\PP\left(\sup_{t\in[0, T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R]}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^{T\wedge\tilde \tau^{\e}_R}_0\left \|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right\|^{2}ds\geq r\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[PE\], we can choose and fix $R$ large enough to make the first term on the right hand side of the above inequality small enough, and for fixed $R$ and , the second term can also be small enough by choosing $\Delta=\delta^{1/2}$ and small $\varepsilon$. Thus, we proved $\sup_{t\leq T}\left|Z^{\e, \de}_t\right|^{2}+\int^T_0 \left\|Z^{\e, \de}_s\right \|^{2}ds$ converges to $0$ in probability. The proof is complete.
\[convergence 2\] For any $x, y\in \HH$ and fixed $N\in\mathbb{N}$, assume that $\{u^\e\}_{\e>0} \in \mathcal{A}_N$ satisfying that $u^\e$ converges to $u$ in distribution, as $\e\rightarrow0$. Then
$\hat X^{\e, \de}-\bar{X}^u$ converges to $0$ in distribution
in $C([0,T]; \HH) $ as $\e\rightarrow0$, where $\bar{X}^u$ is the solution to skeleton equation .
By the Skorokhod representation theorem, we may assume that $u^{\e}\rightarrow u$ in $L^2([0,T]; \HH)$ almost surely in the weak topology. The proof is divided into three steps.
**Step 1. (Splitting into three terms)**: Let $\bar{Z}^{\e}_t:=\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_t-\bar{X}^u_t$ and set $\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_t:=\bar{Z}_t^{\e}-L_t^{\e}-N^{\e}_t$, where $$L_t^{\e}:=\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\left[f\left(X^{\e,\delta,u^{\e}}_{s(\Delta)},Y^{\e,\delta}_s\right)-\bar{f}\left(\bar{X}^u_{s}\right)\right]ds,$$ and $$N_t^{\e}:=\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^u_{s}\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left[u_s^{\e}-u_s\right]ds.$$ Then it is easy to see $\bar{\Lambda}_t^{\e}$ satisfies the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_t}{dt}=A\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_t+\left[B\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_t\right)-B\left(\bar{X}^u_t\right)\right]+\left[\sigma_1\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_{t}\right)-\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^u_{t}\right)\right]Q_1^{1/2}u^\e(t),\quad \bar{\Lambda}^\epsilon_0=0.\end{aligned}$$ By chain rule, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\bar{\Lambda}_t^{\e}\right|^2=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\int_{0}^{t}\left\|\bar{\Lambda}_s^{\e}\right\|^2ds
+2\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle B\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)-B\left(\bar{X}^u_s\right), \bar{\Lambda}_s^{\e}\right\rangle ds \nonumber\\
&&+2\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle \left[ \sigma_1\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right) -\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^u_s\right)\right]Q_1^{1/2}u^{\e}(s), \bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right\rangle ds
\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\int_{0}^{t}\left\|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right\|^2ds
+2\int_{0}^{t}\left\|B\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)-B\left(\bar{X}^u_s\right)\right\|_{-1}\cdot \left\|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right\| ds +C\int_{0}^{t}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|\cdot\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|\cdot\left|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right| ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then by the Young’s and Poincaré’s inequalities, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\bar{\Lambda}_t^{\e}\right|^2\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\int_{0}^{t}\left\|\bar{\Lambda}_s^{\e}\right\|^2ds
\!+\!C\int_{0}^{t}\left\|B\left(\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right)-B\left(\bar{X}^u_s\right)\right\|^2_{-1}ds\!+\!\int^t_0\left\|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right\|^2 ds\!+\!C\int_{0}^{t}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s|^2\cdot|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2ds\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-\int_{0}^{t}\left\|\bar{\Lambda}_s^{\e}\right\|^2ds
+C\int_{0}^{t}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|^2\left (\left\|\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right\|^2+\left\|\bar{X}^u_s\right\|^2+\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2\right)ds.\end{aligned}$$
We define another stopping time $$\begin{aligned}
\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}:=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\inf\Big\{t>0: \sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right|+\int^t_0\left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2ds+\int^t_0\left\|\hat X^{\e,\de}_s\right\|^2ds> R\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F3.35}
\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]} \left|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_t\right|^2\!\!+\int^{T\wedge \hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0 \left\|\bar{\Lambda}^{\e}_s\right\|^2ds\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\int_{0}^{T\wedge \hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|^2 \!\!\left(\left\|\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right\|^2+\left\|\bar{X}^u_s\right\|^2+\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2\right)ds.\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2. (The estimate on $N^\e$)**: For term $N^\e$, we shall prove that it converges to $0$ in $C([0,T], \HH)$ almost surely, for which we firstly prove its tightness, and then its convergence.
For any $\theta\in(0,1)$, by Lemma \[lem semigroup\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left\|N_t^{\e}\right\|^2_{\theta}\right]\le &\EE\left[\sup_{ t\in[0,T]}\int_0^t\left\|e^{(t-s)A}\sigma_1\left(\bar X^u_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}(u^\e_s-u_s)\right\|_{\theta}ds\right]^2\\
\le& \EE\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\int_0^t (t-s)^{-\theta/2}\left|\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_t\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left(u^\e_t-u_t\right)\right|ds\right]^2 \\
\le& C_T\EE\left[\left(1+\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|\bar{X}^{u}_t\right|^2\right)\cdot \int_0^T\left|u^\e_t-u_t\right|^2dt\right]\\
\le& C_{N, T}(1+|x|^2+|y|^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{N, T}$ is independent of $\e$.
For any $0\le s\le t\le T$, by Lemma \[lem semigroup\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\EE\left[|N_t^{\e}-N_s^{\e}|^2\right]\\
=&\EE\left[\left|\int_0^t e^{(t-r)A}\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_r\right)Q_1^{1/2}(u^\e_r-u_r)dr- \int_0^s e^{(s-r)A}\sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_r\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left(u^\e_r-u_r\right)dr\right|^2\right]\\
\le&2 \EE\left[\left|\int_s^t e^{(t-r)A } \sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_r\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left(u^\e_r-u_r\right)dr \right|^2\right]\\
&+2 \EE\left[\left|\int_0^s\left[ e^{(t-r)A } -e^{(s-r)A}\right] \sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_r\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left(u^\e_r-u_r\right)dr \right|^2\right]\\
\leq& C\EE\left[\left(1+\sup_{ r\in [0, T]}\left|\bar{X}^u_r\right|^2\right) \cdot \int_0^T \left|u^\e_r-u_r\right|^2dr\right]|t-s|\\
& +C\left[\int_0^s\frac{(t-s)^{1/2}}{(s-r)^{1/2}}dr\right] \EE\left[\left(1+\sup_{r\in [0,T]}\left|\bar{X}^u_r\right|^2\right) \cdot \int_0^T \left|u^\e_r-u_r\right|^2dr\right]\\
\leq & C_T(1+|x|^2+|y|^2)|t-s|^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying an Arzela-Ascoli’s argument, we can show that $\{N^{\e}\}_{\e\in(0,1]}$ is tight in $C([0,T];\HH)$. Thus, there exist a subsequence $\{N^{\e_n}\}_{n\ge1}$ being the Cauchy sequence, whose limit is denoted by $N^0$. By chain rule, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|N^{\e_n}_t\right|^2+2\int_0^t\left\|N^{\e_n}_s\right\|^2ds\\
=&2\left|\int_0^t\left\langle N^{\e_n}_s, \sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}(u^{\e_n}_s-u_s)\right\rangle ds\right|\\
\le &2\left|\int_0^t\left\langle N^{\e_n}_s-N^0_s, \sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}\left(u^{\e_n}_s-u_s\right)\right\rangle ds\right|+2\left|\int_0^t\left\langle N^0_s, \sigma_1\left(\bar{X}^{u}_s\right)Q_1^{1/2}(u^{\e_n}_s-u_s)\right\rangle ds\right|\\
\le & 2\sup_{s\in [0,t]}\left|N^{\e_n}_s-N^0_s\right| \cdot\int_0^t\left(1+\left|\bar{X}^{u}_s\right|\right) \cdot\left|u^{\e_n}_s-u_s\right|ds +2\left|\int_0^t\left\langle Q_1^{1/2}\sigma_1^*\left(\bar{X}^{u}_s\right) N^0_s, u^{\e_n}_s-u_s\right\rangle ds\right|\\
& \longrightarrow 0,\ \ \text{a.s.},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the facts of $N^{\e_n}\rightarrow N^0$ in $C([0,T], \HH)$, $u^{\e_n}\rightarrow u$ in $\mathbb S_N$ and $Q_1^{1/2}\sigma_1^*(\bar{X}^{u}) N^0$ belongs to $L^2([0,T];\mathbb H)$. By the uniqueness of the limit, we know that $N^\e\rightarrow 0$ in $C([0,T]; \HH)$ almost surely.
**Step 3. (The estimate on $L_t^{\e}$):** For term $L_t^{\e}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L_t^{\e}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{s(\Delta)}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds\\
&&+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}\left[\bar{f}\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)-\bar{f}\left(\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)\right]ds+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}\left[\bar{f}\left(\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(\bar{X}^u_{s}\right)\right]ds\\
=:\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&I^{\e}_1(t)+I^{\e}_2(t)+I^{\e}_3(t).\end{aligned}$$ By Lipschitz property of $\bar{f}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|I^{\e}_2(t)\right|^2
\leq C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|\bar{f}\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)-\bar{f}\left(\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)\right|^2ds
\leq C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left| X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de} \right|^2ds,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|I^{\e}_3(t)\right|^2
\le C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|\bar{f}\left(\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(\bar{X}^u_{s}\right)\right|^2ds\le
C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F3.37}
\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|L_t^{\e}\right|^2\leq C\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|I^{\e}_1(t)\right|^2+C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right|^2ds
+C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|^2ds.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ By and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_t\right|^2\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\int_{0}^{T\wedge \hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}} \left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_s\right|^2\left(1+\left\|\hat{X}^{\e,\delta}_s\right\|^2+\left\|\bar{X}^u_s\right\|^2+\left|u^{\e}(s)\right|^2\right)ds\nonumber\\
&&+ C\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|I_1^{\e}(t)\right|^2+C\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|N^{\e}_t\right|^2+C\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ By estimate and the definition $\hat \tau^{\e}_R$, the Gronwall’s inequality implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}\left|\bar{Z}^{\e}_t\right|^2\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}|I_1^{\e}(t)|^2 \!\!+\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|N^{\e}_t\right|^2\!\!+\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right|^2ds\right]e^{C_{R,N,T}} .\label{bar Z}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we estimate $I_1^{\e}(t)$. Let $n_{t}:=\left[\frac{t}{\Delta}\right]$. Denote $$\begin{aligned}
I_1^{\e}(t)=J_1^{\e}(t)+J_2^{\e}(t)+J_3^{\e}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_1^{\e}(t):=\sum_{k=0}^{n_{t}-1}
\int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}e^{(t-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
J_2^{\e}(t):=\sum_{k=0}^{n_{t}-1}
\int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}e^{(t-s)A}\left[\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
J_3^{\e}(t):=
\int_{n_{t}\Delta}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{n_{t}\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left({X}_{s}^{\e,\delta, u^\e}\right)\right]ds.\end{aligned}$$
For $J_2^{\e}(t)$, noticing that $\hat \tau^{\e}_R\leq \tau^{\e}_R$, by Lemma \[COX\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J42}
\EE\left(\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}]} |J^{\e}_{2}(t)|^2\right)
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\EE\int_{0}^{T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}}\left|X_{s(\Delta)}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2ds\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\Delta^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
For $J_3^{\e}(t)$, by and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J43}
\EE\left(\sup_{ t\in [0, T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}]} | J^{\e}_3(t)|^2\right)\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\Delta\int_{n_{t}\Delta}^{t}\EE\left(1+\left|X_{n_{t}\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2+\left|\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right|^2+\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2\right)ds\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_T\left(1+ |x |^{2}+ |y|^{2}\right)\Delta^2.\end{aligned}$$
For $J_1^{\e}(t)$, by the construction of $\hat{Y}_{t}^{\e,\de}$, we obtain that, for any $k\in \mathbb{N}_{\ast}$ and $s\in[0,\Delta)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Y}_{s+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}+\frac{1}{\de}\int_{k\Delta}^{k\Delta+s}A\hat{Y}_{r}^{\e,\de}dr
+\frac{1}{\de}\int_{k\Delta}^{k\Delta+s}g\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{r}^{\e,\de}\right)dr\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! &&
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int_{k\Delta}^{k\Delta+s}\sigma_2\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{r}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_2^{1/2}dW_r \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}+\!\!\frac{1}{\de}\int_{0}^{s}A\hat{Y}_{r+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}dr
+\!\!\frac{1}{\de}\int_{0}^{s}g\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{r+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)dr\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! &&
+\!\!\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int_{0}^{s}\sigma_2\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{r+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)Q_2^{1/2}d\bar{W} _r, \label{E3.26}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{W}_t:=W_{t+k\Delta}-W_{k\Delta}$ is the shift version of $W_t$. Recall that $\tilde{W}_t$ is a standard cylindrical Wiener process independent of $\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)$. Denote by $\hat W_t=\de^{1/ 2}\tilde{W}_{\frac{t}{\de}}$. We construct a process $Y^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}_t$ by means of $Y^{x,y}_t \mid_{(x,y)=\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)}$, where $Y^{x,y}$ is the solution to Eq. . Specifically, that is $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{\frac{s}{\de}}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}
+\int_{0}^{\frac{s}{\de}}AY_{r}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}dr
+\int_{0}^{\frac{s}{\de}}g\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, Y_{r}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)dr\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+\int_{0}^{\frac{s}{\de}}\sigma_2\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, Y_{r}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)Q_2^{1/2}d\tilde{W} _r \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}
+\frac{1}{\de}\int_{0}^{s}AY_{\frac{r}{\de}}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}dr
+\frac{1}{\de}\int_{0}^{s}g\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},Y_{\frac{r}{\de}}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)dr\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\de}}\int_{0}^{s}\sigma_2\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, Y_{\frac{r}{\delta}}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)Q_2^{1/2}d\hat W_r. \label{E3.27}\end{aligned}$$ The uniqueness of the solution to Eq. and Eq. implies that the distribution of $\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_{s+k\Delta}\right)$ coincides with the distribution of $\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},
Y_{\frac{s}{\de}}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)$. Then we try to control $\left|J_1^{\e}(t)\right|$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\EE\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \left| J_1^{\e}(t) \right|^{2} \right] \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
\EE\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\Big |\sum_{k=0}^{n_{t}-1}e^{(t-(k+1)\Delta)A}
\int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}e^{((k+1)\Delta-s)A}
\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)
- \bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds\Big |^{2}
\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \EE\sup_{t\in [0,T]}
\left\{n_{t}\sum_{k=0}^{n_{t}-1}\Big |\int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}
e^{((k+1)\Delta-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds\Big |^{2}\right\}
\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
\left[\frac{T}{\Delta}\right]
\sum_{k=0}^{\left[\frac{T}{\Delta}\right]-1}
\mathbb{E} \Big |\int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}
e^{((k+1)\Delta-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds\Big|^{2}
\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
\frac{C_{T}}{\Delta^{2}}\max_{0\leq k\leq\left[\frac{T}{\Delta}\right]-1}\mathbb{E}
\Big | \int_{k\Delta}^{(k+1)\Delta}
e^{((k+1)\Delta-s)A}\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds \Big |^{2}. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Then by changing variable, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\EE\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \left| J_1^{\e}(t) \right|^{2} \right]\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
C_{T}\frac{\de^{2}}{\Delta^{2}}\max_{0\leq k\leq\left[\frac{T}{\Delta}\right]-1}
\mathbb{E}
\Big| \int_{0}^{\frac{\Delta}{\de}}
e^{(\Delta-s\de)A}
\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s\de+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]ds\Big|^{2} \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&2C_{T}\frac{\de^{2}}{\Delta^{2}}\max_{0\leq k\leq\left[\frac{T}{\Delta}\right]-1}\int_{0}^{\frac{\Delta}{\de}}
\int_{r}^{\frac{\Delta}{\de}}\Psi_{k}(s,r)dsdr, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi_{k}(s,r)\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{E}\left\langle e^{(\Delta-s\de)A}
\big[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{s\de+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\big], e^{(\Delta-r\de)A}
\big[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}_{r\de+k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\big]\right\rangle \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{E}\left\langle e^{\left(\Delta-s\de\right)A}
\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},Y_{s}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]\right.,\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}\left. e^{(\Delta-r\de)A}\left[f\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}, Y_{r}^{X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}}\right)-\bar{f}\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right)\right]\right\rangle. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now, let’s estimate $\Psi_{k}(s,r)$. Define $\tilde {\mathcal{F}}_s:=\sigma\{ Y_{u}^{x,y},u\leq s\}.$ Then for $s>r$, by the Markov property and Proposition \[ergodicity\], $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi_{k}(s,r)\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{E}\left\{\EE\left\langle e^{(\Delta-s\de)A}
\big[f\left(x,Y_{s}^{x,y}\right)-\bar{f}(x)\big], e^{(\Delta-r\de)A}\left[f\left(x, Y_{r}^{x,y}\right)-\bar{f}(x)\right]\right\rangle \mid_{(x,y)=\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_{s+k\Delta}\right)}\right\} \nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{E}\left\{\EE\Big[\left\langle e^{(\Delta-s\de)A}
\EE \big[f\left(x,Y_{s}^{x,y}\right)-\bar{f}(x)\mid \tilde {\mathcal{F}}_{r}\big], e^{(\Delta-r\de)A}\big[f\left(x, Y_{r}^{x,y}\right)-\bar{f}(x)\big]\right\rangle\Big]\mid_{(x,y)=\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\de},\hat{Y}^{\e,\de}_{s+k\Delta}\right)}\right\}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left\{\EE\left[\left|\EE f\left(x,Y_{s-r}^{x,z}\right)-\bar{f}(x)\right|1_{\{z=Y^{x,y}_r\}}\left(1+|x|+|Y_{r}^{x,y}|\right)\right]\mid_{(x,y)=\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)}\right\}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\mathbb{E}\left[\EE\left(1+|x|^2+\left|Y^{x,y}_{r}\right|^2\right)e^{-(s-r)\eta}\mid_{(x,y)=\left(X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}},\hat Y_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de}\right)}\right]\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\mathbb{E}\left(1+\left|X_{k\Delta}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}\right|^2+\left|\hat Y^{\e,\de}_{k\Delta}\right|^2\right)e^{-(s-r)\eta}\nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T\left(1+ |x|^2+ |y|^2\right)e^{-(s-r)\eta},\end{aligned}$$ where the last two inequalities are deduced by and . Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J412}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \left\| J_1^{\e}(t)\right \|^{2}\right]
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
C_{T}\frac{\de^{2}}{\Delta^{2}}\left(1 + |x|^2 + |y|^2\right)
\int_{0}^{\frac{\Delta}{\de}}\int_{r}^{\frac{\Delta}{\de}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}(s-r)\eta}dsdr \nonumber\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T}\frac{\de}{\Delta}\left(1+ |x|^2+ |y|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, combining , and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}]} \| I_1^{\e}(t) \|^{2}\right]
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{R,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\Big(\Delta^{1/2}+\frac{\de}{\Delta}\Big). \label{I1}\end{aligned}$$ According to the estimates (\[bar Z\]) and (\[I1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}\Big[\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}
\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|^{2}\Big]\\
\leq &
C_{R,N,T}\left(1+|x|^2+|y|^2\right)\left(\Delta^{1/2}+\frac{\de}{\Delta}\right)+C\mathbb{E}\int^{T\wedge\hat {\tau}^{\e}_{R}}_0\left|X_{s}^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}-\hat{X}_{s}^{\e,\de}\right|^2ds.\end{aligned}$$ Noticing that $\hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}\leq \tilde \tau^{\e}_{R}$, by and choosing $\Delta=\delta^{1/2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\e\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\Big[\sup_{ t\in [0, T\wedge \hat{\tau}^{\e}_{R}]}
\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|^2\Big]=0. \label{F3.45}\end{aligned}$$ For any $r>0$, by the definition of stopping time $\hat{\tau}^{\e}_R$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\PP\left(\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|\geq r\right)\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\PP\left(T>\hat{\tau}^{\e}_R\right)+\PP\left(\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|\geq r, T\leq \hat{\tau}^{\e}_R\right)\\
\leq\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\PP\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_t\right|^2+\int^T_0 \left\|X^{\e,\de,u^{\e}}_s\right\|^2ds+\int^T_0\left\|\hat X^{\e,\de}_s\right\|^2ds>R\right)\\
&&+\PP\left(\sup_{t\in [0, T\wedge\hat{\tau}^{\e}_R]}\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|\geq r\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemmas \[PE\] and \[AE\], we can choose an fixed $R$ large enough to make the first term on the right hand side of the above inequality small enough, and for fixed $R$ and , the second term can also be small enough by choosing small $\e$. Thus, we proved $\sup_{t\leq T}\left| \hat{X}_{t}^{\e,\de}-\bar{X}^u_{t}\right|\rightarrow 0$ in probability. The proof is complete.
Appendix
========
A weak convergence criteria for large deviation principle
---------------------------------------------------------
In this part, we will recall the general criteria for a large deviation principle given in [@Budhiraja-Dupuis]. Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability space with an increasing family $\{\FF_t\}_{0\le t\le T}$ of the sub-$\sigma$-fields of $\FF$ satisfying the usual conditions. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a Polish space with the Borel $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{E})$.
\[Dfn-Rate function\] ***(Rate function)*** A function $I: \mathcal{E}\rightarrow[0,\infty]$ is called a rate function on $\mathcal{E}$, if for each $M<\infty$, the level set $\{x\in\mathcal{E}:I(x)\leq M\}$ is a compact subset of $\mathcal{E}$.
***(Large deviation principle)*** Let $I$ be a rate function on $\mathcal{E}$. A family $\{X^\e \}$ of $\mathcal E$-valued random elements is said to satisfy the large deviation principle on $\mathcal{E}$ with rate function $I$, if the following two conditions hold.
- (Upper bound) For each closed subset $F$ of $\mathcal{E}$, $$\limsup_{\e \rightarrow 0}\e \log\mathbb{P}(X^\e \in F)\leq- \inf_{x\in F}I(x).$$
- (Lower bound) For each open subset $G$ of $\mathcal{E}$, $$\liminf_{\e \rightarrow 0}\e \log\mathbb{P}(X^\e \in G)\geq- \inf_{x\in G}I(x).$$
0.3cm
Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the class of $\{\FF_t\}$-predictable processes $u$ belonging to $\mathbb S$ a.s.. Let $\mathbb S_N=\{u\in L^2([0, T],\HH); \int_0^T|u(s)|^2ds\le N\}$. The set $\mathbb S_N$ endowed with the weak topology is a Polish space. Define $\mathcal{A}_N=\{\phi\in \mathcal{A};u(\omega)\in \mathbb S_N, \mathbb{P}\text{-a.s.}\}$.
Recall the following result from Budhiraja and Dupuis [@Budhiraja-Dupuis].
\[thm BD\] ([@Budhiraja-Dupuis]) Let $\{\Gamma^\e\}_{\e>0}$ be a family of measurable mappings from $C([0,T], \HH)$ into $\mathcal{E}$. Suppose that there exists a measurable map $\Gamma^0:C([0,T], \HH)\rightarrow \mathcal{E}$ such that
- for every $N<+\infty$ and any family $\{u^\e;\e>0\}\subset \mathcal{A}_N$ satisfying that $u^\e$ converges in distribution as $\mathbb S_N$-valued random elements to $u$ as $\e\rightarrow 0$, $\Gamma^\e\left(W(\cdot)+\frac{1}{\sqrt\e}\int_0^{\cdot}u^\e(s)ds\right)$ converges in distribution to $\Gamma^0(\int_0^{\cdot}u(s)ds)$ as $\e\rightarrow 0$;
- for every $N<+\infty$, the set $
\left\{\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^{\cdot}u(s)ds\right); u\in \mathbb S_N\right\}
$ is a compact subset of $\mathcal{E}$.
Then the family $\{\Gamma^\e(W)\}_{\e>0}$ satisfies a large deviation principle in $\mathcal E$ with the rate function $I$ given by $$\label{rate function}
I(g):=\inf_{\left\{u\in \mathbb S; g=\Gamma^0\left(\int_0^{\cdot}u(s)ds\right)\right\}}\left\{\frac12\int_0^T|u(s)|^2ds\right\},\ g\in\mathcal{E},$$ with the convention $\inf \emptyset=\infty$.
Some estimates about the Burgers equation
-----------------------------------------
We recall some properties of the semigroup $\{e^{tA}\}_{t\ge0}$ and the nonlinear operates $b$ and $B$, for example see [@B1], [@DX].
\[lem semigroup\] For the semigroup $\{e^{tA}\}_{t\ge0}$, we have:
1. for any $\theta\leq \gamma, x\in \HH_{\theta}$, $$\left\|e^{tA}x\right\|_\gamma\leq C t^{-\frac{\gamma-\theta}{2}}\|x\|_\theta;$$
2. for any $\sigma\in[0,1]$ there exists $C_{\sigma}>0$ such that for any $0<s<t$ and $x\in \HH$, $$\left|e^{tA}x-e^{sA}x \right|\le C_{\sigma}\frac{(t-s)^{\sigma}}{s^{\sigma}} |x|;$$
3. for any $\sigma\in[0,2]$ there exists $C_{\sigma}>0$ such that for any $0\leq s<t$ and $x\in \HH_{\sigma}$, $$\left|e^{tA}x-e^{sA}x \right|\le C_{\sigma}(t-s)^{\sigma/2} \|x\|_{\sigma}.$$
\[Property B0\] For any $x, y \in \VV$, $$b(x,x,y)=-b(x,y,x),\quad b(x,y,y)=0.$$
\[Property B1\] Suppose $\alpha_{i}\geq 0~(i=1,2,3)$ satisfies one of the following conditions:
1. $\alpha_{i}\neq\frac{1}{2}(i=1,2,3), \alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\geq \frac{1}{2}$;
2. $\alpha_{i}=\frac{1}{2}$ for some $i$, $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}>\frac{1}{2}$,
then $b$ is continuous from $\HH_{\alpha_{1}}\times \HH_{\alpha_{2}+1}\times \HH_{\alpha_{3}}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, i.e. $$\big|b(x,y,z)\big|\leq C\|x\|_{\alpha_{1}}\cdot\|y\|_{\alpha_{2}+1}\cdot\|z\|_{\alpha_{3}}.$$
The following inequalities can be derived by the above lemma.
\[Property B3\] For any $x\in \VV$, we have:
1. $ |B(x)|\leq C\|x\|^{2}$;
2. $\|B(x)\|_{-1}\leq C|x|\cdot\|x\|.$
\[Property B2\] For any $x,y\in \VV$, we have:
1. $ |B(x)-B(y)|\leq C\|x-y\|(\|x\|+\|y\|)$;
2. $\|B(x)-B(y)\|_{-1}\leq C|x-y|\left(\|x\|+\|y\|\right)$;
3. $\langle B(x)-B(y), x-y\rangle\leq C|x-y|\cdot\|x-y\|\cdot\|x\|.$
**Acknowledgment**. This work was conducted during the first, second and fourth authors visited the Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Macau, and they thank for the finance support/hospitality. Xiaobin Sun is supported by the NNSFC(11601196, 11771187), Natural Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province (16KJB110006) and the Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. Ran Wang is supported by NNSFC (11431014, 11871382). Lihu Xu is supported by the following grants: NNSFC(11571390), Macau S.A.R. FDCT 030/2016/A1 and FDCT 038/2017/A1, University of Macau MYRG (2015-00021-FST, 2016-00025-FST). Xue Yang is supported by NNSFC (11401427).
[2]{}
Bogoliubov N.N., Mitropolsky Y.A., Asymptotic methods in the theory of non-linear oscillations. [*Gordon and Breach Science Publishers*]{}, New York (1961).
Bréhier C.E., Strong and weak orders in averaging for SPDEs. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{}, 122 (2012) 2553-2593.
Budhiraja A., Dupuis P., A variational representation for positive functionals of infinite dimensional Brownian motion. [*Probab. Math. Statist.*]{}, 20 (2000) 39-61.
Cerrai S., A Khasminskii type averaging principle for stochastic reaction-diffusion equations. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{}, 19(3) (2009) 899-948.
Cerrai S., Freidlin M., Averaging principle for stochastic reaction-diffusion equations. [*Probab.Theory Related Fields*]{}, 144(1-2) (2009) 137-177.
Cerrai S., Lunardi A., Averaging principle for nonautonomous slow-fast systems of stochastic reaction-diffusion equations: the almost periodic case. [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.*]{}, 49(4) (2017) 2843-2884.
Da Prato G., Zabczykj J., *Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions*. Second edition. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 152. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014.
Dong Z., Sun X., Xiao H., Zhai J., Averaging principle for one dimensional stochastic Burgers equation. [*J. Differential Equations*]{}, 265 (10) (2018) 4749–4797.
Dong Z., Xu T., One-dimensional stochastic Burgers equation driven by Lévy processes. [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{}, 243(2) (2007), 631-678.
Dupuis P., Ellis R., *A Weak Convergence Approach to the Theory of Large Deviations*. Wiley, New York (1997)
Dupuis P., Spiliopoulos K., Large deviations for multiscale diffusion via weak convergence methods. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{}, 122 (4) (2012) 1947-1987.
Feng J., Fouque J.P., Kumar R., Small-time asymptotics for fast mean-reverting stochastic volatility models, [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{}, 22 (4) (2012) 1541-1575.
Flandoli F., Gatarek D., Martingale and stationary solution for stochastic Navier-Stokes equations, [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{}, 102 (1995), 367-391.
Freidlin M. I., Wentzell A.D., *Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems*, in: Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 260, 1998.
Freidlin M.I., Wentzell, A.D., Some recent results on averaging principle. Topics in stochastic analysis and nonparametric estimation, 1-19, *IMA Vol. Math. Appl.*, 145, Springer, New York, 2008.
Fu, H., Wan, L., Liu, J., Strong convergence in averaging principle for stochastic hyperbolic-parabolic equations with two time-scales. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{} 125 (8) (2015) 3255-3279.
Ge H., Qian H., Xie X.S., Stochastic phenotype transition of a single cell in an intermediate region of gene state switching. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, 114 (2015) 078101.
Hu W., Salins M., Spiliopoulos K., Large deviations and averaging for systems of slow-fast stochastic reaction-diffusion equations, arXiv:1710.02618, 2017.
Li S., Sun X., Xie Y., Zhao Y., *Averaging principle for two dimensional stochatsic Navier-Stokes equations*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02282.
Li T.J., Lin F., Large deviations for two-scale chemical kinetic processes. [*Commun. Math. Sci.*]{}, 15(1) (2017) 123-163.
Liu D., Strong convergence of principle of averaging for multiscale stochastic dynamical systems. [*Commun. Math. Sci.*]{}, 8 (4) (2010) 999-1020.
Liu W., Sun X., Xie Y.,*Averaging principle for a class of stochatsic differential euqations*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01424v2.
Lions J. L., *Quelques Methodes de Resolution des Problemes aux Limites non Lineaires*, Dunod, Paris, 1969.
Liptser R., Large deviations for two scaled diffusions. [*Probab.Theory Related Fields*]{}, 106 (1996) 71-104.
Kiefer Y., *Averaging and climate models*. In Stochastic Climate Models. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2000
Khasminskii R.Z., On an averaging principle for Itô stochastic differential equations. [*Kibernetica*]{}, (4) (1968) 260-279.
Kumar R., Popovic L., Large deviations for multi-scale jump-diffusion processes. [*Stoch. Process. Appl.*]{}, 127 (2017), 1297-1320.
Kushner H. J., Large deviations for two-time-scale diffusions, with delays. [*Appl. Math. Optim.*]{}, 62(3) (2010), 295-322. Puhalskii A. A., On large deviations of coupled diffusions with time scale separation. [*Ann. Probab.*]{}, 44(4) (2016) 3111-3186.
Spiliopoulos K., Large deviations and importance sampling for systems of slow-fast motion. [*Appl. Math. Optim.*]{}, 67 (2013), 123-161
Temam R., *Navier-Stokes Equations Theory and Numerical Analysis*, North-Holland Pub. Company, Second revised edition, 1979.
Temam R., *Navier-Stokes Equations and Nonlinear Functional Analysis.* SIAM, Philadelphia, 1983
Veretennikov A.Yu., On large deviations for SDEs with small diffusion and averaging. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{}, 89 (1) (2000) 69-79. Wang W., Roberts A., Average and deviation for slow-fast stochastic partial differential equations. [*J. Differential Equations*]{}, 253 (5) (2012) 1265-1286. Wang W., Roberts A.J., Duan J., Large deviations and approximations for slow-fast stochastic reaction-diffusion equations. [*J. Differential Equations*]{}, 253 (12) (2012) 3501-3522.
0.5cm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $f $ be a holomorphic Hecke eigenforms or a Hecke-Maass cusp form for the full modular group $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$. In this paper we shall use circle method to prove the Weyl exponent for $\rm GL(2)$ $L$-functions. We shall prove that
$$L \left( \frac{1}{2} + it \right) \ll_{f, \epsilon} \left( 1 + |t|\right)^{1/3 + \epsilon},$$ for any $\epsilon > 0.$
address:
- 'Dept. of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, 100 Math Tower, 231 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA'
- ' Stat-Math Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203 BT Road, Kolkata-700108, INDIA.'
author:
- Keshav Aggarwal and Saurabh Kumar Singh
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Subconvexity bound for $\rm GL(2)$ L-functions: $t$–aspect'
---
Introduction
==============
Estimating the central values of $L$-functions is one of the most important problems in modern number theory. In this paper we shall deal with the $t$-aspect of subconvexity bound for $\rm GL(2)$ $L$-functions. Let $f $ be a holomorphic Hecke eigenform, or a Maass cusp form for the full modular group $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ with normalised Fourier coefficients $\lambda_f(n)$. The $L$-series associated to $f$ is given by $$L(s, f)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{n^s} \ = \prod_p \left( 1 -\lambda_f(p) p^{-s} + p^{-2s} \right)^{-1} \ \ \ ({{\mathfrak{Re}}}s>1).$$ It is well known that the series $ L(s, f)$ extends to an entire function and satisfies a functional equation relating $L(s, f)$ to $L(1-s, f)$. The convexity problem in $t$-aspects deals with the size of $L(s, f)$ on the central line ${{\mathfrak{Re}}}s = 1/2$. The functional equation together with the Phragm[' e]{}n–-Lindel[ö]{}f principle and an asymptotic formula for the gamma functions gives us the convexity bound, or the trivial bound, $L(1/2+ it, f)\ll t^{1/2+ \epsilon}$. The subconvexity bound problem is to obtain a bound of the form $L(1/2+ it, f) \ll t^{1/2 -\delta}$ for some $\delta>0$. In this paper we shall prove the following theorem:
\[main thm\] Let $f $ be either a holomorphic Hecke eigenform or a Maass cusp form for the full modular group $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$. On ${{\mathfrak{Re}}}s= 1/2$, we have the bound $$L\left( \frac{1}{2} + it, f \right) \ll (|t|+2)^{ 1/3 +\epsilon} ,$$ for any $\epsilon >0$.
This bound was first established by Anton Good [@GOOD] for holomorphic forms, and later extended by M. Jutila [@MJ1] in the case of Maass forms. In this paper, we shall prove this bound by yet another way. We briefly recall the history of the $t$-aspect subconvexity bound for $L$-functions. The convexity bound for the Riemann zeta function is given by $$\label{conv for zeta}
\zeta \left(1/2 + it \right) \ll t^{1/4 + \epsilon}, \quad \text{ for } \epsilon> 0.$$ Lindel[" o]{}f hypothesis asserts that the exponent $1/4 + \epsilon$ can be replace by $\epsilon$. Subconvexity bound for $\zeta(s)$ was first proved by Hardy and Littlewood, and by Weyl independently. Establishing a bound for certain exponential sums, Weyl (see [@HW] and also [@ECT page 99, Theorem 5.5]) proved that $$\label{weyl}
\zeta(1/2 + it) \ll t^{1/6} \log^{3/2}t.$$ It was first written down by Landau in a slightly refined form, and has been generalized to all Dirichlet $L$-functions. Since then it has been improved by several authors. The best known result for the exponent is $ 13/ 84 \approx 0.15476 $ due to J. Bourgain [@BJ]. Let $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character of conductor $q$. Using cancellations in character sums over short intervals, Burgess [@DB] proved that for square-free $q$, $L\left(1/2, \chi \right) \ll_\epsilon q^{3/16 + \epsilon}$. Heath-Brown [@HB] proved a hybrid bound (uniformly in both the parameters, $q$ and $t$) of the same strength.
Saving the $\log$-factors, the bound in Theorem \[main thm\] is of the same strength as the bound in the $\rm GL(2)$ setting. Therefore it is also known as the Weyl bound. For holomorphic forms, this was first proved by Good [@GOOD] using the spectral theory of automorphic functions. Jutila [@MJ] gave an alternate proof based only on the functional properties of $L(f, s)$ and $L(f\otimes \psi, s)$, where $\psi$ is an additive character. The arguments used in his proof were flexible enough to be adopted for the the Maass cusp forms, as shown by Meruman [@MERU1], who proved the result for Maass cusp forms. Good’s mean value estimate itself was extended by Jutila [@MJ1] to prove the Weyl bound for Maass cusp forms in yet another way.
However, very little is known about the $t$-aspect subconvexity bound for $L$-functions of higher rank groups. Subconvexity bounds for the symmetric square lifts of $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ forms or a self-dual Maass form for $\rm SL(3, \mathbb{Z})$ is known due to the fundamental work of X. Li [@XL]. Assuming $f$ to be a self-dual Hecke-Maass cusp form for $\rm SL(3, \mathbb{Z})$, she proved (see [@XL page 3, Corollary 1.2]) $$\label{x li}
L \left(1/2 + it, f \right) \ll_{\epsilon, f} \left( 1 + |t|\right)^{\frac{3}{4} - \frac{1}{16} + \epsilon},$$ for any $\epsilon > 0$. Later, using a different approach based on a conductor lowering mechanism (see equation ), Munshi [@RM] obtained the same exponent for general Hecke-Maass cusp forms for $\rm SL(3, \mathbb{Z})$. The aim of this paper is to adopt the method of [@RM] in the context of $\rm GL(2)$ $L$-functions. We aim to obtain the Weyl exponent, which has previously obtained in the same context by A. Good [@GOOD] and M. Jutila [@MJ] via the more traditional route. However, we note that the method of [@RM] does not easily extend to our context, and one needs to use a more refined stationary phase analysis (Lemma \[exponential inte\]), and establish more refined bounds for some exponential integrals (subsection \[refine\]). Without these refinements, one obtains the bound $t^{3/8+ \epsilon}$ in place of $t^{1/3+ \epsilon}$.
To prove our theorem, we first use the following general result for an approximate functional equation of $L(f, s)$ (see [@IK1 page 98 Theorem 5.3]).
Let $G(u)$ be any function which is holomorhpic and bounded in the strip $-4 < {{\mathfrak{Re}}}u< 4 $, even, and normalised by $G(0)=1$. Then for $s$ in the strip $ 0\leq {{\mathfrak{Re}}}s \leq 1$, we have
$$L(f, s)= \sum_n \frac{\lambda (n)}{n^s} V_s \left( \frac{n}{X} \right) + \varepsilon(s, f) \sum_n \frac{\overline{\lambda } (n)}{n^{1-s} } V_{1-s} (nX),$$
where $V_s(y)$ is a smooth function defined by $$V_s(y) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{(3)} y^{-u} G(u) \frac{\gamma(f, s+u)}{\gamma(f, s)} \frac{du}{u},$$ $\varepsilon(f)$ is the root number and $$\varepsilon(f, s)= \varepsilon(f) \frac{\gamma(f, 1-s)}{\gamma(f, s)}.$$
Using this approximate functional equation at ${{\mathfrak{Re}}}s = 1/2$ and properties of $V_s(y)$ (see [@IK1 Proposition 5.4]), we have $$\label{subconvexity SN}
L\left(1/2 + it, f \right) \ll t^\epsilon \sup_{N\leq t^{1+\epsilon}} \frac{|S(N)|}{N^{1/2}} + O_A \left( t^{-A} \right).$$ Here $S(N)$ is a dyadic sum given by $$S(N) := \sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f (n) n^{-it} V\left( \frac{n}{N} \right),$$ where $V(x)$ is a smooth bump function supported on the interval $[1,2]$ and satisfies $x^j V^{(j)} (x) \ll_j 1.$ We normalize $V(x)$ so that $\int_{\mathbb{R}} V(y) dy = 1$. We shall use the conductor lowering mechanism introduced by Munshi [@RM] to estimate the sum $S(N)$. To that end, we introduce an extra integral with a parameter $K$, with $ t^\epsilon \ll K \ll t^{1 - \epsilon}$ to be chosen later and arrive at $$\label{SN}
S(N) = \frac{1}{K} \int_\mathbb{R} V\left( \frac{u}{K} \right) \mathop{\sum \sum }^\infty_{ \substack{ m, n =1 \\ m=n}} \lambda_f(n) \left( \frac{n}{m} \right)^{i v} m^{-it} V\left( \frac{n}{N} \right) U\left( \frac{m}{N} \right) du.$$ Here $U$ is a smooth bump function supported in the interval $ [3/4, 9/4]$, with $U(x) \equiv 1 $ for $x\in [1,2]$ and satisfies $ x^j U^{(j)} (x) \ll_j 1.$ We now use Kloosterman’s version of the circle method (equation ) to detect equation $n-m=0$. For $n\in \mathbb{Z}$, let $$\label{deltan}
\delta(n)= \begin{cases}
1 \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{if } \ \ \ \ \ n=0,\\
0 \ \ \ \ \textrm{otherwise} .
\end{cases}$$ For a real number $Q>0$, we have (see [@IK1 page 470, Proposition 20.7]) $$\label{circlemethod}
\delta(n)= 2 {{\mathfrak{Re}}}\int_0^1 \mathop{\sum \sideset{}{^\star}\sum}_{1\leq q\leq Q < q \leq q+Q} \frac{1}{aq} e\left( \frac{n \overline{a}}{q}- \frac{n x}{ aq}\right).$$ We choose $Q=(N/K)^{1/2}$. Substituting the expression for $\delta(n)$ from into , we obtain $$S(N)= S^+(N) + S^-(N),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{splus}
S^{ \pm} (N) &= \frac{1}{K} \int_0^1 \int_\mathbb{R} V\left( \frac{u}{K} \right)
\mathop{\sum \sideset{}{^\star}\sum}_{1\leq q\leq Q < q \leq q+Q} \frac{1}{aq} \mathop{\sum \sum }^\infty_{ \substack{ m, n =1}} \lambda_f(n) n^{iv} m^{-i(t+v)} \notag\\
& \hspace{1cm} \times e\left( \pm \frac{(n-m) \overline{a}}{q} \mp \frac{(n-m) x}{ aq}\right) V\left( \frac{n}{N} \right) U\left( \frac{m}{N} \right)dv \ dx. \end{aligned}$$ In the rest of the paper we shall estimate the sum $S^{+}(N)$ since estimates on the sum $S^{-}(N)$ are similar. We shall establish the following bound to prove Theorem \[main thm\].
\[main prop\] Let $S^{ \pm} (N)$ be given by equation . We have $$\begin{aligned}
S^{ \pm} (N) \ll \begin{cases}
N^{1+\epsilon} \ \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ \ \ N \ll t^{2/3+\epsilon} \\
N^{1/2}t^{1/2+\epsilon} \left(\frac{N^{1/2}}{K} + \frac{1}{N^{1/8}K^{1/8}} + \frac{K^{1/2}}{t^{1/2}}\right) \ \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ \ \ t^{2/3+\epsilon}\ll N \ll t^{1+\epsilon}, \quad N^{3/5}< K < N^{1-\epsilon}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the above bound into equation and choosing $K= t^{2/3}$, we obtain $$L\left(1/2 + it, f \right) \ll t^\epsilon \sup_{N\leq t^{1+\epsilon}} \frac{|S(N)|}{N^{1/2}} + t^{-A} \ll t^{\frac{1}{3} + \epsilon}.$$
We observe that the trivial estimate is $ S^{ \pm} (N)\ll N^{2+\epsilon}$. To obtain the subconvexity bound as stated in the Theorem \[main thm\], we are require to save $N^{ 7/6}$ from the sum $ S^{ \pm} (N)$. We shall briefly explain the method of the proof in the following steps. For simplicity, we assume that $t \asymp N$ and $q\asymp Q$ (where $\alpha\asymp A$ means there exist constants $0<c_1<c_2$ such that $c_1 A< |\alpha|< c_2A$).
[**Step 1- Poisson summation formula:**]{} We start by applying Poisson summation formula to the $m$-sum. The initial length of the $m$-sum is of size $N$. The [‘analytic conductor’]{} for $m^{i(t+v)}$ has size $t$ and the [‘arithmetic conductor’]{} has size $q$. Therefore roughly, the conductor for the $m$-sum has size $tQ$. After the application of Poisson summation formula, we observe that up to an arbitrarily small error, the dual sum is of length $\ll tq/N$. The dual side also yields a congruence condition which determines $a\bmod q$ uniquely. The total saving after the first step is $$\sqrt{\frac{N}{Qt/N}} \times Q^{1/2} = \frac{N}{\sqrt{t}}.$$ We have used the stationary phase method for the resulting exponential integral to get this saving. After the first step, we have a sum of the form $$\int_\mathbb{R} V(v) \sum_{q \asymp Q} \sum_{\substack{ m \asymp Qt/N \\ (m,q)=1}} \left( \frac{(t+v) aq}{ 2\pi e N( x-ma)}\right)^{-i(t+v)} \sum_{n\asymp N} \lambda_f(n) n^{iv}e\left( \frac{nm}{q} \right) e\left( -\frac{nx}{aq} \right)\ dv.$$
[**Step 2- Voronoi summation formula:**]{} Next, we apply the Voronoi summation formula to the $n$-sum. The [‘analytic conductor’]{} for $n^{iv}$ is of size $K$ and the [‘arithmetic conductor’]{} for $e(nm/ q)$ is of the size $Q$, which gives us a total conductor of size $KQ$. The dual sum has size $(QK)^2/ N$. So the saving in second step is $N/QK=\sqrt{N/K}$. To get this saving, we use the second derivative bound for certain exponential integrals (see subsection \[stat phase ana\]). A trivial estimate after the second step give us $S^+(N) \ll \sqrt{NKt}$.
[**Step 3- Integration over $v$:**]{} We first simplify some integral transforms (see Section \[statinary phase analysis\]) by the stationary phase analysis. Trivially, the integration over $v$ has size $K$. Stationary phase analysis on the integration over $v$ gives a saving of size $\sqrt{K}$. We are left with a sum of the form $$\sum_{ n \asymp K} \lambda_f(n) \mathop{ \sum \sum }_{\substack { q\asymp Q, (m, q)=1 \\ |m| \asymp qt/N}} e\left(- \frac{mn}{q} \right) \int_{-K}^K n^{ - i \tau} \mathcal{J} ( q, m, \tau) d \tau,$$ where $ \mathcal{J}(q, m, \tau)$ is a highly oscillatory function of size $O(1)$. Trivial estimate gives $S^+(N)\ll \sqrt{Nt} \asymp t$ (as $N\asymp t$) which would give the convexity bound. To obtain an additional saving, we apply the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and Poisson summation formula to the $n$-sum. This is where the introduction of $K$ helps us beat the convexity bound.
[**Step 4-Cauchy inequality and Poisson summation:**]{} We first apply the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to the $n$-sum to get rid of the Fourier coefficients $\lambda_f(n)$. We the open the absolute value squared and interchange the order of summation. We then apply the Poisson summation formula to the $n$-sum. This saves $\sqrt{K}$ from the diagonal term and $t/K$ from the off-diagonal term. The total saving is $\min \{\sqrt{K}, t/K\}$. By setting $\sqrt{K}=t/K$, the optimal choice for $K$ turns out to be $K= t^{2/3}$. Since the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality squares the amount we need to save, we observe that the saving in this step is of the size $ K^{1/4} \asymp t^{1/6}$. Hence we obtain $$S^+(N)\ll t^{\epsilon} \frac{\sqrt{Nt}}{t^{1/6}} \ll \sqrt{N} t^{1/3 + \epsilon}.$$
Preliminaries
=============
In this section we recall some basic facts about $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ automorphic forms (for details, see [@HI] and [@IK1]). Our requirement is minimal, in fact Voronoi summation formula and Rankin-Selberg bound (see Lemma \[rankin Selberg bound\]) is all that we use.
Holomorphic cusp forms
----------------------
Let $f $ be a holomorphic Hecke eigenform of weight $k$ for the full modular group $\rm SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$. The Fourier expansion of $f$ at $\infty$ is $$f(z)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f(n) n^{(k-1)/2} e(nz),$$ where $ e(z) = e^{2\pi i z}$ and $\lambda_f(n)$ are the normalized Fourier coefficients. Deligne proved that $|\lambda_f(n)| \leq d(n)$, where $d(n)$ is the divisor function. The $L$-function associated with a form $f$ is given by $$L(s, f)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{n^s} \ = \prod_{p \text{ prime }} \left( 1 -\lambda_f(p) p^{-s} + p^{-2s} \right)^{-1} \ \ \ ({{\mathfrak{Re}}}s>1).$$ Hecke proved that $L(s, f)$ admits an analytic continuation to the whole complex plane, given by $$\Lambda(s, f) : = ( 2 \pi)^{-s} \Gamma \bigg( s + \frac{k-1}{2}\bigg) L( f, s ) = \pi^{-s} \Gamma\left( \frac{s + (k+1)/2}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{ s + (k-1)/2}{2}\right)L( f, s ),$$ and satisfies the functional equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(s, f) = \varepsilon(f) \ \Lambda(1- s, \overline{f}),\end{aligned}$$ $ \varepsilon(f)$ is a root number and $\overline{f} $ is the dual cusp form. We now state the Voronoi summation formula for holomorphic cusp forms (see [@MERU]).
\[voronoi\] Let $\lambda_f(n)$ be as above. Let $g$ be a smooth function with compact support on the positive real numbers. Mellin transform of $ g$ is defined by $ \tilde{g} (s)= \int_o^\infty g(x) x^{s-1} dx.$ Let $a, q \in \mathbb{Z}$ with $(a, q)= 1$. We have $$\sum_{n\geq 1} \lambda_f(n) e\left( \frac{a n}{q}\right) g(n) = q \sum_{n\geq 1} \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{n} e\left( -\frac{\overline{a} n}{q}\right) G \left( \frac{ n}{q^2}\right),$$ where $a \overline{a} \equiv 1 \bmod q$ and for $\sigma > -1 -(k+1)/2$, $ G(x)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
G(x) = i^{k-1} \frac{1}{2 \pi^2} \int_{(\sigma)} (\pi^2 x)^{-s} \gamma(s, k) \tilde{g} (-s) \ \ ds, \end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma (s, k)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma s k}
\gamma(s, k) = \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{1+ s + (k+1)/2}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{1+ s + (k-1)/2}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{- s + (k+1)/2}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{-s + (k+1)/2}{2}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
See [@MILLER Equations 1.12 and 1.15]. At first glance, the function $\gamma(s, k)$ above seems to be different from what is given in [@MILLER]. We apply the identity $\Gamma(s) \Gamma(1-s)= \pi \csc ( \pi s)$ to arrive at the formula as written above.
Maass cusp forms
----------------
Let $f$ be a weight zero Hecke-Maass cusp form with Laplace eigenvalue $1/4 + \nu^2$. The Fourier series expansion of $f$ at $\infty$ is given by $$f(z)= \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} \lambda_f(n) K_{ i \nu} (2 \pi |n|y) e(nx),$$ where $ K_{ i \nu}(y)$ is a Bessel function of second kind. Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture predicts that $|\lambda_f(n)|\ll n^\epsilon$. Kim and Sarnak [@KS] proved $|\lambda_f(n)|\ll n^{7/64+\epsilon}$. $L$-function associated to the form $f$ is similarly defined by $ L(s, f) := \sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f(n) n^{-s}$ ( ${{\mathfrak{Re}}}\ s>1$). It also extends to an entire function and satisfies the functional equation $ \Lambda(s, f) = \epsilon(f ) \Lambda(1- s, f)$, where $ |\epsilon(f )| = 1$. The completed $L$-function $\Lambda(s, f)$ is given by $$\Lambda(f, s) = \pi^{-s} \Gamma \left( \frac{s + i \nu }{ 2} \right) \Gamma \left( \frac{s - i \nu }{ 2} \right) L(f, s) .$$ We need the following Voronoi summation formula for the Maass forms. This was first established by Meurman [@MERU] for full level.
\[voronoi Maass\] [**Voronoi summation formula**]{}: Let $\lambda_f(n)$ be as above. Let $h$ be a compactly supported smooth function in the interval $(0, \infty)$. Let $ a, q \in \mathbb{Z}$ be such that $(a, q) = 1$. We have $$\label{varequation}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f (n) e_q(an) h(n) = q \sum_{\pm} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f(\mp n) e_q(\pm \overline{a}n) H^{\pm} \left( \frac{n}{q^2}\right),$$ where $ a \overline{a} \equiv 1 \bmod q$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&H^{\pm} (y)= \frac{- i}{4 \pi^2} \int_{(\sigma)} (\pi^2 x)^{-s} C^{+}(-s) \pm C^{-}(-s) \tilde{g} (-s) \ \ ds,\end{aligned}$$ with $$C^{+} (s) = \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{1- s + i \nu}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{1- s - i \nu}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{ s + i \nu}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{s -i \nu}{2}\right)} , \ \ C^{-} (s) = \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{2- s + i \nu}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{2- s - i \nu}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{ 1+s + i \nu}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{ 1+ s -i \nu}{2}\right)} .$$
See [@KMV Page 44 equation (A.14)]. We have substituted the change of variable $1-s/2 = -u$ to arrive at the formula in above form.
Some Useful Lemmas
==================
In this section, we state some results that we will use. We start by recalling the following version of Stirling’s formula.
\[stirling\] Let $)< \delta < \pi $ be a fixed positive number. Then in the sector $|\arg s| < \pi -\delta$, $|s|\geq 1$, we have $$\Gamma(s) = \sqrt{2 \pi} \exp \{ (s-1/2) \log s - s\} \left( 1+ O (|s|^{-1}) \right).$$ Also in any vertical strip $A_1 \leq \sigma \leq A_2 $, $|t| \geq 1$, $s = \sigma + it$ we have $$\Gamma(s) = \sqrt{2 \pi} t^{s-1/2}\exp \{- \frac{1}{2} \pi t - it + \frac{1}{2} \pi ( \sigma -1/2)i \} \left( 1+ O (|t|^{-1}) \right),$$ and $$|\Gamma(s)| = \sqrt{2\pi} t^{\sigma-1/2} e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} |t|} \left( 1+ O\left( |t|^{-1}\right)\right).$$
We now recall the Rankin-Selberg bound for Fourier coefficients of Hecke-Maass cusp forms in the following lemma.
\[rankin Selberg bound\] Let $\lambda_f(n)$ be Fourier coefficients of a holomorphic or Hecke-Maass cusp form. For any real number $x\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1\leq n \leq x} \left| \lambda_f(n) \right|^2 \ll_{f, \epsilon} x^{1+\epsilon}. \end{aligned}$$
We also require to estimate the exponential integral of the form: $$\label{eintegral}
\mathfrak{I}= \int_a^b g(x) e(f(x)) dx,$$ where $f$ and $g$ are real valued smooth functions on the interval $[a, b]$. Suppose on the interval $[a, b]$ we have $|f^\prime(x)| \geq B$, $|f^{(j)}(x)| \leq B^{1+\epsilon}$ for $j\geq 2$ and $ |g^{(j)}(x)|\ll_j 1 $. Then by a change of variables $$f(x) = u, \ \ \ f^\prime(x) \ dx = du,$$ we obtain $$\mathfrak{I} = \int_{f(a)}^{f(b)} \frac{g(x)}{ f^\prime(x) } e(u)\ du.$$ Applying integration by parts, differentiating $ g(x)/ f^\prime(x) $ $j$-times and integrating $e(u)$, we have $$\label{unstationary}
\mathfrak{I} \ll_{j, \epsilon} B^{-j + \epsilon}.$$ We use this bound at several place to show that in absence of stationary phase point certain integrals are negligibly small. Next we consider the case when stationary phase exists i.e., when $f^\prime(x)= 0$ for some $x$ in the interval $(a, b)$.
\[exponential inte\] Let $f$ and $g$ be smooth real valued functions on the interval $[a, b]$ that satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{huxely bound}
f^{(i)} \ll \frac{\Theta_f}{ \Omega_f^i}, \ \ g^{(j)} \ll \frac{1}{\Omega_g^j} \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ f^{(2)} \gg \frac{\Theta_f}{ \Omega_f^2},\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1, 2$ and $j=0, 1, 2$. Suppose that $g(a) = g(b) = 0$.
1. Suppose $f^\prime$ and $f^{\prime \prime}$ do not vanish on the interval $[a, b]$. Let $\Lambda = \min_{ x\in [a, b]} |f^\prime (x)| $. Then we have $$\mathfrak{I} \ll \frac{\Theta_f}{ \Omega_f^2 \Lambda^3} \left( 1 +\frac{\Omega_f}{\Omega_g} +\frac{\Omega_f^2}{\Omega_g^2} \frac{\Lambda}{\Theta_f/ \Omega_f} \right).$$
2. Suppose $x_0\in[a,b]$ is the unique point where $f^\prime(x_0)=0$. Moreover, let $f'$ change sign from negative to positive at $x = x_0$. Let $\kappa= \min \{ b-x_0, x_0-a \}$. Further suppose that bound in equation holds for $i=4$. Then we have the following asymptotic expansion of $\mathfrak{I} $ $$\mathfrak{I} = \frac{g(x_0) e( f(x_0) + 1/8)}{\sqrt{f^{\prime \prime } (x_0)}} + \left( \frac{\Omega_f^4}{ \Theta_f^2 \kappa^3} + \frac{\Omega_f}{ \Theta_f^{3/2} } + \frac{\Omega_f^3}{ \Theta_f^{3/2} \Omega_g^2 }\right).$$
3. Let $x_0$ be as above and $f, g$ be smooth functions with bounds on derivatives as above. We will also need the expansion of $\mathfrak{I}$ up to the the second main term, $$\begin{split}
\mathfrak{I} = &\frac{e(f(x_0) + 1/8)}{\sqrt{f''(x_0)}}\bigg(g(x_0) + \frac{ig''(x_0)}{4\pi f''(x_0)} - \frac{i(g(x_0)f^{(4)}(x_0) + g'(x_0)f^{(3)}(x_0))}{16\pi f''(x_0)^2} + \frac{5i g(x_0)f^{(3)}(x_0)^2}{48\pi f''(x_0)^3} \bigg)
\\& + O\left(\frac{\Omega_f^5}{\Omega_g^4\Theta_f^{5/2}} +\frac{\Omega_f}{\Theta_f^{5/2}} \sum_{j=0}^3 \frac{\Omega_f^j}{\Omega_g^j} + \frac{\Omega_f^7}{\Theta_f^{7/2}\Omega_g^6} + \frac{\Omega_f}{\Theta_f^{7/2}}\sum_{j=0}^5\frac{\Omega_f^j}{\Omega_g^j}\right).
\end{split}$$
For $(1)$ and $(2)$, see Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 of [@HUX]. For $(3)$, we use Proposition 8.2 of [@bky] and expand the expression up to $n=4$. The $n=0, 1, 2, 3$ terms contribute to the main term and the terms $n=3, 4, 5$ give the error term.
We shall also require the following estimates on oscillatory integrals in two variables. Let $f(x, y)$ and $g(x, y)$ be two real valued smooth functions on the rectangle $[a, b] \times [c,d]$. Consider the following exponential integral in two variables, $$\mathfrak{I}_{(2)} := \int_a^b \int_c^d g(x, y) e(f(x, y)) dx \ dy.$$ Suppose there exist two positive parameters $r_1$ and $r_2$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conditionf}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 x}\gg r_1^2, \hspace{1cm} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 y}\gg r_2^2,\hspace{1cm} \frac{\partial^2 f(x, y)}{\partial^2 x} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 y} - \left[\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x \partial y} \right] \gg r_1 r_2, \end{aligned}$$ for all $x, y \in [a, b] \times [c,d]$. Then we have (See [@BR2 Lemma 4]) $$\int_a^b \int_c^d e(f(x, y)) dx dy \ll \frac{1}{r_1 r_2}.$$ Further suppose that $ \textrm{Supp}(g) \subset (a,b) \times (c,d)$. The total variation of $g$ equals $$\label{total variation}
\textrm{var}(g) := \int_a^b \int_c^d \left| \frac{\partial^2 g(x, y)}{\partial x \partial y} \right|\ dx\ dy.$$ We have the following result (see [@BR3 Lemma 5]).
\[double expo sum\] Let $f$ and $g$ be as above and let $f$ satisfy the conditions given in . Then $$\int_a^b \int_c^d g(x, y) e(f(x, y)) dx dy \ll \frac{\textrm{var}(g)}{r_1 r_2},$$ with an absolute implied constant.
A Fourier-Mellin transform
--------------------------
Let $U$ be a smooth real valued function supported on the interval $[a, b] \subset (0, \infty)$ and satisfying $U^{(j)}\ll_{a, b, j} 1$. Let $r\in \mathbb{R}$ and $s= \sigma + i \beta \in \mathbb{C}$. We consider the following integral transform $$\label{FM}
U^\natural (r, s) = \int_0^{\infty} U(x) e(-rx) x^{s-1} dx.$$ We are interested in the behaviour of this integral in terms of parameters $\beta$ and $r$ (assuming that $a, b$ and $\sigma$ are fixed). The integral $U^\natural (r, s) $ is of the form given in equation with $$g(x) = U(x) x^{\sigma-1} \ \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ \ f(x) =\frac{1}{2 \pi} \beta \log x - rx.$$ Derivatives of $f(x)$ are given by $$f^\prime (x) = -r + \frac{\beta}{2 \pi x}, \quad f^{(j)} (x)= (-1)^{j-1} (j-1)! \frac{\beta}{2 \pi x^j} \quad \text{ for } j>1.$$ The unique stationary point is given by $$f^\prime (x_0)= 0 \ \ \ \ \textrm{i.e.} \ \ \ \ \ x_0 = \frac{\beta}{2 \pi r}.$$ We can write $f^\prime (x)$ in terms of $\beta$ and $r$ as $$f^\prime (x) = \frac{\beta}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{1}{x} - \frac{1}{x_0}\right) = r \left( \frac{x_0}{x} - 1\right).$$ Let us first assume that $x_0 \notin[a/2, 2b]$. In this case we observe that $|f^\prime (x)| \gg_{a, b, \sigma} \max \{|r|, |\beta| \}$ and $f^{(j)} (x)\ll_{a, b, \sigma, j} |\beta|$ for $x \in [a, b]$. Using equation , $U^\natural (r, s) \ll_j \min \{ |r|^{-j}, |\beta|^{-j}\}$. Let us now consider the case when $x_0 \in [a/2 , 2b]$. In this case we observe that $|r| \asymp_{a, b} |\beta|$. We use Lemma \[exponential inte\] with $\Theta_f = |\beta|$ and $\Omega_f=\Omega_g=1$ to conclude $$\begin{split}
U^\natural (r, s)= &\frac{e(f(x_0) + 1/8)}{\sqrt{f''(x_0)}}\bigg(g(x_0) + \frac{ig''(x_0)}{4\pi f''(x_0)} - \frac{i(g(x_0)f^{(4)}(x_0) + g'(x_0)f^{(3)}(x_0))}{16\pi f''(x_0)^2} + \frac{5i g(x_0)f^{(3)}(x_0)^2}{48\pi f''(x_0)^3} \bigg)
\\& \qquad + O_{a,b,\sigma}\left(\min\{|\beta|^{-5/2}, |r|^{-5/2}\}\right).
\end{split}$$
We record the above results in the following lemma.
\[Fourier Mellin\] Let $U$ be a smooth real valued function with $\textrm{supp} (U) \subset[a, b] \subset (0, \infty)$ that satisfies $U^{(j)}(x)\ll_{a, b, j} 1$. Let $r\in \mathbb{R}$ and $s= \sigma + i \beta \in \mathbb{C}$. We have
$$\begin{split}
U^{\natural}(r,s)=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e(1/8)}{\sqrt{-\beta}}\left(\frac{\beta}{2\pi er}\right)^{i\beta} &\bigg[U_0\bigg(\sigma,\frac{\beta}{2\pi r}\bigg) - \frac{i}{12\beta}U_1\bigg(\sigma,\frac{\beta}{2\pi r}\bigg)\bigg] \\& + O_{a,b,\sigma}\left(\min\{|\beta|^{-5/2},|r|^{-5/2}\}\right),
\end{split}$$
where $$\begin{split}
&U_0(\sigma, x) = x^\sigma U(x) \quad \text{ and }
\\& U_1(\sigma, x) = U_0(\sigma, x) + 3x^2\frac{d}{dx}\bigg(\frac{U_0(\sigma,x)}{x}\bigg) + 6x^3\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\bigg(\frac{U_0(\sigma,x)}{x}\bigg).
\end{split}$$ Integrating equation by parts, we also have
$$U^\natural (r, s) = O_{a, b, \sigma, j} \left(\min \left\lbrace \left(\frac{1+|\beta|}{|r|} \right)^j , \left(\frac{1+|r|}{|\beta|} \right)^j \right\rbrace \right).$$
In the following sections we outline the details of the proof. We give details when $f$ is a holomorphic form. The case for Maass forms is similar, the only difference being the arguments of the gamma function.
Applying Poisson summation Formula (Step 1:) {#start proof}
=============================================
We apply Poisson summation formula to the $m$-sum in equation . Writing $m=\alpha + l q$ and then applying the Poisson summation formula to sum over $l$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{first poisson}
& \sum_{m=1}^\infty m^{-i (t+v)} e\left(-\frac{m \overline{a}}{q} \right) e\left(-\frac{m x}{aq} \right) U\left(\frac{m }{N} \right) \notag\\
= &\sum_{\alpha \bmod q} e\left(-\frac{\alpha \overline{a}}{q} \right) \sum_{l\in \mathbb{Z}} (\alpha + l q)^{-i (t+v)} e\left(\frac{(\alpha+ l q) x}{aq} \right) U\left(\frac{\alpha+ l q}{N} \right)\notag \\
= &\sum_{\alpha \bmod q} e\left(-\frac{\alpha \overline{a}}{q} \right) \sum_{m\in \mathbb{Z}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} (\alpha + yq)^{-i (t+v)} e\left(\frac{(\alpha+ y q) x}{aq} \right) U\left(\frac{\alpha+ y q}{N} \right) e(-my) dy\notag\\
= &N^{1-i (t+v)} \sum_{\substack{m\in \mathbb{Z} \\ m \equiv \overline{a} \bmod q }} \int_{\mathbb{R}} U(u) u^{-i (t+v)} e\left(\frac{N(x-ma)}{aq} u\right) du. \end{aligned}$$
We observe that $a\bmod q$ is uniquely determined by the above congruence relation. We first examine the contribution of $m=0$. We have $ |N(aq)^{-1} x| \ll q^{-1} (NK)^{1/2}$ (since $a\asymp Q$ and we will choose $Q = (N/K)^{1/2}$). From the congruence relation given in equation we have $(m, q)=1$, hence for the case $m=0$, only $q=1$ can occur. Applying the second statement of the Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] with $\beta = t+ v \asymp t$ and $r= (NK)^{1/2}$, we observe that the contribution of $m=0$ is negligibly small if $ (NK)^{1/2}/ t \ll 1$. This follows since we choose $ t^\epsilon \ll K \ll t^{1 - \epsilon}$. Let us now consider the case where $m\neq 0$. In this case we have $|N(aq)^{-1} (am -x)| \asymp Nq^{-1} |m|$. Applying the second statement of Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] with $\beta = t+ v \asymp t$ and $r= Nq^{-1} |m|$, we see that the contribution is negligibly small if $t/(q^{-1} N|m|) <1 $, that is if $|m| \gg qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N$. Therefore, it suffices to consider $m$ in the range $1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/N$. We split the sum over $q$ into dyadic subintervals of the form $[C, 2C]$, with $1 \ll C \leq Q$. We record the above result in the following lemma.
\[lemma S plus\] Let $N$ and $K$ be as above. We have
$$S^{+}= \frac{N}{K} \sum_{\substack{ 1 \ll C \leq Q \\ \text{ dyadic}}} S^+ (N, C) + O_A(t^{-A}),$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{splus n c}
S^+(N, C) &= \int_0^1 \int_{\mathbb{R}} N^{- i (t+v)} V\left(\frac{v}{K} \right) \sum_{C<q \leq 2C} \sum_{\substack{ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/N}} \frac{1}{aq} U^\natural \left(\frac{N(ma-x)}{aq} , 1- i(t+v)\right) \notag \\
& \times \sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f(n) e\left(\frac{nm}{q} \right) n^{iv} e\left(-\frac{nx}{aq} \right) V\left(\frac{n}{N} \right) dv \ dx. \end{aligned}$$ Here $a\in (Q, q+Q]$ is uniquely determined by the congruence relation given in equation .
Applying Voronoi summation formula (Step 2:)
============================================
We next apply the Voronoi summation formula to the sum over $n$. Using $g(n)= n^{iv} e(-nx/ aq) V(n/N)$\
in Lemma \[voronoi\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda_f(n) e\left(\frac{nm}{q} \right) n^{iv} e\left(-\frac{nx}{aq} \right) V\left(\frac{n}{N} \right) = q N^{iv} \sum_{n\geq 1} \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{n} e\left( -\frac{\overline{m} n}{q}\right) G \left( \frac{ n}{q^2}, \frac{x}{aq}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G(r, r_1) &=i^{k-1} \frac{1}{2 \pi^2} \int_{(\sigma)} (\pi^2 r)^{-s} \gamma(s, k) \int_0^\infty y^{i v} e\left( - r_1 N y \right) V(y) y^{-s-1} N^{-s}dy \ ds \\
&= c \int_{(\sigma)} (N r)^{-s} \gamma(s, k) V^\natural (Nr_1, -s + iv) ds.\end{aligned}$$ Here $s= \sigma + i \tau$, $\gamma(s, k)$ is defined in Lemma \[voronoi\] and $ V^\natural $ is given by equation . By Lemma \[stirling\], $$\gamma(s, k) \ll_{f , \sigma} 1 + | \tau|^{ 2\sigma +1}.$$ Using the second statement of Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] with $r= Nx/ aq \asymp (NK)^{1/2}/ q$ and $\beta = |\tau - v|$, we have
$$V^\natural \left( \frac{Nx}{a q}, -s+ iv\right) \ll_{j, \sigma} \min \left\lbrace 1, \left( \frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{ q |\tau - v|}\right) \right\rbrace.$$ Shifting the line of integration to $\sigma = M$ and choosing $j= 2M+ 3$, we have $$G\left( \frac{n}{q^2}, \frac{x}{aq}\right) \ll \int_{(M)} \left( \frac{nN}{q^2}\right)^{-M} |\tau|^{2M+1} \left( \frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{ q |\tau |}\right)^{2M+3} d\tau \ll (NK)^{3/2} \left( \frac{K}{n}\right)^M.$$ Letting $M \rightarrow \infty $, we observe that the dual sum is negligibly small if $n \gg K$. For $n \ll K$, we move the line of integration to $\sigma = -1/2$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
G\left( \frac{n}{q^2}, \frac{x}{aq}\right) = c \left( \frac{n N}{q^2}\right)^{1/2} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{F}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left( \frac{n N}{q^2}\right)^{- i \tau} \gamma(s, k) V^\natural \left( \frac{Nx}{a q}, \frac{1}{2}-i \tau+ iv\right) W_j(\tau) \ d \tau,\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is an absolute constant and $ \mathcal{F}$ is collection of $O(\log t)$ many real numbers in the interval\
$[(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C, (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C]$ containing $0$. For each $j$, $W_j$ is a smooth partition of unity satisfying $$y^k W_j^{(k)} (y)\ll_k 1 \ \ \ \and \ \ \ \sum_{ j \in \mathcal{F} } W_j (x) = 1 \ \ \ \textrm{for} \ \ \ x \in \left[(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C, \ (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C\right].$$ Further, $W_0(x)$ is supported on $[-1, 1]$ and satisfies the bound $ W_0^{(k)}\ll_k 1 $. For each $j>0$ (respectively $j<0$), $W_j(x)$ is supported on $[j, 4j/3]$ (respectively $ [ 4j/3, j]$). Here we do not require the precise definition of the functions $W_j$. After applying Poisson and Voronoi summation formulae followed by a change of variable $ v\mapsto Kv$, we have the following expression for $ S^+(N, C)$.
\[S plus n c\] Let $N$, $K$ and $C$ be as above. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
S^+(N, C)= c N^{1/2 -it} K \sum_{j \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{n \ll K} \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{ n^{1/2}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{e\left( -\frac{a n}{q}\right)}{a q } G (q, m , n) + O_A\left( t^{-A} \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is an absolute constant and $$G (q, m , n) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left( \frac{n N}{q^2}\right)^{- i \tau} \gamma(s, k) G_1 ( q, m, \tau) W_j (\tau) \ d \tau,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g1qmtau}
G_1 ( q, m, \tau) = \int_0^1 \int_{\mathbb{R}} V(v) U^\natural \left(\frac{N(ma-x)}{aq} , 1- i(t+Kv)\right) V^\natural \left( \frac{Nx}{a q}, \frac{1}{2}-i \tau+ iKv\right) dv \ dx. \end{aligned}$$
In the next section we use Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] to analyse the integral $ G_1 ( q, m, \tau) $.
Analysis of a {#statinary phase analysis}
=============
Stationary phase analysis for b and c {#stat phase ana}
-------------------------------------
We apply Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] with $r = N(ma -x)/ aq$ and $ s = 1 - i(t+Kv)$ to get $$\label{U natural}
\begin{split}
U^{\natural} = &\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e(1/8)}{(t+Kv)^{1/2}} \left( \frac{(t+Kv)aq}{2\pi eN(x-ma)} \right)^{-i(t+Kv)}\bigg[U_0\left(1, \frac{(t+Kv)aq}{2\pi N(x-ma)}\right)
\\& -\frac{i}{12(t+Kv)}U_1\left(1, \frac{(t+Kv)aq}{2\pi N(x-ma)}\right)\bigg] + O(t^{-5/2}).
\end{split}$$
With $ r = Nx / aq $ and $ s= 1/2 - i \tau + i Kv$ we also have $$\label{V natural}
\begin{split}
V^{\natural} = &\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e(1/8)}{(\tau-Kv)^{1/2}} \left(\frac{(Kv-\tau)aq}{2\pi eNx}\right)^{i(Kv-\tau)} \bigg[V_0\left(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{(Kv-\tau)aq}{2\pi Nx}\right)
\\& - \frac{i}{12(\tau-Kv)}V_1\left(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{(Kv-\tau)aq}{2\pi Nx}\right) \bigg] + O\left(\min\left\lbrace \left(\frac{aq}{Nx}\right)^{5/2}, \frac{1}{|\tau-Kv|^{5/2}} \right\rbrace \right).
\end{split}$$
We note that in , $(t+Kv)\asymp t$, therefore the main term is bigger than the error term. However, in , the main term will be smaller than the error term if $|\tau-Kv|<1$. Support of $V$ forces $Kv-\tau\asymp Nx/aq$. Therefore we bound $V^\natural$ by $O(1)$ when $Nx/aq< 1$, that is, $x<aq/N$. Support of $V$ restricts the length of the integral over $v$ to $\ll Nx/ Kaq \leq 1/K$ (as $ | Kv-\tau| aq/ 2\pi Nx \leq 2 \Rightarrow -4 \pi Nx/ aq K + \tau/K < v < 4 \pi Nx/ aq K + \tau/K $). In the range $x \in [0, aq/N]$, using the facts $u^r U(u)\ll_r 1$, $v^r V(v)\ll_r 1$ and estimating integral over $v$ trivially, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{aq/N} \int_{\mathbb{R}} V(v) U^\natural \left(\frac{N(x-ma)}{aq} , 1- i(t+Kv)\right) V^\natural \left( \frac{Nx}{a q}, \frac{1}{2}-i \tau+ iKv\right) dv \ dx \ll \frac{aq}{NK\sqrt{t}}. \end{aligned}$$ When $x\in[aq/N, 1]$, we substitute the expressions of $U^\natural $ and $V^\natural$ from and into equation . Then $G_1(q, m, \tau )$ is given by $$\label{g1qmtau with error}
\begin{split}
G_1(q, m, \tau )= &2\pi i\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2} \int_{aq/N}^1\frac{1}{x^{1/2}}\int_{{\mathbb {R}}}\frac{t^{1/2}(t+Kv)^{-1/2}(Nx)^{1/2}}{(\tau-Kv)^{1/2}(aq)^{1/2}}\left( \frac{(t+Kv)aq}{2\pi eN(x-ma)} \right)^{-i(t+Kv)}
\\& \times\left(\frac{(Kv-\tau)aq}{2\pi eNx}\right)^{i(Kv-\tau)}
V(v)\bigg(U_0V_0 - \frac{i}{12(t+Kv)}U_1V_0 - \frac{i}{12(\tau-Kv)}U_0V_1
\\& - \frac{1}{144(t+Kv)(\tau-Kv)}U_1V_1 \bigg)\ dv\ dx + O\bigg(E(\tau) + t^{-5/2+\epsilon} + \frac{aq}{NK\sqrt{t}} \bigg),
\end{split}$$ where the arguments of $U_i, V_j$ are as in , and $E(\tau)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etau}
E(\tau) = \frac{1}{t^{1/2}}\int_{aq/N}^1\int_1^2 \min\left\lbrace \left(\frac{aq}{Nx}\right)^{5/2}, \frac{1}{|\tau-Kv|^{5/2}} \right\rbrace dv dx. \end{aligned}$$
To estimate error term $ E(\tau)$, we first perform the $v$-integral by splitting into two cases. In first case, the first term of integrand in equation is smaller than second, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vrange}
\left( \frac{aq}{N x} \right) < \frac{1}{| \tau - Kv| }
\Leftrightarrow \frac{\tau}{K} - \frac{Nx}{aqK} < v < \frac{ \tau }{K} + \frac{Nx}{aqK}. \end{aligned}$$
We observe that the range of integration over $v$ is bounded by $Nx/ aqK $. We split the range of $v$ in two parts, $|\tau| \leq 100 K$ and $|\tau|\geq 100 K$. When $|\tau| \leq 100 K$, we bound the length of $v$-integral by $Nx/aqk$. When $|\tau|\geq 100 K$, we bound the length of $v$-integral by $O(1)$. Hence in the first case, $E(\tau)$ bounded by $$\begin{split}
& \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \int_{aq/N}^1 \left( \frac{aq}{N x} \right)^{5/2} \frac{Nx}{aqK} {\bf 1}_{ \tau \leq 100 K} dx + \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \int_{aq/N}^1 \left( \frac{aq}{N x} \right)^{3/2} \left(\frac{aq}{N x}\right) {\bf 1}_{ \tau \geq 100 K} dx \\
\ll & \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\bigg(\frac{aq}{N}\bigg)^{3/2} \left(\frac{1}{K} \int_{aq/N}^1 \frac{1}{x^{3/2}} {\bf 1}_{ \tau \leq 100 K}\ dx + \frac{1}{|\tau|} \int_{aq/N}^1 \frac{1}{x^{3/2}} {\bf 1}_{ \tau \geq 100 K}\ dx \right) \ll \frac{aqt^\epsilon}{NK\sqrt{t}} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|} \right\rbrace.
\end{split}$$ Here we use the fact that for $|\tau| \geq 100 K$, in the range of $v$ this interval does not intersect $[1,2]$ unless $Nx/ aq \asymp |\tau|$. Here $ {\bf 1}_z$ denotes the indicator function of the statement. The bound for $E(\tau)$ in the second case, when the second term of the integrand in equation dominates, is given by $$\begin{split}
& \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \mathop{\int_{aq/N}^1 \int_1^2}_{ |\tau - Kv| > Nx/aq} \frac{1}{|\tau - Kv|^{5/2}} dv \ dx \ll \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \int_{aq/N}^1 \left( \frac{aq}{Nx}\right)^{3/2 + \epsilon} \left( \int_1^2 \frac{1}{|\tau - Kv|^{1-\epsilon}} dv \right) dx
\\ \ll & \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\bigg(\frac{aq}{N}\bigg)^{3/2} \int_{aq/N}^1 \frac{1}{x^{3/2}} dx \int_1^2 \left( {\bf 1}_{ \tau \leq 100 K}\frac{1}{|\tau - Kv|^{1-\epsilon}} +{\bf 1}_{ \tau \geq 100 K} \frac{1}{|\tau - Kv|^{1-\epsilon}}\right) dv
\\ \ll & \frac{aqt^\epsilon}{NK\sqrt{t}} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|} \right\rbrace.
\end{split}$$ Since we choose $K\ll t^{1 - \epsilon}$, $$E(\tau) + \frac{aq}{NK\sqrt{t}} + \frac{t^\epsilon}{t^{5/2}} \ll \frac{aq}{NK\sqrt{t}} + \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^2\sqrt{t}} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|} \right\rbrace.$$ Substituting this bound for $E(\tau)$ into equation , we have $$\label{final g1}
\begin{split}
G_1(q, m, \tau )= &2\pi i\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2} \int_{aq/N}^1\frac{1}{x^{1/2}}\int_{{\mathbb {R}}}\frac{t^{1/2}(t+Kv)^{-1/2}(Nx)^{1/2}}{(\tau-Kv)^{1/2}(aq)^{1/2}}\left( \frac{(t+Kv)aq}{2\pi eN(x-ma)} \right)^{-i(t+Kv)}
\\& \times \left(\frac{(Kv-\tau)aq}{2\pi eNx}\right)^{i(Kv-\tau)} V(v)\bigg(U_0V_0 - \frac{i}{12(t+Kv)}U_1V_0 - \frac{i}{12(\tau-Kv)}U_0V_1 \\& - \frac{1}{144(t+Kv)(\tau-Kv)}U_1V_1 \bigg)\ dv\ dx
+ O\bigg(\frac{t^\epsilon}{K^2\sqrt{t}} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|} \right\rbrace \bigg).
\end{split}$$
Step 3: Integration over d
--------------------------
The integral over $v$ is a stationary phase integral of the form\
$ \int_\mathbb{R} G(v) e(F(v))\ dv$ with $$\label{define G}
\begin{split}
G(v)= \frac{t^{1/2}(t+Kv)^{-1/2}(Nx)^{1/2}}{(\tau-Kv)^{1/2}(aq)^{1/2}}V(v)\bigg(&U_0V_0 - \frac{i}{12(t+Kv)}U_1V_0 - \frac{i}{12(\tau-Kv)}U_0V_1 \\& - \frac{(t+Kv)\-}{144(\tau-Kv)}U_1V_1 \bigg),
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{define F}
F(v)= - \frac{t+Kv}{2 \pi} \log \left( \frac{(t+Kv) aq}{2 \pi e N(x-ma)} \right) + \frac{Kv -\tau}{ 2 \pi} \log \left( \frac{(Kv - \tau) aq}{2 \pi e Nx} \right). \end{aligned}$$
The argument of $V_i, U_j$ are the same as in and . Our goal is to apply Lemma \[exponential inte\] to the above integral. We have $$F^\prime (v) = - \frac{K}{2 \pi} \log \left( \frac{(t+Kv) aq}{(x-ma) (Kv - \tau)} \right),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F derivative}
F^{(j)} (v) = - \frac{(j-1)! (-K)^j}{2 \pi } \left( \frac{1}{( t+Kv)^{j-1}} - \frac{1}{ (Kv-\tau)^{j-1}}\right) \ \ \ (j\geq 2).\end{aligned}$$
The stationary phase point is given by $F^\prime (v_0) = 0$, i.e., $$v_0 = - \frac{(t+ \tau)x - \tau m a}{Kma}.$$
For later calculations, it helps to note that $$\frac{(Kv_0-\tau)aq}{2\pi Nx} = \frac{(t+Kv_0)aq}{2\pi N(x-ma)} = \frac{-(t+\tau)q}{2\pi Nm}.$$
Since $V(v)$ is supported on $[1,2]$, we observe that the weight functions $V_i((Kv -\tau) aq/ 2 \pi Nx )$ vanish unless $ (Kv -\tau) \asymp Nx/aq $. Using this in equation , in support of the integral we have $$F^{(j)} (v) \asymp \frac{Nx}{aq} \left( \frac{Kaq}{Nx}\right)^j \ \ \ (j\geq 2) ,$$ and $$G^{(j)} (v) \ll \left(1+ \frac{Kaq}{Nx}\right)^j \ \ \ \left( \textrm{as} \ \ U^{(j)} (x) \ll _j 1 \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ V^{(j)} (x) \ll _j 1 \right).$$ Using the expression of $v_0$, we can write the derivative of $F$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{first deri of F}
F^\prime (v) = \frac{K}{2 \pi} \log \left(1 + \frac{K(v_0 - v) }{(t+Kv) } \right) - \frac{K}{2 \pi} \log \left(1 + \frac{K(v_0 - v) }{(Kv- \tau) } \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $N\ll t^{1+\epsilon}$ and $ (Kv -\tau) \asymp Nx/aq $, we have $0 < Kv -\tau \leq N/aq \ll K^{1/2} t^{1+\epsilon}/ N^{1/2} $. Since $V$ is supported on $[1,2]$, there is no stationary phase if $v_0 \notin [3/4, 9/4]$. Using the inequality $\log (1+x) \geq x/2$ for $ 0\leq x \leq 1$ in equation in the support of integral, we obtain $$| F^\prime (v)| \gg K^{1-\epsilon} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{Kaq}{Nx} \right\rbrace,$$ When $v_0 \notin [3/4, 9/4]$, we apply Lemma with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{condition FG}
\Theta_F = \frac{Nx}{aq},\ \Omega_F = \frac{Nx}{Kaq},\ \Omega_G= \min \left\lbrace 1,\ \frac{Nx}{ Kaq} \right\rbrace, \ \textrm{and} \ \Lambda = K^{1-\epsilon} \min \left\lbrace 1, \frac{Kaq}{Nx} \right\rbrace. \end{aligned}$$ When $x<Kaq/N$, $\Omega_G= Nx/Kaq$ and $\Lambda=K^{1-\epsilon}$. Using the second statement of Lemma \[exponential inte\], we obtain $$\int_\mathbb{R} G(v) e(F(v))\ dv \ll \frac{aq}{Knx}.$$ Then $$\label{no sp x small}
\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2}\int_{aq/N}^{Kaq/N}\frac{aq}{Knx^{3/2}}\ dx\ll \frac{aq}{NKt^{1/2}}.$$ On the other hand, if $x>Kaq/N$, then $\Omega_G=1$ and $\Lambda=K^{2-\epsilon}aq/Nx$, so that $$\int_\mathbb{R} G(v) e(F(v))\ dv \ll \frac{1}{K^2} \bigg(\frac{Nx}{Kaq}\bigg)^3.$$ Integrating over $x$, $$\label{no sp x large}
\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2}\int_{Kaq/N}^1\frac{1}{K^2} \bigg(\frac{Nx}{Kaq}\bigg)^3\ dx\ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{t^{1/2}}\bigg(\frac{N}{K^2aq}\bigg)^{5/2}.$$
If $v_0 \in [3/4, 9/4]$ there still may not be a stationary phase. When there is no stationary phase, by similar calculations as above, the error contribution is bounded by and . When there is a stationary phase, we use the second statement of Lemma \[exponential inte\] and estimate the integral over $x$ trivially. As earlier, if $aq/N \leq x\leq Kaq/ N$, then from equation , we have $\Omega_F= \Omega_G $ and $\Lambda= K^{1-\epsilon}$. In this case, the error term in the second part of Lemma \[exponential inte\] is bounded by $O((aq)^{1/2}/(Nx)^{1/2}K)$. Then, $$\label{sp x small}
\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2}\int_{aq/N}^{Kaq/N}\frac{(aq)^{1/2}}{N^{1/2}xK}\ dx \ll t^{\epsilon}\frac{aq}{NKt^{1/2}}.$$
On the other hand, if $x>Kaq/N$, then $\Omega_G=1$ and $\Lambda=K^{2-\epsilon}aq/Nx$. If we choose $K>N^{1/3}$, the corresponding error term in the second part of Lemma \[exponential inte\] is bounded by $O((Nx/K^2aq)^{3/2})$. Then, $$\label{sp x large}
\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2}\int_{Kaq/N}^1\frac{N^{3/2}x}{(K^2aq)^{3/2}}\ dx \ll \frac{N}{aqK^3t^{1/2}}t^{\epsilon}.$$ If we choose $K> N^{3/5}$, then the bound in is bigger than the bound in . Considering the error term in and the bounds and , we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{second error in e c tau}
\left( \frac{aq}{ tN } \right)^{1/2} \int_{aq/N}^1 \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} G(v) e(F(v)) dv dx & = \left( \frac{aq}{ tN } \right)^{1/2} \int_{aq/N}^1 \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}} \frac{G(v_0) e( F(v_0) + 1/8)}{\sqrt{F''(v_0)}} dx \notag\\
& +O \left( t^\epsilon \frac{1}{K^2t^{1/2}}\min\left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|}\right\rbrace + t^\epsilon\frac{QC}{NKt^{1/2}} + t^\epsilon\frac{N}{aqK^3t^{1/2}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
By substituting the value of $v_0$ we have $$F( v_0)= \frac{-t+\tau}{ 2 \pi } \log \left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi e Nm}\right),\quad F^{\prime \prime} (v_0) = \frac{(Kma)^2}{2 \pi (t+\tau) (x-ma)x} ,$$
and $$\begin{split}
G(v_0) = \frac{aq}{N} \bigg(\frac{-t(t+\tau)}{ma(x-ma)}\bigg)^{1/2} V\left( \frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau)x}{Kma}\right) &U\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) V\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) \\& + O\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nx}\bigg)\delta\bigg(m\asymp \frac{qt}{N}\bigg).
\end{split}$$
Substituting the above and using the identity $U(z) V(z) = V(z)$, the main term of can be written as $$c_1\frac{t+\tau}{ K } \left( \frac{q}{-m N} \right)^{3/2} V\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) \left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi e Nm}\right)^{-i(t+\tau)} \int_{aq/N}^1 V\left( \frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau) x}{Kma}\right) dx,$$ with some absolute constant $c_1$ (note that $m <0$ and $|m|\asymp qt/N$). Since this stationary phase occurs when $aq/N<x<1$, we can replace the error term of $G(v_0)$ by $O(aqt^\epsilon/Nx^{1-\epsilon})$. The contribution of this error term is bounded by $$\bigg(\frac{aq}{Nt}\bigg)^{1/2}\int_0^1 \frac{1}{x^{1/2}}\frac{aqt^\epsilon}{Nx^{1-\epsilon}}\frac{(t+\tau)^{1/2}(x-ma)^{1/2}x^{1/2}}{Kma}\ dx \ll \frac{aqt^\epsilon}{NKt^{1/2}}.$$ We now extend the range of $x$-integral in the main term to $[0,1]$. This contributes an error term bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll\frac{1}{K} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t + \tau}} \left\lbrace \left( \frac{(t+\tau)q}{-m N} \right)^{3/2} V\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) \right\rbrace \int_0^{aq/N} V\left( \frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau) x}{Kma}\right) dx \\
&\ll \frac{aqt^\epsilon}{NKt^{1/2}}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is dominated by the error term given in equation . Collecting the error terms given in equations and , and recalling that $a \asymp (N/K)^{1/2}$ and $q \asymp C$, we define $$\label{e c tau}
E(C, \tau) := t^\epsilon \frac{1}{t^{1/2} K^2}\min\left\lbrace 1, \frac{100K}{|\tau|}\right\rbrace + t^\epsilon\frac{QC}{NKt^{1/2}} + t^\epsilon\frac{N}{QCK^3t^{1/2}}.$$
We observe that $$\label{int e c tau}
\int_{-\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}}^{\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}} E(C, \tau) d \tau \ll \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{Kt^{1/2}}\bigg(1 + \frac{N}{C^2K}\bigg)\ll \frac{N}{C^2K^2t^{1/2}}t^\epsilon.$$
We summarize this section in the following lemmas.
\[decomposition g1 q m tau\] Let $C$, $N$ and $K$ be as above. We have $$G_1(q, m, \tau) = G_2(q, m, \tau) + G_3(q, m, \tau) ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G_2(q, m, \tau) = \frac{c_2}{ (t+\tau)^{1/2}K } \left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi e Nm}\right)^{3/2-i(t+\tau)} V\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) \int_{0}^1 V\left( \frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau) x}{Kma}\right) dx\end{aligned}$$ for some absolute constant $c_2$ and $$G_3(q, m, \tau) = G_1(q, m, \tau) - G_2(q, m, \tau) = O\left(E(C, \tau) t^\epsilon \right),$$ where $ E(C, \tau)$ is given in equation .
Substituting the decomposition of $ G_1(q, m, \tau)$ in Lemma , we get the following result.
\[lemma S plus nc\] We have $$S^{+}(N, C) = \sum_{ j \in \mathcal{F} } \{ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C) + S_{2, j}^{+}(N, C)\} + O_A(t^{-A}),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\ell, j}^{+}(N, C)= N^{1/2 -it} K \sum_{n \ll K} \frac{\lambda_f(n)}{ n^{1/2}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{1}{aq}e\left( -\frac{a n}{q}\right) G_{\ell, j} (q, m , n) + O_A\left( t^{-A} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where for $\ell = 2, 3$ we have $$G_{\ell, j} (q, m , n) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left( \frac{n N}{q^2}\right)^{- i \tau} \gamma(s, k) G_{\ell} ( q, m, \tau) W_j (\tau) \ d \tau,$$ with $ G_{\ell} ( q, m, \tau)$ is as defined in the above lemma.
Cauchy inequality and Poisson summation formula (Step 4:)
=========================================================
First application of Cauchy inequality and Poisson summation formula
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we shall estimate $$S_{2}^{+}(N, C) : = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{F}} S_{2, j}^{+}(N, C),$$ where $S_{2, j}^{+}(N, C) $ is given in Lemma \[lemma S plus nc\]. Taking the dyadic divison of summation over $n$ and using the trivial bound for the gamma function, we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_{2}^{+}(N, C) \leq t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \int_{-\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}}^{\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}} \sum_{\substack{ 1\leq L \ll K \\ L \textrm{dyadic}}} \sum_{n } \frac{|\lambda_f(n)|}{ n^{1/2}} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right) \bigg| \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{e_q(-an)}{a q^{1- 2 i \tau} } G_{2, j} (q, m , \tau) \bigg| d\tau. \end{aligned}$$ Here and afterwards, $e_q(\alpha)=e(\alpha/q)$. We now apply Cauchy inequality to the $n$-sum to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S 2 plus nc}
S_{2}^{+}(N, C) \leq t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \int_{-\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}}^{\frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} t^{\epsilon}} \sum_{\substack{ 1\leq L \ll K \\ L \textrm{dyadic}}} L^{1/2} \left[S_{2}^{+}(N, C, L, \tau) \right]^{1/2} \ d \tau, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{2}^{+}(N, C, L, \tau) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right) \bigg| \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{e_q(-an)}{a q^{1- 2 i \tau} } G_{2, j} (q, m , \tau) \bigg|^2. \end{aligned}$$ Expanding the absolute value squared and interchanging the summation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_{2}^{+}(N, C, L, \tau) = \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m_1, q_1)=1 \\ 1\leq |m_1| \ll q_1t^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{1}{a a_1 q^{1- 2 i \tau} q^{1+2 i \tau}} G_{2, j} (q, m , \tau) \overline{G_{2, j} (q_1, m_1 , \tau) } D,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{second poisson}
D= \sum_n \frac{1}{n} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right) e\left( - \frac{a n}{q}\right) e\left( \frac{a_1 n}{q_1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Writing $n = \alpha + l q q_1$ and applying Poisson summation to the $l$-sum, $$\begin{aligned}
D= \frac{1}{q q_1} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\alpha {\bmod} q q_1} e \left( - \frac{a \alpha}{q} + \frac{a_1 \alpha}{q_1} + \frac{n \alpha}{ qq_1} \right) \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{1}{ z} U\left(z\right) e\left(- \frac{ n Lz}{q q_1} \right) dz.\end{aligned}$$
Integrating by parts, we observe that the integral is negligibly small if $\frac{q q_1}{ n L} <1$ i.e. if $n\gg \frac{C^2 t^\epsilon}{L}$. Evaluating the exponential sum, we have $$D = \sum_{\substack{n \ll C^2 t^\epsilon/L \\ a_1 q - a q_1 + n \equiv 0 \bmod q q_1}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{1}{ z} U\left(z\right) e\left(- \frac{ n Lz}{q q_1} \right) dz + O_A(t^{-A}).$$
Substituting the bound for $D$, we get that up to a negligible error, the sum $ S_{2}^{+}(N, C, L, \tau)$ is dominated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{counting}
& \frac{K}{N C^2} E(C, \tau)^2 \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m_1, q_1)=1 \\ 1\leq |m_1| \ll q_1t^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \sum_{\substack{n \ll C^2 t^\epsilon/L \\ a_1 q - a q_1 + n \equiv 0 \bmod q q_1}} 1\end{aligned}$$
We have to analyze the cases $n=0$ and $n\neq0$ separately. When $n=0$, the congruence condition above gives $q=q_1$ and $a=a_1$. For a given $m$, this fixes $m_1$ up to a factor of $t^{1+\epsilon}/N$. Moreover, in the case $Q^2<K$, that is, $K>N^{1/2}$, we’ll have only $n=0$ for $L>C^2$. Therefore for $n\neq0$, we will let $L$ go up to $\min\{C^2,K\}$. We note that the congruence condition implies $q|(n-aq_1)$ and $q_1|(n+a_1q)$. Since $a$ and $a_1$ lie in an interval of length $q$, fixing $n, q$ and $q_1$ fixes both $a$ and $a_1$. That saves $q, q_1$ in the $m, m_1$-sums respectively. Moreover, since $q_1|(n+aq)$, there are only $t^\epsilon$-many $q_1$ for a fixed $q$. Then, $$S_2(N,C,L,\tau) \ll t^{\epsilon} \frac{Kt^2 E(C,\tau)^2}{N^3}\bigg[1+\frac{C}{L}\bigg]$$
Therefore, $$S_2(N,C)\ll t^{\epsilon}N^{1/2}K \int_{-\frac{(NK)^{1/2}t^{\epsilon}}{C}}^{\frac{(NK)^{1/2}t^{\epsilon}}{C}}\bigg[\underset{dyadic}{\sum_{1\leq L \ll Kt^{\epsilon}}} L^{1/2}.\frac{K^{1/2}tE(C,\tau)}{N^{3/2}}+\underset{dyadic}{\sum_{1\leq L \ll \min\{C^2,K\}t^{\epsilon}}}\frac{K^{1/2}tC^{1/2}E(C,\tau)}{N^{3/2}}\bigg]\ d\tau$$
If $K\geq N^{1/3}$, then the contribution of the second term is smaller than that of the first. So we neglect the second term. Summing over $L$, and using , $S_2(N,C)\ll t^{1/2+\epsilon}/C^2$. Multiplying by $N^{1/2}/K$ and summing over $C$ dyadically, $$\label{S2}
\frac{S_2(N)}{N^{1/2}} \ll t^{1/2+\epsilon}\frac{N^{1/2}}{K}.$$
Second application of Cauchy inequality and Poisson summation formula
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We shall estimate $$S_{1}^{+}(N, C) : = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{F}} S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C).$$ As in the previous case, we split the summation over $n$ into dyadic segments. This time we keep the $\tau$ integral inside the absolute value to get $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C) & \leq t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \sum_{\substack{ 1\leq L \ll K \\ \text{dyadic}}} \sum_{n } \frac{|\lambda_f(n)|}{ n^{1/2}} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right)
\bigg| \int_{\mathbb{R}} (nN)^{- i \tau} \gamma(-1/2 + i \tau, k) \\
& \hspace{2cm}\times \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{e_q(-an)}{a q^{1- 2 i \tau} } G_2(q, m, \tau) W_j (\tau) d\tau \bigg| .\end{aligned}$$ We apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S1j plus nc}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C) & \leq t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \sum_{\substack{ 1\leq L \ll K \\ \text{dyadic}}} L^{1/2} \left[ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L)\right]^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$ where $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) $ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{n} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right) \bigg| \int_{\mathbb{R}} (nN)^{- i \tau} \gamma(-1/2 + i \tau, k) \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{e_q(-an)}{a q^{1- 2 i \tau} } G_2(q, m, \tau) W_j (\tau) d\tau \bigg|^2 .\end{aligned}$$
Expanding the absolute value squared and interchanging the summation over $n$, $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) $ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\iint_{\mathbb{R}^2} N^{ - i( \tau -\tau^\prime)} \gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau, k) \overline{\gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau^\prime, k)} W_j(\tau) \overline{W_j(\tau^\prime)} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \\
& \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m_1, q_1)=1 \\ 1\leq |m_1| \ll q_1t^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \frac{1}{a a_1 q^{1 - 2 i \tau} q_1^{1 - 2 i \tau^\prime}} G_2(q, m, \tau) \overline{G_2(q_1, m_1, \tau^\prime)}\ D\ d\tau\ d\tau', \end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
D= \sum_n \frac{1}{n^{1- i(\tau - \tau^\prime)}} U\left( \frac{n}{L}\right) e\left( - \frac{a n}{q}\right) e\left( \frac{a_1 n}{q_1}\right). \end{aligned}$$
As in the previous case, breaking the summation modulo $q q_1$, applying Poisson summation formula, and making a change of variable $( \alpha + y q q_1)/ L = w$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
D= \sum_{\substack{n \in \mathbb{Z} \\ a_1 q - a q_1 + n \equiv 0 \bmod q q_1}} L^{-i ( \tau - \tau^\prime)} U^\natural \left(\frac{nL}{ q q_1}, - i(\tau - \tau^\prime) \right).\end{aligned}$$ where $ U^\natural $ is defined by equation . Recall that $ | \tau - \tau^\prime | \ll (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C$ and $q, q_1 \asymp C$. Applying Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] we observe that the integral is negligibly small if $n\gg C(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ L $. Substituting value of $D$ we have the following lemma.
\[lemma s 1 j ncl\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S0 and S1}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) & = \frac{K}{N C^2} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m_1, q_1)=1 \\ 1\leq |m_1| \ll q_1t^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \bigg\lbrace \mathfrak{I} (0) + \sum_{\substack{0 \neq n \ll C(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/L \\ a_1 q - a q_1 + n \equiv 0 \bmod q q_1}} \mathfrak{I} (n) \bigg\rbrace \notag \\
& + O_A\left(t^{-A} \right) : = S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 0) + S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 1) + O_A\left(t^{-A} \right), \end{aligned}$$
where $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 0)$ corresponds to contribution of $ \mathfrak{I} (0)$, $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 1)$ corresponds to contribution of $ \mathfrak{I} (n)$ for $n \neq 0 $, and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{I} (n) &= \iint_{\mathbb{R}^2} \gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau, k) \overline{\gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau^\prime, k)} W_j(\tau) \overline{W_j(\tau^\prime)} \frac{(LN)^{ - i( \tau -\tau^\prime)}}{ q^{- 2 i \tau} q_1^{ 2 i \tau^\prime}} \\
& \hspace{30pt} G_2(q, m, \tau) \overline{G_2(q_1, m_1, \tau^\prime)} U^\natural \left(\frac{nL}{ q q_1}, - i(\tau - \tau^\prime) \right)\ d\tau\ d\tau'.\end{aligned}$$
By using the value of $ G_2(q, m, \tau) $ as given in Lemma \[decomposition g1 q m tau\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integral in second cauchy}
\mathfrak{I} (n) &= \frac{|c_1|^2}{K^2}\iint_{\mathbb{R}^2} \gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau, k) \ \overline{\gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau^\prime, k)} W_j(q, m, \tau) \overline{W_j(q_1, m_1, \tau^\prime)} \frac{(LN)^{ - i( \tau -\tau^\prime)}}{ q^{- 2 i \tau} q_1^{ 2 i \tau^\prime}} \notag\\
& \hspace{0pt} \times \left(- \frac{(t+\tau)q}{2 \pi e Nm} \right)^{ -i (t+\tau)} \left(- \frac{(t+\tau^\prime)q_1}{2 \pi e Nm_1} \right)^{ -i (t+\tau^\prime)} U^\natural \left(\frac{nL}{ q q_1}, - i(\tau - \tau^\prime) \right)\ d\tau\ d\tau', \end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w j q m tau}
W_j(q, m, \tau) = \frac{c_1}{ (t+\tau)^{1/2}K } \left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi e Nm}\right)^{3/2} V\left( \frac{-(t+\tau) q}{ 2 \pi Nm}\right) \int_{0}^1 V\left( \frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau) x}{Kma}\right) dx. \end{aligned}$$ We have $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} W_j(q, m, \tau) \ll \frac{1}{t^{1/2} |\tau|}.$$ We shall first evaluate the integral transform $ U^\natural$. For $ n=0$, using Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] with $r= 0$ and $\beta =| \tau - \tau^\prime|$ we observe that integral $U^\natural$ is negligibly small if $| \tau - \tau^\prime| \gg t^{\epsilon}$. We denote $$\frac{\tau}{K}- \frac{(t+\tau) x}{Kma} = P$$ The integrand is non-vanishing only when $ P \in [1,2]$. Hence the range of the $x$-integral is of size $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Kma}{t+\tau} \asymp \frac{Kma}{t} \asymp \frac{C K^{1/2}}{ N^{1/2}}, \ \ \ \textrm{as} \ \ a \asymp \sqrt{\frac{N}{K}} \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ m\ll \frac{qt}{N}. \end{aligned}$$ Substituting the above bound and using $u^{3/2} V(u)\ll 1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W_j(q, m, \tau) \ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}} \frac{C K^{1/2}}{ N^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, using above bound for $ W_j(q, m, \tau)$, trivial bound for Gamma function $\gamma(s, k)\ll 1$, $u^{3/2} V(u) \ll 1$, along with the fact that $\tau\in[ -(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C, (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C]$, we obtain that the contribution of the term $n= 0$ is bounded above by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E 1 C 0}
\mathfrak{I} (0) \ll \frac{1}{K^2}\frac{ (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon}{ C t} \frac{C K^{1/2}}{ N^{1/2}} \asymp \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{Kt} .
$$ We need to save little more, as we do in the following subsection.
Analysis of e {#refine}
-------------
$\mathfrak{I} (0)$ is negligibly small if $| \tau - \tau^\prime| \gg t^{\epsilon}$. Writing $ \tau^\prime = \tau + h $, with $|h| \ll t^\epsilon$ and using Stirling’s approximation for Gamma function (Lemma \[stirling\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I 0}
\mathfrak{I} (0) = \frac{c}{K^2} \int_{|h| \ll t^\epsilon} \int_{|\tau| \ll (NK)^{1/2}/ C} G(\tau, h) e(F (\tau, h)) d \tau \ dh, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G(\tau , h ) = \Phi_+(\tau) \overline{ \Phi_+(\tau + h)} W_j(q, m, \tau) \overline{W_j(q_1, m_1, \tau+ h)}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F (\tau, h) &= 2 \tau \log \left(\frac{\tau}{ e \pi} \right) - 2 ( \tau+ h) \log \left(\frac{\tau +h}{ e \pi} \right) - h \log LN + 2 \tau \log q - 2 (\tau + h) \log q_1 \\
& \hspace{1cm} \times - (t+ \tau) \log \left( \frac{-(t + \tau ) q}{ 2 \pi e N m }\right) + (t+ \tau + h) \log \left( \frac{-(t + \tau + h ) q_1}{ 2 \pi e N m_1 }\right) \\
& = 2 \tau \log \left(\frac{\tau}{ e \pi} \right) - 2 ( \tau+ h) \left\lbrace \log \left(\frac{\tau}{ e \pi} \right) + \log \left(1 + \frac{ h}{ \tau} \right)\right\rbrace + h \log LN + 2 \tau \log \left( \frac{q}{q_1}\right) - 2 h \log q_1 \\
& - ( t + \tau) \left\lbrace \log \left(\frac{ q m_1}{q_1 m} \right) + \log \left(\frac{(t + \tau) }{t + \tau + h} \right) \right\rbrace + h \log \left( \frac{-(t + \tau + h ) q_1}{ 2 \pi e N m_1 }\right) \\
&= \tau \log \left(\frac{ q m}{q_1 m_1} \right) - 2h \log \left(1 + \frac{ h}{ \tau} \right) + h \log LN - 2 h \log q_1 - 2 h \log \tau + H(h). \end{aligned}$$ $H(h)$ is a function of $h$ defined appropriately. Substituting the above expression into equation , we have that the integral over $\tau$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|\tau| \ll (NK)^{1/2}/ C} G(\tau, h) \tau^{-2 i h} \left(\frac{ q m}{q_1 m_1} \right)^{2 \pi i \tau} d \tau \ll_j \left( \frac{h}{ \frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} \log \left(\frac{ q m}{q_1 m_1} \right)}\right)^j.\end{aligned}$$ This bound is obtained using repeated integration by parts. We observe that integration over $\tau $ is negligibly small if $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} \left| \log \left(\frac{ q m}{q_1 m_1} \right)\right| \ll t^\epsilon \Rightarrow \left| \log \left(\frac{ q m}{q_1 m_1} \right)\right| \ll \frac{t^\epsilon C}{(NK)^{1/2}} \\
& \Rightarrow q_1 m_1 e^{ \frac{ -
A_0 t^\epsilon C}{(NK)^{1/2}} } \ll q m \ll q_1 m_1 e^{ \frac{ A_0t^\epsilon C}{(NK)^{1/2}} } \Rightarrow | q m - q_1 m_1| \ll \frac{ t^\epsilon C^2 m}{(NK)^{1/2}} , \end{aligned}$$ As in equation , integrating over $\tau$ and $h$, we obtain $\mathfrak{I} (0) \ll t^{\epsilon} (Kt)^{-1}$. We record this result in the following lemma.
Let $ \mathfrak{I} (n)$ be as given in equation . Then $ \mathfrak{I} (0)$ is negligibly small except for $$| q m - q_1 m_1| \ll \frac{ t^\epsilon C^2 m}{(NK)^{1/2}}.$$ In the above range we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{I} (0) \ll \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{Kt} := E_1 (C, 0).\end{aligned}$$
Substituting this into equation we obtain that the contribution of $ \mathfrak{I} (0) $ in Lemma \[lemma s 1 j ncl\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 0)= \frac{K}{N C^2} \mathop{\sum \sum \sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q, q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 (m_1, q_1) =1 \\ 1\leq |m|, |m_1| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N \\ a_1 q - a q_1 \equiv 0 \bmod q q_1 \\ | q m - q_1 m_1| \ll \frac{ t^\epsilon C^2 m}{(NK)^{1/2}} } } | \mathfrak{I} (0)| + O_A\left(t^{-A}\right), \end{aligned}$$
Since $(a, q)=(a_1, q_1)=1$, the congruence condition modulo $qq_1$ implies $q=q_1$ and $a=a_1$. Therefore $m\equiv m_1\bmod q$. The condition $|qm - q_1m_1|\ll t^\epsilon C^2m/(NK)^{1/2}$ becomes $|m-m_1|<Cm/(NK)^{1/2}$. Given the condition $$t< NK$$ we see that $Cm/(NK)^{1/2}<C$. Therefore choosing $m$ fixes $m_1$. The above sum is therefore bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diagonal}
\frac{K}{N C^2} \sum_{ C < q \leqslant 2C} \sum_{1 \leqslant m \ll q t/N} \mathop{\sum}_{\substack{1\leq m_1 \ll qt/N\\ a=a_1}} | \mathfrak{I} (0)| \ll \frac{K}{N C^2} \cdot C \cdot \frac{C t}{N} \cdot \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{Kt} \ll \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{N^2}.\end{aligned}$$
We record this result in the following lemma.
\[lemma S0\] Let $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 0) $ be as given in equation . We have $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 0) \ll \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{N^2},\end{aligned}$$ for any $\epsilon >0$.
In the following subsection we consider the case when $n \neq 0$.
Analysis of f for g
-------------------
We apply Lemma \[Fourier Mellin\] and use $$\beta^{-3/2}U_1(\sigma, \beta/2\pi r)\ll O_{a,b,\sigma}(\min\{|\beta|^{-3/2},|r|^{-3/2}\})$$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U natural second}
U^\natural \left(\frac{nL}{ q q_1}, - i(\tau - \tau^\prime) \right) & = \frac{c_3}{( \tau^\prime - \tau)^{1/2}} U\left( \frac{( \tau^\prime - \tau) q q_1}{2 \pi n L}\right) \left( \frac{( \tau^\prime - \tau) q q_1}{2 \pi e n L}\right)^{ - i(\tau - \tau^\prime) } \notag\\
& \hspace{2cm}+ O\left( \min \left\lbrace \frac{1}{| \tau - \tau^\prime|^{3/2}}, \frac{C^3}{(|n| L)^{3/2}} \right\rbrace \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $c_3$ is an absolute constant which depends on the sign of $n$. We shall first estimate the contribution of the error term towards $\mathfrak{I}(n)$. Using $\gamma(s, k)\ll 1$, $u^{3/2} V(u) \ll 1$, $ W_j(q, m, \tau) \ll t^{-1/2} $ and that $\tau$ range is bounded by $J:= (NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/ C$ , we have the error contribution bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \frac{1}{K^2 t} \iint_{[J, {2J}]^2} \min \left\lbrace \frac{1}{| \tau - \tau^\prime|^{3/2}}, \frac{C^3}{(|n| L)^{3/2}} \right\rbrace d\tau d\tau^\prime. \end{aligned}$$ In the first case, where the first term is smaller that the second, the contribution is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll \frac{1}{K^2 t} \iint_{ \substack{[J, {2J}]^2 \\ | \tau - \tau^\prime| > |n| L/C^2 }} \frac{1}{| \tau - \tau^\prime|^{3/2}}\ d\tau\ d\tau^\prime \ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^2 t} \frac{C}{(|n| L)^{1/2}} \iint_{ [J, {2J}]^2}\frac{1}{ | \tau - \tau^\prime|^{ 1-\epsilon}} d\tau d\tau^\prime \\
&\ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^2 t} \frac{C}{(|n| L)^{1/2}} J \ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{(|n| L)^{1/2}}. \end{aligned}$$ In the second case, when the second term is smaller, we have the bound on error term $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll \frac{1}{K^2 t} \iint_{ \substack{[J, {2J}]^2 \\ | \tau - \tau^\prime| \leq |n| L/C^2 }} \frac{C^3}{(|n| L)^{3/2}} d\tau d\tau^\prime \ll \frac{1}{K^2 t} \frac{C}{(|n| L)^{1/2} } J \ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{(|n| L)^{1/2}}. \end{aligned}$$ For $n\neq 0$ we set the error term $$\label{E 1 C n }
E_1(C, n) = \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{(|n| L)^{1/2}}.$$
Next we consider the contribution of the main term of equation . By Stirling’s approximation (Lemma \[stirling\]) we have $$\gamma(-\frac{1}{2} + i \tau, k) = \left( \frac{|\tau|}{e \pi}\right)^{2 i \tau} \Phi_{\pm} (\tau) \ \ \ \ \textrm{with} \ \ \ \ \Phi_{\pm}^\prime (\tau) \ll \frac{1}{|\tau|}.$$ By Fourier inversion formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fourier inversion}
\left(\frac{2 \pi nL}{ (\tau - \tau^\prime) q q_1} \right)^{1/2} U\left(\frac{(\tau - \tau^\prime) q q_1}{ 2 \pi nL} \right) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} U^\natural \left(z, \frac{1}{2} \right) e \left(\frac{(\tau - \tau^\prime) q q_1}{ 2 \pi nL} z\right) dz.\end{aligned}$$ From equations , , , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{final double exp}
\mathfrak{I}(n) = \frac{c_4}{K^2} \left(\frac{q q_1}{ |n|L} \right)^{1/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} U^\natural \left(z, \frac{1}{2} \right) \iint_{\mathbb{R}^2} G(\tau , \tau^\prime ) e(F(\tau, \tau^\prime)) d\tau d \tau^\prime dz + O( E_1(C, n))
\end{aligned}$$ with some absloute constant $c_4$, $$\begin{aligned}
2 \pi F(\tau, \tau^\prime) = &2 \tau \log \left( \frac{\tau}{e \pi}\right) - 2 \tau^\prime \log \left( \frac{\tau^\prime}{e \pi}\right) - (\tau - \tau^\prime ) \log LN + 2 \tau \log - 2 \tau^\prime \log q_1 \\
& - (t + \tau) \log \left(- \frac{(t+\tau)q}{2 \pi e Nm} \right) + (t + \tau^\prime) \log \left(- \frac{(t+\tau^\prime)q_1}{2 \pi e N m_1} \right) \\
&- (\tau - \tau^\prime) \log \left(\frac{( \tau^\prime - \tau) q q_1}{ 2 \pi e nL} \right) + \frac{( \tau^\prime - \tau) q q_1}{ 2 \pi nL} z,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G(\tau , \tau^\prime ) = \Phi_+(\tau) \overline{ \Phi_+(\tau^\prime)} W_j(q, m, \tau) \overline{W_j(q_1, m_1, \tau^\prime)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating with respect to $\tau$ and $ \tau^\prime $, $$\begin{aligned}
2 \pi \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} F(\tau, \tau^\prime) = \frac{2}{\tau} - \frac{1}{t +\tau} +
\frac{1}{\tau^\prime - \tau}, \ \ \ 2 \pi \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^{\prime 2}} F(\tau, \tau^\prime) = - \frac{2}{\tau^\prime} + \frac{1}{t +\tau^\prime} +
\frac{1}{\tau^\prime - \tau}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
2 \pi \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau \partial\tau^{\prime } } F(\tau, \tau^\prime) = - \frac{1}{\tau^\prime - \tau}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now using the fact that Supp $ W_j \subset [j, 4j/3]$ and $j \ll t^{1-\epsilon}$, by an explicit computation we have $$4 \pi^2 \left[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^{\prime 2}} - \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau \partial\tau^{\prime } } \right)^2 \right] F(\tau, \tau^\prime) = \frac{-4}{ \tau \tau^\prime} + O\left( \frac{1}{tj}\right).$$ Our goal is to apply Lemma \[double expo sum\]. For this, we first compute the total variation of function $ G(\tau , \tau^\prime )$ defined as in equation . Using $ \Phi^\prime (\tau) \ll |\tau|^{-1}$ and $ \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} W_j(q, m, \tau) \ll t^{-1/2} |\tau|^{-1}$, we have $var(G) \ll t^{-1 +\epsilon}$. We apply Lemma \[double expo sum\] with $r_1 = \tau^{-1/2} \asymp j^{-1/2}$ and $r_2 = \tau^{\prime -1/2} \asymp j^{-1/2}$, we observe that the double integral is bounded by $$\frac{t^{-1 +\epsilon}}{j^{-1/2} j^{-1/2}} \ll t^{-1 +\epsilon} j.$$ Substituting this bound for the double integral, estimating the integral over $z$ trivially and using $j\ll (NK)^{1/2}/ C$, we have that the total contribution of leading term is bounded by $$\frac{t^\epsilon}{K^2} \frac{C}{(|n|L)^{1/2}} \frac{(NK)^{1/2}}{C} \frac{1}{t} \ll E_1(C, n).$$ We summarize the contribution of the leading term and the error term in the following lemma.
Let $n \neq 0$. For any $\epsilon >0$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{I} (n) \ll \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{(|n| L)^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the bound for $\mathfrak{I}(n)$ (for $n \neq 0$) in Lemma \[lemma s 1 j ncl\] and reasoning exactly as we did to bound , we obtain that $S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 1)$ is bounded above by $$\begin{aligned}
& \ll \frac{K}{N C^2} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q \leq 2C,\ (m, q)=1 \\ 1\leq |m| \ll qt^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \mathop{\sum \sum }_{ \substack{ C<q_1 \leq 2C,\ (m_1, q_1)=1 \\ 1\leq |m_1| \ll q_1t^{1+\epsilon}/ N}} \sum_{\substack{n \ll C(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/L \\ a_1 q - a q_1 + n \equiv 0 \bmod \ q q_1}} \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{(|n| L)^{1/2}} \\
&\ll \frac{K}{N C^2} \frac{C q t}{N} \frac{q_1 t}{N} \frac{1}{q q_1} \frac{t^\epsilon}{K^{3/2} t} \frac{N^{1/2}}{ L^{1/2}} \sum_{n \ll C(NK)^{1/2} t^\epsilon/L } \frac{1}{n^{1/2}} \ll \frac{t^{1+\epsilon}}{L N^{9/4} K^{1/4} C^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ We record this bound for $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) $ in the following lemma.
\[lemma S1\] Let $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 1) $ be as given in equation . We have $$S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L, 1) \ll \frac{t^{1+\epsilon}}{L N^{9/4} K^{1/4} C^{1/2}}.$$
Substituting the bounds of Lemma \[lemma S0\] and Lemma \[lemma S1\] into Lemma \[lemma s 1 j ncl\], we obtain the following lemma
Let $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) $ be as given in equation . We have
$$S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) \ll \frac{t^{1+\epsilon}}{L N^{9/4} K^{1/4} C^{1/2}} + \frac{t^{\epsilon}}{N^2}.$$
Substituting the bound for $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C, L) $ in the equation , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S1 plus N C}
S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C) &\ll N^{1/2} K \sum_{\substack{ L \ll K \\ \text{dyadic}}} L^{1/2} \left( \frac{ t^\epsilon t^{1/2} }{L^{1/2} N^{9/8} K^{1/8}C^{1/4}} + \frac{t^\epsilon}{N} \right)
\ll t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \left( \frac{t^{1/2} }{N^{9/8} K^{1/8} C^{1/4}} + \frac{ K^{1/2}}{N} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the bound for $ S_{1, j}^{+}(N, C)$ from equation , $$\begin{aligned}
S_1^+(N, C) & \ll t^\epsilon N^{1/2} K \left( \frac{t^{1/2}}{N^{9/8} K^{1/8} C^{1/4}} + \frac{ K^{1/2}}{N} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Substituting the bound for $ S_1^{+}(N, C)$ and using $ C\ll N^{1/2}/K^{1/2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S1}
\frac{S_1^{+}(N)}{N^{1/2}} \ll \frac{N^{1/2}}{K} \sum_{\substack{1\leq C \leq Q \\ \text{dyadic}}} S_1^{+}(N, C) \ll t^{1/2+\epsilon} \left( \frac{1}{N^{1/8}K^{1/8}} + \frac{K^{1/2}}{t^{1/2}}\right). \end{aligned}$$
Combining the bounds and , we get Proposition \[main prop\].
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} KA would like to thank Prof. Ritabrata Munshi for introducing him to the problem and Prof. Roman Holowinsky for helpful discussions. SKS would like to thank Prof. Ritabrata Munshi for helpful discussions. He would also like to thank Prof. Satadal Ganguly and Ratnadeep Acharya for their constant encouragement, and Stat-Math unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata for the wonderful academic atmosphere. During the work, SKS was supported by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, NBHM post doctoral fellowship no: 2/40(15)/2016/R$\&$D-II/5765.
V. Blomer, R. Khan, and M. Young : *Distribution of mass of holomorphic cusp forms*, Duke Math. J. 162 (2013), no. 14, 2609-2644. MR 3127809 Jean, Bourgain : *Decoupling, exponential sums and the Riemann zeta function*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**30**]{} (2017), no. 1, 205–224.
D. A. Burgess : *On character sums and $L$-series, II*, Proc. London Math. Soc. [ **313**]{} (1963), 24-36
Anton Good : *The square mean of Dirichlet series associated with cusp forms*, Mathematika, Volume [**29**]{}, Issue 2, December 1982, 278-295.
M.N. Huxley : *On stationary phase integrals*, Glasg. Math. J. [**36**]{} (1994), no. 3, 355-362, DOI 10.1017/S0017089500030962. MR1295511 (95g:11080)
E. Kowalski, P. Michel, J. Vanderkam : *Rankin-Selberg $L$-function in the level aspect*, Duke Math. J. [**114**]{} (2002), no. 1, 123–191.
Ritabrata Munshi : *The circle method and bounds for $L$-functions-III: $t$-aspect subconvexity for $GL(3)$ $L$-functions*, Journal of American Mathematical Society, Volume [**28**]{}, Number 4, October 2015, 913-938.
S.D. Miller, W. Schmid : *Automorphic distributions, $L$-functions, and Voronoi summation for $GL( 3 )$* , Ann. of Math. (2) [**164 (2)**]{} (2006) 423-488.
B.R. Srinivasan : *The lattice point problem of many dimensional hyperboloids. II*, Acta. Arithmetica VIII [**1963**]{}, 173-204.
B.R. Srinivasan : *The lattice point problem of many dimensional hyperboloids. III* Math. Ann. [**160**]{} (1965), 280-311. MR0181614 (31 \#5842)
A. Ivi[ć]{} : *The Riemann Zeta-Function : Theory and Applications*, Dover Publications, Inc, New York.
D. Goldfeld : *Automorphic forms and L-Functions for the group $GL(n, \mathbb{R})$*, Cambridge University Press, (2006), vol. [**99**]{}, Cambridge.
D. R. Heath-Brown : *Hybrid bounds for Dirichlet $L$-functions*, Invent. Math. 47 (1978), 149-170.
E. Iwaniec : *Topics in Classical Automorphic Forms*, Graduate text in mathematics [**17**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997.
E. Iwaniec W. Luo and P. Sarnak : *Low lying zeros of family of $L-$ functions*, Inst. Hautes [' E]{}tudes Sci. Publ. Math. [**91**]{}, (2000) 55-131.
H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski : *Analytic Number Theory*, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publication [**53**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004.
H. Iwaniec : *Spectral Methods of Automorphic Forms*, Graduate Studies in Mathematics [**53**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Revista Matem[\` a]{}tica Iberoamericana.
Maiti Jutila : *Lectures on a Method in the Theory of Exponential Sums*, Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Lectures on Math. and Phys.,[**80**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1987.
Maiti Jutila : *Mean values of Dirichlet series via Laplace transforms*, in Analytic Number Theory (Kyoto, 1996), pp. 169-207. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
Maiti Jutila and Yoichi Motohashi : *Uniform bound for Hecke $L$-functions*, Acta Math., [ **195** ]{} (2005), 61-115.
H. Kim and P. Sarnak : *Refined estimates towards the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures*, J. American Math. Soc. [**16**]{}, (2003), 175-181.
Xiaoqing Li : *Bounds for $GL(3)\times GL(2)$ $L$-functions and $GL(3)$ $L$-functions*, Ann. of Math. (2) [**173**]{} (2011), no. 1, 301–336
L[" u]{}, Guangshi : *On averages of Fourier coefficients of Maass cusp forms*, Arch. Math. [ **100**]{} (2013), 255-265. c 2013 Springer Basel
T. Meurman : *On exponential sums involving the Fourier coefficients of Maass wave forms*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**384**]{} (1988), 192-207.
T. Meurman : *On the order of the Maass L-function on the critical line*, in Number Theory, Vol. I (Budapest, 1987), pp. 325-354. Colloq. Math. Soc. J[' a]{}nos Bolyai, 51. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.
E. C. Titchmarsh : *The theory of the Riemann Zeta-function (revised by D. R. Heath-Brown)*, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986).
Hermann Weyl : *Zur Abschatzung von $\zeta(1+ it)$*, Math. Zeitschrift [ **10**]{} (1921), 88–101.
[Address of the authors: Stat-Math Unit,\
Indian Statistical Institute,\
203 BT Road, Kolkata-700108, INDIA.]{}\
[Email address : [email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $(X,\alpha)$ be a Kähler manifold of dimension $n$, and let $[\omega] \in H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})$. We study the problem of specifying the Lagrangian phase of $\omega$ with respect to $\alpha$, which is described by the nonlinear elliptic equation $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \arctan({\lambda}_i)= h(x)$$ where ${\lambda}_i$ are the eigenvalues of $\omega$ with respect to $\alpha$. When $h(x)$ is a topological constant, this equation corresponds to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills (dHYM) equation, and is related by Mirror Symmetry to the existence of special Lagrangian submanifolds of the mirror. We introduce a notion of subsolution for this equation, and prove a priori $C^{2,\beta}$ estimates when $|h|>(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$ and a subsolution exists. Using the method of continuity we show that the dHYM equation admits a smooth solution in the supercritical phase case, whenever a subsolution exists. Finally, we discover some stability-type cohomological obstructions to the existence of solutions to the dHYM equation and we conjecture that when these obstructions vanish the dHYM equation admits a solution. We confirm this conjecture for complex surfaces.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, 1 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138'
author:
- 'Tristan C. Collins'
- Adam Jacob
- 'Shing-Tung Yau'
title: '$(1,1)$ forms with specified Lagrangian phase: A priori estimates and algebraic obstructions.'
---
Introduction
============
Let $(X,\alpha)$ be a connected, compact Kähler manifold of complex dimension $n$, and let $\Omega\in H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})$ be a cohomology class. Motivated by Mirror Symmetry, the second and third authors introduced the following problem in [@JY]; does there exist a smooth, closed $(1,1)$ form $\omega$, such that $[\omega]= \Omega$, and $$\label{eq: form type}
{\rm Im}(\alpha+ \sqrt{-1}\omega)^n = \tan( \hat{\theta}) {\rm Re}(\alpha +\sqrt{-1}\omega)^n,$$ where $\hat{\theta}$ is a topological constant determined by $[\alpha],\Omega$ ? When $\Omega\in H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{Z})$, this equation is known as the [*deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation*]{}, and plays an important role in Mirror Symmetry. Written in terms of the eigenvalues of the relative endomorphism $\Lambda^{j}_{k} = \alpha^{j\bar{\ell}}\omega_{k\bar{\ell}}$, equation can be written as [@JY] $$\label{eq: SLag type}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega):= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \arctan({\lambda}_i) = \hat{\Theta}.$$ Equation is the natural generalization to compact Kähler manifolds of the special Lagrangian equation with potential introduced by Harvey-Lawson [@HL] and since studied extensively; see, for instance, [@CNS; @Sm; @SmW; @WY; @WY1; @MTW; @Y1; @Y] and the references therein. The third author, with Leung and Zaslow [@LYZ], showed that when $\Omega =c_1(L)$ for a holomorphic line bundle $L \rightarrow X$, and $X$ is a torus fibration over a torus, solutions of equation are related via the Fourier-Mukai transform to special Lagrangian sections of the dual torus fibration. In their paper [@JY], the second and third authors initiated the study of over a compact Kähler manifold, and using a parabolic flow they proved the existence of solutions when $(X,\alpha)$ has positive bisectional curvature, and the initial data is sufficiently positive.
The starting point for this work is the following simple observation; suppose $\Omega = c_{1}(L)$ is Kähler, and look for hermitian metrics $h$ on $L$ whose curvature form satisfies . We may also look for metrics $h$ on $L$, so that the curvature form of $h^{k}$ on $L^{\otimes k}$ satisfies equation with $c_{1}(L)$ replaced by $kc_{1}(L)$. These two equations are [*different*]{}. It is therefore natural to ask for the limiting equation when $k\rightarrow \infty$. Multiplying both sides of by $k^{-n}$, and taking a limit as $k\rightarrow \infty$ one easily obtains that the limiting equation is $$\label{eq: J-eqn}
c\omega^{n} = n\omega^{n-1}\wedge \alpha,$$ for $\omega \in c_{1}(L)$ with $c$ a topological constant. Equation is precisely the $J$-equation, discovered independently by Donaldson [@Don] and Chen [@Ch1; @Ch2]. Let us briefly recall some of the important analytic and algebraic facts about the $J$-equation to serve as motivation for our work. Analytically, the solvability of the $J$-equation on general compact Kähler manifolds is well understood thanks to work of Song-Weinkove [@SW], building on previous work of Weinkove [@W1; @W2]. Song-Weinkove show that the existence of a solution to the $J$-equation is equivalent to the existence of a Kähler metric $\chi\in[\omega]$ with $$\label{eq: J-eqn subsol}
c\chi^{n-1} - (n-1)\chi^{n-2}\wedge \alpha >0$$ in the sense of $(n-1,n-1)$ forms. Very recently, Székelyhidi [@Szek] introduced a notion of subsolutions for a very general class of Hessian type equations on Hermitian manifolds, which encompasses , and showed that the existence of a subsolution implies a priori estimates to all orders.
The primary goal in this work is to begin building an analytic and algebraic framework for studying the existence problem for solutions of equation . As a first step, we study the specified Lagrangian phase equation; $$\label{eq: Spec Lag Ang}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega) :=\sum_{i}\arctan({\lambda}_i) = h(x).$$
Our first theorem is that, under the assumption of a subsolution, solutions of the specified Lagrangian phase equation with critical phase admit a priori estimates to all orders.
\[thm: est thm\] Fix $\omega_0\in\Omega$. Let $u:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a smooth function such that $\sup_{X}u=0$ and $\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega_0+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) = h(x)$, where $h:X \rightarrow [(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}+{\varepsilon}_0, n\frac{\pi}{2})$. Suppose there exists a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution $\underline{u}:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ in the sense of Definition \[def: C-sub\] (see also Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\]). Then for every $\beta \in (0,1)$ we have an estimate $$\|u\|_{C^{2,\beta}} {\leqslant}C(X,\alpha, \beta, h, {\varepsilon}_0, \omega_0, \underline{u}).$$
Our notion of a subsolution is certainly necessary for the existence of a solution to , and furthermore agrees with the notion of a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution recently introduced by Székelyhidi [@Szek]. The Lagrangian phase equation fails several of the structural conditions imposed in [@Szek]– most seriously, in general, the operator we study fails to be concave. The main difficulty in the proof of Theorem \[thm: est thm\] is the $C^2$ estimate which is rather delicate owing to the lack of concavity. In the real case, a priori second order estimates for graphical solutions of the special Lagrangian equation with constant and critical phase are proved by Wang-Yuan [@WY]. By contrast, the complex setting studied here introduces several new negative terms into the estimate, which together with the non-constant phase, further complicate the analysis.
We apply these a priori estimates together with the method of continuity to prove an existence theorem for the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation
\[thm: existence thm\] Fix $\omega_0\in\Omega$ and suppose the topological constant $\hat{\Theta}$ satisfies the critical phase condition $$\hat{\Theta} >(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$ Furthermore, suppose that there exists $\chi:=\omega_0+\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar\partial\underline{u} \in \Omega$ defining a subsolution in the sense of Definition \[def: C-sub\] (see also Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\]). Assume that either
- $\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi) >(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$, or
- $\hat{\Theta} {\geqslant}((n-2)+\frac{2}{n}) \frac{\pi}{2}$.
Then there exists a unique smooth $(1,1)$ form $\omega $ with $[\omega]=\Omega$ solving the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation $$\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega) = \hat{\Theta}.$$
We remark that in the statement of Theorem \[thm: existence thm\], the appearance of two conditions is rather artificial. In reality, we require only the first condition. We have only added the second condition to emphasize that if $\chi \in \Omega$ is a subsolution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation with $\hat{\Theta} {\geqslant}[(n-2)+\frac{2}{n}] \frac{\pi}{2}$, then the first condition is automatically satisfied. This result removes the hypercritical phase, non-negative sectional curvature, and large initial angle assumptions from [@JY]. We expect that this result can be improved when the angle $\hat{\Theta} \in ((n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}, ((n-2)+\frac{2}{n}) \frac{\pi}{2})$, to remove the assumption that the subsolution has critical phase. This expectation has been verified in dimension 2 [@JY Theorem 1.2], and in dimension 3 [@P], where it follows from work of Fang-Lai-Ma [@FLM].
In the case of a domain in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, we expect the natural extension of the subsolution condition considered here to be equivalent to the solvability of the boundary value problem, in analogy with the work of Guan-Li [@GL] on the inverse Hessian type equations. In the real setting, the Dirichlet problem posed by Harvey-Lawson [@HL] was solved by Caffarelli-Niremberg-Spruck [@CNS] under some assumptions on the convexity of the boundary. It is interesting to note the similarities between these convexity conditions and the subsolution condition in Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\].
Finally, we show that the existence of a subsolution imposes some cohomological restrictions on $X$. In particular, we prove the following simple
\[prop: intro stable nec\] For every subvariety $V \subset X$, define $$\Theta_{V} := {\rm Arg} \int_{V} (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{\dim V}.$$ If there exists a solution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation , then for every proper subvariety $V\subset X$ we have $$\Theta_{V} > \Theta_{X} - (n-\dim V)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
This condition is a close analog of the stability condition for the $J$-equation recently discovered by Lejmi-Székelyhidi [@LS], and we expect the obstruction in Proposition \[prop: intro stable nec\] to arise from a suitable adaptation of the K-stability framework, a problem we plan to address in future work. In light of [@LS Conjecture 1], and recent evidence for this conjecture by the first author and Székelyhidi [@CS] and Lejmi-Székelyhidi [@LS], it does not seem irresponsible to pose
\[conj: Lag stab\] A solution of the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation exists if and only if for every proper subvariety $V\subset X$ we have $$\Theta_{V} > \Theta_{X} - (n-\dim V)\frac{\pi}{2},$$ in the notation of Proposition \[prop: intro stable nec\].
In Proposition \[prop: conj dim 2\] we show that this conjecture holds in dimension 2. Furthermore, we briefly discuss how the stability condition can be interpreted in terms of a central charge. In future work we hope to understand how Conjecture \[conj: Lag stab\] fits into the Mirror Symmetry setting for special Lagrangians and the conjectural picture put forth by Thomas and the third author [@TY], and Thomas [@T1; @T]. Finally, we remark that there has recently been considerable interest in the analogy between the problem of finding special Lagrangians in a Calabi-Yau, and that of finding Kähler-Einstein or constant scalar curvature Kähler metrics as outlined by Solomon [@Sol1; @Sol2], and studied in recent work of Rubinstein-Solomon [@RS].
The layout of this paper is as follows; in Section 2 we briefly discuss some background material, mostly taken from earlier work of the second and third authors [@JY]. In Section 3 we discuss the notion of a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution, and extract the results from [@Szek] which we will need. In Section 4 we prove an a priori $C^2$ estimate in terms of the gradient for solutions of the specified Lagrangian phase equation . This is the most difficult step in the proof of Theorem \[thm: est thm\]. In Section 5 we use a blow-up argument to prove an a priori gradient bound for solutions of , which implies a uniform $C^2$ estimates. In Section 6 we discuss the $C^{2,\beta}$ estimates, which follow from the usual Evans-Krylov estimate by a blow-up argument and a reduction to the real case. In Section 7 we take up the method of continuity and prove Theorem \[thm: existence thm\]. This actually turns out to be slightly involved, as the natural method of continuity does not obviously preserve the critical phase condition, nor the existence of a subsolution. Instead we adapt a trick of Sun [@WS], and use a double method of conintuity. The first continuity path is used to find a suitable starting point for the second method of continuity, whose ending point is the solution of the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation. In Section 8 we further discuss the implications of the existence of a subsolution for the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation, and deduce some algebraic obstructions to the existence of $(1,1)$ forms with constant Lagrangian phase. We prove Proposition \[prop: intro stable nec\], and give some evidence for Conjecture \[conj: Lag stab\].\
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} The first author is grateful to Gabor Székelyhidi for several helpful conversations. The authors would like to thank Valentino Tosatti and Ben Weinkove for helpful comments.
Background and Notation {#background}
=======================
Let us briefly discuss our setup. Fix a compact Kähler manifold $X$ with Kähler form $\alpha$, and assume the normalization $\int_{X}\alpha^{n}=n!$. Throughout this paper, unless otherwise noted, the covariant derivative $\nabla$ and all norms are computed with respect to $\alpha$.
Fix a cohomology class $\Omega \in H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})$. The deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation seeks a $(1,1)$ form $\omega \in \Omega$ wth the property that the map $$X \ni x \longmapsto\frac{ (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{n}}{\alpha^{n}} \in \mathbb{C}$$ has constant argument. Here we view ${\rm Arg}$ as a map from $\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ (rather than $S^1$) by specifying that the argument of the function $1 = \frac{\alpha^{n}}{\alpha^{n}}$ is zero. If a solution of this equation exists, then we necessarily have $${\rm Arg} \frac{(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{n}}{\alpha^{n}} = {\rm Arg}\int_{X}\frac{ (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{n}}{n!} =: \hat{\Theta},$$ where $\hat\Theta$ is a topological constant. As shown in [@JY], this problem is equivalent to both equations and . We will primarily deal with the later representation. As we discussed in the introduction, it is also necessary to consider the specified Lagrangian phase equation for non-constant phase $$\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega) := \sum_{i=1}^{n} \arctan({\lambda}_i) = h(x),$$ where again ${\lambda}_i$ are the eigenvalues of $\alpha^{-1}\omega$.
It is useful to introduce another Hermitian metric on $T^{1,0}(X)$, defined by the formula $\eta_{j\bar{k}} = \alpha_{j\bar{k}} + \omega_{j\bar{\ell}}\alpha^{p\bar{\ell}} \omega_{p\bar{k}}.$ Note this metric is never Kähler. With this definition, following [@JY] one can compute the variation of $\Theta_{\alpha}$ as $$\label{eq: derivtheta}
\delta\Theta_{\alpha}= \eta^{j\bar{k}}\alpha_{\ell\bar k} \delta(\alpha^{\ell\bar m}\omega_{j\bar m}).$$ This computation has two important consequences. First, using the covariant derivative $\nabla$ with respect to $\alpha$, one sees that $d\Theta=\eta^{j\bar{k}}\nabla\omega_{j\bar k}$. Furthermore, since we consider variations of $\omega$ which fix $\alpha$, the linearization of the operator $\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega)$ is given by $$\label{eq: lin op}
\Delta_{\eta} = \eta^{j\bar{k}} {\partial}_j{\partial}_{\bar{k}}.$$ It is easy to check that this operator becomes uniformly elliptic as soon as $|\omega|$ is bounded. At a point $x_0$ in coordinates where $\alpha(x_0)$ is the identity and $\omega(x_0)$ is diagonal with entries ${\lambda}_i$, then the metric $\eta_{j\bar k}$ is diagonal with entries $$\eta_{i\bar{i}}(x_0) = (1+{\lambda}_i^2)\delta_{i\bar{i}}.$$
We conclude this section by specifying the constant $\hat\Theta$. First, define the complex number $$Z_{[\omega]}:=\int_X\frac{(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^n}{n!},$$ which only depends on $[\alpha]$ and $\Omega$. Again, by specifying ${\rm Arg}$ as a map from $\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ (rather than $S^1$), so that the argument of the constant function $1$ is zero, we define $\hat\Theta$ to be Arg$(Z_{[\omega]})$. Following [@JY] and [@WY], we say that an angle is ${\it supercritical}$ if it is larger than $(n-2)\frac\pi2$, and ${\it hypercritical}$ if it is larger than $(n-1)\frac\pi2$. For further discussion and background we refer to reader to [@JY].
Subsolutions and the $C^{0}$ estimate
=====================================
In order to introduce the notion of subsolution for the Lagrangian phase equation, we first define the relevant cone in which our solutions takes values. Let $\Gamma_n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ denote the positive orthant. Recall that $(X,\alpha)$ is a fixed Kähler manifold, and $\omega_0$ is a fixed (1,1) form. In this paper we are interested in finding forms $\omega$ such that $[\omega] = [\omega_0]$, and $$\label{eq: SLag met}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega) := \sum_{\ell=1}^{n} \arctan({\lambda}_\ell) = h(x)$$ where ${\lambda}_\ell$ are the eigenvalues of the hermitian endomorphism $\Lambda^{i}_{k}:=\alpha^{i\bar{j}}\omega_{k\bar{j}}$, and $h: X\rightarrow ((n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$ is a smooth function. We call this the Lagrangian phase equation with [*supercritical phase*]{}. To lighten notation, let us define $\Theta: \mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ to be $$\Theta(x_1, \dots ,x_n) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \arctan(x_i).$$ Let $\Gamma \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be the cone through the origin over the region $$\left\{ (x_1, \dots, x_n) : \Theta(x) {\geqslant}(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2} \right\}.$$ $\Gamma$ is an open, symmetric cone with vertex at the origin containing $\Gamma_n$. Additionally, for any $\sigma \in((n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$ we define $$\Gamma^{\sigma} := \{\lambda \in \Gamma: \Theta(\lambda) >\sigma \}.$$ Note that for any $\sigma$ such that $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ is not empty, the boundary ${\partial}\Gamma^{\sigma}$ is a smooth hypersurface. The geometric and arithmetic properties of the cone $\Gamma$, and the sets $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ will play a crucial role in the developments to follow.
\[lem: arithmetic\] Suppose we have real numbers ${\lambda}_1 {\geqslant}{\lambda}_2 {\geqslant}\cdots {\geqslant}{\lambda}_n$ which satisfy $\Theta(\lambda) = \sigma$, for $\sigma {\geqslant}(n-2) \frac{\pi}{2}$. Then $({\lambda}_1, \dots,{\lambda}_n)$ have the following arithmetic properties;
1. ${\lambda}_1{\geqslant}{\lambda}_2 {\geqslant}\cdots {\geqslant}{\lambda}_{n-1} >0$ and ${\lambda}_{n-1} {\geqslant}|{\lambda}_n|$.
2. ${\lambda}_1 +(n-1) {\lambda}_n {\geqslant}0$.
3. $\sigma_k({\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n) {\geqslant}0$ for all $1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}n-1$.
Furthermore,
1. If $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ is not empty, the boundary ${\partial}\Gamma^{\sigma}$ is a smooth, convex hypersurface.
In addition, if $\sigma {\geqslant}(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2} + \beta$, then;
1. if $\lambda_n {\leqslant}0$, then $\lambda_{n-1} {\geqslant}{\varepsilon}_0(\beta)$.
2. $|\lambda_n| {\leqslant}C(\delta)$.
Statements [*(i)-(iii)*]{} are due to Wang-Yuan [@WY Lemma 2.1]. Statement [*(iv)*]{} is Yuan [@Y Lemma 2.1], while [*(v)*]{} and [*(vi)*]{} are trivial.
In particular, it follows from part [*(i)*]{} of the above lemma that $$\Gamma \subset \{ ({\lambda}_1,\dots, {\lambda}_n) \in \mathbb{R}^{n} : \sum_{i} {\lambda}_i >0\}.$$ We recall the definition of a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution, due to Székelyhidi [@Szek].
\[def: C-sub\] Fix $\omega_0\in\Omega$. We say that a smooth function $\underbar{u}:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution of if the following holds: At each point $x\in X$ define the matrix $\Lambda^{i}_{j} := \alpha^{i\bar{k}}(\omega_0+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}\underbar{u})_{j\bar{k}}$. Then we require that the set $$\left\{ \lambda' \in \Gamma : \sum_{\ell=1}^{n} \arctan({\lambda}'_\ell) = h(x),\,\,\,\, {\rm and }\,\,\,\, \lambda' - \lambda(\Lambda(x)) \in \Gamma_n \right\}$$ is bounded, where $\lambda(\Lambda(x))$ denotes the $n$-tuple of eigenvalues of $\Lambda(x)$.
In the present setting we have the following explicit description of the $\mathcal{C}$-subsolutions.
\[lem: sub sol def\] A smooth function $\underbar{u}:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution of if and only if at each point $x \in X$, if $\mu_1, \dots, \mu_n$ denote the eigenvalues of the Hermitian endomorphism $\Lambda^{i}_{j} := \alpha^{i\bar{k}}(\omega_0+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}\underbar{u})_{j\bar{k}}$, then, for all $j=1, \dots,n$ we have $$\label{subsolution1}
\sum_{\ell \ne j} \arctan(\mu_\ell) > h(x) -\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
We show that if $\underline{u}$ satisfies , then it is a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution. Fix a point $x_0 \in X$, and suppose we have numbers ${\lambda}_1{\geqslant}{\lambda}_2 {\geqslant}\dots{\geqslant}{\lambda}_n$ such that $$\sum_{i} \arctan {\lambda}_i = h(x_0).$$ It suffices to show that if ${\lambda}_i {\geqslant}\mu_i$ for all $i$, then ${\lambda}_1 {\leqslant}C$. Fix $\delta >0$ such that $$\sum_{\ell \ne j} \arctan(\mu_\ell) > h(x_0) +\delta -\frac{\pi}{2},$$ and suppose we can find an $n$-tuple ${\lambda}_1{\geqslant}{\lambda}_2 {\geqslant}\dots{\geqslant}{\lambda}_n$ as above such that $\arctan {\lambda}_1 {\geqslant}\pi/2 -\delta$. Then we clearly have $$\sum_{i\ne 1} \arctan({\lambda}_i) {\leqslant}h(x_0) +\delta - \frac{\pi}{2} < \sum_{i\ne 1} \arctan(\mu_i).$$ Since $\arctan(\cdot)$ is monotone increasing, we must have that $\mu_j >{\lambda}_j$ for some $j$, but this is a contradiction to the assumption that ${\lambda}_i {\geqslant}\mu_i$ for all $i$. The proof of the reverse implication is similar.
Throughout this paper we will be somewhat abusive in referring to the $(1,1)$ form $\chi := \omega_0 +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}\underline{u}$ as a subsolution. We hope that no confusion will result.
\[rk: form type pos\] The condition in Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\] can be expressed in terms of the positivity of a certain $(n-1,n-1)$ form, which is similar in spirit to the subsolution condition discovered by Song-Weinkove [@SW] in the setting of the $J$-flow. We will discuss this fact, as well as some consequences in section \[sec: stability\]; see Proposition \[prop: form type pos\] below.
The following proposition is due to Székelyhidi [@Szek], refining previous work of Guan [@Guan]. This proposition play a fundamental role in proving the $C^2$ bound for our equation, which we demonstrate in the next section.
\[prop: szek prop 6\] Let $[a,b] \subset ((n-2) \frac{\pi}{2}, n \frac{\pi}{2})$ and $\delta, R>0$. There exists $\kappa>0$, with the following property: Suppose that $\sigma \in [a,b]$ and $B$ is a hermitian matrix such that $$({\lambda}(B)-2\delta Id + \Gamma_n) \cap {\partial}\Gamma^{\sigma} \subset B_{R}(0).$$ Then for any hermitian matrix $A$ with ${\lambda}(A) \in {\partial}\Gamma^{\sigma}$ and $|{\lambda}(A)| > R$ we either have $$\sum_{p,q} \eta^{p\bar{q}}(A)[B_{p\bar{q}} - A_{p\bar{q}}] > \kappa \sum_p \eta^{p\bar{p}}(A)$$ or $\eta^{i\bar{i}}(A) > \kappa \sum_p \eta^{p\bar{p}}(A)$ for all $i$, where $\eta = Id +A^2$.
Since $\sigma > (n-2) \frac{\pi}{2}$, Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(iv)*]{} implies that $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ is a convex hypersurface. With this observation, the proof in [@Szek] goes through verbatim.
The following estimate, based on the Alexandroff-Bakelman-Pucci maximum principle, is due to Székelyhidi [@Szek]. Błocki [@Bl] first applied the ABP estimate to the complex Monge-Ampère equation on Kähler manifolds following earlier suggestions by Cheng and the third author. While the operator under consideration here does not have the structural properties imposed in [@Szek], it is straightforward to check that the proof requires only the ellipticity of the operator, and hence applies verbatim here.
\[prop: C0 est\] Suppose that $\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega_0 + {\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) = h(x)$, where $h: X \rightarrow [(n-2) \frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$, and suppose that $\underbar{u}=0$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution. Then there exists a constant $C$, depending only on the given data, including $\omega_0$, such that $$\text{osc}_{X} u {\leqslant}C.$$
When a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution $\underline{u}$ exists, we will denote by $\chi:= \omega_0 +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}\underline{u} \in\Omega$ the corresponding $(1,1)$ form.
The $C^{2}$ estimate
====================
The main result of this section is
\[thm: C2 estimate\] Suppose $u:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function solving the equation $$\label{eq: C2 SLag}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) = h(x)$$ where $h: X \rightarrow [(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}+\beta, n\frac{\pi}{2})$ for some $\beta>0$. Then there exists a constant $C$ depending only on the subsolution $\chi$, as well as $|h|_{C^{2}(X,\alpha)}, {\rm osc}_X u, \alpha, \beta$, such that $$|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u| {\leqslant}C\left(1+ \sup_{X}|\nabla u|^{2}\right).$$
The proof is via the maximum principle. Let $\omega := \chi +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u$. We begin by defining functions ${\varphi}(t), \psi(t)$ as follows. Let $K =1+\sup_{X} |\nabla u|^{2}$, and set $${\varphi}(t) = -\frac{1}{2}\log(1- \frac{t}{2K}),\qquad t\in[0,K-1].$$ Note that ${\varphi}(t)$ satisfies $$(4K)^{-1} < {\varphi}' < (2K)^{-1}, \qquad {\varphi}'' = 2({\varphi}')^2, \qquad 0{\leqslant}{\varphi}(t) {\leqslant}\frac{1}{2}\log2$$ Normalize $u$ so that $\inf_X u=0$. By Proposition \[prop: C0 est\] we have a bound on $\sup_{X} u$. Define $\psi:[0, \sup_{X}u] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $$\psi(t) = -2At + \frac{A\tau}{2} t^{2}$$ where $A \gg 0$ and $\tau>0$ are constants to be determined. We choose $\tau$ sufficiently small so that $$A {\leqslant}-\psi' {\leqslant}2A, \quad \psi'' = A\tau$$ Define the Hermitian endomorphisms $$\Lambda :=\alpha^{i\bar{j}}(\chi +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u)_{k\bar{j}},\qquad \Lambda_0 := \alpha^{i\bar{j}}\chi_{k\bar{j}}$$ and recall that we are assuming $\chi$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-subsolution. Let ${\lambda}_{max}$ denote the largest eigenvalue of $\Lambda$, which is a continuous function from $X$ to $\mathbb{R}$. We want to apply the maximum principle to the quantity $$G_{0}(x) := \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\lambda_{max}^{2}) + {\varphi}(|\nabla u|^{2}) + \psi (u).$$ This quantity is inspired by the one considered by Hou-Ma-Wu [@HMW] for the complex Hessian equations and subsequently used by Székelyhidi [@Szek] for a large class of concave equations. The gradient term used appearing in $G_0$ was first used by Chou-Wang [@CW] in their study of the real Hessian equations. The function $G_{0}$ differs from the one considered in [@HMW; @Szek] in its highest order term, where we have used a function of the eigenvalues which appears in the study of the real special Lagrangian equation; see, for instance [@WY; @SmW]. This modification is not merely cosmetic – the added convexity of this higher order term appears essential to the estimate. Finally, we note that, unlike the estimates in the real case, we require extra lower order terms in order to counter additional negative terms which appear when differentiating the eigenvalues of a Hermitian (rather than symmetric) matrix.
The function $G_{0}(x)$ is clearly continuous, and hence achieves its maximum at some point $x_0 \in X$. Fix local coordinates $(z_1, \dots, z_n)$ centered at $x_0$ which are normal for the background Kähler metric $\alpha$, and such that $\omega(x_0)$ is diagonal with entries ${\lambda}_1 {\geqslant}{\lambda}_2 {\geqslant}\cdots {\geqslant}{\lambda}_n$. By Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] we may assume that ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large so that ${\lambda}_1 >\max\{2|{\lambda}_n|, |{\lambda}_n|+1\}$. Since $\chi$ is a subsolution, we can find $\delta, R >0$ depending only on $h, \omega_0$ such that $$[{\lambda}(\Lambda_0(x_0)) - 2\delta Id + \Gamma_n] \cap {\partial}\Gamma^{h(x_0)} \subset B_{R}(0).$$ We may assume that $|{\lambda}(\Lambda(x_0))| >R$, so that Proposition \[prop: szek prop 6\] applies. In particular, there exists $\kappa>0$ depending only on $\delta, R$ and $h$ such that either $$\label{eq: C2 good pos}
\sum_p \frac{\chi_{p\bar{p}} - {\lambda}_p}{1+{\lambda}_p^2} > \kappa \sum_p \frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_p^2}.$$ or $(1+{\lambda}_i^2)^{-1} > \kappa \sum_p (1+{\lambda}_p^2)^{-1}$ for all $i$. Since ${\lambda}_n$ is uniformly bounded by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(vi)*]{}, we may assume that ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large so that $$\frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_1^2} {\leqslant}\kappa\frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_n^2}.$$ In particular, must hold.
In order to apply the maximum principle, we must differentiate the function $G_0$ twice. Since the eigenvalues of $\Lambda$ need not be distinct at $x_0$, the function $G_0$ may only be continuous. To circumvent this difficulty we use a perturbation argument similar to the one used in [@Szek]. We choose a constant matrix $B$, defined in our fixed local coordinates to be a constant diagonal matrix $B_{pq}$ with real entries satisfying $B_{11}=B_{nn}=0$ and $0<B_{22} < \cdots < B_{n-1\,n-1}$, and such that $$\sum_j B_{jj} {\leqslant}(n-1)\frac{{\varepsilon}_0}{2}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_0$ is the constant from Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(v)*]{}. We work with the matrix $\tilde{\Lambda} = \Lambda-B$, and apply the maximum principle to the smooth function $$G(x) = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{\lambda}}_{max}^{2}) + {\varphi}(|\nabla u|^{2}) + \psi (u)$$ where ${\tilde{\lambda}}_{max}$ denotes the largest eigenvalue of ${\tilde{\Lambda}}$. Note that $G(x) {\leqslant}G_0(x)$ and that $G(x)$ achieves its maximum at $x_0$, where we have $G(x_0) = G_0(x_0)$. If we denote by ${\tilde{\lambda_i}}$ are the eigenvalues of ${\tilde{\Lambda}}$, then ${\tilde{\lambda}}_1 = \lambda_1$, and all the remaining eigenvalues are distinct from ${\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1$. In particular, ${\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1$ is a smooth function near $x_0$ and we may differentiate it freely. Computing derivatives of ${\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_s {\tilde{\lambda}}_1 &= \nabla_s \omega_{1\bar{1}} - \nabla_sB_{11}\\
\nabla_{s}\nabla_{\bar{s}}{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1 &= \nabla_s \nabla_{\bar{s}} \omega_{1\bar{1}} + \sum_{q>1} \frac{ |\nabla_s\omega_{q\bar{1}}|^{2} + |\nabla_{s} \omega_{1\bar{q}}|^2}{(\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}\\
&\quad+ \nabla_s\nabla_{\bar{s}}B_{11} - 2{\rm Re} \sum_{q>1} \frac{ \nabla_s\omega_{q\bar{1}} \nabla_{\bar{s}}B_{1\bar{q}} + \nabla_{s}\omega_{1\bar{q}}\nabla_{\bar{s}}B_{p\bar{1}}}{\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_p}\\
&\quad+ {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^{pq,r\ell}\nabla_s(B_{pq})\nabla_{\bar{s}}(B_{r\ell}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $${\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^{pq,r\ell} = (1-\delta_{1p}) \frac{\delta_{1q}\delta_{1r}\delta_{p\ell}}{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_p} +(1-\delta_{1r}) \frac{\delta_{1\ell}\delta_{1p}\delta_{rq}}{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_r}$$ see, for example, [@Szek Equation (70)] or [@SzTW]. Evaluating this expression at $x_0\in X$, and using that $B$ is constant, $B_{11}=0$, and that we are working in normal coordinates for $\alpha$, we have $$\label{eq: Lap EV0}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_s {\tilde{\lambda}}_1 &= \nabla_s \omega_{1\bar{1}}\\
\nabla_{s}\nabla_{\bar{s}}{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1 &= \nabla_s \nabla_{\bar{s}} \omega_{1\bar{1}} + \sum_{q>1} \frac{ |\nabla_s\omega_{q\bar{1}}|^{2} + |\nabla_{s} \omega_{1\bar{q}}|^2}{(\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}\end{aligned}$$ We are thus reduced to differentiating equation . Using , and computing at $x_0$, we have $$\label{eq: Lap EV1}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\bar{b}}\nabla_{a}h &= \nabla_{\bar b}(\eta^{s\bar{q}} \nabla_{a} \omega_{s\bar{q}}) \\
&= \eta^{s\bar{q}}\nabla_{\bar{b}} \nabla_{a} \omega_{s\bar{q}}+(\nabla_{\bar{b}}\eta^{s\bar{q}})\nabla_{a}\omega_{s\bar{q}} \\
&= \eta^{s\bar{q}}\nabla_s\nabla_{\bar{q}}\omega_{a\bar{b}} + \eta^{s\bar{q}}[\nabla_{\bar{b}},\nabla_{s}]\omega_{a\bar{q}} + (\nabla_{\bar{b}}\eta^{s\bar{q}})\nabla_{a}\omega_{s\bar{q}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the third term, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla_{\bar{b}}\eta^{s\bar{q}}) &= - \eta^{s\bar{k}}\eta^{j\bar{q}}\nabla_{\bar{b}}\eta_{j\bar{k}}\\
&= - \eta^{s\bar{k}}\eta^{j\bar{q}}\left(\alpha^{p\bar{m}}\omega_{p\bar{k}}\nabla_{\bar{b}}\omega_{j\bar{m}} + \alpha^{p\bar{m}}\omega_{j\bar{m}}\nabla_{\bar{b}}\omega_{p\bar{k}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ Using that $\alpha, \omega$ are diagonal at $x_0$, we can now solve for $\Delta_\eta\omega_{1\bar{1}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{s\bar{q}}\nabla_s\nabla_{\bar{q}} \omega_{1\bar{1}} &= \nabla_{1}\nabla_{\bar{1}}h - \sum_{s} \frac{{\lambda}_s R_{1}\,^{s}\,_{s\bar{1}}}{1+{\lambda}_s^2} \\
&\quad+ \sum_{s} \frac{{\lambda}_1R^{\bar{1}}\,_{\bar{s}s\bar{1}}}{1+{\lambda}_s^2} + \sum_{s,q} \frac{{\lambda}_s+{\lambda}_q}{(1+{\lambda}_s^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)}|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{s}}|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this expression with allows us to solve for $\Delta_\eta{\tilde{\lambda}}_1$. This allows us to compute the Laplacian of the highest order term from $G(x)$ at the point $x_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\eta} \frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_{1}^2) &= \frac{\lambda_1\Delta_{\eta}{\tilde{\lambda}}_1}{(1+\lambda_1^2)} + \frac{1-\lambda_1^2}{(1+\lambda_1^2)^3}|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar1}|^2\\
&\quad +\sum_{s>1}\frac{1-\lambda_1^2}{(1+\lambda_1^2)^2(1+\lambda_s^2)}|\nabla_s\omega_{1\bar 1}|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The Laplacian term can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\eta}\lambda_1&=\nabla_{1}\nabla_{\bar{1}}h - \sum_{s} \frac{{\lambda}_s R_{1}\,^{s}\,_{s\bar{1}}}{1+{\lambda}_s^2}+ \sum_{s} \frac{{\lambda}_1R^{\bar{1}}\,_{\bar{s}s\bar{1}}}{1+{\lambda}_s^2}+\sum_s\frac{\nabla_s\nabla_{\bar{s}}B_{11}}{1+\lambda_s^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_{s,q} \frac{{\lambda}_s+{\lambda}_q}{(1+{\lambda}_s^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)}|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{s}}|^{2}+ \sum_s\sum_{q>1} \frac{ |\nabla_s\omega_{q\bar{1}}|^{2} + |\nabla_{s} \omega_{1\bar{q}}|^2}{(1+\lambda_s^2)(\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}.
\end{aligned}$$
After some algebra we arrive at the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: C2 equality}
\Delta_{\eta} &\frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^2) = \frac{{\lambda}_1}{1+{\lambda}_1^2} \nabla_1\nabla_{\bar{1}}h +\sum_{s}\frac{-{\lambda}_1 {\lambda}_s R_{1}\,^{s}\,_{s\bar{1}}+{\lambda}_1^2 R^{\bar{1}}\,_{\bar{s}s\bar{1}}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_s^2)}\\
&\quad + \sum_s\sum_{q>1} \frac{{\lambda}_1[1+{\lambda}_1({\lambda}_s+{\lambda}_q)-{\lambda}_q{\lambda}_s + ({\lambda}_s+{\lambda}_q)({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)]}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_s^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{s}}|^{2} \\
&\quad+\frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2}|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2 + \sum_{s>1} \frac{\lambda_1^2\lambda_s + 2\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_s + {\lambda}_s({\lambda}_s-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_s)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_s^2)({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_s)} |\nabla_s\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}\\
&\quad + \sum_{s,q>1} \frac{{\lambda}_1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_s^2)({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}|\nabla_q\omega_{s\bar{1}}|^2.
\end{aligned}$$
The main difficulty is finding a useful estimate for this quantity. For the remainder of this section we let $C$ denote a constant depending only on the stated data, but which may change from line to line. The first two terms contribute only a negative constant. For the third term, we require the following simple lemma
If $\lambda_1 {\geqslant}\lambda_2 {\geqslant}\cdots {\geqslant}\lambda_n$, and these numbers satisfy $\Theta({\lambda}) {\geqslant}(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$, then $$1+\lambda_1(\lambda_j + \lambda_\ell) - \lambda_j\lambda_\ell {\geqslant}0$$ unless $j=\ell=n$ and $\lambda_n < 0$.
The lemma is obvious if $\lambda_j, \lambda_\ell {\geqslant}0$, since $\lambda_1 {\geqslant}\max\{ \lambda_j, \lambda_\ell\}$. By symmetry we can consider the case when $j=n, \lambda_n <0$, and $\ell <n$. In this case Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(i)*]{} guarantees that $\lambda_\ell + \lambda_1 {\geqslant}0$, and so again we are done, since the final term above is positive.
The fourth term in is positive, as is the fifth term, unless $s=n$ and $\lambda_n<0$. The sixth term is also clearly positive. Thus, if $\lambda_n{\geqslant}0$, then $$\Delta_{\eta} \frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^2) {\geqslant}-C.\nonumber$$ If $\lambda_n<0$ then the estimate is much worse, due to the presence of several negative terms. Throwing away some but not all of the positive terms, we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hardercase}
\Delta_{\eta} \frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^2) &{\geqslant}-C +\frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2}|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2 \\
&\quad+ \sum_{q>1} \frac{{\lambda}_1[1+2{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q-{\lambda}_q^2 + 2{\lambda}_q({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)]}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2} \\
&\quad + \sum_{q>1} \frac{\lambda_1^2\lambda_q + 2\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q + {\lambda}_q({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_q^2)({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_q\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Let us analyze this more difficult case. We first estimate the second line above. Note that we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\lambda}_1[1+2{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q-{\lambda}_q^2 + 2{\lambda}_q({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)]}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} &= \frac{\lambda_q}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}\\
&\quad + \frac{({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_q)(1+{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q)+2{\lambda}_q{\lambda}_1({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}\\
&= \frac{\lambda_q}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} + \frac{1+{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}\\
&\quad + \frac{({\lambda}_q{\lambda}_1-1)({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)},
\end{aligned}$$ and so we can rewrite the first and second lines in (excluding the constant) as three separate sums $$\label{eq: C2 est terms}
\begin{aligned}
\big( \text{{\bf I}} \big) &= \sum_{q>1} \frac{\lambda_q}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2} + \frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} |\nabla_1 \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}\\
\big( \text{{\bf II}} \big) &= \sum_{q} \frac{1+{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}- \frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} |\nabla_1 \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}\\
\big( \text{{\bf III}} \big) &= \sum_{1<q<n}\frac{({\lambda}_q{\lambda}_1-1)({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$
where we have used that $B_{nn}=0$. We may assume that ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large so that for $q<n$ we have ${\lambda}_1{\lambda}_q {\geqslant}1$, since ${\lambda}_{n-1} {\geqslant}{\varepsilon}_0$ by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(v)*]{}. In particular, the third sum is positive. We next consider terms ([**I**]{}) and ([**II**]{}) individually, beginning with term ([**I**]{}). The only negative contribution to the sum occurs when $q=n$. Differentiating our main equation , we have, for any $\delta, \alpha_j >0$, $j=1,\dots,n-1$ $$\label{eq: delt split up}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{n\bar{n}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_n^2)^2} &= \bigg| \nabla_1h - \sum_{q<n} \frac{\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\bigg|^2\\
&{\leqslant}(1+\frac{{\lambda}_1}{\delta})|\nabla_1h|^{2} + (1+\frac{\delta}{{\lambda}_1})\bigg| \sum_{q<n} \frac{\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\bigg|^2\\
&{\leqslant}(1+\frac{{\lambda}_1}{\delta})|\nabla_1h|^{2} + (1+\frac{\delta}{{\lambda}_1})\left( \sum_{q<n} \frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}\alpha_{q}}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}\right) \cdot \left(\sum_{j<n} \frac{1}{\alpha_{j}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ In the above we have used Young’s inequality for the first line, and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality in the third line. Now, set $\alpha_q = \frac{\lambda_q}{{\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q}$ for $1<q<n$, and $\alpha_1=1$, and choose $\delta = {\varepsilon}_0/2$, where ${\varepsilon}_0$ is as in Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(v)*]{}. Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon &:= \left(\sum_{q<n} \frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}\alpha_{q}}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}\right)\\
&\quad = \sum_{1<q<n} \frac{\lambda_q}{(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_{1}\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}+ \frac{|\nabla_1 \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying by $\frac{\lambda_n}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_n)}$ and observing that $\frac{\lambda_n(\delta+\lambda_1)|\nabla_1h|^2}{\delta(\lambda_1-\lambda_n)}{\geqslant}-C$, by our choice of $\alpha_j$ we have, $$\frac{{\lambda}_n|\nabla_1\omega_{n\bar{n}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_n^2)^2({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)} {\geqslant}-C + \frac{{\lambda}_n}{({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}(1+\frac{\delta}{{\lambda}_1})\left(1 +\sum_{1<j<n} \frac{{\lambda}_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_j}{{\lambda}_j}\right)\Upsilon.$$ Note that the left hand side above is the $q=n$ term from ([**I**]{}), while the remaining terms from ([**I**]{}) are equal to $\Upsilon$. Using that ${\tilde{{\lambda}}}_n = {\lambda}_n<0$, we estimate ([**I**]{}) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\text{ ({\bf I})}&{\geqslant}-C + \Upsilon \frac{{\lambda}_n}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\left\{\frac{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}{{\lambda}_n} +\sum_{j<n} \frac{{\lambda}_1}{{\lambda}_j} + \delta \sum_{j<n}\frac{1}{{\lambda}_j} -(1+ \frac{\delta}{{\lambda}_1}) \sum_{1<j<n} \frac{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_j}{{\lambda}_j}\right\}\\
&{\geqslant}-C + \Upsilon \frac{{\lambda}_n}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\left\{ {\lambda}_1\sum_{j}\frac{1}{{\lambda}_j} - \sum_{j>1}\frac{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_j}{{\lambda}_j} + \delta \sum_{j<n}\frac{1}{{\lambda}_{j}} \right\}\\
&{\geqslant}-C +\Upsilon \frac{{\lambda}_n}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\left\{ {\lambda}_1\frac{\sigma_{n-1}(\lambda)}{\sigma_n(\lambda)}- \sum_{j>1}\frac{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_j}{{\lambda}_j} + \delta \frac{n-1}{{\lambda}_{n-1}} \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sigma_{n-1}({\lambda}(\Lambda)) {\geqslant}0$, and $\sigma_n({\lambda}(\Lambda))<0$ by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(iii)*]{}, the first term in the brackets is negative. Furthermore, by our choice of $B$ we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j>1} \frac{{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_j}{{\lambda}_j} &= (n-1) -\sum_{1<j<n} \frac{B_{jj}}{{\lambda}_j}\\
& {\geqslant}(n-1) -\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}_0} \sum_j B_{jj}\\
&{\geqslant}\frac{n-1}{2},
\end{aligned}$$ and hence our choice of $\delta$ implies that the final two terms combine to be negative as well. Thus, we obtain that the term ([**I**]{}) in equation is bounded below by a negative constant depending only on the stated data.
Next we consider the sign of the sum ([**II**]{}). Again, the only negative contribution to the sum occurs when $q=n$.
We use an estimate similar to that in to get that, for any $\delta, \alpha_j, \alpha_j'>0$, $1{\leqslant}j<n$ $$\label{eq: C2 II est1}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_n|\nabla_1\omega_{n\bar{n}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_n^2)^2} &{\geqslant}-\frac{C}{\delta} + \frac{{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_n}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)}(1+\frac{\delta}{{\lambda}_1})\bigg| \sum_{q<n} \frac{\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\bigg|^2\\
&{\geqslant}-\frac{C}{\delta} + {\lambda}_n\left( \sum_{q<n} \frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}{\lambda}_1\alpha_{q}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}\right) \cdot \left(\sum_{j<n} \frac{1}{\alpha_{j}}\right)\\
&\quad +\delta {\lambda}_n\left( \sum_{q<n} \frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}\alpha_{q}'}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}\right) \cdot \left(\sum_{j<n} \frac{1}{\alpha_{j}'}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we have used the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality twice. We take $\alpha_q ={\lambda}_q$, and $\alpha_q'=1$ for $1{\leqslant}q<n$. To simplify notation, let us define $${\tilde{\Upsilon}} = \sum_{q<n}\frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}{\lambda}_1{\lambda}_{q}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2}.$$ Substituting the estimate in into the expression for term ([**II**]{}) and simplifying we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\text{{\bf II}}\big) &{\geqslant}-\frac{C}{\delta} - \frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} |\nabla_1 \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}+ \frac{|\nabla_1 \omega_{n\bar{n}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_n^2)^2} \\
&\quad + \bigg\{1 +\delta(n-1) {\lambda}_n\bigg\} \sum_{q<n} \frac{|\nabla_1 \omega_{q\bar{q}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)(1+{\lambda}_q^2)^2} + {\tilde{\Upsilon}} \left\{ 1+ {\lambda}_n \left(\sum_{j<n} \frac{1}{{\lambda}_j}\right)\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $\delta$ sufficiently small depending only on the uniform lower bound for ${\lambda}_n$ provided by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(vi)*]{} then the first term on the second line is positive, while the final term is always positive by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(iii)*]{}. Thus $$\big( \text{{\bf II}} \big) {\geqslant}-C- \frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} |\nabla_1 \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}.$$ Summarizing, we have proven the estimate $$\label{eq: C2 est key}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\eta} \frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_1^2) &{\geqslant}-C -\frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2}|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2 \\
&\quad + \sum_{q>1} \frac{\lambda_1^2\lambda_q + 2\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q + {\lambda}_q({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_q^2)({\lambda}_1-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q)} |\nabla_q\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}\\
&{\geqslant}-C -\frac{1}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2}|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2 +\frac{{\lambda}_1^2{\lambda}_n|\nabla_n \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}.
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we have used the obvious fact that $$\lambda_1^2\lambda_q + 2\lambda_1 - {\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q + {\lambda}_q({\lambda}_q-{\tilde{{\lambda}}}_q){\geqslant}0, \qquad 1<q<n.$$ We now compute the action of the linearized operator on the lower order terms in the definition of $G$. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\eta} \psi(u) &= \psi''(u) \sum_{q}\frac{|u_q|^{2} }{1+{\lambda}_q^2} + \psi'(u) \sum_{q}\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\\
\Delta_{\eta} {\varphi}(|\nabla u|^{2}) &= \frac{{\varphi}''(|\nabla u|^{2})}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} \sum_{q}\left|\sum_{j} u_{q\bar{j}}u_{j} + u_{qj}u_{\bar{j}}\right|^{2}\\
&\quad +2{\varphi}'(|\nabla u|^{2})\sum_{j}\text{Re}\left( u_{j}h_{\bar{j}} - \sum_{q}\frac{u_{j}\nabla_{\bar{j}}\chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\right)\\
&\quad + {\varphi}'(|\nabla u|^{2})\sum_{q}\left(\sum_{j} \frac{|u_{j\bar{q}}|^{2} + |u_{qj}|^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} + \frac{R_{q\bar{q}}\,^{\bar{k}\ell}u_{\ell}u_{\bar{k}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\right).\\
\end{aligned}$$
Now, it is easy to see that
$$\frac{R_{q\bar{q}}\,^{\bar{k}\ell}u_{\ell}u_{\bar{k}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}+2\text{Re}\left( u_{j}h_{\bar{j}} - \frac{u_{j}\nabla_{\bar{j}}\chi_{p\bar{p}}}{1+{\lambda}_p^2}\right) {\geqslant}-C_0K,$$ so at $x_0$, where $G$ achieves its maximum, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 {\geqslant}\Delta_{\eta} G &{\geqslant}-C_1 -\frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} +\frac{{\lambda}_1^2{\lambda}_n|\nabla_n \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}\\
&\quad +{\varphi}'' \sum_q \frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\left|\sum_{j} u_{q\bar{j}}u_{j} + u_{qj}u_{\bar{j}}\right|^{2} -{\varphi}'C_0K\\
&\quad + \sum_q\left({\varphi}'\sum_{j} \frac{|u_{j\bar{q}}|^{2} + |u_{qj}|^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}+ \psi''\frac{|u_q|^2}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} + \psi'\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we have $\nabla_pG(x_0)=0$, and so $$\frac{\lambda_1\nabla_p \omega_{1\bar{1}}}{1+{\lambda}_1^2} = -{\varphi}'\sum_{j}\left(u_{pj}u_{\bar{j}} + u_{j}u_{p\bar{j}}\right) - \psi'u_{p}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\lambda}_1^2{\lambda}_n|\nabla_n \omega_{1\bar{1}}|^{2}}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)} &{\geqslant}\frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta)({\varphi}')^2}{(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}\left|\sum_{j}u_{nj}u_{\bar{j}} + u_{j}u_{n\bar{j}}\right|^{2}\\
&\quad + \frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}|u_{n}|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ In a similar fashion we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|\nabla_1\omega_{1\bar{1}}|^2}{(1+{\lambda}_1^2)^2} &{\leqslant}\frac{(1+\delta)({\varphi}')^2}{{\lambda}_1^2}\left|\sum_{j}u_{1j}u_{\bar{j}} + u_{j}u_{1\bar{j}}\right|^{2}\\
&\quad + \frac{(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{{\lambda}_1^2}|u_{1}|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ We now use that ${\varphi}'' = 2({\varphi}')^2$. If we take $\delta =1/2$, then we have at $x_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
0 &{\geqslant}-C_1 + ({\varphi}')^2\left|\sum_{j} u_{1\bar{j}}u_{j} + u_{1j}u_{\bar{j}}\right|^{2} \left(\frac{2}{1+{\lambda}_1^2}-\frac{1+\delta}{{\lambda}_1^2}\right) \\
&\quad+\frac{({\varphi}')^2}{1+{\lambda}_n^2}\left|\sum_{j} u_{n\bar{j}}u_{j} + u_{nj}u_{\bar{j}}\right|^{2}\left(2 +\frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta)}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\right)\\
&\quad- \frac{(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{{\lambda}_1^2}|u_{1}|^{2}+\frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{(1+{\lambda}_n^2)({\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n)}|u_{n}|^{2}\\
&\quad + {\varphi}''\sum_{1<q<n}\frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} \left|\sum_{j} u_{q\bar{j}}u_{j} + u_{qj}u_{\bar{j}}\right|^{2} -{\varphi}'C_0K\\
&\quad + \sum_q\left({\varphi}'\sum_{j} \frac{|u_{j\bar{q}}|^{2} + |u_{qj}|^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}+ \psi''\frac{|u_q|^2}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} + \psi'\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ If ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large, depending only on the lower bound for ${\lambda}_n$, then $$\left(\frac{2}{1+{\lambda}_1^2}-\frac{1+\delta}{{\lambda}_1^2}\right) {\geqslant}0, \qquad \left(2 +\frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta)}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\right){\geqslant}0.$$ In particular, since ${\varphi}'' {\geqslant}0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 &{\geqslant}-C_1 -{\varphi}'C_0K- \frac{(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{{\lambda}_1^2}|u_{1}|^{2}\\
&\quad +\left(\psi''+\frac{{\lambda}_n(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{{\lambda}_1-{\lambda}_n}\right)\frac{|u_n|^2}{1+{\lambda}_n^2}\\
&\quad + {\varphi}'\sum_{q,j} \frac{|u_{j\bar{q}}|^{2} + |u_{qj}|^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}+ \psi''\sum_{q<n}\frac{|u_q|^2}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} + \psi'\sum_q\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ As long as ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large, depending only on $\tau, A$, the bracketed term on the second line is positive. For the last term on the first line we clearly have the estimate $$\frac{(1+\delta^{-1})(\psi')^2}{{\lambda}_1^2}|u_1|^2 {\leqslant}\frac{C_0A^2K}{{\lambda}_1^2},$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
0 &{\geqslant}-C_1 -{\varphi}'C_0K - \frac{C_0A^2K}{{\lambda}_1^2}\\
&\quad + {\varphi}'\sum_{q,j} \frac{|u_{j\bar{q}}|^{2} + |u_{qj}|^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_p^2}+ \psi'\sum_{q}\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, if ${\lambda}_1$ is sufficiently large relative to $\chi_{1\bar{1}}$, then we have $$|u_{1\bar{1}}|^{2} {\geqslant}\frac{1}{2} {\lambda}_1^2$$ and so, since $(4K)^{-1} < {\varphi}' < (2K)^{-1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 &{\geqslant}-C_1 -C_0 - \frac{C_0A^2K}{{\lambda}_1^2}\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{2}{\varphi}'\frac{{\lambda}_1^{2}}{1+{\lambda}_1^2}+ \psi'\sum_{q}\frac{{\lambda}_q - \chi_{q\bar{q}}}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Recall from equation that we have $$\sum_{q}\frac{\chi_{q\bar{q}}-{\lambda}_q}{1+{\lambda}_q^2} {\geqslant}\kappa \sum_{q} \frac{1}{1+{\lambda}_q^2}.$$ Since $|{\lambda}_n| {\leqslant}C_3$ by Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\], we can choose $A$ sufficiently large so that $$A\frac{\kappa}{1+{\lambda}_n^2} {\geqslant}-C_1-C_0,$$ then, since $A<-\psi'<2A$, we have $$0 {\geqslant}\frac{{\lambda}_1^2}{8K(1+{\lambda}_1^2)} - \frac{C_0A^2K}{{\lambda}_1^2}.$$ In other words, $$\frac{{\lambda}_1^2}{K^2} {\leqslant}\frac{8C_{0}A ^2(1+{\lambda}_1^2)}{{\lambda}_1^2} {\leqslant}C_5.$$ Thus, at the maximum of $G$ we have ${\lambda}_1 {\leqslant}C_5K$. At this point we have $$\frac{1}{2}\log(1+{\lambda}_1^2) - \frac{1}{2}\log(1-\frac{|\nabla u|^2}{2K}) + \psi(u) {\leqslant}\frac{1}{2}\log(1+C_5K^2) +C$$ which after simplification yields the desired estimate; $$\sqrt{1+{\lambda}_1^2} {\leqslant}C_6 K.$$
The blow-up argument and the gradient estimate
==============================================
We now apply a blow-up argument to the estimate in Theorem \[thm: C2 estimate\] to obtain a gradient bound. By contrast with the general setting considered by Szkelyhidi [@Szek], or the complex Hessian equation studied by Dinew-Kołodziej [@DK], the argument here is rather simple. By the lower bound for $\omega$ from Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\], part [*(vi)*]{} it suffices to prove
Suppose $u: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfies
- $\omega_0+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u {\geqslant}-K\alpha$,
- $\sup_{X}|u| {\leqslant}K$,
- $|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u| {\leqslant}K(1+\sup_{X} |\nabla u|^{2})$,
for a uniform constant $K<+\infty$. Then there exists a constant $C$, depending only on $(X,\alpha), \omega_0,$ and $K$ such that $$\sup_{X} |\nabla u| {\leqslant}C.$$
We argue by contradiction. Suppose we have a Kähler manifold $(X,\alpha)$ where the estimate fails. Then we have smooth functions $u_{k}:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and a $(1,1)$ form $\omega_0$ such that the assumptions ${\it (i)-(iii)}$ hold uniformly in $n\in \mathbb{N}$, but $$\sup_{X} |\nabla u_k| = C_k {\geqslant}k.$$ Let $x_{k} \in X$ be a point where $\sup_{X} |\nabla u_k|$ is attained. Up to passing to a subsequence we may assume that $\{x_{k}\}$ converges to some point $x\in X$. In particular, we may assume that about each $x_k$ there is a coordinate chart $U_k \subset X$ with coordinates $(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ defined on a ball of radius $1$, centered at $x_k$, such that $$\alpha(z) = Id + O(|z|^2)$$ on $U_k$. In particular, estimates [*(i)-(iii)*]{} hold uniformly on $B_1(0)$ with $\alpha$ replaced by the Euclidean metric, after possibly increasing $K$ slightly. Define $\hat{u}_{k}(z) := u_{k}(\frac{z}{C_k})$, defined in the ball of radius $C_k$. From properties [*(i)-(iii)*]{} and the above remark we have
- ${\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}\hat{u}_{k} {\geqslant}\frac{-KId-\omega_0}{C_k^{2}}$ for all $z\in B_{C_k}(0)$,
- ${\rm osc}_{B_{C_k}(0)} \hat{u}_{k} {\leqslant}K$,
- $|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}\hat{u}_{k}| {\leqslant}2K$ for all $z \in B_{C_k}(0)$
- $|\nabla \hat{u}_{k}(z)| {\leqslant}1 = |\nabla \hat{u}_{k}(0)|$ for all $z \in B_{C_k}(0)$.
Since $C_{k} \rightarrow \infty$, a standard diagonal argument yields, for a fixed $\beta \in(0,1)$, the existence of a $C^{1,\beta}$ function $u_{\infty}:\mathbb{C}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ so that $\hat{u}_{j} \rightarrow u_{\infty}$ in $C^{1,\beta}$ topology on compact subsets. Furthermore, by the above estimates $u$ is continuous, uniformly bounded, has $|\nabla u(0)| =1$, and satisfies ${\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u {\geqslant}0$ in the sense of distributions. Hence, $u$ is bounded, non-constant plurisubharmonic function defined on all of $\mathbb{C}^{n}$. By a standard result in several complex variables, no such functions exist [@Ron].
Higher order estimates
======================
The higher order estimates follow from the Evans-Krylov theory. The equation is only concave when $h: X \rightarrow [(n-1) \frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$, the so called [*hypercritical phase*]{} case. However, as long as $h {\geqslant}(n-2) \frac{\pi}{2}$, we can exploit the convexity of the level sets ${\partial}\Gamma^{\sigma}$ (see Lemma \[lem: arithmetic\] part [*(iv)*]{}) to obtain the $C^{2,\beta}$ estimates by a blow-up argument. The first step in this direction is to prove a Louiville theorem. The following proposition implies the complex analog of [@Y Theorem 1.1] except that we also assume a second derivative bound. Let ${\rm Herm}(n)$ denote the space of $n\times n$ Hermitian matrices.
\[lem: Liouville\] Suppose $u:\mathbb{C}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a $C^{3}$ function satisfying $$F({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) = \sigma.$$ where $F :{\rm Herm}(n) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is smooth and elliptic. Assume that the set $$\Gamma^{\sigma}=\{ M \in {\rm Herm}(n): F(M) >\sigma\}$$ is convex. If $|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{C}^{n})} {\leqslant}K < +\infty$, then $u$ is a quadratic polynomial.
The proof follows by combining the convexity of the level sets of the equation $F({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) =\sigma$ with an extension trick in order to apply the standard Evans-Krylov estimate. The extension trick occurs in two steps. First we find a concave elliptic operator $F_{0}(\cdot)$, such that $F_{0}({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u)=0$ if and only if $F({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) =\sigma$. Secondly, we use a trick due to Wang [@YW], which was used also by Tosatti-Wang-Weinkove-Yang [@TWWY], to extend $F_0$ to a [real]{} uniformly elliptic concave operator, to which we apply the Evans-Krylov theory. While we expect this is well-known to experts, we give the details for the readers’ convenience.
Let ${\rm Sym}(2n)$ denote the space of real symmetric $2n \times 2n$ matrices. Note that we have a canonical inclusion $\iota: {\rm Herm}(n) \hookrightarrow {\rm Sym}(2n)$, and so we will always regard ${\rm Herm}(n) \subset {\rm Sym}(2n)$. Let $\mathcal{H}_{{\lambda},\Lambda} \subset {\rm Sym}(2n)$ denote the set of symmetric matrices with eigenvalues lying in $[{\lambda}, \Lambda]$.
As in [@Szek], we define $F_0: {\rm Herm}(n) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $$F_{0}(A) := \inf \left\{ t : {\lambda}(A) - t\cdot Id \in \overline{\Gamma}^{\sigma} \right\},$$ where ${\lambda}(A)$ denotes the eigenvalues of $A$. The reader can check that $F_0$ is a smooth, elliptic, non-linear operator on ${\rm Herm}(n)$. The convexity of $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ implies that $F_0(\cdot)$ is a concave operator. Furthermore, $F_0({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u)=0$ if and only if $F({\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) =\sigma$. Consider the compact, convex set $$B_{2K} := \left\{ M \in {\rm Herm}(n) : \| M\| {\leqslant}2K \right\}.$$ Since $F_0(\cdot)$ is smooth, and elliptic, and $B_{2K}$ is compact, $F_0(\cdot)$ is uniformly elliptic on $B_{2K}$.
The next step is to extend $F_0$ to a uniformly elliptic, concave operator outside of $B_{2K}$. We use an envelope trick due to Wang [@YW] (see also [@TWWY]). The complex structure $J$ on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ gives a canonical projection $p: {\rm Sym}(2n) \rightarrow {\rm Herm}(n)$, by setting $$p(M) = \frac{M + J^{T}MJ}{2}.$$ Define $$\mathcal{B}_{2K} := \left\{ N \in {\rm Sym}(2n) : p(N) \in B_{2K} \right\},$$ and extend $F_0$ to a smooth, concave operator $\hat{F}_{0} :\mathcal{B}_{2K}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by setting $$\hat{F}_0(N) := F_0(p(N)).$$ We claim that $\hat{F}_{0}$ is uniformly elliptic on $\mathcal{B}_{2K}$. This is just a matter of linear algebra. First, observe that if $M {\geqslant}0$ is positive semi-definite, then so is $p(M)$, since, for any vector $v\in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$, $$\langle v, p(M)v \rangle = \frac{ \langle v, Mv\rangle + \langle Jv, MJv\rangle}{2}.$$ Furthermore, we clearly have ${\textrm{Tr}}(p(M)) = {\textrm{Tr}}(M)$. From these two facts the uniform ellipticity of $\hat{F}_0$ on $\mathcal{B}_{2K}$ easily follows from the uniform ellipticity of $F_0$ on $B_{2K}$. Hence, there are constants $0< {\lambda}< \Lambda <+\infty$ such that, for all $A \in \mathcal{B}_{2K}$ the differential of $F_0$, denoted $DF_0$, at $A$ lies in $\mathcal{H}_{{\lambda},\Lambda}$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(N) := \inf \bigg\{L(N) :\quad &L: {\rm Sym}(2n) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \text{ affine linear },\\
&DL \in \mathcal{H}_{{\lambda}, \Lambda}, \text{ and } L(A) {\geqslant}\hat{F}_0(A),\,\,\, \forall A \in \mathcal{B}_{2K}\bigg\}
\end{aligned}$$ where $DL$ denotes the differential of $L$. In words, $F_1$ is the concave envelope of the graph of $\hat{F}_{0}$ over $\mathcal{B}_{2K}$. As in [@TWWY Lemma 4.1] it is straightforward to check that $F_1: {\rm Sym}(2n) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is uniformly elliptic, concave and agrees with $\hat{F}_{0}$ over $\mathcal{B}_{2K}$. Since ${\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u: \mathbb{C}^{n} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_{2K}$ we have $$F_1(D^2 u) =0.$$ By the Evans-Krylov theorem [@E; @K], [@CC Theorem 6.1] and a standard scaling argument we have; for some $\beta = \beta (n,{\lambda}, \Lambda) \in(0,1)$ and for every $R>0$ there holds $$|D^2u|_{C^{\beta}(B_R(0))} {\leqslant}C(n,{\lambda},\Lambda)R^{-\beta} \|D^2u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{2R}(0))} {\leqslant}C(n,{\lambda}, \Lambda)R^{-\beta}K.$$ Letting $R \rightarrow +\infty$ we get the result.
We use this Liouville type result to conclude $C^{2,\beta}$ estimates by a blow-up argument.
\[lem: EK est\] Suppose $u: B_2 \subset \mathbb{C}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function satisfying $$F(x,{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) =h(x),$$ for some smooth map $F: B_2 \times {\rm Herm}(n) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Suppose that $F(x,\cdot)$ is uniformly elliptic on $B_2 \times {\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u(B_{2})$ with ellipticity constant $0<{\lambda}<\Lambda <+\infty$. Assume $h:B_{2} \rightarrow [a,b]$ is $C^{2}$ and, for every $\sigma \in[a,b]$ and $x\in B_2$ the set $\Gamma^{\sigma} :=\{ M \in {\rm Herm}(n) : F(x,M)>\sigma \}$ is convex. Then, for every $\beta \in(0,1)$ we have the estimate $$|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|_{C^{\beta}(B_{1/2})} {\leqslant}C(n, \beta, {\lambda}, \Lambda, |{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|_{L^{\infty}(B_{2})}, \|h\|_{C^{2}(B_{2})}).$$
The proof is by a standard blow-up argument; see, for instance [@Co]. We give the details for the convenience of the reader. For each $x \in B_1$ consider the quantity $$N_u := \sup_{B_1}d_x |{\partial}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|(x)$$ where $d_x := {\rm dist}(x,{\partial}B_1)$. Suppose the supremum is achieved at $x_0 \in B_1$. Consider the function ${\tilde{u}}: B_{N_u}(0) \rightarrow R$ defined by $${\tilde{u}}(z) := \frac{N_u^2}{d_{x_0}^2}u\left(x_0+ \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}z\right) - A - A_iz_i$$ where $A, A_i$ are chosen so that ${\tilde{u}}(0) = {\partial}{\tilde{u}}(0) = 0$. Note that $${\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}{\tilde{u}} = {\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u, \qquad \|{\partial}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{N_u}(0))} = |{\partial}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u(0)| =1.$$ In particular, we have $|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|_{C^{\beta}(B_1)} {\leqslant}1$ for every $\beta \in (0,1)$ and ${\tilde{u}}$ solves $$F(x_0+ \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}z, {\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}{\tilde{u}}(z)) = h\left(x_0+ \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}z\right), \qquad z\in B_{N_{u}}(0).$$ Differentiating the equation in the ${\partial}_\ell$ direction yields $$F^{i\bar{j}}(x_0+ \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}z,{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}{\tilde{u}}) {\partial}_i{\partial}_{\bar{j}} {\partial}_\ell {\tilde{u}} = \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}h'\left(x_0+ \frac{d_{x_0}}{N_u}z\right).$$ Since $F(x,\cdot)$ is uniformly elliptic and $h$ is smooth, the Schauder theory implies ${\partial}{\tilde{u}}$ is bounded in $C^{2,\beta}(B_{N_{u}/2}(0))$, and so ${\tilde{u}}$ is controlled in $C^{3,\beta}(B_{N_{u}/2}(0))$.
Now, for the sake of finding a contradiction, suppose we have:
- a sequence $u_{n}: B_{2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $\|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u_{n}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_2)} {\leqslant}K$, but so that $N_{u_{n}} {\geqslant}n$
- functions $h_{n}:B_{2} \rightarrow [a,b]$ such that $\|h_n\|_{C^{2}(B_2)} {\leqslant}K$
For each $n$ let $x_{n} \in B_{1}$ be a point where $N_{u_{n}}$ is achieved. By compactness, after passing to a subsequence (not relabelled) we may assume that:
- $x_n \rightarrow x_{\infty} \in \overline{B_{1}}$.
- $h_{n}$ converges to some function $h$ uniformly in $C^{1,\beta'}$ topology on $B_{3/2}$ for some fixed $\beta' \in (0,1)$.
By the above rescaling we find functions ${\tilde{u}}_{n} :B_{N_{u_{n}}}(0) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
- $\|{\tilde{u}}_{n}\|_{C^{3,\beta}(B_{N_{u_{n}}}(0)) } {\leqslant}C$ and
- $
F(x_n + \frac{d_{x_n}}{N_{u_{n}}}z,{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}{\tilde{u}}_{n}) =h_n\left(x_n + \frac{d_{x_n}}{N_{u_{n}}}z\right) \qquad z \in B_{N_{u_{n}}}(0).
$
Since $N_{u_{n}} {\geqslant}n$, a diagonal argument yields the existence of a function $u: \mathbb{C}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and a subsequence (again, not relabelled) such that $\{u_{n}\}_{n{\geqslant}k}$ converges uniformly to $u$ in $C^{3,\alpha/2}(B_{k}(0))$. In particular, we have $$F(x_0,{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u) = h(x_0), \qquad |{\partial}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|(0)=1.$$ Clearly $h(x_0) \in [a,b]$, and so we may apply Lemma \[lem: Liouville\] to conclude that $u$ is a quadratic polynomial, which is a contradiction.
By arguing locally, Lemma \[lem: EK est\] immediately implies the following corollary, whose proof we leave to the reader, and finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm: est thm\].
Suppose $u: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a solution of $$\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) = h(x)$$ where $h(x){\geqslant}(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}+{\varepsilon}$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$. Then for every $\beta \in (0,1)$ we have the estimate $$|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u|_{C^{\beta}(X)} {\leqslant}C(n, X,\alpha, \beta, \|h\|_{C^2}, \|{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}u\|_{L^{\infty}(X)})$$
The Method of Continuity and the proof of Theorem \[thm: existence thm\]
========================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm: existence thm\], using the method of continuity. Unfortunately, the naive method of continuity does not work due essentially to the fact that the subsolution condition is non-trivial; for related discussion see [@Szek]. Instead, adapting an idea of Sun [@WS] in the setting of the $J$-equation, the proof of Theorem \[thm: existence thm\] requires two applications of the method of continuity. Let us first prove openness along a general method of continuity.
\[lem: openness\] Fix $k {\geqslant}2, \beta \in (0,1)$ and suppose we have $C^{k-2,\beta}$ functions $H_0, H_1 :X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and a $C^{k,\beta}$ function $u: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) = H_0.$$ Consider the family of equations $$\label{eq: general MOC}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u_t) = (1-t)H_0 + tH_1+c_t$$ for $c_t$ a constant. There exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that, for every $|t|<{\varepsilon}$ a unique pair $(u_t,c_t) \in C^{k,\beta} \times \mathbb{R}$ solving . Furthermore, if $H_0, H_1$ are smooth, then so is $u_t$.
The proof is by the implicit function theorem. Fix $\beta>0$, $k {\geqslant}2$ and consider the map $F : [0,1] \times C^{k,\beta}\times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow C^{k-2,\beta}$ given by $$(t,c,u) \longmapsto \Theta_{\alpha}(\omega +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u) -(1-t)H_0 -tH_1-c.$$ Let $\Delta_\eta$ denote the linearization of $\Theta_{\alpha}$ around $(u_0, c_0) := (u,0)$. The operator $\Delta_{\eta}$ is homotopic to the Laplacian with respect to $\alpha$, and so has index $0$. By the maximum principle, the kernel of $\Delta_{\eta}$ consists of the constants, and hence the cokernel of $\Delta_{\eta}$ has dimension $1$. Another application of the maximum principle shows that the constants are not in the image of $\Delta_{\eta}$. It follows that the linearization of $F$ at time $0$, given by $$(v,c) \longmapsto \Delta_{\eta}v +c,$$ is a surjective map from $C^{k,\beta} \times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{k-2,\beta}$. In particular, by the implicit function theorem we conclude that there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that, for all $|t|<{\varepsilon}$ we can find a unique pair $(u_t,c_t) \in C^{k,\beta}\times \mathbb{R}$ solving . By a standard boot strapping argument, we find that $u_{t}$ is in fact smooth provided $H_0, H_1$ are smooth.
Suppose now that we have a subsolution $\chi \in [\Omega]$ to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[thm: existence thm\]. Let us denote by $$\Theta_0 := \Theta_{\alpha}(\chi).$$ Without loss of generality, we will assume that $\Theta_0 \ne \hat{\Theta}$, for otherwise we are finished. Now, and for the remainder of this section, we let $\mu_1,\cdots \mu_n$ be the eigenvalues of the relative endomorphism $\alpha^{-1}\chi$ at an arbitrary point of $X$. We clearly have $$\sum_{i\ne j} \arctan(\mu_i) > \Theta_0 -\frac{\pi}{2} \qquad \forall j.$$ In particular, we can find $\delta_0 >0$ such that $$\sum_{i\ne j} \arctan(\mu_i) > \max\{\Theta_0, \hat{\Theta}\} + 100\delta_0 -\frac{\pi}{2} \qquad \forall j.$$ Furthermore, since $${\rm Arg} \int_{X} (\alpha+ \sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n} = \hat{\Theta}$$ we must have that $\inf_X\Theta_0 < \hat{\Theta}$. Choose $\delta_1>0$ such that $$\inf_X \Theta_0 + 100 \delta_1 = \hat{\Theta}$$ Set $\delta = \min\{ \delta_0, \delta_1\}$, and define $$\Theta_1 = \widetilde{\max}_{\delta} \{\hat{\Theta}, \Theta_0\}$$ where $\widetilde{\max}_{\delta}$ denotes the regularized maximum [@DemB]. We have
\[lem: key props MOC\] Fix a point $p \in X$ where $\Theta_0$ achieves its infimum. The function $\Theta_1$ has the following properties:
1. $\Theta_1$ is smooth.
2. $\max\{\Theta_0, \hat{\Theta}\} {\leqslant}\Theta_1 {\leqslant}\max\{\Theta_0, \hat{\Theta}\}+\delta$.
3. $\Theta_1(x) = \hat{\Theta}$ on the set $\{x \in X : \Theta_0+\delta {\leqslant}\hat{\Theta}-\delta\}$. In particular, $\Theta_1(x) = \hat{\Theta}$ in a neighbourhood of $p \in X$.
4. $\Theta_1(x) = \Theta_0(x)$ on the set $\{x \in X : \hat{\Theta}+\delta {\leqslant}\Theta_0-\delta\}$.
5. For every $t \in [0,1]$ $$\inf_{X}[(1-t)\Theta_0 +t\Theta_1] = (1-t)\inf_{X} \Theta_0 +t \hat{\Theta} = (1-t)\Theta_0(p) + t\hat{\Theta}.$$
6. $\sup_{X} [\Theta_1 -\Theta_0]= \Theta_1(p) -\Theta_0(p) = \hat{\Theta} - \inf_X\Theta_0(p)$.
Statements ${\it (i)-(iv)}$ are just the properties of the regularized maximum, [@DemB Chapter 1, Lemma 5.18]. We prove ${\it (v)}$. From our choice of $\delta$, and the definition of $\Theta_1$ we have $\Theta_1(p) = \hat{\Theta}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
(1-t)\Theta_0(p) + t\hat{\Theta} &= (1-t)\Theta_0(p) + t\Theta_1(p) \\
&{\geqslant}\inf_{X} [(1-t)\Theta_0 + t\Theta_1] \\
&{\geqslant}(1-t)\inf_X\Theta_0 +t\inf_X \Theta_1 \\
&= (1-t)\Theta_0(p) +t\hat{\Theta},
\end{aligned}$$ establishing the fifth point. For ${\it (vi)}$, we first consider the set $U_1 := \{x \in X : \Theta_0+\delta {\leqslant}\hat{\Theta}-\delta\}$. On this set we have $\Theta_1 -\Theta_0 = \hat{\Theta} -\Theta_0$ by property ${\it (iii)}$. This difference is maximized at the point $p \in U_1$, where we have $$\Theta_1(p) -\Theta_0(p) = \hat{\Theta} -\Theta_0(p) = 100\delta_1 {\geqslant}100\delta.$$ Now consider the set $U_2 := \{x \in X : \hat{\Theta}+\delta {\leqslant}\Theta_0-\delta\}$. On this set we have $\Theta_1 - \Theta_0 \equiv 0$ by ${\it (iv)}$. Finally, we consider the set $U_{3} = \{x \in X : |\Theta_0 -\hat{\Theta}|<2\delta\}$. On $U_3$ we have $$\Theta_1 -\Theta_0 {\leqslant}\max\{\Theta_0 ,\Hat{\Theta}\} +\delta -\Theta_0 {\leqslant}3\delta < 100\delta,$$ and the lemma follows.
We use the function $\Theta_1$ as the first target for the method of continuity.
\[prop: MOC1\] There exists a smooth function $u_1:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and a constant $b_1<0$ such that $$\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u_1) = \Theta_1 +b_1, \qquad \text{ and} \qquad \Theta_1 +b_1 > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
We use the method of continuity. Consider the family of equations $$\label{eq: first MOC}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi+{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u_t) = (1-t)\Theta_0 +t\Theta_1 +b_t.$$ Define $$I = \big\{t \in[0,1]: \exists\,\, (u_{t},b_t) \in C^{\infty}(X) \times \mathbb{R} \text{ solving } \eqref{eq: first MOC} \big\}.$$ Since $(0,0)$ is a solution at time $t=0$, we have that $I$ is non-empty. By Lemma \[lem: openness\] the set $I$ is open. It suffices to prove that $I$ is closed. This will follow from the a priori estimates in Theorem \[thm: est thm\] together with a standard bootstrapping argument provided we can show
- $\chi$ is a subsolution of equation for all $t\in[0,1]$
- $(1-t)\Theta_0 +t\Theta_1 +b_t > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$ uniformly for $t\in[0,1]$.
In order to do each of these things, we must control the constant $b_t$. First, we claim that $b_{t} {\leqslant}t\sup_{X}(\Theta_0-\Theta_1) {\leqslant}0$. To see this, choose $q\in X$ where $u_t$ achieves its maximum. Then at $q$, ellipticity implies $$\Theta_{0}(q) {\geqslant}\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u_t)(q) = (1-t)\Theta_0(q) +t\Theta_1(q) +b_t.$$ Rearranging this equation yields $$b_{t} {\leqslant}t\sup_{X}(\Theta_0-\Theta_1) {\leqslant}0$$ where the final inequality follows from the fact that $\Theta_1 {\geqslant}\Theta_0$ by construction. It follows that for every $1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}n$ there holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i\ne j} \arctan(\mu_i) &> \max\{\Theta_0, \hat{\Theta}\} + 100\delta - \frac{\pi}{2}\\
&> \Theta_1 -\frac{\pi}{2}\\
& {\geqslant}(1-t)\Theta_0 +t\Theta_1 +b_t -\frac{\pi}{2}
\end{aligned}$$ and so $\chi$ is a subsolution of equation for all $t\in [0,1]$, taking care of the first point. To take care of the second point we look at a point $q \in X$ where $u_t$ achieves its minimum to find $$b_t {\geqslant}-t\sup_{X}(\Theta_1-\Theta_0).$$ Combining this estimate with the results of Lemma \[lem: key props MOC\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_X\left[ (1-t)\Theta_0 +t\Theta_1 +b_t\right] &= (1-t)\Theta_0(p) +t\Theta_1(p) +b_{t} \\
&= \Theta_0(p) +t(\Theta_1(p) -\Theta_0(p)) +b_t\\
&= \Theta_0(p) +t\sup_{X} (\Theta_1-\Theta_0) +b_t\\
&{\geqslant}\Theta_0(p) \\
&> (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[thm: est thm\], together with the usual Schauder estimates and bootstrapping argument we conclude that $I$ is closed. Proposition \[prop: MOC1\] follows.
We now turn to the proof of the main theorem. Let $\omega_1 = \chi +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}u_1$, where $u_1$ is the function from Proposition \[prop: MOC1\]. We consider the method of continuity $$\label{eq: MOC 2}
\Theta_{\alpha}(\omega_1 +{\sqrt{-1}{\partial}{\overline{{\partial}}}}v_t) = (1-t)\Theta_1 + t\hat{\Theta} +c_t.$$ Define$$I = \{t \in[0,1]: \exists\,\, (v_{t},c_t) \in C^{\infty}(X) \times \mathbb{R} \text{ solving } \eqref{eq: MOC 2} \}.$$ By Proposition \[prop: MOC1\] we have a solution a time $t=0$, with constant $c_0 = b_1$. Thanks to Lemma \[lem: openness\], the set $I$ is open, and so it suffices to prove $I$ is closed. Again this will follow from the a priori estimates in Theorem \[thm: est thm\], if we can show that
- $\chi$ is a subsolution along the whole method of continuity .
- $(1-t)\Theta_1 + t\hat{\Theta} +c_t > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$ for all $t\in [0,1]$.
as in the proof of Proposition \[prop: MOC1\], it suffices to control the constant $c_t$. To control $c_t$ from above we observe that since $\Theta_1 {\geqslant}\hat{\Theta}$, the cohomological condition $${\rm Arg}\int_{X} \sqrt{\frac{\det \eta_t}{\det \alpha}} e^{i\left((1-t)\Theta_1 + t\hat{\Theta} +c_t\right)} \alpha^{n} = \hat{\Theta}$$ implies that $c_t {\leqslant}0$ for all $t \in [0,1]$. Arguing as in the proof of Proposition \[prop: MOC1\], we conclude that $\chi$ is again a subsolution along the whole method of continuity. Furthermore, if $p\in X$ is a point where $\Theta_0$ achieves its infimum, then Lemma \[lem: key props MOC\] part ${\it (iii)}$, combined with Proposition \[prop: MOC1\] implies $$\hat{\Theta}+b_{1} = \Theta_1(p) +b_1 > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2},$$ and so in particular, we have $$(1-t)[\Theta_1+b_1] + t[\hat{\Theta}+b_1] > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$ In order to show that $(1-t)\Theta_1 + t\hat{\Theta} +c_t > (n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$ it suffices to show that $c_{t} {\geqslant}b_{1}$ for all $t$. This is easy. If the maximum of $v_{t}$ is achieved at the point $q\in X$, then we have $$\Theta_1(q) +b_{1} {\leqslant}(1-t)\Theta_1(q) + t\hat{\Theta} +c_t.$$ or in other words, $$c_t {\geqslant}b_1 +t[\Theta_1(q) -\hat{\Theta}] {\geqslant}b_1$$ since $\Theta_1 {\geqslant}\hat{\Theta}$. As a result we can apply the a priori estimates in \[thm: est thm\] uniformly in $t$ to conclude that $I$ is closed. The higher regularity follows in the usual way from the Schauder estimates and bootstrapping. Since we clearly have $c_1=0$ by the cohomological condition, Theorem \[thm: existence thm\] follows.
It is easy to establish the following weaker existence theorem using the parabolic flow introduced in [@JY]: If $\hat{\Theta} >(n-1)\frac{\pi}{2}$, and $\chi \in \Omega$ is a subsolution with $\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi) > (n-1)\frac{\pi}{2}$, then the flow in [@JY] starting at $\chi$ converges smoothly to a solution of the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation.
Subsolutions, Class conditions and Stability {#sec: stability}
============================================
In this section we briefly elaborate on the subsolution condition as well as pose some natural conjectures related to the existence of solutions to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation. The first step is to observe that the subsolution condition in Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\] is equivalent to a class condition, as we alluded to in Remark \[rk: form type pos\]. Recall that $\Omega\in H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})$ is a fixed cohomology class. We then have the following proposition.
\[prop: form type pos\] Let $\hat{\Theta} \in ((n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$ be the fixed constant defined in Section \[background\]. Then a $(1,1)$ form $\chi \in\Omega$ is a subsolution to equation if and only if
1. $\dim _{\mathbb{C}} X=n$ is even and $$\label{eq: sub sol form}
-(i^n)\left( {\rm Im}(\alpha+ \sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}+\cot(\hat{\Theta}) {\rm Re}(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}\right)>0$$
2. $\dim _{\mathbb{C}} X=n$ is odd and $$i^{n-1}\left(\tan(\hat{\Theta}) {\rm Im}(\alpha+ \sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}+{\rm Re}(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}\right)>0.$$
In each line, positivity is to be understood in the sense of $(n-1,n-1)$ forms.
We will prove the statement in the case $n\equiv0$ (mod $4)$, as all other cases are similar. Suppose that $\chi$ is a subsolution in the sense of Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\]. Since the statement is pointwise, it suffices to fix a point $x_{0} \in X$, and coordinates so that $\alpha$ is the identity at $x_{0}$ and $\chi (x_{0})$ is diagonal with entries $\mu_{1}, \dots, \mu_{n}$. By assumption, for every $1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}n$ we have $$(n-1)\frac{\pi}{2} >\sum_{i\ne j} \arctan(\mu_{i}) > \hat{\Theta}-\frac{\pi}{2}.$$ In other words $$\label{eq: Arg subsol}
(n-1)\frac{\pi}{2}>{\rm Arg}\left(\prod_{j\ne i} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j})\right) > \hat{\Theta}-\frac{\pi}{2},$$ where again we have fixed the branch cut of ${\rm Arg}$ by setting it to be zero when $\mu_{1} = \cdots = \mu_n =0$. If $\hat{\Theta} = (n-1)\frac{\pi}{2}$, then the fact that $n\equiv0$ (mod $4)$ along with implies $${\rm Im}\left(\prod_{j\ne i} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j})\right)<0.$$ Since $\cot(\hat{\Theta})=0$ in this case, we obtain . Otherwise, implies $$\arctan\left( \frac{ {\rm Im} \prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i})}{{\rm Re}\prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i})}\right) > \hat{\Theta} -\frac{\pi}{2}- k\pi$$ where on the right hand side, we choose $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ so that $\hat{\Theta} -\frac{\pi}{2}- k\pi \in (-\frac\pi2,0)\cup(0, \frac\pi2)$. Since $\tan(\cdot)$ is increasing and non-zero on $(-\frac\pi2,\frac\pi2)$, we obtain $$\frac{ {\rm Im} \prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i})}{{\rm Re}\prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i})} > -\cot( \hat{\Theta}).$$ Above we have used the elementary fact that $\tan(x-\pi/2) = -\cot(x)$ for $x\ne0$ (mod $\pi)$. By , the complex number $\prod_{j\ne i} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j})$ has argument lying in the interval $((n-3)\frac{\pi}{2}, (n-1)\frac{\pi}{2})$. Since $n\equiv0$ (mod $4)$, this implies that it has negative real part. As a result, we have $${\rm Im} \prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i}) <-\cot( \hat{\Theta}){\rm Re}\prod_{i\ne j} (1+\sqrt{-1}\mu_{i}).$$ Since this holds for all $j$, we obtain that holds in the sense of $(n-1,n-1)$ forms.
The reverse implication holds by essentially the same argument. Suppose that $\chi$ satisfies . Since $\chi\in\Omega$ we get $${\rm Arg} \int_{X} (\alpha +\sqrt{-1} \chi)^{n} = \hat{\Theta}.$$ It follows that there exists a point $x_{0} \in X$ such that $\Theta_{\alpha}(\chi)= \hat{\Theta}$. In particular, in a neighbourhood of $x_{0}$, $\chi$ defines a subsolution in the sense of Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\]. The set of points $U \subset X$ where $\chi$ defines a subsolution is thus open and non-empty. On the other hand, it is also closed. To see this assume we can find points $p_{j} \in U$ converging to $p$, and at $p$ there exists a $j$ such that $$\sum_{i\ne j} \arctan(\mu_{j}) = \hat{\Theta}- \frac{\pi}{2}.$$ The above computation implies that, at $p$ the $(n-1,n-1)$ form $$- {\rm Im}(\alpha+ \sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}-\cot(\hat{\theta}) {\rm Re}(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{n-1}$$ is positive, but [*not*]{} strictly positive, which is a contradiction. Since $X$ is connected, it follows that $\chi$ is a subsolution everywhere.
Notice that if $\chi$ is a subsolution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation in the sense of Lemma \[lem: sub sol def\], then in fact we obtain a large set inequalities that the eigenvalues of $\chi$ with respect to $\alpha$ must satisfy. Namely, at a point $x_{0} \in X$, and in coordinates so that $\alpha$ is the identity at $x_{0}$ and $\chi(x_{0})$ is diagonal with entries $\mu_{1}, \dots, \mu_{n}$, then for every choice of $\ell$ distinct indices $j_{1}, \dots, j_{\ell}$, and every $1{\leqslant}\ell {\leqslant}n-1$, we must have $$\sum_{i\notin\{j_1,\dots,j_n\}} \arctan(\mu_{i}) {\geqslant}\hat{\Theta} - \ell \frac{\pi}{2}.$$ Of course, for any $\ell >1$, these inequalities are all implied by the definition of a subsolution, so we have not really gained anything new. On the other hand, this observation suggests a cohomological obstruction to the existence of solutions for the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation. In order to explain this, we first prove
\[lem: arg sub var\] A $(1,1)$ form $\chi \in [\omega]$ is a subsolution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation if and only if, for any $1{\leqslant}p {\leqslant}n-1$, and any non-zero, simple, positive $(n-p,n-p)$ form $\beta$, we have $${\rm Arg}\frac{ (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{p}\wedge \beta}{\alpha^{n}} > \hat{\Theta} - (n-p)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
The proof is a matter of linear algebra. Recall that a smooth $(k,k)$ form $\beta$ defined on an open set is said to be a simple positive form if it can be written as $$\beta = (\sqrt{-1})^{k} \beta_1\wedge\overline{\beta_{1}} \wedge \beta_2\wedge\overline{\beta_{2}}\wedge \dots \wedge\beta_k\wedge\overline{\beta_{k}}$$ for smooth $(1,0)$ forms $\beta_{j}$ [@Ko]. Since the statement is pointwise, we again fix a point $x_{0} \in X$, and coordinates so that $\alpha$ is the identity at $x_{0}$ and $\chi(x_{0})$ is diagonal with entries $\mu_{1}, \dots, \mu_{n}$. For any $p$, we can have $$(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{p} = (\sqrt{-1})^{p} p! \sum_{J} \prod_{j\in J} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j}) dz^{J} \wedge d\overline{z^{J}}$$ where the sum is over ordered sets $J \subset \{1,\dots,n\}$ of cardinality $p$. Suppose that $\chi$ is a subsolution. Then by the above remarks we know that, for any $J$ we have $${\rm Arg}\prod_{j\in J} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j}) > \hat{\Theta}-(n-p)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$ Let $\beta$ be any non-zero simple positive $(n-p,n-p)$ form. Then we can write $$\beta = (\sqrt{-1})^{n-p} \sum_{J} c_{J} dz^{J^{c}}\wedge d\overline{z^{J^{c}}} + \tilde{\beta}$$ for a smooth $(n-p,n-p)$ form $\tilde{\beta}$ satisfying $\tilde{\beta} \wedge dz^{J} \wedge d\overline{z^{J}}=0$ for all $J$. Here again the sum is over ordered sets $J \subset \{1,\dots,n\}$ of cardinality $p$, and $J^{c}$ denotes the ordered complement of $J$. The coefficients $c_{J}$ are necessarily real, non-negative, and at least one $c_{J}$ must be strictly positive since $$p!(\sqrt{-1})^n\sum_{J} c_{J} dz_{1}\wedge d\overline{z_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge dz_{n}\wedge d\overline{z_n} = \beta \wedge \alpha^p.$$ The right hand side is positive and not identically zero, since $\beta$ is non-zero. Thus we have $$\frac{(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{p}\wedge \beta}{\alpha^{n}} = \sum_{J} c_{J}\left(\prod_{j\in J} (1+\sqrt{-1} \mu_{j})\right).$$ The right hand side is a positive linear combination of complex numbers with arguments strictly larger than $\hat{\Theta}-(n-p)\frac{\pi}{2}$, and so $${\rm Arg}\frac{ (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\chi)^{p}\wedge \beta}{\alpha^{n}} > \hat{\Theta} - (n-p)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$ The reverse implication is trivial, by taking $\beta =(\sqrt{-1})^{n-p}dz^{J^{c}}\wedge d\overline{z^{J^{c}}}$ for every ordered set $J$ of cardinality $p$.
The upshot of this linear algebra is the following proposition, which is essentially a corollary of Lemma \[lem: arg sub var\]
\[prop: stable nec\] For every subvariety $V \subset X$, define $$\Theta_{V} := {\rm Arg} \int_{V} (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{\dim V}.$$ If there exists a solution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation, then for every proper subvariety $V\subset X$ we have $$\Theta_{V} > \Theta_{X} - (n-\dim V)\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
We can recast the condition in Proposition \[prop: stable nec\] in the following way. For every subvariety $V \subset X$ define a complex number $$Z(V) := -\int_{X} e^{-\sqrt{-1}\alpha +\omega}$$ where by convention we only integrate the term in the expansion of order $\dim V$. Note that $Z(V)$ differs from the complex number $\int_V (\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{\dim V}$ only by factors of $(\sqrt{-1})$. When $[\omega] = c_{1}(L)$, this formula is equivalent to $$\label{eq: central charge}
Z(V) = -\int_{V}e^{-\sqrt{-1}\alpha}{\rm ch}(L).$$ It is easy to check that if $\Theta_{X} \in ((n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}, n\frac{\pi}{2})$, then $Z(X)$ lies in the upper half plane. Let us denote by ${\rm Arg}_{p.v.}$ the principal value of ${\rm Arg}$, valued in $(-\pi, \pi]$. Then, in the notation of Proposition \[prop: stable nec\] we have $\Theta_V > \Theta_X -(n-\dim V) \frac{\pi}{2}$ implies $${\rm Arg}_{p.v.}\,Z(V) > {\rm Arg}_{p.v.}\,Z(X).$$ The reader can easily check that the converse also holds, provided we assume that $\Theta_V > (\dim V-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$. The numbers $Z(V)$ appearing in bear a resemblance to the various notions central charge appearing in stability conditions in several physical and mathematical theories. For example, we refer the reader to the works of Douglas [@Doug; @Doug1; @Doug2], Bridgeland [@Br], and Thomas [@T] to name just a few. We hope to further elucidate this observation in future work.
Additionally, the condition appearing in Proposition \[prop: stable nec\] is, at least heuristically, similar to the algebro-geometric stability notions appearing in other problems in complex geometry. Perhaps most notably, the notion of Mumford-Takemoto stability pertaining to the existence of Hermitian-Einstein metrics on holomorphic vector bundles [@Don1; @UY], and the recent stability condition posed by Lejmi-Székelyhidi for the convergence of the $J$-equation, and more generally existence of solutions to the inverse $\sigma_k$-equations [@LS]. Let us briefly recount this conjecture in the setting of the $J$-equation.
\[conj: J flow\] Let $(X,\alpha)$ be a Kähler manifold, and $[\omega]$ another Kähler class. For every subvariety $V\subset X$ with $\dim V=p$ define $$c_{V} := \frac{p\int_{V}\omega^{\dim p-1}\wedge\alpha}{\int_{V}\omega^{p}}.$$ Then there exists a solution to the $J$-equation if and only if $c_{X}>c_{V}$ for all proper subvarieties $V\subset X$.
This conjecture is known to hold when $\dim X=2$, thanks to the third authors solution of the Calabi conjecture [@Yau] and work of Demailly-Păun [@DP]. The conjecture also holds when $X$ is a complex torus, due to Lejmi-Székelyhidi. Recently, the first author and Székelyhidi [@CS] have proven the conjecture in the case that $X$ is toric. It is interesting to note that the stability condition in Conjecture \[conj: J flow\] arises from a modification of K-stability by considering certain special test configurations arising from deformation to the normal cone. We expect that the stability type condition in Proposition \[prop: stable nec\] can be realized in a similar manner, a point which we will address in future work. Finally, we note;
\[prop: conj dim 2\] If $\dim X=2$, then a solution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation exists if and only if, for every curve $C\subset X$ we have $$\label{eq: stab dim 2}
\Theta_{C} > \Theta_{X}-\frac{\pi}{2}.$$
Let us assume that $\Theta_{X} >0$. If $\Theta_{X}<0$, then we can replace $[\omega]$ with $[-\omega]$, and if $\Theta_{X}=0$, then the condition in is vacuous, and a solution always exists, as observed in [@JY]. We can there for assume that $\Theta_{X} \in(0,\pi)$, and so $$\label{eq: dim 2 norm}
1-\int_{X}\omega^{2} = 2\cot(\Theta_{X})\int_{X}\alpha\wedge \omega.$$ It was observed in [@JY] that a solution to the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation exists if and only if the class $[\cot(\Theta_{X})\alpha+\omega]$ is Kähler, thanks to the third authors solution of the Calabi conjecture [@Yau]. Since $[\alpha]$ is Kahler, the class $[\Omega_{T}]:=[(T+\cot(\Theta_{X}))\alpha+\omega]$ is a Kähler class for $T \gg0$. Suppose there exists a time $T {\geqslant}0$ where $[\Omega_{T}]$ lies on the boundary of the Kähler cone– that is, $[\Omega_{T}]$ is nef, but not Kähler. First, we claim that $[\Omega_{T}]$ is big. By [@DP Theorem 2.12] it suffices to check that $\int_{X}\Omega_{T}^{2} >0$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{X} \Omega_{T}^{2} &= (T+\cot(\Theta_{X}))^{2} + 2(T+\cot(\Theta_{X}))\int_{X}\alpha\wedge\omega + \int_{X}\omega^2\\
&=(T+\cot(\Theta_{X}))^{2} +1+ 2T\int_{X}\alpha\wedge \omega,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used . Note that since $\Theta_{X} \in(0, \pi)$ we have $$2\int_{X}\alpha \wedge \omega = {\rm Im}(\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega)^{2} >0,$$ and so the above computation implies $$\int_{X}\Omega_{T}^{2} {\geqslant}1.$$ Finally, by the main theorem of [@DP] (see also [@CT]), we can conclude that $[\Omega_{T}]$ is Kähler provided $\int_{C}\Omega_{T} > 0$ for any curve $C\subset X$. Fix $C \subset X$. Since $\Theta_{C} > \Theta_{X}-\pi/2$, we know $\Theta_{C}\in(-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})$, and so the following equality makes sense; $$\tan(\Theta_{C}) \int_{C} \alpha = \int_{C} \omega.$$ Because $\tan(\cdot)$ is defined an increasing on $(-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})$, we have $$\tan(\Theta_{C}) > \tan(\Theta_{X}-\frac{\pi}{2}) = -\cot(\Theta_{X}).$$ Furthermore, $\Theta_{C} \in (-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})$ implies that $$\int_{C}\alpha = {\rm Re}\int_{C}\alpha+\sqrt{-1}\omega >0$$ and so we obtain $$\int_{C}\omega = \tan(\Theta_{C}) \int_{C} \alpha {\geqslant}-\cot(\Theta_{X})\int_{C}\alpha.$$ Since $T{\geqslant}0$, $$\int_{C}\Omega_{T} = T\int_{C} \alpha + \int_{C}\cot(\Theta_{X})\alpha+\omega > T\int_{C}\alpha >0,$$ and so $[\Omega_{T}]$ is Kähler as long as $T{\geqslant}0$, and the proposition follows.
We end by remarking that one could hope for a similar framework for the lower branches of the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation– that is, when $\Theta_{X} {\leqslant}(n-2)\frac{\pi}{2}$. However, due to the lack of convexity in the lower branches we expect that the deformed Hermitian-Yang-Mills equation with subcritical phase may be extremely poorly behaved from an analytic and algebraic stand point. For example, in the real case Nadirashvili-Vlăduţ [@NV] and Wang-Yuan [@WY1] have demonstrated the existence of $C^{1,\beta}$ viscosity solutions to the special Lagrangian equation with subcritical phase on a ball in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ for $n{\geqslant}3$ which are not $C^2$ in the interior. Furthermore, Wang-Yuan [@WY1] have shown the existence of smooth solutions $\{u^{{\varepsilon}}\}$ to the special Lagrangian equation with fixed, subcritical phase on a ball in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that $\|Du^{{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^{\infty}} <C$, but so that $|D^2u^{{\varepsilon}}|(0)$ blows up as ${\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0$.
[99]{} Z. Błocki, [*On uniform estimate in Calabi-Yau theorem*]{}, Sci. China Ser. A, [**48**]{} (2005), 244-247.
T. Bridgeland, [*Stability conditions on triangulated categories*]{}, Ann. of. Math., [**166**]{} (2007), 317-345.
X. Cabré, and L. Caffarelli, [*Fully nonlinear elliptic equations*]{}, American Mathematical Society: Colloquium Publications, vol. 43. American Mathematical Socierty, Providence, R.I. (1995).
L. Caffarelli, L. Nirenberg, and J. Spruck, [*The Dirichlet problem for nonlinear second order elliptic equations, III: Functions of the eigenvalues of the Hessian*]{}, Acta. Math., [**155**]{} (1985), no. 3-4, 261-301.
H.-D. Cao, [*Deformation of Kähler metrics to Kähler-Einstein metrics on compact Kähler manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**81**]{} (1985), 359-372.
X.-X. Chen, [*In the lower bound of the Mabuchi energy and its application*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Notices, [**12**]{} (2000), 607-623.
X.-X. Chen, [*A new parabolic flow in Kähler manifolds*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom., [**12**]{} (2004), 837-852.
K.-S. Chou, and X.-J. Wang, [*A variational theory of the Hessian equation*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**54**]{} (2001), 1029-1064.
T. Collins, [*$C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates for nonlinear elliptic equations of twisted type*]{}, arXiv:1501.06455
T. Collins, and G. Székelyhidi, [*Convergence of the $J$-flow on toric manifolds*]{}, arXiv:1412:4809.
T. Collins, and V. Tosatti, [*Kähler currents and null loci*]{}, Invent. Math., to appear.
J.-P. Demailly, [*Complex Analytic and Differential Geometry*]{}, available on the author’s webpage.
J.-P. Demailly, and M. Păun, [*Numerical characterization of the Kähler cone of a compact Kähler manifold*]{}, Ann. of Math., [**159**]{} (2004), no. 3, 1247-1274.
S. Dinew, and S. Kołodziej, [*Liouville and Calabi-Yau type theorems for complex Hessian equations*]{}, arXiv:1203.3995.
S.K. Donaldson, [*Anti self-dual Yang-Mills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc, [**50**]{} (1985), no. 3, 1-26
S.K. Donaldson, [*Moment maps and diffeomorphisms*]{}, Asian J. Math., [**3**]{} (1999), 1-16.
M.R. Douglas, [*$D$-branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds*]{}, European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Barcelona, 2000), 449-466, Progr. Math. [**202**]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.
M.R. Douglas, [*$D$-branes, categories and $N=1$ supersymmetry. Strings, branes, and M-theory*]{}, J. Math. Phys., [**42**]{} (2001), 2818-2843.
M.R. Douglas, [*Dirichlet branes, homological mirror symmetry, and stability*]{}, Proc. Internat. Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. III (Beijing, 2002), 395-408, Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002.
L.C. Evans, [*Classical solutions of fully nonlinear, convex, second order elliptic equations*]{}, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math., [**25**]{} (1982), 333-363.
H. Fang, M. Lai, and X. Ma, [*On a class of fully nonlinear flows in Kähler geometry*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**653**]{} (2011), 189-220.
B. Guan, [*Second order estimates and regularity for fully nonlinear elliptic equations on Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Duke Math. J., [**163**]{} (2014), 1491-1524.
B. Guan, and Q. Li, [*The Dirichlet problem for a complex Monge-Ampère type equation on Hermitian manifolds*]{}, Adv. Math., [**246**]{} (2013), 351-367.
R. Harvey, and H.B. Lawson, [*Calibrated geometries*]{}, Acta. Math., [**148**]{} (1982), 47-157.
Z. Hou, X.-N. Ma, and D. Wu, [*A second order estimate for complex Hessian equations on a compact Kähler manifold*]{}, Math. Res. Lett., [**17**]{} (2010), no. 3, 547-561.
A. Jacob, and S.-T. Yau, [*A special Lagrangian type equation for holomorphic line bundles*]{}, arXiv:1411.7457.
S. Kołodziej, [*The complex Monge-Ampère equation and pluripotential theory*]{}, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, [**178**]{}(2005), no. 840, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, R.I.
N.V. Krylov, [*Boundedly nonhomogeneous elliptic and parabolic equations*]{}, Izvestia Akad. Nauk. SSSR, [**46**]{} (1982), 487-523; English translation in Math. USSR Izv. [**20**]{} (1983), no. 3, 452-492.
O.A. Ladyzenska, V.A. Solonnikov, and N.N. Ural’Ceva, [*Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type*]{}, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, [**23**]{} (1968), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I.
M. Lejmi, and G. Székelyhidi, [*The $J$-flow and stability*]{}, Advances in Math., to appear.
C. Leung, S.-T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, [*From special Lagrangian to Hermitian-Yang-Mills via Fourier-Mukai transform*]{}, Winter School on Mirror Symmetry, Vector Bundles and Lagrangian Submanifolds (Cambridge, MA, 1999), 209-225, AMS.IP Stud. Adv. Math., [**23**]{}, Amer, Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
P. Li, and S.-T. Yau, [*On the parabolic kernel of the Schrödinger operator*]{}, Acta Math., [**156**]{}(1986), no.3-4, 153-201.
N. Nadirashvili, and S. Vlăduţ, [*Singular solution to Special Lagrangian Equations*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, [**27**]{} (2010), no. 5, 1179-1188.
V. Pingali, [*A priori estimates for a generalized Monge-Ampère PDE on some compact Kähler manifolds*]{}, arXiv:1505.04358
L.I. Ronkin, [*Introduction to the theory of entire functions of several variables*]{}, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, [**44**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1974.
Y.A. Rubinstein, and J.P Solomon, [*The degenerate special Lagrangian equation*]{}, arXiv:1506:08077
K. Smoczyk, [*Longtime existence of the Lagrangian mean curvature flow*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, [**20**]{} (2004), no. 1, 25-46.
K. Smoczyk, and M.-T. Wang, [*Mean curvature flows of Lagrangian submanifolds with convex potentials*]{}, J. Differential Geom., [**62**]{} (2002), no 2, 243-257.
J.P. Solomon, [*The Calabi homomorphism, Lagrangian paths and special Lagrangians*]{}, Math. Ann., [**357**]{} (2013), 1389-1424.
J.P Solomon, [*Curvature of the space of positive Lagrangians*]{}, geom. Funct. Anal., [**24**]{} (2014), 670-689.
J. Song, and B. Weinkove, [*On the convergence and singularities of the $J$-flow with applications to the Mabuchi energy*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**61**]{}(2008), 210-229.
W. Sun, [*On a class of fully nonlinear elliptic equations on closed Hermitian manifolds*]{}, arXiv: 1310.0362.
G. Székelyhidi, [*Fully non-linear elliptic equations on compact hermitian manifolds*]{}, arXiv:1501.02762v3.
G. Székelyhidi, V. Tosatti, and B. Weinkove, [*Gauduchon metrics with prescribed volume form*]{}, arXiv:1503.04991
R.P. Thomas, [*Moment maps, monodromy and mirror manifolds*]{}, Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry (Seoul, 2000), 467-498, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2001.
R.P. Thomas, [*Stability conditions and the braid group*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. [**14**]{} (2006), no. 1, 135–161.
R.P. Thomas, and S.-T. Yau, [*Special Lagrangians, stable bundles and mean curvature flow*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom., [**10**]{} (2002), no. 5, 1075-1113.
V. Tosatti, Y. Wang, B. Weinkove, and X. Yang, [*$C^{2,a}$ estimates for non-linear elliptic equations in complex and almost complex geometry*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, [*to appear*]{}.
K. Uhlenbeck, and S.-T. Yau, [*On the existence of Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections in stable vector bundles*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**39-S**]{} (1986), 257-293.
D. Wang, and Y. Yuan, [*Hessian estimates for special Lagrangian equations with critical and supercritical phases in general dimensions*]{}, Amer. J. Math., [**136**]{} (2014), 481-499.
D. Wang, and Y. Yuan, [*Singular solutions to the special Lagrangian equations with subcritical phases and minimal surface systems*]{}, Amer. J. Math., [**135**]{} (2013), no. 5, 1157-1177.
M.-T. Wang, [*Mean curvature flows and isotopy problems*]{}, Surv. Differ. Geom., [**18**]{}, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2013.
Y. Wang, [*On the $C^{2,\alpha}$ regularity of the complex Monge-Ampère equation*]{}, Math. Res. Lett., [**19**]{} (2012), no. 4, 939-946.
B. Weinkove, [*Convergence of the $J$-flow on Kähler surfaces*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom., [**12**]{}(2004), 151-164.
B. Weinkove, [*On the $J$-flow in higher dimensions and the lower boundedness of the Mabuchi energy*]{}, J. Differential Geom., [**73**]{} (2006), 351-358.
S.-T. Yau, [*On the Ricci curvature of compact Kähler manifolds and the complex Monge-Ampère equation, I*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**31**]{} (1978), no. 3, 339-411.
Y. Yuan, [*A Bernstein problem for special Lagrangian equations*]{}, Invent. Math., [**150**]{} (2002), no. 1, 117-125.
Y. Yuan, [*Global solutions to special Lagrangian equations*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., [**134**]{} (2006), no. 5, 1355-1358.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform a detailed analysis of the covariance matrix of the spherically averaged galaxy power spectrum and present a new, practical method for estimating this within an arbitrary survey *without* the need for running mock galaxy simulations that cover the full survey volume. The method uses theoretical arguments to modify the covariance matrix measured from a set of small-volume cubic galaxy simulations, which are computationally cheap to produce compared to larger simulations and match the measured small-scale galaxy clustering more accurately than is possible using theoretical modelling. We include prescriptions to analytically account for the window function of the survey, which convolves the measured covariance matrix in a non-trivial way. We also present a new method to include the effects of supersample covariance and modes outside the small simulation volume which requires no additional simulations and still allows us to scale the covariance matrix. As validation, we compare the covariance matrix estimated using our new method to that from a brute force calculation using 500 simulations originally created for analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Main Galaxy Sample (SDSS-MGS). We find excellent agreement on all scales of interest for large scale structure analysis, including those dominated by the effects of the survey window, and on scales where theoretical models of the clustering normally break-down, but the new method produces a covariance matrix with significantly better signal-to-noise. Although only formally correct in real-space, we also discuss how our method can be extended to incorporate the effects of Redshift Space Distortions.'
author:
- |
\
$^{1}$International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO).\
$^{3}$Institute of Cosmology & Gravitation, Dennis Sciama Building, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK.\
bibliography:
- '/Volumes/Work/ICRAR/LaTeX/massive.bib'
title: 'Galaxy 2-Point Covariance Matrix Estimation for Next Generation Surveys'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: theory - large-scale structure of Universe
Introduction
============
For random-phase, Gaussian distributed density perturbations, all the cosmological information is included in the 2-point functions. Although gravitational evolution (and, if it exists, primordial non-Gaussianity) introduces phase-space information and small higher-order n-point functions, the majority of available information is still encapsulated in just the 2-point functions. The former of these can be readily measured using large surveys of the universe. However, the covariance matrix, which quantifies the error on the universe’s power spectrum or correlation function, cannot be measured so easily.
As a result, the need to model the covariance matrix has become one of the most computationally demanding aspects of modern large scale structure analysis. Although this can be calculated analytically in the linear regime [@Feldman1994; @Tegmark1997], the non-linear galaxy covariance matrix is a complex function of non-linear shot-noise, galaxy evolution and the unknown relationship between the galaxies and the underlying dark matter. In any real application this is further complicated by the effect of Redshift Space Distortions (RSD). Recent progress has been made in understanding and computing the dark-matter covariance matrix theoretically [@Neyrinck2011; @Mohammed2014; @Carron2015; @Bertolini2016; @Mohammed2017; @Barreira2017a; @Barreira2017b], but large simulation suites show that much work still needs to be done to understand the small-scale evolutionary effects [@Takahashi2009; @Li.Y2014a; @Blot2015; @Klypin2017], let alone modelling the *galaxy* covariance matrix we actually measure. A more common solution is to use a set of detailed galaxy simulations, otherwise known as mock catalogues (mocks), to calculate a brute-force estimate of the covariance matrix.
In recent large scale structure analyses this estimation was performed using large numbers of simulations that cover the full survey volume, in both the angular and radial directions, with high enough resolution to accurately reproduce the galaxies within the survey. Earlier work, such as that of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; @Colless2001 [@Colless2003]) used Log-normal realisations of the overdensity field (LN; @Coles1991 [@Cole2005]). The more recent SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS; ) used more sophisticated methods such as PTHALOS , Quick Particle Mesh Simulations and Augmented Lagrangian Perturbation Theory to produce their mock catalogues. Other alternatives include PINOCCHIO , Effective Zel’dovich approximation mocks (EZmocks; @Chuang2015a), the Comoving Lagrangian Acceleration method (COLA; @Tassev2013 [@Tassev2015; @Howlett2015b]) and the work of [@Sunayama2016]. [@Chuang2015b] and [@Monaco2016] provide reviews of the above methods, detailing their respective strengths and weaknesses, whilst work to create ever faster algorithms continues. Ultimately, this abundance of different methods attests to the increasing urge to reduce the computational burden of covariance matrix estimation.
However, for now this burden will only be exacerbated by future surveys. Reaching the desired non-linear accuracy for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI; @Levi2013), the Large Sky Synoptic Telescope (LSST; @Ivezic2008) and Euclid [@Laureijs2011] may require more complex computational methods than are currently used. The covariance matrix also depends on cosmology; either an ensemble of simulations must be run for each model of interest, the covariance matrix from a single cosmology must be interpolated for other models [@White2015], or the likelihood distribution from the comparison between the model and data must be modified [@Kalus2016]. In addition to this, the number of simulations in an ensemble may also need to increase. Recent studies by [@Dodelson2013; @Taylor2013] and [@Percival2014] have shown that $\mathcal{O}(1000)$ mocks are required to obtain an accurate numerical estimate of the covariance matrix with sub-dominant errors compared to the statistical errors themselves for current surveys. However as the statistical errors in measurements of the galaxy clustering decrease, the number of simulations must increase to ensure the precision on the covariance matrix remains subdominant.
This presents a bleak picture for the standard method of covariance matrix estimation, in which a delicate balance between the speed, size and accuracy of each simulation must be achieved. Using the brute force approach, enough simulations must be run to estimate the covariance matrix to high precision, but they must also be large enough to fit the survey and have enough particles to reproduce the galaxy population. There have been many studies recently aiming to ease this problem by reducing the amount of simulations required to reach a given covariance matrix precision, rather than simply increasing the speed with which each realisation of the survey can be produced.
For a fixed simulation size, one technique for reducing the number of simulations required to reach a given covariance matrix precision is covariance matrix tapering [@Paz2015] where the covariance matrix is made more diagonal through the use of a specialised set of tapering functions. [@Padmanabhan2016] also present a method to directly estimate the inverse covariance matrix from simulations, which improves convergence in the estimate with the number of simulations. Both of these use the fact that the covariance matrix is generally sparse and contains off-diagonal terms that have low signal-to-noise. Other methods [@Schafer2005; @Pope2008; @OConnell2016; @Pearson2016] combine an empirical estimate of the covariance matrix from a small number of samples with fitting functions containing several free parameters, whilst [@Cole1997] and [@Schneider2011] presented a method to add large-scale modes to small-scale simulations, thus enabling the fast creation of many full-size approximate simulations. All these methods succeed in greatly reducing the number of mock catalogues required to reach a given covariance matrix precision, however often contain free parameters which must be calibrated. Furthermore, these methods do not overcome the problem that running even a few hundred simulations may be a challenge for next generation surveys.
Instead of reducing the number of mocks required to obtain the covariance matrix to some accuracy, we propose a method to reduce the size of the simulations required to estimate the covariance matrix, utilising the known analytic properties of the covariance matrix, namely it’s scaling with the volume of the simulation. Such a method has been suggested recently by [@Escoffier2016] (although this paper does not explicitly refer to any volume scaling), [@Mohammed2017] and [@Klypin2017], but here we provide a viable algorithm to do so. Our method also includes the effects of the survey window function, which cannot be naively included in the same way as when we have simulations that fit the full survey volume, and the effects of modes missing from small volume simulations that occur naturally in larger volumes. Compared to [@Schneider2011], our approach should be more robust as we alter the parameters of the small-volume simulations rather than trying to adjust the results of simulations run with fixed parameters. We also analytically add the large-scale modes rather than doing this numerically, avoiding the need to simultaneously model the largest and smallest scales, and the resulting degradation of resolution. The overall benefit of our method is that we can use it in addition to methods detailed above to reduce the necessary number of mocks, and as we will show, we can even improve the accuracy of the estimated covariance matrix at fixed computational cost by running larger numbers of smaller simulations.
The layout of this work is as follows: In Section \[sec:motivation\], we outline our approach and demonstrate that reducing the volume of the simulations used to estimate the covariance matrix can reduce the computational time required to achieve a given precision in the estimation, or that conversely we can improve our estimate given a fixed computational time. In Sections \[sec:supersamp\] and \[sec:window\], we present methods to account for the lack of large scale modes and the survey window function. Finally we tie everything together in Section \[sec:endresult\], demonstrating that our method using small volume simulations can recover the same covariance matrix as a brute force estimation using full-size simulations.
Motivation: The covariance matrix and its error {#sec:motivation}
===============================================
If the density perturbations present in the universe are drawn from a Gaussian distribution then the estimated power spectrum must be drawn from a chi-squared distribution and the estimated covariance matrix $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}$ from its higher-dimensional counterpart, the Wishart distribution, $$\mathcal{P}(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}|{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}},n,p) = \left(\frac{|\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}|^{\frac{n-p-1}{2}}}{2^{\frac{np}{2}}|{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}|^{\frac{n}{2}}\Gamma_{p}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}\right)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{-1}]},$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ gives the probability of measuring a $p\times p$ covariance matrix based on the true underlying covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}$. $n$ is the number of degrees of freedom, which in the case of covariance matrices estimated from a set of mocks is $n=N_{s}-p-1$, where $N_{s}$ is the number of simulations and $p$ is the number of measurement bins. $\Gamma_{p}$ is the multivariate gamma function.
The covariance of the Wishart distribution is given by $$\langle \Delta\hat{\mathsf{C}}_{i,j}\Delta\hat{\mathsf{C}}_{k,m} \rangle = n^{-1}(\mathsf{C}_{i,k}\mathsf{C}_{j,m}+\mathsf{C}_{i,m}\mathsf{C}_{j,k}).$$ In the simplified case of a Gaussian random field where the covariance matrix is diagonal, this reduces to $$\Delta\hat{\mathsf{C}}_{i,i} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}}\mathsf{C}_{i,i}.
\label{eq:coverr}$$ Hence the error on the covariance matrix scales as one over the square root of the number of degrees of freedom. This scaling has been tested and verified even for non-linear simulations by [@Takahashi2009] and [@Takahashi2011]. For a number of mocks much larger than the number of measurement bins, the precision of the covariance matrix is doubled if four times more mocks are used. Overall, if the covariance matrix is estimated only from simulations, the number of mocks required to reach the necessary covariance matrix precision for next generation surveys will be much larger than the number currently used.
However, the error on the covariance matrix depends on covariance matrix itself. It has also long been established that the covariance matrix scales as the inverse of the volume in which the power spectrum is measured [@Feldman1994; @Meiksin1999; @Scoccimarro1999], where in the absence of a window function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j}) & = \frac{2(2\pi)^{3}}{V_{k_{i}}V}\biggl(\bar{P}(k_{i})+\frac{1}{\bar{n}}\biggl)^{2}\delta^{D}(k_{i}-k_{j}) \notag \\
& + \frac{2}{\bar{n}^{2}V}\biggl(\bar{P}(k_{i})+\bar{P}(k_{j})+\bar{P}(k_{i},k_{j}) \biggl) \notag \\
& + \frac{1}{\bar{n}V}\biggl(4\bar{B}(k_{i},k_{j})+\bar{B}(0,k_{j})+\bar{B}(k_{i}, 0) \biggl) \notag \\
& + \frac{\bar{T}(k_{i},k_{j})}{V} + \frac{(1+\alpha^{3})}{\bar{n}^{3}V}.
\label{eq:covnowin}\end{aligned}$$ We have denoted this covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm}$ to distinguish it from the full covariance matrix in the presence of a window function, the expression for which is given in Appendix \[sec:appcov\] and will be visited later. $V$ is the volume of the simulation, whilst $\bar{n}$ is the number density of tracers, which must be constant by definition in the absence of a window function. $\alpha$ is the ratio of tracers to synthetic data points that is used to estimate the clustering of the field. $\bar{P}$, $\bar{B}$ and $\bar{T}$ are the bin-averaged power spectrum, bispectrum and trispectrum, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{T}(k_{i},k_{j}) &= \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}}\int_{V_{k_{j}}} \frac{d^{3}k '}{V_{k_{j}}}T({\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}',-{\boldsymbol{k}}, -{\boldsymbol{k}}'), \\
\bar{B}(k_{i},k_{j}) &= \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}}\int_{V_{k_{j}}} \frac{d^{3}k '}{V_{k_{j}}}B({\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}',-{\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{k}}'), \\
\bar{P}(k_{i},k_{j}) &= \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}}\int_{V_{k_{j}}} \frac{d^{3}k '}{V_{k_{j}}}P(|{\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{k}}'|), \\
\bar{P}(k_{i}) &= \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}}P({\boldsymbol{k}}),\end{aligned}$$ where the two-, three- and four-point functions for each mode ${\boldsymbol{k}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{k}}'$ are averaged over k-space volumes $V_{k_{i}}$ and $V_{k_{j}}$.
Hence the error on the covariance matrix measured from a set of mock catalogues is inversely proportional to the volume of a survey being simulated. Knowledge of this behaviour can be used to augment the standard method of estimating the covariance matrix from simulations, and improve the error on the covariance matrix given a fixed computational time. The known scaling of the covariance matrix means we can run simulations of smaller size than required to fit a survey, measure their covariance and then scale it by the appropriate volume to the covariance that would have been measured from a set of simulations large enough to contain the survey volume. Running smaller volume simulations means that more simulations can be run in a fixed time, and hence the error on the estimate of the covariance improves. This also has the additional benefit that each simulation will be easier to run in terms of memory consumption and could be made more accurate in terms of the non-linear physics.
A demonstration with Gaussian Random Fields
-------------------------------------------
As a simple proof of concept, take Eq. \[eq:coverr\] and the case of a set of $N_{L}$ large simulations, with volume $V_{L}$. The error on the covariance matrix measured from those simulations is $$\Delta\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}_{L} \propto \sqrt{\frac{2}{N_{L}}}\frac{1}{V_{L}}.
\label{eq:errbegin}$$
Now take a set of twice as many smaller simulations $N_{S} = 2N_{L}$, each half the volume of the larger simulations, $V_{S} = 1/2V_{L}$. Naively one would expect running this set to take the same amount of computational time as the larger volume set (in reality it would be even less due to the imperfect scaling of most simulation codes). The error on the covariance matrix measured from these would be $$\Delta\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}_{S} \propto \sqrt{\frac{2}{N_{S}}}\frac{1}{V_{S}} \propto \sqrt{2}\Delta\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}_{L}.$$ The error using the small volume mocks is actually larger than using the larger volume mocks. This is because the four-point nature of the covariance matrix means that volume is more important than number of simulations. Doubling the volume adds twice as many modes available for estimating the covariance compared to doubling the number of simulations. This is unlike the error on the power spectrum averaged over many simulations, which is two-point in nature and so the doubling the volume has the same effect on this as doubling the number of simulations.
However, what we can do is scale the covariance matrix of the small simulations by the volume ratio, adding in information from our knowledge of the analytic behaviour of the covariance matrix, thus $$\Delta\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}_{S,scaled} \propto \sqrt{\frac{2}{N_{S}}}\frac{1}{V_{S}}\frac{V_{S}}{V_{L}} \propto \frac{\Delta\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}_{L}}{\sqrt{2}}.
\label{eq:errend}$$ Hence the error on the covariance matrix is decreased by the square root of the number of additional simulations that can be run in the same time period.
To test this scaling we use a set of Gaussian Random Fields (GRFs) based an initial power spectrum generated using [camb]{} [@Lewis2000; @Howlett2012]. Each GRF is generated on a Fourier grid with the real and imaginary parts of each Fourier mode $\delta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}$, drawn from a distribution with variance given by the input dimensionless power spectrum $\Delta^{2}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}} = |{\boldsymbol{k}}|^{3}P({\boldsymbol{k}})/2\pi^{2}$, i.e., $$\mathcal{P}(\delta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \Delta^{2}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}e^{-\frac{\delta^{2}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{2\Delta^{2}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}.$$
500 GRFs were generated on a grid of edge-length $L=1280{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$ consisting of $512^{3}$ cells, whilst 4000 were generated on a grid of edge-length $L=640{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$ consisting of $256^{3}$ cells. Hence the volume of the larger GRFs is 8 times that of the smaller set, however there are 8 times fewer. The power spectrum and covariance matrix from each set was then calculated in bins of width $\Delta k=0.01{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$ and $\Delta k=0.04{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$.
In the Gaussian regime with no shot-noise, only the term proportional to the power spectrum squared remains in Eq. \[eq:covnowin\]. For the two sets of GRFs, the measured variance should match this analytic prediction exactly. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:gaussianvolume\]. The agreement between the two is exact within the limits of noise in the measured covariance matrix arising from using a finite number of realisations.
![The error on the power spectrum from the two sets of Gaussian Random Fields described in the text with different volumes and measurement bin widths. Points denote the measurements whilst the solid lines show the theoretical predictions. Increasing the bin width and the volume decreases the covariance as there are more modes in each bin to average over.[]{data-label="fig:gaussianvolume"}](Figure1.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The error on the two covariance matrices from the $\Delta k=0.01{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$ simulation set was then calculated using bootstrap resampling with replacement over the 500 (4000) large (small) volume GRFs. The error was also calculated where the covariance matrix for each bootstrap sample was scaled by the volume ratio between the large and small simulations, using the analytic behaviour of the covariance matrix to reduce the error. The standard deviation of the three different covariance matrices are shown in Fig. \[fig:gaussianerr\]. Also shown in the ratio between the standard deviations of the covariances matrices with that measured from the larger volume GRFs. We expect that the error on the smaller volume simulations will be a factor of $\sqrt{8}$ larger than that of the larger volume simulations, even though there is a factor of 8 more of them as the reduction in volume outweighs the extra simulations. This is indeed seen in Fig. \[fig:gaussianerr\]. However when we include the volume scaling of the covariance matrix, the error improves by a factor $\sqrt{8}$ in the small simulations compared to larger simulations, validating Eq. \[eq:errend\].
![The error on the variance from the two sets of Gaussian Random Fields described in the text with different volumes and including the volume scaling of the small volume simulations. Points show the measurements, whilst solid lines show the theoretical expectation for a GRF (including scaling), Eqs \[eq:coverr\] and \[eq:errbegin\]-\[eq:errend\]. Shown in the bottom panel is the ratio of the errors compared to the errors in the large volume simulations, compared with the expectations from Eq. \[eq:errbegin\]- \[eq:errend\]. Generally, decreasing the volume and increasing the number of simulations in concordance increases the covariance matrix error as volume is more important than number of simulations due to their effects on the number of modes available for measuring the four-point nature of the covariance matrix. However, using the volume dependence of the covariance matrix allows this to be counteracted, and can cause the error on the smaller simulations to improve compared to the larger simulations as more simulations can be run in a fixed computational time.[]{data-label="fig:gaussianerr"}](Figure2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Money for nothing?
------------------
Perhaps this seems to good to be true. We seem to be gaining information at no cost and if so, why can we not make each simulation infinitesimally small? The answer is that the information we are gaining comes from our knowledge of the analytic behaviour the covariance matrix. However, we cannot make each simulation infinitesimally small as the volume scaling of the covariance matrix breaks down as the size of the simulation approaches the scales of interest in the power spectrum.
In particular, the lack of large scale modes in smaller volume simulations has an effect on the covariance matrix measured on both large and scales. On large scales, there must still be enough modes that the power spectrum and its covariance matrix can be measured. Additionally, it has been well documented in recent literature that the presence of coupling between long (on the order of the simulation size) and small scale modes increases the covariance on small scales [@Takada2013; @Li.Y2014a]. Hence a simulation of a given volume will not return the ‘true’ small scale covariance due to the absence of modes larger than the simulation box.
Finally, for the rescaling method to be viable we must also find a new way to account for the window function of a survey, which can no longer be included by simply cutting out the survey mask from the simulation. In the remainder of this paper we will cover new methods to include larger-than-box modes and the effects of a window function before bringing everything together and showing that we can recover the covariance matrix measured from a set of realistic, traditional galaxy mocks but using simulations only 1/8th the size.
Supersample Covariance {#sec:supersamp}
======================
The non-linear nature of gravitational evolution intimately couples long and short wavelength density fluctuations. Due to the cosmological principle, on the very largest scales the density fluctuations should tend to zero. However, when observations of the universe are made, the finite size of the survey means that there may be density fluctutations larger than the survey that couple with modes inside the survey. Though these long wavelength perturbations cannot be measured directly, their interaction with the sub-survey modes still leaves additional information within the covariance matrix. This additional information is commonly known as beat-coupling, halo sample variance or, as will be adopted here, supersample covariance.
The effect of super-survey modes on the power spectrum covariance matrix was originally studied by [@Hamilton2006] and [@Rimes2006]. [@Hu2003] also investigated the effect of these modes on the number counts of halos. Since then there have been many investigations into the nature of supersample covariance as well as its, possibly measurable, information content [@Sefusatti2006; @Takada2007; @Sato2009; @Takada2009; @Takahashi2009; @DePutter2012; @Kayo2013; @Takada2013; @Li.Y2014a; @Li.Y2014b; @Takahashi2014].
[@Takada2013] give a detailed mathematical description of supersample covariance and its origin. In their work they find that supersample covariance arises from the response of the power spectrum to a rescaling of the background by a long-wavelength mode, which in turn can be related to a particular trispectrum configuration. In this configuration, the quadrilaterals that make up the trispectrum consist of two, nearly equal and opposite, long wavelength modes, ${\boldsymbol{q}}_{12}$. The two orthogonal modes ${\boldsymbol{k}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{k}}'$, are small, and so the trispectrum acts as the modulation of two short wavelength power spectra $P(k)$ and $P(k')$ by some background mode $\delta_{b}$. This is related to the peak-background split framework [@Kaiser1984; @Cole1989], in which large-scale galaxy bias can be understood by considering that a long wavelength density perturbation modulates the amplitude of small scale pairs and changes the relative abundances of local peaks above the collapse threshold. Mathematically, the clustering quantity of interest is $$\begin{gathered}
T({\boldsymbol{k}},-{\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{12},{\boldsymbol{k}}',-{\boldsymbol{k}}'-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{12}) \\
\approx T({\boldsymbol{k}},-{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}',-{\boldsymbol{k}}') + \frac{\partial P(k)}{\partial \delta_{b}} \frac{\partial P(k')}{\partial \delta_{b}} P^{L}(q_{12}).\end{gathered}$$ As the mode ${\boldsymbol{q}}_{12}$ has a long wavelength, the power spectrum of this mode is the linear power spectrum, $P^{L}(q_{12})$.
Using the above expression for the trispectrum in the covariance matrix results in a modified expression for the small-scale covariance that would be measured within the same volume, but which includes the effects of modes larger than the survey $$\mathsf{C}^{ssc}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j})+\sigma_{b}^{2}\frac{\partial P(k_{i})}{\partial \delta_{b}} \frac{\partial P(k_{j})}{\partial \delta_{b}},
\label{eq:covssc}$$ where $$\sigma_{b}^{2} = \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} |W({\boldsymbol{k}})|^{2} P^{L}(k)
\label{eq:sigmab}$$ is the variance of the background mode $\delta_{b}$ within some window $W({\boldsymbol{k}})$.
The above equation assumes that the density fluctuations are defined with respect to the *global* mean density, $\bar{\rho}_{m}$. In the context of large scale structure analyses, we instead usually estimate the overdensity with respect to the mean density within the local survey volume, $\bar{\rho}^{\mathrm{loc}}_{m}$. Compared to the global mean density, the mean density within the survey volume is modulated by the same background mode that gives rise to the supersample covariance, such that $$\bar{\rho}^{\mathrm{loc}}_{m} = (1+\delta_{b})\bar{\rho}_{m}
\label{eq:svbox}$$ and our estimate of the Fourier space overdensity referenced to the local mean $\delta^{\mathrm{loc}}({\boldsymbol{k}})$, is related to the true overdensity via [@DePutter2012] $$\delta^{\mathrm{loc}}({\boldsymbol{k}}) = \delta({\boldsymbol{k}})/(1+\delta_{b}).$$ Strictly speaking, the mean density within the survey enters into both the numerator and denominator when we compute the overdensity which introduces an additional term $-\delta_{b}/(1+\delta_{b})$ into the real-space overdensity measured within the survey volume. However, this constant term disappears for ${\boldsymbol{k}}\neq0$ when we take the Fourier transform of the overdensity field. From the overdensity referenced to local means the measured power spectrum becomes $$P^{\mathrm{loc}}(k) = P(k)/(1+\delta_{b})^{2}
\label{eq:pkglob}$$ and it is the variation of $P^{\mathrm{loc}}(k)$ with $\delta_b$ that we are interested in for the supersample covariance term in the measured covariance matrix. Thus the revised covariance referenced to local means is $$\begin{gathered}
\mathsf{C}^{ssc,\mathrm{loc}}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j})\\
+\sigma_{b}^{2}\left(\frac{\partial P(k_{i})}{\partial \delta_{b}}-2P(k_{i})\right)\left(\frac{\partial P(k_{j})}{\partial \delta_{b}}-2P(k_{j})\right).
\label{eq:covsscloc}\end{gathered}$$ and $\sigma_{b}$ is the same as that given in Eq. \[eq:sigmab\].
The formalism of [@Takada2013] provides a useful way of characterising the effect of supersample covariance on cosmological measurements and of disentangling and utilising the signal from modes outside the survey in obtaining cosmological constraints [@Li.Y2014b]. Of direct interest to this study however is the work of [@Li.Y2014a] who detail the effect of supersample covariance on *simulations*.
Unlike in surveys, where modes outside the volume encode information inside the volume, periodic simulations have no external modes. These are implicitly set to zero along with the average overdensity. Hence the covariance measured from an ensemble of simulations will be lower than that measured from an ensemble of real surveys of the same volume. Similarly the covariance of a set of small volume simulations will be lower than that of a sub-volumes drawn from a larger set of simulations (even after scaling by the volume) due to the absence of modes larger than the small volume. Some of these are present in the large volume simulation. However, on top of this the large volume simulation will itself be missing modes that would be present in an even larger simulation, though the effect of super-survey modes will diminish as larger and larger volumes are simulated.
Hence an estimate of the true covariance for some measured survey requires the inclusion of modes larger than the simulation volume. This is identified in [@Li.Y2014a] who find that a set of small volume simulations can significantly underestimate the covariance even on moderately large ($k\approx0.1$) scales. They also investigate analytic methods of including modes larger than the simulation volume. If the scaling method presented within this paper is to work effectively, a method for introducing ‘larger than box’ modes into the small volume simulations will also have to be included.
Computing supersample covariance using the Separate Universe approach {#sec:separateuniverses}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this work we present two methods for including supersample covariance in simulations that still allows us to ‘volume-scale’ the small volume covariance matrix. Both of these methods are based on the separate universe approach of [@Sirko2005] (also presented by @Baldauf2016), but differ in how the additional covariance is computed and applied to the small volume covariance matrix.
In the separate universe approach, the background mode is treated as a density contrast which is then absorbed into the mean density of the simulation as in Eq. \[eq:svbox\], where $\bar{\rho}^{\mathrm{loc}}_{m}$ is now the effective mean density of the simulation and $\bar{\rho}_{m}$ is the mean density given the fiducial cosmological parameters.
[@Sirko2005] shows that this change in the mean density for each simulation can be modelled by modifying the input cosmology used to run each simulation via the parameterisation
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\mathrm{box}} &= a\biggl(1-\frac{D(a)\delta_{b,0}}{3D(1)}\biggl), \\
H_{0,\mathrm{box}} &= H_{0}(1+\phi)^{-1}, \\
\Omega_{m,0,\mathrm{box}} &= \Omega_{m,0}(1+\phi)^{2}, \\
\Omega_{\Lambda,0,\mathrm{box}} &= \Omega_{\Lambda,0}(1+\phi)^{2}, \\
\Omega_{k,0,\mathrm{box}} &= 1-(1+\phi)^{2}(\Omega_{m,0}+\Omega_{\Lambda,0}),
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\phi = \frac{5\Omega_{m,0}}{6}\frac{\delta_{b,0}}{D(1)},$$ $\delta_{b,0}$ is the background mode at redshift 0, $D$ is the linear growth factor, $a$, $H_{0}$, $\Omega_{m,0}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}$, $\Omega_{k,0}$ define the output scale factor and cosmology of the ensemble, and $a_{\mathrm{box}}$, $H_{0,\mathrm{box}}$, $\Omega_{m,0,\mathrm{box}}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda,0,\mathrm{box}}$, $\Omega_{k,0,\mathrm{box}}$ are the parameters given to each realisation.
Because the scale factors, $a_{\mathrm{box}}$ are different for each simulation, the physical scale of each simulation is different. In order to simplify the covariance calculation and match modes within bins, it is advantageous for the physical scale of each simulation to coincide at their respective output times. To do this we can modify the size of each simulation to be $$L_{\mathrm{box}} = L \frac{a}{a_{\mathrm{box}}}\frac{H_{0,\mathrm{box}}}{H_{0}}$$ where $L$ is the size of the unmodified simulation. To emphasise, modifying the box size in this way does not account for the effects of larger-than-box modes; this requires us to modify the effective density in the simulation, which is done by changing $a$, $\Omega_{m}$ and the other cosmological parameters. Rather, changing the box size just allows us to easily compare modes between boxes output at different scale factors.
Given the separate universe prescription, we present our two methods for including supersample covariance in volume-scaled simulations below. Our goal is to recover the covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{surv}$, that would be measured in a *survey* with volume $V^{surv}$ and includes the effects of modes outside the survey volume. The formalism of [@Takada2013] demonstrates how this could be done, but is only valid if the volume of the cubic simulations, $V^{sm}$ used to calculate ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm}$ is equal to the survey volume, in which case ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{surv}$ = ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{ssc}$ in Eqs. \[eq:covssc\] and similarly for Eq \[eq:covsscloc\]. We instead aim to do this with cubic simulations with a volume that may not be equal to $V^{surv}$ (and, to reduce computational requirements, is ideally much smaller). The most obvious way to do this is by first scaling the simulation covariance matrix to the effective survey volume, then adding on the supersample covariance separately. We call this the ‘addition’ method. The second method, which we find preferable in terms of both accuracy and computational cost, adds the supersample covariance (for the survey volume) directly into the simulations *before* scaling. We call this the ‘ensemble’ method. An important point to remember is that, regardless of the simulation size V$^{sm}$, we need to recover the covariance corresponding to the survey. Hence, if we scale a covariance matrix with no supersample covariance correction by the ratio of the survey and simulation volumes as per Eq. \[eq:covnowin\], we will need to include the supersample covariance corresponding to the survey. This follows because we are directly constructing the covariance matrix for the survey volume. If instead, we were using realisations of the survey drawn from larger simulations, the supersample covariance would depend on the simulation rather than survey volume. In effect, in this case the set of survey realisations would already have a small scatter in background density, and we would have to take care defining and using local, global and simulation mean densities.
### Addition Method
Our first method, the ‘addition’ method, relies on using a small number of separate universe simulations to evaluate the supersample covariance term (the second term in Eq. \[eq:covssc\]) which is then added to the scaled, small volume covariance matrix. In this case, combining Eqs. \[eq:covnowin\] and \[eq:covssc\], we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\mathsf{C}^{surv}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \frac{V^{sm}}{V^{surv}}\mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j})+\sigma_{b}^{2}\frac{\partial P(k_{i})}{\partial \delta_{b}} \frac{\partial P(k_{j})}{\partial \delta_{b}},\end{gathered}$$ where $\sigma^{2}_{b}$ is now calculated from Eq. \[eq:sigmab\] with the linear power spectrum for the fiducial cosmology and the window function corresponding to $V^{surv}$. We can write a similar expression for ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{surv,\mathrm{loc}}$. In this work, we compute the small volume covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm}$ using cubic simulations with *fixed* input parameters and overdensities referenced to the local mean within each small simulation. We then scale this covariance matrix to obtain the covariance matrix without the supersample covariance correction, corresponding to the survey volume. For the supersample covariance term, we calculate the response of the power spectrum to the background modes outside the survey using separate universe simulations and the ‘growth-dilation’ method of @Li.Y2014a (their Eq. 47), where we generate pairs of realisations with the cosmology of each pair modified by $\delta_{b}=\pm0.01$. The measured power spectra from each pair is then finite-differenced to obtain the power spectrum response. In principal only a single pair of simulations generated from the same initial conditions but with different $\delta_{b}$ is necessary to compute this, however the realization of small scale power in the separate universe simulations introduces stochasticity in the response calibration, which can be reduced by averaging over multiple realizations. The size of the separate universe simulations used to calculate the supersample covariance term is largely unimportant, as we only need them to calibrate the response of the power spectrum to a background mode, and we know the scaling of the supersample covariance correction. For convenience, we use separate universe simulations with volume $V^{sm}$. For any application of the ‘addition’ method we will always require more simulations than our second method due to the fact that we need both an estimate of the small volume covariance and multiple separate universe realisations.
### Ensemble Method
To remove the need to evaluate the supersample covariance term separately (and hence require no extra simulations), we develop a second method which incorporates the separate universe approach directly into the the ensemble of small volume simulations in a way that recovers the supersample covariance corresponding to the survey volume. We begin with the ansatz that as the background mode present in any survey is a large scale mode, it is expected to be drawn from a Gaussian distribution with variance $(\sigma_{b})^{2}$.
Based on this, we can include supersample covariance in a set of simulations by doing the following:
1. [Calculate $\sigma_{b}$ based on the input linear power spectrum at redshift zero and the survey window function.]{}
2. [For each simulation draw a background mode $\delta_{b,0}$ from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance given by $V^{surv}\sigma_{b}^{2}/V^{sm}$.]{}
3. [Evaluate the new cosmology, output redshift and boxsize for each simulation, based on the values of $\delta_{b,0}$.]{}
4. [Run the simulations as normal, but compute the particle positions and power spectra in box coordinates, i.e., with the box length $L_{\mathrm{box}}$ scaled out of the particle positions.]{}
5. [Finally, with the power spectra in box coordinates, calculate the covariance matrix as normal. When comparing length scales between the ‘ensemble’ method and the survey (sub-volume) covariance matrix in the following section, we simply multiply by $L$ to convert from box coordinates. We denote the covariance matrix measured using this method ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm,\mathrm{loc}}_{\delta_{b}}$.]{}
Following this procedure means that the covariance matrix evaluated from the modified small volume simulations can be written $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathsf{C}^{sm,\mathrm{loc}}_{\delta_{b}}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j})+\frac{V^{surv}}{V^{sm}}\sigma_{b}^{2} \nonumber \\
&\qquad\left(\frac{\partial P(k_{i})}{\partial \delta_{b}}-2P(k_{i})\right)\left(\frac{\partial P(k_{j})}{\partial \delta_{b}}-2P(k_{j})\right) \nonumber\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad =\frac{V^{surv}}{V^{sm}}\mathsf{C}^{surv,\mathrm{loc}}(k_{i},k_{j})\end{aligned}$$ and our end-goal of ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{surv,\mathrm{loc}}$ can be recovered simply by multiplying the covariance by the ratio of survey and simulation volumes.
An important point is that the variance of the Gaussian distribution we draw our background modes from is given by $V^{surv}\sigma_{b}^{2}/V^{sm}$ such that we recover the correct contribution to the covariance matrix from supersample modes after scaling. We also modify the box size of each simulation and then run our simulations and compute the power spectra in box coordinates, so that when we compute the covariance matrix, we are comparing the same physical scales. Again, it is the change in cosmology that introduces the supersample covariance. Changing the box size and working in box coordinates just allows us to compute the covariance matrix in the same fashion as the unmodified small volume simulations.
Finally, if we use the standard approach for computing the power spectrum from simulations and evaluate the mean using the (constant) number of particles in the small volume, we end up with a scaled version of the sub-volume covariance matrix referenced to *local* means. In general, for large scale structure analyses, this is the covariance matrix we are interested in. However, to recover the covariance matrix referenced to global means we can simply multiply the power spectrum of each small volume realisation by $(1+\delta_{b})^{2}$, using the value of $\delta_{b}$ corresponding to that realisation, before computing the covariance matrix (see Eq. \[eq:pkglob\]).
Tests on [l-picola]{} Simulations {#sec:lpicolassc}
---------------------------------
The two methods given in the previous section should work for any simulation code, although care must be taken to ensure that all parameters that depend on the background mode are modified correctly. In order to demonstrate their effectiveness we use a set of fast, non-linear dark matter simulations generated using the approximate N-Body code [l-picola]{} [@Howlett2015b]. It was shown in [@Howlett2015b] that this code is able to reproduce the clustering of dark matter extremely well on non-linear scales compared to a full N-Body simulation, but at significantly reduced computational cost, which allows for large ensembles to be run easily. In any case as this test is comparative in nature, (we are comparing sets of simulations run using the same code), the choice of simulation code is unimportant.
However, when using [l-picola]{} for studying the effect of super-survey modes the value of $\sigma_{8}$ that is passed to [l-picola]{} must also be modified. In the separate universe approach, one would expect that the simulations should be coincident at high redshift. To then ensure that this is true, it is necessary to scale the value of $\sigma_{8}$ that is given to each [l-picola]{} run. The reason for this is *not* physical; the change in the growth of structure in each simulation has already been captured by the modifications to the input cosmology and output redshift. Rather this is due to the fact that [l-picola]{} requires an input power spectrum *at redshift zero* and an associated value of $\sigma_{8}$ *at redshift zero* to generate the initial conditions. The code then re-normalises the input power spectrum by the input value of $\sigma_{8}$ internally and the power spectrum at the redshift of the initial conditions is then calculated by scaling the re-normalised redshift zero power spectrum back by the growth factor within the code.
As the cosmology of each simulation is slightly different, so to is the growth factor. Hence for a fixed input power spectrum and value of $\sigma_{8}$, but different cosmologies, the [l-picola]{} simulations will not coincide at high redshift. To ensure that they do we can modify $\sigma_{8}$ by the ratio of the normalised growth factors in the fiducial and ‘box’ cosmologies, i.e., $$\sigma_{8,\mathrm{box}} = \sigma_{8}\frac{D^{2}(z_{sync},\Omega_{m},\Omega_{\Lambda})}{D^{2}(0,\Omega_{m},\Omega_{\Lambda})}\frac{D^{2}(0,\Omega_{m,\mathrm{box}},\Omega_{\Lambda,\mathrm{box}})}{D^{2}(z_{sync},\Omega_{m,\mathrm{box}},\Omega_{\Lambda,\mathrm{box}})}$$ Hence, for every [l-picola]{} simulation, the input power spectrum is kept fixed, but the code renormalises by $\sigma_{8,\mathrm{box}}$ internally. Given the different cosmologies and growth factors, this then means that the power spectrum as calculated by the code at $z_{sync}$ matches.
The remainder of this section will be dedicated to showing that both the ‘addition’ and ‘ensemble’ methods recover the supersample covariance for a suite of [l-picola]{} simulations. For this purpose we generate the following suite of simulations. The mass and force resolution for each set is identical.
- [*Sub-volume/survey*: 500 $L=2048{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$, $N=1024^{3}$ simulations, where each is split into 8 sub-volumes such that we can use them to calculate the covariance matrix of $L=1024{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$ simulations including the effects of supersample covariance, our proxy for ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{surv}$. This is the covariance matrix that our two scaled methods will be compared to and we compute covariance matrices referenced to both global and local means.]{}
- [*Small volume*: 4000 $L=256{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$, $N=128^{3}$ simulations. The cosmological parameters for these simulations are all identical. The covariance matrix from these, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm}$, will be volume scaled by $V^{sm}/V^{surv}=1/64$ to show the covariance matrix for $L=1024{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$ simulations *without* supersample covariance.]{}
- [*Small volume with $\delta_{b}$*: 4000 $L=256{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$, $N=128^{3}$ simulations where the cosmology and box size for each simulation has been perturbed by a unique background mode $\delta_{b,0}$. In our second method, the covariance matrix from these, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm,\mathrm{loc}}_{\delta_{b}}$ will also be volume scaled by $V^{sm}/V^{surv}$, but by construction already includes supersample covariance.]{}
- [*Separate universes*: $2\times64$ $L=256{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$, $N=128^{3}$ realisations where each set of 64 has been generated with an identical cosmology corresponding to $\delta_{b,0}=\pm0.01$ and a *fixed* box size of $L_{\mathrm{box}}=256{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$. These are used to calculate the supersample covariance term separately, or more precisely, the growth term of the power spectrum response. The dilation term is computed using the average power spectrum of the 4000 *small volume* simulations.]{}
\
Only dark matter simulations are used to test this correction as the non-linear nature of the supersample covariance means that it is largely hidden by shot-noise in a galaxy mock catalogue. All simulations are generated using a linear power spectrum from [camb]{} and a flat fiducial cosmology with $\Omega_{m}=0.31$, $n_{s}=0.96$ and $\sigma_{8}=0.83$. They are evolved using the modified COLA timestepping method with 11 timesteps from an initial redshift of $z_{i}=9.0$ up to $z_\mathrm{box} = 1.0/a_{\mathrm{box}} - 1.0$. Strictly speaking, we could also modify the initial redshift at which timestepping begins, such that the different realisations spend an equivalent amount of physical time timestepping, however we find negligible difference in the results using $z_{i}$ or $z_{i,\mathrm{box}}$ as the point at which timestepping begins.
The power spectrum for each simulation is calculated using a number of cells equal to the unmodified length, i.e., a constant cellsize of $1{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$ in the fiducial cosmology, and the number of cells remains the same between the small volume simulations with and without the background modes, $\delta_{b}$, even though the former is computed in box coordinates. The power spectra and covariance matrices are calculated using 25 bins in the range $0.0<k<1.5{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$. The errors on the covariance matrix are calculated using bootstrap resampling.
Figure \[fig:covssc\] shows the result of the supersample covariance corrections. We plot the elements and ratios for all four covariance matrices computed from the various simulation sizes and slices through the correlation matrix, $\mathsf{C}_{red}(k_{i},k_{j})=\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{j})/\sqrt{\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{i})\mathsf{C}(k_{j},k_{j})}$. As expected we find that the presence of supersample modes in the sub-volumes gives a significant increase in the covariance matrix compared to the small volume simulations even after scaling by the volume ratio. This effect is exacerbated when the power spectra are referenced to global means. On large scales, we find that both the ‘addition’ and ‘ensemble’ methods are consistent, and succeed in recovering the supersample covariance. On the largest scales the covariance matrix is overestimated in the small volume simulations due to the lack of modes (the simulations we have used here are significantly smaller than any real large scale structure analysis is likely to use), but generally the ratio between the sub-volume and corrected small volume covariance matrices is accurate to within $5\%$ for $k<1{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$. It should be noted that different bins in the covariance matrix will be very highly correlated, so the error bars plotted will not be representative and any residual difference between the sub-volume and corrected small scale covariance matrices may be consistent with noise. We also find that both methods reproduce the correlation matrix in the presence of supersample modes extremely well.
However, on scales $k>1{\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$ we find some difference between the diagonal elements of the ‘addition’ and ‘ensemble’ covariance matrices. The ensemble method still agrees within $5\%$, however the ‘addition’ method overestimates the covariance matrix. The cause of this is the use of [l-picola]{} simulations to calculate the response of the power spectrum to a background mode. Comparing a single set of separate universe simulations (with $\delta_{b}=0$, $\pm0.01$) drawn from identical initial conditions but run with [l-picola]{} and [gadget-2]{} [@Springel2005], we find that the use of approximate methods to evaluate this underestimates both the growth and dilation terms, but in such a way that the total response of the power spectrum is overestimated. This in turn causes the supersample covariance to be overestimated. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:growthdilation\]. Hence, we conclude that even for power spectra and covariance matrices estimated using approximate dark matter simulations, the response of the power spectrum to a background mode on non-linear scales must be evaluated using accurate N-Body simulations. In terms of computational requirements, this means that the ‘ensemble’ method is preferable as the total number of simulations required is smaller, and approximate simulations can be used for the whole procedure.
![The response of the power spectrum (referenced to local means) to a background mode $\delta_{b}$, separated into growth and dilation terms, calculated using [l-picola]{} and [gadget-2]{} simulations started from the same initial conditions. On small scales the [l-picola]{} simulations underestimate the growth term, but underestimate the dilation term even more which leads to an overestimate of the supersample covariance.[]{data-label="fig:growthdilation"}](Figure4.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Survey window function {#sec:window}
======================
In Section \[sec:motivation\], we have shown how reducing the volume of simulations used to measure covariances can improve the errors recovered for a fixed computation time. This relies on knowing the expected scaling of the covariance with volume as in Eq. (\[eq:covnowin\]), and will not work if this scaling is complicated by modes outside the simulation volume or a survey window function. We have described a method to correct for the lack of “supersample” modes in Section \[sec:supersamp\], here we describe an analytic method to compute the effects of a window function on the covariance matrix.
Effects of the window function on the covariance matrix
-------------------------------------------------------
We first look at an example of how the window function changes the covariance matrix. If one has simulations that cover the full survey volume, a brute-force calculation of the covariance matrix including the window function is a simple process; each mock catalogue is masked and subsampled to reproduce the angular and radial distribution of the observed galaxy field. Fig. \[fig:masked\_plots\] shows the results of this process on the power spectrum and covariance matrix using a set of 500 mock galaxy catalogues originally created for analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Main Galaxy Sample [@Ross2015]. The construction of these mock catalogues is presented in [@Howlett2015a].
\
From Fig. \[fig:masked\_plots\], we can first identify the familiar way in which the window function reduces the measured power spectrum on large scales, both due to the “integral constraint”, where modes larger than the survey are not captured, and due to the correlation of large and small scale modes. On top of this, there are several ways in which the window function affects the covariance matrix. Firstly, the amplitude of the covariance is modified by the change in volume between the large cubic simulations and the masked mock catalogues. As the survey volume is smaller than the volume of the simulations this is seen as an increase in the overall amplitude of the covariance matrix.
However, the effect of the window function if more than just a simple volume scaling, otherwise the large scale measurements from the masked mocks would match the Gaussian prediction for the MGS survey effective volume. The window function correlates different modes in the power spectrum, which is the same as reducing the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix below the Gaussian prediction and increasing the off-diagonal elements. This is seen in the slices of the correlation matrix in Fig. \[fig:masked\_plots\], where the peak at $k_{i}=k_{j}$ is significantly broadened in the masked mocks. The non-zero values in the correlation matrix for $k_{i}$ far from $k_{j}$ are seen in both the cubic and masked simulations and arise not due to the window function but due to contributions from higher order clustering and shot-noise terms in the covariance matrix (See Appendix \[sec:appcov\]). The change in the amplitude of these terms between the cubic and masked mocks arises due to the relative decrease in diagonal covariance for the masked mocks.
Although time consuming, the convolved power spectrum covariance matrix can be derived and written down analytically [@Smith2016]. The full expression and some key steps towards it’s derivation are given in Appendix \[sec:appcov\]. Although this analytic expression exists, actually calculating the convolution between the window function and the two-, three- and four-point clustering terms requires integrating over 3 ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vectors (9 integrations in total). Additionally, as the power spectrum and covariance matrix is typically measured in bins, these integrals must be performed for each ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vector in each bin of interest. Even if the power spectrum, bispectrum and trispectrum could be modelled perfectly, this complexity makes a full theoretical calculation of the convolved covariance matrix practically impossible. Nonetheless, as we will show in the next section, the effects of the window function can still be well modelled analytically for most current and future surveys under some assumptions.
Analytic window function convolution {#sec:analytic}
------------------------------------
To develop our analytic approach, we begin with the assumption that the convolution of the covariance matrix with the window function only occurs on large scales where the covariance matrix is approximately Gaussian, and on smaller scales, where higher order clustering terms become important, the convolution is negligible. Whether or not this assumption is valid will depend on the exact window function of the survey, and it may not hold for very small volume surveys, or narrow pencil-beam surveys. For such surveys, the window function may not tend to zero as rapidly as we go to small scales, and we would be required to consider the convolution with the higher order clustering terms shown Eq. \[eq:appfinal\]. However, we will show that it works well for the MGS galaxy sample, which has a small cosmological volume even compared to other surveys of its generation. As such, we expect this method to work very well for larger next generation surveys.
Our first assumption is equivalent to only calculating the first term in Eq. \[eq:appfinal\]. If we now assume that the power spectrum is a constant value $P$ over the coherence length of the window, @Feldman1994 showed (FKP; their equation 2.4.6) that this can be written as $$\mathsf{C}_{{\rm cst} P}(P(k)) = \frac{2}{N_iN_j}\sum_{i,j}\left|PG_{2,2}({\boldsymbol{k}}_{i} - {\boldsymbol{k}}_{j})+G_{1,2}({\boldsymbol{k}}_{i}-{\boldsymbol{k}}_{j})\right|^2,
\label{eq:Cov_cstP}$$ for shells $i$ and $j$ with $N_i$ and $N_j$ modes ${\bf k}_i$ and ${\bf k}_j$ in each. The modes ${\bf k}_i$ are constrained to lie in the shell such that $k < |{\boldsymbol{k}}_{i}| < k+\delta k$ and similarly for ${\boldsymbol{k}}_{j}$ and we have simply renamed the first term in Eq. \[eq:appfinal\] under these conditions $\mathsf{C}_{{\rm cst} P}(P(k))$ to emphasise that the power spectrum is assumed constant. A more rigorous derivation of this, given the full equation in Eq. \[eq:appfinal\], can be found in [@Smith2016]. We have defined $G_{\ell,m}({\boldsymbol{k}})$ as in Eq. \[eq:appgterms\]. Qualitatively, the first $G$-term in Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] is the normalised Fourier transform of the weighted density field, whilst the second is the shot noise component. For $i=j$, Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] is valid where the power is constant across the bin, rather than across the coherence length.
In order to extend Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] to include cross-correlations between bins $i \ne j$, with different power spectrum amplitudes (but constant within each bin), we develop a method to account for the relative impact on the covariance from power leaking from bin $i$ into $j$ and separately from bin $j$ into bin $i$. This is based on the idea that the window function introduces additional covariance between bins, but does not change the amount of information on a mode-by-mode basis. Our ansatz is that the Gaussian part of the covariance matrix under the influence of the window function, which we denote ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{W}$ can then be written as $$\mathsf{C}^{W}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \frac{\mathsf{C}_{{\rm cst} P}(P(k_{i}))N_i+\mathsf{C}_{{\rm cst} P}(P(k_{j}))N_j}{N_i+N_j}.
\label{eq:Cov_cstPij}$$ Here we have considered that the window “spreads” power $P(k_{i})$ from the $N_i$ modes in bin $i$ into bin $j$, and the power $P(k_{j})$ from the $N_j$ modes in bin $j$ into bin $i$, giving rise to covariances caused by both.
We implement our approach using a synthetic random catalogue as in the standard FKP method of estimating the power spectrum, replacing the integrals over volume required to calculate the $G$-terms in Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] with sums over points randomly placed within the survey mask. The convolved power spectrum within each bin is used as the constant value of $P$, however this is easily computed too by convolving the power spectrum measured in the small volume mocks with the window function analytically [@Percival2001; @Ross2013]. The following steps are required to calculate ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}_{{\rm cst} P}$ for a given bin $i$,
1. [Assign the correct function of number density, weights and convolved power spectra for each random point to a grid in real-space in order to calculate the $G$-terms.]{}
2. [Fourier transform this grid and calculate the normalised squared modulus value for each ${\boldsymbol{k}}$ as required in Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\].]{}
3. [Now set up the power spectrum squared for the current bin on the grid. Because the power spectrum is assumed constant, we can defer including the amplitude of the convolved power till we evaluate Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstPij\]. The power on the grid is then simply one if the ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vector corresponding to each gridcell is in the current bin, and zero otherwise.]{}
4. [The power spectrum and $G$-terms on the grid must now be convolved. This is done by inverse Fourier transforming the two grids and multiplying them together.]{}
5. [Finally perform the sum over all gridcells belonging to the bin, simultaneously counting how many modes are in that bin.]{}
Once we have computed Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] and the number of modes in each bin, it is a simple exercise the evaluate the analytic, convolved covariance matrix. We will show the effectiveness of our method in the following sections.
Tests on GRF’s {#sec:grf-test}
--------------
We begin by testing our method for including the window function analytically on the same Gaussian random fields used in Section \[sec:motivation\]. We take the 500 GRF’s of size $L=1280{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$ and calculate the covariance matrix under a set of simple window functions. For our tests we use a spherical tophat of radius $300{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$, a cube of edge length $200{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$ taken from the middle of the simulation, and an exponential weighting function with scale length $100{\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}}$. For these three cases we calculate the covariance matrix using the brute force method and using a random catalogue and the method in Section \[sec:analytic\]. All of the convolutions for our analytic calculation are performed on a grid of the same size as was used to generate the GRFs and no weighting is applied to the density field other than that of the window function. The measurements and theory are shown in Fig. \[fig:gausstest\].
As the Gaussian random fields have no bispectrum or trispectrum components, and no shot-noise, we expect our analytic covariance matrix to agree very well with the measurements. Our method should only break down where the window function is small enough or complex enough that the power spectrum is no longer constant across its coherence length. For the three different window function we test, we find excellent agreement between the measured covariance matrix and our theory. The change in amplitude of the covariance matrix due to the inclusion of a window function is well recovered, which can be seen comparing the diagonal elements of the covariance matrices, as is the introduction of off-diagonal covariance due to the convolution with the window function. The largest discrepancy between the two is seen in the diagonal elements for the cubic window, however this window is quite an extreme case and results in a strong suppression of large scale power due to the small volume of the ‘survey’.
Tests on a realistic survey {#sec:mock-test}
---------------------------
In order to test the application of our method to an actual galaxy sample, including the effects of shot-noise, higher order clustering and weights, we next match to the MGS sample introduced in Section \[sec:window\]. Our analytic calculation requires only a random catalogue and an estimate of convolved power spectrum. Because this same random catalogue is used to estimate the power spectrum from the data it is trivial to include the effects of weighting (both systematic and optimal FKP weights) as long as these have been given to each of the random points. For all of our measurements and calculations we assume a FKP weighting with fixed power spectrum $\bar{P}=10000\,h^{-3}{\rm Mpc}^3$, and work on a $512^{3}$ grid of side $1280\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$.
For our input power spectrum, and for later use, we generate a suite of 4000 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l-picola</span> simulations each 1/8th the size of the original MGS mocks, but with the same mass resolution. We identify halos in each of our dark matter fields and populate them with galaxies using the same procedure and HOD model as was used for the original MGS mock catalogue sample in [@Howlett2015a]. The average clustering of these simulations matches the original mock catalogues exactly, except on large scales where there is insufficient volume to measure the power spectrum accurately in the small volume simulations. Because of the procedure we have used to simulate these galaxy mocks, we expect both the large and small volume sets to reproduce the clustering in the data equally well. Using small volume simulations for the clustering also means our method automatically incorporates the effects of shot noise and galaxy bias in a more accurate way than if we had attempted to model this theoretically. Finally, the time taken to produce the 4000 small volume mock catalogues is actually less than that required to produce the set of 500 larger mocks because of the imperfect scaling of the codes used for our simulations. We would expect nearly all codes used for such simulations to behave similarly.
Using the 4000 small volume mocks and the random catalogue, we calculate the analytic covariance matrix and compare it to the brute force covariance matrix measured from the 500 large volume mock catalogues in Fig. \[fig:MGStest\]. On large scales the analytic perscription recovers the effects of the window function on the diagonal covariance matrix extremely well, matching both the change in the overall amplitude of the covariance due to the change in effective volume, and the relative re-weighting of large scale diagonal and off-diagonal covariance due to convolution with the window function. However, as our method only solves the Gaussian part of the covariance matrix, it under-predicts the diagonal covariance on small scales and the off-diagonal covariance for $k_{i}$ significantly different from $k_{j}$. The origin of this additional covariance is not the window function, but rather higher order clustering and shot-noise, in particular the trispectrum term. In the following section we will demonstrate how to include these final components using the small volume mocks.
Combining small volume mocks and our analytic methods {#sec:endresult}
=====================================================
Thus far we have advocated that the computational burden of generating sizeable numbers of mock galaxy catalogues for covariance matrix estimation can be reduced by ‘scaling’ the covariance matrix measured from a set of small volume simulations that do not necessarily fit the full survey volume. Alternatively this allows one to improve the accuracy of the covariance matrix estimation for a fixed computational time. We have also presented methods to analytically correct for the effects of modes outside the simulation and the survey window. In this section, we bring everything together and show how these methods can be combined with the small-volume covariance matrix to fully recover that measured from a set of full-size simulations. In doing so we will correct the final discrepancies between the analytic method and the brute force estimation highlighted in Fig. \[fig:MGStest\] and the previous section.
When calculating the analytic window function we assumed that only the Gaussian part of the covariance matrix is convolved by the survey window. Considering this, we can approximate the binned covariance matrix measured from a set of masked mocks as the non-Gaussian parts of the covariance matrix measured from the small-volume mocks, multiplied by a factor based on the ratio of the effective volumes between the survey and the simulation, plus the convolved Gaussian part of the covariance matrix, which we have shown can be calculated analytically. A mathematical derivation of this is presented in Appendix \[sec:appcov2\].
In deriving our method we introduce an additional approximation on top of the assumption that only the Gaussian part of the covariance matrix is convolved with the window function, namely that each ‘group’ of higher order terms (trispectrum, bispectrum, power spectrum and constant) in the covariance matrix scales with the same effective-volume-based factor. This is only true for a survey with constant number density, otherwise the different terms have different shot-noise dependencies and hence slightly different scaling factors. An alternative description is given in Appendix \[sec:appcov2\], where we associate our approximation with an additional *residual* component of the covariance matrix that depends on the bispectrum and power spectrum.
In practice, we find that applying this approximation and ignoring the *residual* covariance, gives very reasonable results for the diagonal and off-diagonal covariance, as the dependence of the bispectrum and power spectrum terms on the shot-noise means they only become important on highly non-linear scales. If necessary, given a model/measurement for the bispectrum and power spectrum, these additional terms could be included more accurately quite easily, as shown in Appendix \[sec:appcov2\].
\
\
In Fig. \[fig:scaled\_covariance\_MGS\_plots\], we show the final result of the procedure to convert the small volume cubic covariance matrix into that measured from a set of masked and subsampled mocks catalogues, the key outcome of this work. Again, the necessary $G$-terms are computed using a summation over the random catalogue. We plot the measured, masked covariance for the MGS mocks, but this time against our full method combining both the analytic window function convolution and the cubic covariance matrix. We find excellent agreement between the diagonal and off-diagonal components of the true covariance matrix and the matrix estimated with our new method on all scales of interest to large scale structure surveys. By including the higher order clustering and shot-noise terms from the small-volume cubic simulations, we have corrected the discrepancies seen in Fig. \[fig:MGStest\].
Extending to redshift space
---------------------------
Throughout this work we have dealt only with the covariance matrix of the real-space spherically averaged power spectrum. Redshift Space Distortions give rise to additional correlations between the anisotropic window function and power spectrum that are not accounted for completely by the above method. In the case of no window function, the bin-averaged covariance matrix can still be computed and the scaling we advocate is still applicable, but when we are bin-averaging in the presence of the window function our analytic window function calculation based on FKP no longer fully describes how the power leaks from one bin to another.
Eqs. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] and \[eq:Cov\_cstPij\] require the power spectrum to be constant within the bin being considered. In general, this is not the case for binned Legendre moments of the redshift-space, line-of-sight dependent, power spectrum. Redshift space distortions, together with changes in the line-of-sight across a survey, mean that the clustering depends on spatial position across a survey and the simple window function convolution derived in equation 2.1.6 of FKP breaks down. [@Wilson2017] show that the measured line-of-sight dependent power spectrum moments [@Bianchi2015; @Scoccimarro2015] can be described by a sum of convolutions of the plane-parallel moments with different windows. Extending their derivation to determine the covariance as well as the convolved power would theoretically be possible, but it would lead to a complicated expression with a large number of terms for the covariance even for a single mode.
Regardless of this shortcoming, we find that the coupling between the window and the LOS-dependent power is small for the MGS sample, and that simply replacing the real-space power spectrum with the redshift-space power spectrum monopole in Eqs. \[eq:Cov\_cstP\] and \[eq:Cov\_cstPij\] provides a reasonable fit to the measured covariance in redshift space. Inaccuracies in modelling the power spectrum and covariance matrix using the spherically averaged window function (which can be seen in the model power spectrum in Fig. \[fig:scaled\_covariance\_MGS\_plots\_zspace\]) cause discrepancies in the large scale diagonal covariance matrix and a small underestimation of the off-diagonal terms. A more rigorous analysis of this, and application to the higher order multipoles of the power spectrum and their covariance is left for future work.
\
\
Configuration space
-------------------
The combination of analytic methods and measured covariance matrix that we have successfully used to generate the binned covariance matrix of the masked galaxy power spectrum could also be applied to configuration space statistics. As with the power spectrum covariance matrix, the covariance matrix of the correlation function is expected to scale with the volume and number density of tracers; increasing either the volume in which to measure the clustering or the number of galaxies will decrease the amplitude of the covariance matrix. The four-point nature of the covariance matrix demonstrated herein also translates through to configuration space, with the covariance matrix of the two-point correlation function depending on the three- and four-point correlation functions.
The effects of a survey window on the correlation function are easier to model than on the power spectrum as the survey window acts as a multiplicative function rather than a convolution, and the integral constraint can be modelled as a simple additive term. [@OConnell2016] present a method to calculate the masked configuration space covariance matrix in the Gaussian regime. The method presented in this work of using small scale simulations to reproduce the effects of the higher order non-Gaussian components as opposed to modelling these analytically is still expected to hold in configuration space, and so could be combined with the formulae from [@OConnell2016] to produce the masked covariance matrix of the correlation function. We also leave a broader exploration of this and a derivation of the necessary analytic scaling factor for future work.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this work we have presented a new method for calculating the covariance matrix of the binned, spherically averaged galaxy power spectrum. Past work on the covariance matrix has focused on methods to reduce the number of realisations required to achieve some numerical accuracy in estimates of the covariance matrix, but these do not address the problem that running even a few hundreds of simulations with the required cosmological volume and resolution for next generation surveys such as DESI and Euclid will be challenging.
Instead, we have shown that the masked binned covariance matrix can be estimated by combining analytic calculations on large scales, which assumes Gaussianity yet capture the effects of the survey window, with the small scale covariance matrix measured from a set of realistic cubic galaxy mocks that do not have to fit the full volume of the survey. We have also included a method to incorporate the effects of large scale modes that cannot be included in the small volume simulations by using the ‘Separate Universe’ approach, slightly modifying the input cosmology of every simulation within a suite to account for variations in the large scale power.
The benefit of our method is two-fold: Firstly we ease the computational burden of requiring large number of huge, high resolution simulations for covariance matrix estimation. Secondly, we have shown that we can actually improve the error on the covariance matrix in a fixed computational time as the number of simulations we can run will scale approximately with the volume. Analytically scaling the covariance matrix from these simulations conserves the improvement in the error gained by running additional simulations.
As proof-of-concept we are able to reproduce the covariance matrix of the spherically averaged power spectrum measured from a set of 500 full-size masked simulations originally generated for the analysis of the SDSS-II Main Galaxy Sample using only the random catalogue associated with the MGS data and a set of 4000 new simulations each 1/8th the size of the original simulations. The computational time required to generate both ensembles of simulations is approximately the same. The cosmological volume of the MGS is much smaller than for future surveys, and hence the effects of the survey window function of the covariance matrix more severe. The fact that our method does well even in this case means we expect it to perform extremely well for next generation surveys.
However, this work is only the first step towards a viable alternative for covariance matrix estimation. Further effort is required to investigate how to incorporate the effects of Redshift Space Distortions, and test the method in configuration space and on the multipoles of the two-point clustering statistics. Nonetheless this presents an extremely promising route to alleviating one of the greatest computational burdens faced by future large scale structure analyses.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), through project number CE110001020.
WJP acknowledges support from the European Research Council through the Darksurvey grant 614030, and from from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council grant ST/N000668/1 and the UK Space Agency grant ST/N00180X/1.
Numerical computations were done on the Sciama High Performance Compute (HPC) cluster which is supported by the ICG and the University of Portsmouth.
This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services and the `astro-ph` pre-print archive at <https://arxiv.org/>. All plots in this paper were made using the [matplotlib]{} plotting library [@Hunter2007].
Mathematical expression for the power spectrum covariance matrix {#sec:appcov}
================================================================
FKP give a mathematical derivation for the binned power spectrum measured from a galaxy survey using two point correlations between real and synthetic galaxy catalogues. The same procedure can be used for the covariance matrix of the measured binned power spectrum, although the derivation is much longer and requires one to consider the correlations between four distinct locations.
We first define the power spectrum covariance matrix for a pair of ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vectors as $$\mathsf{C}({\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}') = \langle P({\boldsymbol{k}})P({\boldsymbol{k}}') \rangle - \langle P({\boldsymbol{k}}) \rangle \langle P({\boldsymbol{k}}') \rangle,
\label{eq:app1}$$ where $P({\boldsymbol{k}})$ is the power spectrum for some ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vector. The binned covariance matrix can then be expressed as $$\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}} \int_{V_{k_{j}}} \frac{d^{3}k'}{V_{k_{j}}} \mathsf{C}({\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}').
\label{eq:app2}$$ Substituting the power spectrum $P(k)$ in Eq. \[eq:app1\] for the FKP estimator and using the fact that the shot-noise is scale-independent, we can write the binned covariance matrix as the correlations between the weighted density field $F({\boldsymbol{r}})$ at different locations $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{C}({\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{k}}') = \int d^{3}r_{1} \int d^{3}r_{2} \int d^{3}r_{3} \int d^{3}r_{4} \,e^{i{\boldsymbol{k}}\cdot ({\boldsymbol{r}}_{1}-{\boldsymbol{r}}_{3}) + i{\boldsymbol{k}}' \cdot ({\boldsymbol{r}}_{2}-{\boldsymbol{r}}_{4})} \\
& \biggl[ \langle F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{1})F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{2})F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{3})F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{4})\rangle - \langle F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{1})F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{3})\rangle \langle F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{2})F({\boldsymbol{r}}_{4})\rangle\biggl],
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:app3}$$ where $F({\boldsymbol{r}})$ is defined in terms of the number density $\bar{n}({\boldsymbol{r}})$, and weights $w({\boldsymbol{r}})$, given to the real and synthetic points at location ${\boldsymbol{r}}$, as per Eq.(2.1.3) in FKP. The tedious process of evaluating all the potential correlations between the real and synthetic weighted density fields uses the method given the appendix of FKP and is detailed in [@Smith2016]. Substituting all the necessary terms into Eq. \[eq:app3\] and Eq. \[eq:app2\] in turn gives the final expression for the binned covariance matrix
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{j}) = & \int_{V_{k_{i}}} \frac{d^{3}k}{V_{k_{i}}} \int_{V_{k_{j}}} \frac{d^{3}k'}{V_{k_{j}}} \biggl\{ \, \biggl|2\int d^{3}q_{1} P({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}'+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) + (1+\alpha)G_{1,2}({\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{k}}')\biggl|^{2} \notag \\
+ & \int d^{3}q_{1} \int d^{3}q_{2} \int d^{3}q_{3} T({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3}) G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}'-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}) G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3}) G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}'+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3}) \notag \\
+ & 4 \int d^{3}q_{1} \int d^{3}q_{2} B({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}) G_{1,2}({\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{k}}' - {\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}'+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}) \notag \\
+ & \int d^{3}q_{1} \int d^{3}q_{2} B({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}) G_{1,2}(-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})\biggl[G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}) + G_{1,1}({\boldsymbol{k}}'-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}'+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2})\biggl] \notag \\
+ & 2 \int d^{3}q_{1} P({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) \biggl[G_{1,3}({\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) + G_{1,3}({\boldsymbol{k}}'-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})G_{1,1}(-{\boldsymbol{k}}'+{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) + |G_{1,2}({\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{k}}'-{\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})|^{2}\biggl] \notag \\
+ & \int d^{3}q_{1} P({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1}) |G_{1,2}({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})|^{2} + (1+\alpha^{3})G_{1,4}(0) \biggl\},
\label{eq:appfinal}\end{aligned}$$
where $P({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1})$, $B({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2})$ and $T({\boldsymbol{q}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2},{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3})$ are the power spectrum, bispectrum and trispectrum respectively, $\alpha$ is the ratio of real to synthetic galaxies, and we have defined $$G_{\ell,m}({\boldsymbol{k}}) = \frac{\int d^{3}r \bar{n}^{\ell}({\boldsymbol{r}})w^{m}({\boldsymbol{r}})e^{i{\boldsymbol{k}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{r}}}}{\biggl[ \int d^{3}r\bar{n}^{2}({\boldsymbol{r}})w^{2}({\boldsymbol{r}})\biggl]^{\frac{m}{2}}}.
\label{eq:appgterms}$$ We have re-derived and shortened this expression compared to that given in [@Smith2016] by using the symmetry of the ${\boldsymbol{k}}$-vectors and setting ${\boldsymbol{k}}\rightarrow -{\boldsymbol{k}}$ (and similarly for ${\boldsymbol{k}}'$) in some of the individual terms.
New approximation for the masked, binned covariance matrix {#sec:appcov2}
==========================================================
In this section we mathematically derive an approximation for the binned covariance matrix that would be measured from a set of masked mocks covering the full survey volume, i.e., Eq. \[eq:appfinal\], in terms of only the binned covariance matrix measured from a set of cubic mocks ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{sm}$ (the expression for which is given in Eq. \[eq:covnowin\]), and the analytically calculated Gaussian part of the convolved covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{W}$ (the expression for which is given in Eq. \[eq:Cov\_cstPij\]).
Starting with our assumption that the convolution with the window function is negligible for all terms in the covariance matrix except for the Gaussian part, we can write the first term in Eq. \[eq:appfinal\] as ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{W}$. For the remaining terms we can perform a change of basis ${\boldsymbol{q}}\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{k}}-{\boldsymbol{q}}$ and take the case that the $G$-terms are only non-zero for ${\boldsymbol{q}}\approx 0$, i.e., that the window function only has support on large scales. Doing this for each of the higher-order trispectrum, bispectrum, power spectrum and constant terms results in $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{j}) & = \mathsf{C}^{W}(k_{i},k_{j}) + \bar{T}(k_{i},k_{j})G_{4,4}(0) \notag \\
& + \big[4\bar{B}(k_{i},k_{j})+\bar{B}(0,k_{j})+\bar{B}(k_{i}, 0)\big]G_{3,4}(0) \notag \\
& + \big[\bar{P}(k_{i})+\bar{P}(k_{j})+\bar{P}(k_{i},k_{j})\big]G_{2,4}(0) \notag \\
& + \big[1+\alpha^{3}\big]G_{1,4}(0),
\label{eq:app2_1}\end{aligned}$$ as the integrals over the ${\boldsymbol{q}}$-vectors reduce to Dirac delta functions. For a constant number density, such as that in a simulation, the higher-order terms in Eq. \[eq:app2\_1\] reduce exactly to those in Eq. \[eq:covnowin\]. However, even if this is not the case, we can substitute Eq. \[eq:covnowin\] into Eq. \[eq:app2\_1\]. We choose to make this substitution about the trispectrum as this is the dominant higher-order term. The bispectrum, power spectrum and constant terms have a stronger dependence on the shot-noise and so for any modern large scale structure survey only become important on increasingly non linear scales. We can write the result of our substitution as
$$\mathsf{C}(k_{i},k_{j}) = \mathsf{C}^{W}(k_{i},k_{j}) + \mathsf{C}^{res}(k_{i},k_{j}) + VG_{4,4}(0)
\biggl[\mathsf{C}^{sm}(k_{i},k_{j}) - \frac{2(2\pi)^{3}}{V_{k_{i}}V}\biggl(\bar{P}(k_{i})+\frac{1}{\bar{n}}\biggl)^{2}\delta^{D}(k_{i}-k_{j})\biggl],
\label{eq:app2_2}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{C}^{res}(k_{i},k_{j}) & = \biggl[1+\alpha^{3}\biggl]\biggl(G_{1,4}(0) - \frac{G_{4,4}(0)}{\bar{n}^{3}}\biggl) + \biggl[\bar{P}(k_{i})+\bar{P}(k_{j})+\bar{P}(k_{i},k_{j})\biggl]\biggl(G_{2,4}(0) - \frac{G_{4,4}(0)}{\bar{n}^{2}}\biggl) \notag \\
& + \biggl[4\bar{B}(k_{i},k_{j})+\bar{B}(0,k_{j})+\bar{B}(k_{i}, 0)\biggl]\biggl(G_{3,4}(0)-\frac{G_{4,4}(0)}{\bar{n}}\biggl).\end{aligned}$$
We have dubbed ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{res}$, the *residual* term. For our work we make the approximation that this is zero (which is actually true if the number density is constant), and find very good agreement in the case of the MGS mocks. One could instead measure the bispectrum and power spectrum terms from the set of small volume mock catalogues that are used to estimate the small scale covariance matrix (indeed this could also be done for the trispectrum, bypassing the substitution altogether) and computing the necessary scaling factors. However, as our current method is already accurate enough and computing the higher order clustering of every mock can be computationally demanding we do not attempt this here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of decomposing a real-valued symmetric tensor as the sum of outer products of real-valued, pairwise orthogonal vectors. Such decompositions do not generally exist, but we show that some symmetric tensor decomposition problems can be converted to orthogonal problems following the whitening procedure proposed by Anandkumar et al. (2012). If an orthogonal decomposition of an $m$-way $n$-dimensional symmetric tensor exists, we propose a novel method to compute it that reduces to an $n \times n$ symmetric matrix eigenproblem. We provide numerical results demonstrating the effectiveness of the method.'
author:
- 'Tamara G. Kolda'
title: 'Symmetric Orthogonal Tensor Decomposition is Trivial[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ be an $m$-way $n$-dimensional real-valued symmetric tensor. Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ represent an $m$-way, $n$-dimension symmetric tensor. Given a real-valued vector ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}$ of length $n$, we let ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^m$ denote the $m$-way, $n$-dimensional symmetric outer product tensor such that ${\left({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^m\right)}_{i_1 i_2 \cdots i_m} = x_{i_1} x_{i_2} \cdots x_{i_m}$. Comon et al. [@CoGoLiMo08] showed there exists a decomposition of the form $$\label{eq:scp}
{\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} = \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{X}}}}}_{k}}^m,$$ where ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}} = [\lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_p]^{{{\sf T}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^p$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} = [{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{1}} \cdots {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{p}}] \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times p}$; see . Without loss of generality, we assume each ${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}$ has unit norm, i.e., $\|{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}\|_2 = 1$. The least value $p$ such that holds is called the symmetric tensor rank. Finding real-valued symmetric tensor decompositions has been the topic of several recent papers, e.g., [@SymCP-arXiv-1410.4536].
; ; ; ; ;
(FrontLowerLeft) at (0,0); (TopLowerLeft) at ($(FrontLowerLeft)+(0,\ysize)$); (SideLowerLeft) at ($(FrontLowerLeft)+(\xsize,0)$); (FrontCenter) at ($(FrontLowerLeft)+(\xsize/2,\ysize/2)$);
(FrontLowerLeft) – ++(,0) – ++(0,) – ++(-,0) – cycle; (TopLowerLeft) – ++(,) – ++(,0) – ++(-,-) – cycle; (SideLowerLeft) – ++(,) – ++(0,) – ++(-,-) – cycle;
at (FrontCenter) [${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$]{};
; at (1.65,1) [$=$]{};
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(FrontUpperLeft) at ($(2.25,0)+(0,\ysize)$); (ColUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,-\exdelta/4)$); (TubeLowerLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,\exdelta/4)$); (RowUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(\exdelta,0)$);
(RowUpperLeft) node\[left=2\] [$\lambda_{1}$]{} – ++(0,-) – ++(,0) – ++(0,) node\[right\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{1}}$]{} – cycle; (TubeLowerLeft) – ++(1.25\*,0) – ++(,) – ++(-1.25\*,0) node\[above\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{1}}$]{} – cycle; (ColUpperLeft) – ++(,0) – ++(0,-) – ++(-,0) node\[right=2\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{1}}$]{} – cycle;
; at (4.1,1) [$+$]{};
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(FrontUpperLeft) at ($(4.7,0)+(0,\ysize)$); (ColUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,-\exdelta/4)$); (TubeLowerLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,\exdelta/4)$); (RowUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(\exdelta,0)$);
(RowUpperLeft) node\[left=2\] [$\lambda_{2}$]{} – ++(0,-) – ++(,0) – ++(0,) node\[right\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{2}}$]{} – cycle; (TubeLowerLeft) – ++(1.25\*,0) – ++(,) – ++(-1.25\*,0) node\[above\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{2}}$]{} – cycle; (ColUpperLeft) – ++(,0) – ++(0,-) – ++(-,0) node\[right=2\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{2}}$]{} – cycle;
; at (6.33,1) [$+\cdots+$]{};
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(FrontUpperLeft) at ($(8,0)+(0,\ysize)$); (ColUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,-\exdelta/4)$); (TubeLowerLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(0,\exdelta/4)$); (RowUpperLeft) at ($(FrontUpperLeft)+(\exdelta,0)$);
(RowUpperLeft) node\[left=2\] [$\lambda_{p}$]{} – ++(0,-) – ++(,0) – ++(0,) node\[right\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{p}}$]{} – cycle; (TubeLowerLeft) – ++(1.25\*,0) – ++(,) – ++(-1.25\*,0) node\[above\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{p}}$]{} – cycle; (ColUpperLeft) – ++(,0) – ++(0,-) – ++(-,0) node\[right=2\] [${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{p}}$]{} – cycle;
;
If we can discover an ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ with orthogonal columns, i.e., ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_p$, then we say that ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ has an orthogonal symmetric tensor decomposition. Generally, orthogonal decompositions *do not* exist; Robeva [@Ro14] classifies the tensors that have such decompositions. Nevertheless, we consider the problem of how to compute orthogonal symmetric tensor decompositions, as has been recently considered by Anandkumar et al. [@AnGeHsKa12]. They show that the pairs $(\lambda_k, {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}})$ are Z-eigenpairs of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ for $k=1,\dots,p$, and propose solving the problem via an iterative power method. We show that this problem can instead be solved via a symmetric matrix eigenproblem on an $n \times n$ matrix, including determining the rank. This is can be interpreted as a special case of the simultaneous matrix diagonalization approach proposed by De Lathauwer [@De06].
Although orthogonal symmetric tensor decompositions do not generally exist, Anandkumar et al. [@AnGeHsKa12] showed that certain symmetric tensor decompositions problems can be transformed via *whitening* to orthogonal problems. We generalize their results to show that such a transformation is possible whenever ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ has full column rank and there exists a linear combination of two-dimensional slices of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ that is positive definite. The second condition is always satisfied, for example, if ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is positive definite.
Background
==========
A tensor is a multidimensional array. The number of ways or modes is called the *order* of a tensor. For example, a matrix is a tensor of order two. Tensors of order three or greater are called *higher-order* tensors.
We use the notation ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$ to denote the $n \times n$ identity matrix.
We use the term *generic* to mean with probability one. For instance, it is well known that a random $n \times n$ matrix generically has rank $n$.
Symmetry
--------
A tensor is symmetric if its entries do not change under permutation of the indices. Formally, we let $\pi(m)$ denote the set of permutations of length $m$. We say a real-valued $m$-way $n$-dimensional tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is *symmetric* [@CoGoLiMo08] if $${{\MakeLowercase{a}}_{i_{p(1)} \cdots i_{p(m)}}} = {{\MakeLowercase{a}}_{i_1 \cdots i_m}}
{\quad\text{for all}\quad} i_1, \dots, i_m \in \set{1,\dots,n}
\text{ and } p \in \pi(m).$$
Tensor-vector Products
----------------------
The tensor-vector product ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^{(m-1)}$ produces a vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $${\left( {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^{m-1} \right)}_{i_1} = \sum_{i_2,\dots,i_m=1}^n a_{i_1\cdots i_m} x_{i_2} \cdots x_{i_m}
{\quad\text{for}\quad}
i_1 \in \set{1,\dots,n}.$$ The tensor-vector product ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^m$ produces a scalar such that $${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^m = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}} {\left( {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^{m-1} \right)} = \sum_{i_1,\dots,i_m=1}^n a_{i_1\dots i_m} x_{i_1} \cdots x_{i_m}.$$ A symmetric tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is positive definite if ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}^m > 0$ for all ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}} \neq 0$.
Tensor-matrix Products
----------------------
Let ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}$ be an $p \times n$ matrix. Then the tensor-matrix product ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}},\dots,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}})$ indicates multiplication of the tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ in each mode by the matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}$. The result is a symmetric tensor that is the same order as ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ but now $p$-dimensional such that $${\left({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}},\dots,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}})\right)}_{i_1 \dots i_m} = \sum_{j_1,\dots,j_m=1}^n a_{j_1 \dots j_m} v_{i_1 j_1} \cdots v_{i_m j_m}
{\quad\text{for}\quad} i_1,\dots,i_m \in \set{1,\dots,p}.$$
Tensor Rank
-----------
Recall that the rank of a tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$, denoted $\text{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}})$, is the smallest number of rank-one tensors that sums to the original tensor [@KoBa09]. The symmetric tensor rank, denoted $\text{symrank}({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}})$, is the smallest number of symmetric rank-one tensors that sums to the original tensor [@CoGoLiMo08]. In the case of the tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ in with ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ having orthogonal columns, it is easy to show that the symmetric tensor rank of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is equal to the tensor rank of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ which is equal to the matrix rank of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ which is equal to $p$, i.e., $$\text{symrank}({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}) = \text{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}) = \text{rank}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}) = p,$$ via unfolding arguments.
Orthogonal Symmetric Decomposition
==================================
Given ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$, our goal is to find ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ that satisfies , under the assumption that ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ is known to have orthogonal columns.
We define ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ to be an arbitrary linear combination of slices of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$: $$\label{eq:bgen}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}} = \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \beta_{i_3 \cdots i_m} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,i_3,\dots,i_m)
= \sum_{k=1}^p \sigma_k {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^{{{\sf T}}}
= {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{\Sigma}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}$$ where the $\beta$-values define the linear combination and $$\sigma_k = \lambda_k \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \beta_{i_3 \cdots i_m}
x_{i_3 k} \cdots x_{i_m k}
{\quad\text{for}\quad} k = 1,\dots,p.$$ Observe that $(\sigma_k,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x_k}}}}})$ is an eigenpair of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$.
Generic case
------------
If ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ is a generic matrix (with orthogonal columns) and the $\beta$-values are arbitrary, then $\lambda_k \neq 0$ generically implies $\sigma_k \neq 0$ for $k=1,\dots,p$. It follows that the tensor rank of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is generically equal to the matrix rank of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$, i.e., $$\text{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}) = \text{rank}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}).$$
Additionally, the $\sigma$-values are generically distinct, so the eigenvectors of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ are unambiguous and equal to the vectors in the decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$. Therefore, we can compute ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ from ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ via an eigenvalue decomposition and recover the $\lambda$-values via $$\label{eq:evals}
\lambda_k = {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^m
{\quad\text{for}\quad}
k = 1,\dots,p.$$
Non-generic Case
----------------
In the generic case, the matrix rank of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ is equal to the symmetric tensor rank of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ and the nonzero eigenvalues of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ are distinct. In order to guard against the non-generic case, randomly project the tensor as follows. Let ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ be a random orthonormal matrix. Then compute, $${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} = {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}},\dots,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}})
= \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k ({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}})^m
= \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k {{{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^m .$$ Apply the procedure outlined above to obtain the decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ in terms of ${{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$. Then the decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is given by $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}} = {{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}
{\quad\text{and}\quad}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}{{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}.$$
Algorithm
---------
The algorithm for computing the orthogonal symmetric decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ using optional randomization is given in .
Input: Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ be a symmetric $m$-way, $n$-dimensional real-valued tensor that is known to have an orthogonal symmetric tensor decomposition.
${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} \gets$ random $n \times n$ orthonormal matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} \gets {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$ ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} \gets {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}},\dots,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}})$ $\beta \gets$ arbitrary $(m-2)$-way real-valued tensor of dimension $n$ ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}} \gets \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \beta_{i_3 \cdots i_m} {{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,i_3,\dots,i_m)$ $\set{\sigma_k, {{{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{X}}}}}_{k}}}_{k=1}^p \gets$ eigenpairs of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ with $\sigma_k \neq 0$ ${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} \gets {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}{{{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}$ $\lambda_k \gets {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^m$
Whitening
=========
Although most tensors do not have symmetric decompositions, Anandkumar et al. [@AnGeHsKa12] show how whitening may be used in a special case of nonorthogonal symmetric tensor decomposition. We generalize their result.
Given ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$, our goal is to find ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ that satisfies , under the assumption that ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ is known to have full column rank but may not have orthogonal columns.
Transformation to orthogonal problem
------------------------------------
Let ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ be an arbitrary linear combination of slices: $$\label{eq:cgen}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}} = \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \gamma_{i_3 \cdots i_m} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,i_3,\dots,i_m),$$ where the $\gamma$-values define the linear combination. If ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ is positive semi-definite (p.s.d.) and has the same rank as ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$, then we can apply whitening as follows. Let $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$$ be the “skinny” eigendecomposition of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ where ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}$ is an orthogonal matrix of size $n \times p$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}$ is a diagonal matrix of size $p
\times p$. Define the whitening matrix as $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{-1/2}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}
{\quad\text{so that}\quad}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}} = ({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{1/2})({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{1/2})^{{{\sf T}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_p.$$
We use ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}$ to whiten the tensor as $${\boldsymbol{\bar\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} = {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}, \dots, {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}})
= \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}} {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}
= \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k {{{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}$$ Now, ${{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{p \times p}$ is a matrix with orthogonal columns. Moreover, the size of the problem is reduced because ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is an $m$-way $p$-dimensional tensor.
We compute the orthogonal tensor decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ via the procedure outlined above to get ${{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$. The final decomposition is given by $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}} = {{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}
{\quad\text{and}\quad}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}^{\dagger} {{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}.$$ Here ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}^{\dagger} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{1/2}$ represents the psuedoinverse of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}$.
Failure of the Method
---------------------
If the algorithm cannot find a p.s.d. matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$, then the algorithm fails. Additionally, if $\text{rank}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}) < p$, then the algorithm has a soft failure.
Algorithm
---------
The algorithm for computing the symmetric decomposition of ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ using whitening is given in .
Input: Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ be an $m$-way, $n$-dimensional real-valued tensor.
${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} \gets$ random $n \times n$ orthonormal matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} \gets {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$ ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} \gets {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}},\dots,{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}})$ $\gamma \gets$ arbitrary $(m-2)$-way real-valued tensor of dimension $n$ ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}} \gets \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \gamma_{i_3 \cdots i_m} {{\bm{\hat\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,i_3,\dots,i_m)$ ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}} \gets$ “skinny” eigendecomposition of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}} \gets {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{-1/2} {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}$ ${\boldsymbol{\bar\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} \gets {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}({{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}}, \dots, {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{W}}}}})$ $\beta \gets$ arbitrary $(m-2)$-way real-valued tensor of same dimension as ${\boldsymbol{\hat\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}} \gets \sum_{i_3,\dots,i_m} \beta_{i_3 \cdots i_m} {{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,i_3,\dots,i_m)$ $\set{\sigma_k, {{{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{X}}}}}_{k}}}_{k=1}^p \gets$ eigenpairs of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ with $\sigma_k \neq 0$ ${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} \gets {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}^{{{\sf T}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{U}}}}}{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{D}}}}}^{1/2}{{{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}$ $\lambda_k \gets {\boldsymbol{\bar\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}{{{\bm{\bar\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^m$
Numerical Results
=================
We consider the results of applying the algorithms to numerical examples. All experiments are done in MATLAB, Version R2014b. Numerically, we say
- an eigenvalue $\sigma$ of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ is nonzero if $|\sigma| > 10^{-10}$,
- ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ is p.s.d. if its smallest eigenvalue satisfies $d > -10^{-10}$, and
- the skinny decomposition of ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ uses only eigenvalues such that $d > 10^{-10}$.
We choose both $\beta$ and $\gamma$ values from $U[0,1]$, i.e., uniform random on the interval $[0,1]$ and then normalize so the values sum to one. Random orthogonal matrices are generated via the MATLAB code `RANDORTHMAT` by Olef Shilon.
We generate artificial data as follows. For a given ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}^* \in {\mathbb{R}}^p$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^* \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times p}$, the noise-free data tensor is given by $$\label{eq:Astar}
{\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}^* = \sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k^* ({{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^* )^m.$$ The data tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ may also be contaminated by noise as controlled by the parameter $\eta \geq 0$, i.e., $$\label{eq:noise}
{\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} = {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}^* + \eta \frac{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}^*\|}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{N}}}}\|} {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{N}}}}
{\quad\text{where}\quad}
n_{i_1,\dots,i_m} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1).$$ Here ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{N}}}}$ is a noise tensor such that each element is drawn from a normal distribution, i.e., $n_{i_1,\dots,i_m} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. The parameters $m$, $n$, $p$ control the size of the problem.
In our randomized experiments, we consider three sizes:
- $m=3,n=4,p=2$;
- $m=4,n=25,p=3$; and
- $m=6,n=6,p=4$.
For each size, we also consider two noise levels: $\eta \in
\set{0,0.01}$, i.e., no noise and a small amount of noise.
The output of each run is a rank $p$, a weight vector ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$, and a matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$. The relative error measures the proportion of the observed data that is explained by the model, i.e., $$\text{relative error } =
{\left \| {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p \lambda_k {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^m \right\|} /
{ \| {\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}} \|}.$$ In the case of no noise, the ideal relative error is zero; otherwise, we hope for something near the noise level, i.e., $\eta$.
To compare the recovered solution ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ with the true solution ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}^*$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$, we compute the solution score as follows. Without loss of generality, we assume both ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$ have normalized columns. (If $\| {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} \|_2 \neq
1$, then we rescale $\lambda_k = \lambda_k \sqrt[m]{ \| {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} \|}$ and ${{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} =
{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} / \| {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}} \|$.) There is a permutation ambiguity, but we permute the computed solution so as to maximize the following score: $$\text{solution score } = \frac{1}{p} \sum_{k=1}^p
\left(
1 - \frac{|\lambda_k - \lambda_k^*|}{ \max\{|\lambda_k|,|\lambda_k^*|\} }
\right)
\left|
{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^{{{\sf T}}} {{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}^*
\right|.$$ A solution score of 1 indicates a perfect match. If ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ has more columns than ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$, we choose the $p$ columns that maximize the score.
Orthogonal Example Showing Impact of $\beta$-values
---------------------------------------------------
We discuss why we recommend a linear combination of slices instead of a single slice. Consider the following example. Let $m=3$, $n=3$, and $p=3$. Further, supposed ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^* = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$ and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}^*$ is an arbitrary vector. Assume no noise so that ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}={\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}^*$. Each slide of the tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is a rank-1 matrix. For instance, $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}}(:,:,1) =
\begin{bmatrix*}
\lambda_1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix*}.$$ If we only select the first slice, which corresponds to $\beta = [1\;
0 \; 0]$, will not yield a matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ that has rank equal to $p$. But, using a random linear combination remedies this problem. Alternatively, using the randomization to make the problem generic will also correct the problem.
Random Orthogonal Examples
--------------------------
In this case, we generate tensors such that ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$ is a random orthogonal matrix and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{\lambda}}}}}^*$ is the all ones vector. (Note that a matrix that had repeated eigenvalues would not have a unique factorization, but tensors with repeated eigenvalues are not impacted in the same way.) We apply with no randomization (${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}={{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$). The results are shown in . We generated 100 random instances for each size, and then we ran the code 10 timers per instance (each run uses a different random choice for $\beta$). In the noise-free case ($\eta=0$), the method works perfectly: the rank is perfectly predicted and the exact solution is found. In the noisy case ($\eta=0.1$), the method is less reliable. The rank is never predicted correctly; instead, the ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{B}}}}}$ matrix is nearly always full rank. Nevertheless, the relative error is usually less than $10\eta$ and the solution score is nearly always $\geq 0.99$. So, we can presumably threshold the small $\lambda$-values in the noisy cases to recover a good solution.
[|c@c@c| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r|]{} &\
$m$ & $n$ & $p$ & & &\
3 & 4 & 2 & 1000 & 100 & 2.000 & 1000 & 100 & 0.0000 & 1000 & 100 & 1.0000\
4 & 25 & 3 & 1000 & 100 & 3.000 & 1000 & 100 & 0.0000 & 1000 & 100 & 1.0000\
6 & 6 & 4 & 1000 & 100 & 4.000 & 1000 & 100 & 0.0000 & 1000 & 100 & 1.0000\
&\
$m$ & $n$ & $p$ & & &\
3 & 4 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 4.000 & 921 & 100 & 0.0428 & 925 & 100 & 0.9903\
4 & 25 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 24.999 & 818 & 100 & 0.0716 & 864 & 100 & 0.9856\
6 & 6 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 6.000 & 393 & 92 & 0.1916 & 498 & 99 & 0.9530\
Non-orthogonal Example
----------------------
In Example 5.5(i) of [@Ni14], Nie considers an method for determining the rank of a tensor. The example tensor is of order $m=4$ and defined by $${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{\lambda}}}}}^* =
\begin{bmatrix}
676 \\ 196
\end{bmatrix}
{\quad\text{and}\quad}
{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^* =
\begin{bmatrix*}[r]
0 & 3/\sqrt{14} \\
1 / \sqrt{26} & 2 / \sqrt{14} \\
-5 / \sqrt{26} & -1/\sqrt{14}
\end{bmatrix*} \approx
\begin{bmatrix*}[r]
0.00 & 0.80 \\
0.20 & 0.53 \\
-0.98 & -0.27 \\
\end{bmatrix*}.$$ The matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$ is not orthogonal but is full column rank. We apply algorithm one hundred times. We do not apply randomization (i.e., ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}} = {{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$). For every run, the predicted rank is 2 and the solution score is 1 (perfect match). The average number of attempts (i.e., choosing a random set of $\gamma$-values) to find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ is 1.26, and the maximum is 4.
Random Non-orthogonal Examples
------------------------------
In this case, we generate tensors such that ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}^*$ comes from a matrix with entries drawn from the standard norm distribution whose columns are normalized (i.e., $\|{{{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeLowercase{x}}}}}_{k}}\|_2=1$ for $k=1,\dots,p$) and ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{\lambda}}}}}^*$ is the all ones vector. We apply with no randomization (${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{V}}}}}={{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{I}}}}}_n$). The method fails is it cannot find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ after 100 attempts. The results are shown in .
In the case of no noise ($\eta=0$), the method is surprising effective. Every problem is solved exactly for the even-order tensors ($m=4$ and $m=6$), which are constructed so that they are positive definite, guaranteeing that a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ exists. For the odd-ordered tensor ($m=3$), the method is able to find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ for 77 out of 100 instances. When it successfully finds the transformation, the problem is solved exactly.
For the noisy case ($\eta=0.01$), the impact is dramatic. In the smallest example ($m=3,n=4,p=2$), only 32 instances can find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ matrix, and only 10 instances have a solution score of 0.99 or higher. For the case $m=4,n=25,p=3$, the algorithm fails to find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ in every instance. For the case $m=6,n=6,p=4$, the algorithm find a p.s.d. ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{C}}}}}$ in a handful of instances but ultimately fails to solve the problem. We hypothesize that the problem stems from the fact that the noisy version of tensor has a rank that is higher than $p$, so the ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ that corresponds to the noisy tensor does not have full column rank.
[|c@c@c| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r| >r@[ ]{} >r@[ ]{} >r|]{} &\
$m$ & $n$ & $p$ & & & &\
3 & 4 & 2 & 700 & 77 & 11.6 & 700 & 77 & 2.0 & 700 & 77 & 0.0 & 700 & 77 & 1.0\
4 & 25 & 3 & 1000 & 100 & 2.5 & 1000 & 100 & 3.0 & 1000 & 100 & 0.0 & 1000 & 100 & 1.0\
6 & 6 & 4 & 1000 & 100 & 4.4 & 1000 & 100 & 4.0 & 1000 & 100 & 0.0 & 1000 & 100 & 1.0\
&\
$m$ & $n$ & $p$ & & & &\
3 & 4 & 2 & 238 & 32 & 20.1 & 0 & 0 & 4.0 & 76 & 22 & 0.4 & 17 & 10 & 0.8\
4 & 25 & 3 & 0 & 0 & — & 0 & 0 & — & 0 & 0 & — & 0 & 0 & —\
6 & 6 & 4 & 256 & 35 & 16.9 & 0 & 0 & 6.0 & 0 & 0 & 16.8 & 0 & 0 & 0.4\
Conclusions
===========
If a symmetric tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is known to have a factor matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ with orthogonal columns, we show that it is possible to solve the symmetric orthogonal tensor decomposition algorithm via a straightforward matrix eigenproblem. The method appears to be effective even in the presence of a small amount of noise. This is an improvement over previous work [@AnGeHsKa12] that proposed solving the problem iteratively using the tensor eigenvalue power method and deflation.
We also consider the application of whitening as proposed by [@AnGeHsKa12] in the case where a symmetric tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathscr{\MakeUppercase{A}}}}$ is known to have a factor matrix ${{\bm{\mathbf{\MakeUppercase{X}}}}}$ that is full rank, but does not have orthogonal columns. In the noise-free case, the methods works extremely well. In the case that a small amount of noise is added, however, the current method is much less effective. Improving performance in that regime is a potential topic of future study.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I am grateful to Anima Anandkumar (UC Irvine) for motivating this work with her talk and at the Fields Institute Workshop on Optimization and Matrix Methods in Big Data. I am indebted to my Sandia colleagues Grey Ballard and Jackson Mayo for helpful feedback on this manuscript.
[1]{}
, [*Tensor decompositions for learning latent variable models*]{}, Oct. 2012, [arXiv:1210.7559](http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7559).
, [ *Symmetric tensors and symmetric tensor rank*]{}, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30 (2008), pp. 1254–1279, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doi:</span>](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/060661569).
, [*A link between the canonical decomposition in multilinear algebra and simultaneous matrix diagonalization*]{}, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 28 (2006), pp. 642–666, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doi:</span>](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/040608830).
, [*Numerical optimization for symmetric tensor decomposition*]{}, Oct. 2014, [arXiv:1410.4536 \[math.NA\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4536).
, [*Tensor decompositions and applications*]{}, SIAM Review, 51 (2009), pp. 455–500, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">doi:</span>](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/07070111X).
, [*Generating polynomials and symmetric tensor decompositions*]{}, Aug. 2014, [arXiv:1408.5664](http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5664).
, [*Orthogonal decomposition of symmetric tensors*]{}, Sept. 2014, [arXiv:1409.6685](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6685).
[^1]: This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Applied Mathematics program. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE–AC04–94AL85000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[ The small separation ($\delta \nu_{01}$, $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$) between the oscillations with low degree $l$ is dependent primarily on the sound speed profile within the stellar core, where nuclear evolution occurs. The detection of such oscillations for a star offers a very good opportunity to determine the stage of its nuclear evolution, and hence its age. In this context, we investigate the Sun and $\alpha$ Cen A and B. ]{} For $\alpha$ Cen A and B, each of the small separations $\delta \nu_{01}$, $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$ gives a different age. Therefore, in our fitting process, we also employ the second difference, defined as $\nu_{n,2}-2\nu_{n,1} + \nu_{n,0}$, which is $2\delta \nu_{01}-\delta \nu_{02}$. In addition to this, we also use frequency ratio ($\nu_{n,0}/\nu_{n,2}$). For the Sun, these expressions are equivalent and give an age of about 4.9-5.0 Gyr. For $\alpha$ Cen A and B, however, the small separation and the second difference give very different ages. This conflict may be solved by the detection of oscillation frequencies that can be measured much more precisely than the current frequencies. [ When we fit the models to the observations, we find (i) $Z_0=0.020$, $t=3.50$ Gyr and $M_{\rm B}=1.006$M$_\odot$ from the small separations $\delta \nu_{01}$, $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$ of $\alpha$ Cen B; and (ii) a variety of solutions from the non-seismic constraints and $\delta \nu_{02}$ of $\alpha$ Cen A and B, in which the masses of $\alpha$ Cen A and B are slightly modified and the age of the system is about 5.2-5.3 Gyr. For $Z=0.025$, the closest masses we find to the observed masses are $M_{\rm B}$=0.922 $ \rm M_{\odot}$ and $M_{\rm A}$=1.115 $ \rm M_{\odot}$. The differences between these masses and the corresponding observed masses are about 0.01 $ \rm M_{\odot}$. ]{}'
author:
- |
M. Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z$^{}$[^1],\
Ege University, Department of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Bornova, 35100 İzmir, Turkey
date: 'Accepted 2005 December 15. Received 2005 December 14; in original form 2005 October 11'
title: 'On the structure of the Sun and $\alpha$ Centauri A and B in the light of seismic and non-seismic constraints'
---
\[firstpage\]
Sun: fundamental parameters– Sun: interior – stars: evolution – stars: individual: $\alpha$ Cen – stars: interior
Introduction
============
Microscopic or macroscopic, solid or fluid of any kind, every object oscillates at frequencies determined by its structure. In many cases, the oscillations sound the structure of the visible and invisible parts of the object in which they are trapped. Among such objects are stars, particularly solar-like stars, which oscillate in a variety of modes so that one can infer physical conditions deep in the nuclear core (Tassoul 1980), which is not directly observable. In this context, Christensen-Dalsgaard (1988) developed a seismic Hertzsprung-Russel (HR) diagram in which one can deduce the size and evolutionary phase (age) of a star from its oscillation frequencies. In this diagram, the horizontal axis is so-called the large separation between frequencies of consecutive oscillations with order $n$ ($\Delta \nu_{nl}=\nu_{n,l}-\nu_{n-1,l}$) and the vertical axis is the small separation between frequencies of oscillations with different harmonics. As a result of nuclear evolution, the position of a star in the seismic HR diagram changes with time. Roxburgh & Vorontsov (2003, hereafter RV2003) argued that the ratio of the small separation to the large separation is more sensitive to time than the accurate value of the small separation, and proposed an alternative expression for it.
In many respects, and particularly because of its high quality data, the Sun is an excellent object to study stellar interiors for calibration of evolution code to be useds. In other words, our success in modelling interiors of stars of different kinds depends on how successful we are in modelling the solar interior. The solar models with chemical composition given by Grevesse & Sauval (1998) are in very good agreement with seismic inferences (Bahcall et al. 1995; Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996; Gabriel & Carlier 1997; Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z 2001). However, the agreement disappears if the recent solar chemical composition given by Asplund, Grevesse & Sauval (2005, hereafter AGS2005) is used (see Basu et al. 2007 and references therein). Although uncertainties in the abundances of heavy elements are discussed by Pinsonneault & Delahaye (2006) and found large enough to cover the old solar composition, an increase in diffusion coefficient (Guzik, Watson & Cox 2005) and opacity (Bahcall et al. 2005) below the convective zone are suggested to restore the agreement between the models and helioseismic constraints.
In our previous paper on $\alpha$ Cen (Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z 2007), we obtained 8.9 Gyr for the age of the system from the non-seismic constraints (NOS models in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z 2007) and about 5.6-5.9 Gyr from the seismic constraints (SIS Models in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z 2007; see also Miglio & Montalban 2005). There may be observational or theoretical reasons for this discrepancy. In this study, we investigate how well core structures of the Sun and $\alpha$ Cen A and B are represented by different forms of small separations and how precise their fundamental properties are. As main-sequence (MS) stars evolve their oscillation frequencies decrease because of the increase in their size. However, the amount of decrease in the frequencies depends also on how the sound speed changes in the cavity in which the oscillations are trapped. As a result of nuclear evolution, the sound speed gradually decreases in the nuclear core, and therefore frequencies of oscillations with $l=0$ are much more reduced than those are with $l=1$ and $l=2$. Thus, the frequency ratio $\nu_{\rm n,0}$/$\nu_{\rm n,2}$ is a function of time and has in principle diagnostic potential as the small separation for information about the age of solar-like stars. We also use this expression, despite its lower sensitivity to time than $\delta \nu_{02}$, in order to test if it gives the same age as the usual expressions (see Section 3). In Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007), the small separation $D_0$ is computed from $\delta \nu_{02}$ for $\alpha$ Cen A, and from $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$ for $\alpha$ Cen B ($D_0=(\delta \nu_{02}/6+\delta \nu_{13}/10)/2$), since $\delta \nu_{01}=(\nu_{n0}-(\nu_{n-1,1}+\nu_{n1})/2)$ values of models are quite different from the values found from the observed frequencies. In this study, using in addition the seismic data of $\alpha$ Cen A given by Bedding et al. (2004, BK2004), we consider if it is possible to fit model values of $\delta \nu_{01}/2$, $\delta \nu_{02}/6$ and $\delta \nu_{13}/10$ one by one to the corresponding values inferred from the seismic data of the Sun and $\alpha$ Cen A and B.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the basic properties of solar models with old and recent chemical composition are presented. The results are presented and discussed in Section 3. Finally, we make some concluding remarks in Section 4.
Properties of the Solar Models
==============================
[\[f1.4\]]{}
[\[t1.1\]]{}
$X_0$ $Z_0$ $\alpha$ $\rho_c$ $T_c$ $X_c$ $ Z_s $ $Y_s$ $R_c/ \rm R_\odot$ $ \rm t_\odot(Gyr) ) $
--------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- --------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------- --
0.70975 0.016 1.820 146.78 15.65 0.355 0.0124 0.244 0.733 4.6
0.70331 0.017 1.832 147.19 15.73 0.348 0.0132 0.249 0.730 4.6
0.71280 0.016 1.850 151.16 15.72 0.340 0.0123 0.241 0.731 4.9
0.70458 0.020 1.889 152.54 15.63 0.335 0.0191 0.246 0.710 4.6
— — — — — — 0.0122 0.246 0.713
The characteristics of the code used in the construction of models for stellar interiors are given in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007). Further details of the code are given in the references of that paper.
Models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B required for our analysis are given in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007). We construct new solar models, because significant changes have occurred in our knowledge of the chemical composition of the Sun (AGS2005).
The basic properties of the solar models with the recent solar composition given by AGS2005 are listed in Table 1. In the first row of this table the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$, which is in very good agreement with the observed chemical composition of the Sun, is presented: its surface helium and heavy element abundances are 0.244 and 0.0124, respectively. However, the base radius of its convective zone ($0.733 \rm R_\odot$) is significantly greater than the value inferred from helioseismolgy ($0.713\pm0.001 \rm R_\odot$, Basu & Antia 1997). In order to test the influence of initial value of heavy element abundance, another solar model is constructed with $Z_0=0.017$. This model is given in the second row of Table 1. The base radius of its convective zone ($0.730 \rm R_\odot$) is slightly smaller than that of the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$, but an agreement with the value inferred from helioseismolgy is not achieved. The age of these two models is taken as 4.6 Gyr. For later usage, we also construct a solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age = 4.9 Gyr (see Section 3.4).
In Fig. 1, the relative sound speed difference between these solar models and the Sun is plotted with respect to the relative radius. The relative sound speed difference between the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and the Sun is represented with diamonds. The largest difference, about 1.7 %, occurs in the region just below the base of the convective zone. The larger the initial heavy element abundance, the smaller the relative sound speed difference in the outer part of the radiative interior. For $Z_0=0.017$, for example, the largest difference reduces to 1.4 % (the dotted line). A very similar profile for the relative sound speed difference occurs for the model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age = 4.9 Gyr (solid line). For comparison, the model with $Z_0=0.02$ and mixture given by Grevesse & Sauval (1998) is also plotted in Fig. 1. It is in better agreement with the helioseismic results than the solar models with AGS2005.
Structure of nuclear core and oscillation frequencies
=====================================================
[\[f1.3\]]{}
The acoustic oscillations are trapped in the stellar cavity. Dimension of this cavity depends on degree ($l$) and frequency of oscillations. Whereas the cavity for the oscillations with $l=0$ extends down to the center, the oscillations with higher $l$ have shallower cavities. The turning point (${r_{\rm t}}$) of an oscillation with non-zero $l$ is approximately given as $$\frac{c_{\rm t}}{r_{\rm t}}=\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{l(l+1)}}$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of oscillation and $c(r_{\rm t})$ is the sound speed at the turning point. The turning points of the oscillations with observed frequencies of $\alpha$ Cen A and B are computed from SIS models and plotted with respect to $n$ for the modes with $l=1$ and $l=2$ in Fig. 2. Whereas the modes of $\alpha$ Cen A (thin solid line with diamonds) and B (thin dotted line with $\times$s) with $l=2$ turns at nearly ${r_{\rm t}/R_\star}\simeq 0.1$, the modes with $l=1$ (thick solid line with boxes for $\alpha$ Cen A and dotted line with filled circles for $\alpha$ Cen B) sink deeper into the nuclear core (${r_{\rm t}/R_\star}\simeq 0.05$).
[\[f1.4\]]{}
[\[f1.4\]]{}
Whereas the small separation is a sensitive function of physical conditions in central regions, where the nuclear evolution occurs, the large separation, $ \Delta \nu_{0}=\nu_{n,0}-\nu_{n-1,0}$, is a measure of the mean density. The small separation between frequencies (Christensen-Dalsgaard 1988), $\delta \nu_{02}=\nu_{n,0}-\nu_{n-1,2}$, is plotted as a function of $n$ in Fig. 3, using the observed frequencies of the Sun (thin solid line with diamonds; Chaplin et al. 1999), $\alpha$ Cen A (thick solid line with boxes; Bouchy & Carrier 2002, BC2002) and $\alpha$ Cen B (thin solid line with circles; Kjeldsen et al. 2005, hereafter KB2005). Its $n$ dependence is very similar to a straight line for the Sun and $\alpha$ Cen A (BC2002). Although its average value is about $5.6 ~\mu$Hz for $\alpha$ Cen A, the difference between its maximum and minimum values is about $5 ~\mu$Hz. In other words, the small separation has a strong dependence on $n$. Also shown in Fig. 3 are the small separations of $\alpha$ Cen A (triangle) and B (stars) computed from the observations of Fletcher et al. (2006, FC2006) and Carrier & Bourban (2003, CB2003), respectively. We note that the $\delta \nu_{02}$ from FC2006 is significantly smaller than that of BC2002. The dotted line with filled circles in Fig. 3 is for $\delta \nu_{02}$ from BK2004. Although the difference between its maximum and minimum values is about $10 ~\mu$Hz, its mean value ($6.3 ~\mu$Hz) is close to the value found from BC2002 ($5.6 ~\mu$Hz).
In Fig. 3, $\delta \nu_{02}$ of the Sun (Chaplin et al. 1999) is much smoother than the corresponding values for $\alpha$ Cen A and B. However, for the less accurate solar data of the early stages of helioseismology this was not the case. In Fig. 4, $\delta \nu_{02}$ of the old (Grec et al. 1983; GF1983; dotted line with $\times$s) and the recent (Chaplin et al. 1999) data of the Sun are plotted with respect to $n$. For small values of $n$, despite the scattering of the Grec et al. (1983) data, the two data sets are in agreement. However, for $n\geq 25$, there is a significant difference. Grec et al. (1983) state that the frequency resolution is 2 $\mu$Hz. The error in frequencies found by Chaplin et al. (1999) is about 0.05 $\mu$Hz for $n\leq 22$ and increases very rapidly for larger values of $n$: for $n=26$, for example, it is about 0.3 $\mu$Hz. We also note in Fig. 4 the similarity between the old data of the Sun and the data of $\alpha$ Cen B. As our skill in detecting the seismic properties of $\alpha$ Cen A and B develops, as in the solar case, we may obtain much more smooth variation of $\delta \nu_{02}$ with respect to $n$.
On the theory side, however, uncertainty arises from the fact that model frequencies are computed assuming an adiabatic process for the oscillations (Christensen-Dalsgaard & Thompson 1997). The adiabatic approximation is valid for almost the entire interior, except for the near-surface regions. Therefore, the perturbation should also be applied to the energy equation, but the perturbation of energy equation is highly uncertain, at least for the convective flux (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996). However, use of either the difference between or the ratio of frequencies for comparison is a good way to minimize the effects of such a troublesome problem.
Sound speed profiles of the Sun and $\alpha$ Cen A and B and the time variation of frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[\[f1.3\]]{}
The variation of stellar oscillation frequencies with time is primarily a result of global expansion of the star like a heated ball. The secondary effect on the time dependence of frequencies arises from the fact that sound speed profile changes throughout the star. For the secondary effect, the most significant change occurs within the nuclear core. Therefore, this secondary effect is important for modes with low degree. Whereas variation of the large separation with time is a good measure of the first effect, the variation of the small separation with time is the result of the secondary effect. In Fig. 5, the sound speed profiles in the central regions of the Sun (thin dotted line, Basu et al. 1997), the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ (stars), SIS models of $\alpha$ Cen A (thick dotted line) and B (thin solid line) are plotted with respect to the relative radius. For comparison, the sound speed (thick solid line) of $\alpha$ Cen A (SIS model) near the zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) ($t=0.1$ Gyr) is also plotted. As stated above, the most significant difference between the sound speed profiles occurs in the nuclear core: as hydrogen is converted to helium, the mean molecular weight increases and consequently the sound speed at the center drops from $5.6\times 10^7$ to $4.5\times 10^7$ cm s$^{-1}$.
The oscillations with $l=1$ are influenced much more than the oscillations with $l=2$ because of this variation in sound speed profile with time. It is well known that the turning point of oscillations depends mainly on the degree of oscillations. Whereas the turning points of oscillations with $l=1$ are about $r_{\rm t}=0.05 R_\star$, the mean value for the turning points of oscillations with $l=2$ is about $r_{\rm t}=0.10 R_\star$. As the nuclear evolution proceeds the sound speed decreases, and consequently the oscillations with $l= 1$ and $l= 2$ sink deeper, according to equation (1). From the ZAMS to the present time, the decrease in sound speed at point $r_{\rm t}=0.05 R_\star$ with time for $\alpha$ Cen A, for example, is about $0.6~\times 10^7$ cm s$^{-1}$ (Fig. 5), at $r_{\rm t}=0.10 R_\star$, however, the change with time is three times smaller ($0.2~\times 10^7$ cm s$^{-1}$) than this value. This means that the increase in the path of the oscillations with $l=1$ is much more than that of the oscillations with $l=2$. Therefore, the decrease in the frequencies of the oscillations with $l=1$ as a result of nuclear evolution is much greater than that with $l=2$.
The second difference defined as $\nu_{n,0}-2\nu_{n,1}+\nu_{n,2}$
------------------------------------------------------------------
[\[f1.4\]]{}
[\[f1.4\]]{}
As discussed above, oscillation frequencies of a star are a decreasing function of time, because of the increase of its size and sound speed profile over time as a result of nuclear evolution. Christensen-Dalsgaard (1988) and RV2003 use the frequencies of oscillations with different $n$ and $l$ for the expression for the small separation. We use also the second difference derived from the frequencies of mode with the same $n$: $$\delta \nu_{012} = (\nu_{\rm n,0}- 2 \nu_{\rm n,1}+\nu_{\rm n,2})$$ The second difference is the difference between $2\delta \nu_{01}$ and $\delta \nu_{02}$. According to the asymptotic relation, $\delta \nu_{012}$ is very small, just like $\delta \nu_{02}$. In Fig. 6, $\delta \nu_{012}$ is plotted with respect to $n$ at various evolutionary times of $\alpha$ Cen A, from the ZAMS to the terminal-age-MS (TAMS). Close to the ZAMS (thin solid line with diamonds), $\delta \nu_{012}$ is negative and varies between $-2.0~\mu$Hz and $-1.5~\mu$Hz. As the model evolves, $\delta \nu_{012}$ becomes positive at an age of nearly half of the MS life time of the star, and reaches an average value of about $7.0~\mu$Hz at age=7 Gyr. $\delta \nu_{012}$ computed from the observed frequencies is also plotted in Fig. 6. From the comparison of the model and the observational $\delta \nu_{012}$, contrary to the result of $\delta \nu_{02}=\nu_{n,0}-\nu_{n,2}$, we deduce that $\alpha$ Cen A must be in the early phase of its MS evolution.
The solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age=4.6 Gyr is also plotted in Fig. 6 (dotted line with circles). As for $\alpha$ Cen A, $\delta \nu_{012}$ of the Sun is also independent of $n$. However, the model value of $\delta \nu_{012}$ for $\alpha$ Cen B is dependent on $n$ near the ZAMS (solid line with $\times$s) and the TAMS (thick solid line with stars) and has less $n$ dependence between these two cases (dotted line with filled circles for a model with age=10 Gyr) .
For the Sun, for which we have high quality of seismic data, average value of $\delta \nu_{012}$ derived from seismic data over $n$ is $-2.50~\mu$Hz and it is $-2.57~\mu$Hz for the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age=4.6 Gyr (dotted line with circles in Fig 6); that is, the observed value is slightly greater than the model value (the same result is obtained from $\delta \nu_{02}=\nu_{n,0}-\nu_{n,2}$; see Section 3.4).
In Fig. 7, average value of $\delta \nu_{012}$ over n is plotted against $\Delta \nu_{0}$ during the MS evolution (SIS model) of $\alpha$ Cen A (solid line with diamonds) and B (dotted line with $\times$s). The ZAMS is represented by the symbol closest to the legend ’0.1 Gyr’. The next closest symbol corresponds to $t=1$ Gyr. After that symbol, time increment between two symbols without legend is 1 Gyr. In the early phase of MS evolution, $\delta \nu_{012}$ of $\alpha$ Cen B remains almost constant, whereas $\delta \nu_{012}$ of $\alpha$ Cen A increases very rapidly. In contrast to $\delta \nu_{02}$, again, $\delta \nu_{012}$ of the massive star ($\alpha$ Cen A) is much more sensitive function of time than that of the low-mass star ($\alpha$ Cen B).
Ratio of frequencies
--------------------
[\[f1.467\]]{}
Although the ratio $\nu_{\rm n,0}$/$\nu_{\rm n,2}$ is not a more sensitive function of time than $\delta \nu_{\rm 02}$, we want to test whether it gives the same age as $\delta \nu_{\rm 02}$. In Fig. 8, ratio of $\nu_{\rm n,0}$ to $\nu_{\rm n,2}$ for $\alpha$ Cen A is plotted as a function of $n$ at 1 Gyr (thin solid line with diamonds), 3 Gyr (thin dotted line), 5 Gyr (thick dotted line) and 7 Gyr (thick solid line with boxes). The decrease in the ratio with time is noticeable. For comparison, the observed ratio is also plotted (solid line with filled circles). The observed ratio is in agreement with the curve of 5 Gyr, except for the ratio for $n=16$.
Age and metallicity of the Sun from the seismic constraints
-----------------------------------------------------------
The observed value of $\delta \nu_{02}$ for the Sun is found to be $9.84 \pm 0.1~\mu$Hz from the seismic data of the Bison group. The value of $\delta \nu_{02}$ for a solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ is, however, 10.11 $~\mu$Hz; that is, it is slightly greater than the observed value. For the solar model with $Z_0=0.017$, $\delta \nu_{02}=10.08 ~\mu$Hz. The value of $\delta \nu_{02}$ for a solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age=4.9 Gyr, $9.86~\mu$Hz, is in very good agreement with the observed value. From the ratio of frequencies ($\nu_{\rm n,0}/\nu_{\rm n,2}$), we confirm that the same age (4.9 Gyr) is more suitable than 4.6 Gyr. Similarly, from the comparison of the observed value of $\delta \nu_{012}$ ($2.50~\mu$Hz) with that of the solar model with $Z_0=0.016$ and age=4.6 Gyr ($2.57~\mu$Hz), we find that the solar model with 4.9 Gyr is in better agreement with the helioseismic data.
Are values of $\delta \nu_{01}/2$, $\delta \nu_{02}/6$ and $\delta \nu_{13}/10$ compatible with each other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[\[t1.3\]]{}
Star $t(Gyr)$ $Z_0$ $X_0$ $D_{01}(\mu$Hz) $D_{02}(\mu$Hz) $D_{13}(\mu$Hz) Model
---------------- ---------- -------- --------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------
Sun 4.60 0.0160 0.70975 1.879 1.686 1.739
4.60 0.0170 0.70331 1.870 1.679 1.734
4.60 0.0190 0.69080 1.858 1.659 1.713
4.90 0.0160 0.71280 1.825 1.644 1.701
4.90 0.0200 0.68806 1.825 1.613 1.676
4.93 0.0170 0.70665 1.837 1.632 1.695
4.98 0.0165 0.71039 1.835 1.628 1.691
Obs C99 – – – 1.813 1.640 1.679
Obs B07 – – – – 1.653 1.683
– $\pm$ 0.005 $\pm$ 0.007
$\alpha$ Cen A 5.70 0.0322 0.669 2.41 0.93 0.76 SIS
8.88 0.0328 0.703 2.53 0.49 0.37 NOSIS
5.90 0.0230 0.713 2.24 0.94 0.82 SIS23
3.50 0.0200 0.756 3.01 1.44 1.11 SIS2
3.50 0.0200 0.732 2.73 1.41 1.14 SIS2p
Obs BK2004 – – – 1.41 1.05 1.10
Obs BC2002 – – – 0.98 0.99 –
Uncertainty – – – 0.12 – –
$\alpha$ Cen B 5.70 0.0322 0.669 0.95 1.53 1.86 SIS
8.88 0.0328 0.703 -0.05 0.92 1.44 NOSIS
5.90 0.0230 0.713 0.98 1.49 1.71 SIS23
3.50 0.0200 0.756 1.83 1.82 1.81 SIS2
3.50 0.0200 0.732 1.60 1.82 1.88 SIS2p
Obs KB2005 – – – 2.26 1.69 1.67
Uncertainty – – – 0.26 0.06 0.07
The small separation $D_0$ can be derived from $\delta \nu_{01}$, $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$, if we have enough observational data:
$$D_0=(D_{01}+D_{02}+D_{13})/3=(\delta \nu_{01}/2+\delta \nu_{02}/6+\delta \nu_{13}/10)/3.$$
As emphasized above, in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007), $D_{\rm 0}$ is computed from $\delta \nu_{02}$ for $\alpha$ Cen A and from $\delta \nu_{02}$ and $\delta \nu_{13}$ for $\alpha$ Cen B. Its values inferred from the observed seismic frequencies ($D_{\rm 02,obs}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs}$) and models with an age of about 5.7-5.9 Gyr are in good agreement. The values of $D_{\rm 01,obs}=\delta \nu_{01}/2$ of both $\alpha$ Cen A and B are not used in the analysis in Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007), because they are not in agreement with the $D_{\rm 01}$ values derived from SIS models and are not compatible with $D_{\rm 02,obs}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs}$ (see Table 2). In fact, the disagreement between the values of $\delta \nu_{012}$ computed from the models and the values inferred from the seismic data (see section 3.2) arises from this inharmoniousness. Such an inharmoniousness does not exist for the Sun, and we may hope to remove it with observational seismic data for $\alpha$ Cen A and B that are much more precise than the present data.
We first consider the solar data and try to fit $D_{01}$, $D_{02}$ and $D_{13}$ of the solar models to $D_{\rm 01,obs\odot}$, $D_{\rm 02,obs\odot}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs\odot}$. In Table 2, $D_{01}$, $D_{02}$ and $D_{13}$ of the solar models and models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B are listed. In the first three rows the solar models with an age of 4.60 Gyr and with different $Z_0$ values are given. $D_{01}$, $D_{02}$ and $D_{13}$ of these models are greater than $D_{\rm 01,obs\odot}$, $D_{\rm 02,obs\odot}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs\odot}$ (given in the eighth row), respectively. For comparison, the values of $D_{\rm 02,obs\odot}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs\odot}$ derived from the recent seismic solar data of Basu et al. (2007) and their uncertainties are given in ninth and tenth rows, respectively. In the fourth row, the solar model with an age of 4.9 Gyr and $Z_0=0.016$ is given. Its $D_{02}$ is the same as $D_{\rm 02,obs}$, and $D_{01}$ and $D_{13}$ are very close to $D_{\rm 01,obs\odot}$ and $D_{\rm 13,obs\odot}$, respectively. In order to find the optimum values of $Z_0$ and an age for the Sun we write three equations for each $D_{ll'}$, for instance, $$D_{\rm 01,obs\odot}=D_{\rm 01,ref}+\frac{\Delta D_{\rm 01}}{\Delta Z_0}\delta Z_0 +\frac{\Delta D_{\rm 01}}{\Delta t}\delta t,$$ and solve them for $Z_0$ and age ($t$). We compute the required derivatives such as given in equation (4) from the solar models discussed above and find the solution: $Z_0=0.017$ and $t=4.93$ Gyr. The solar model with these values is given in the sixth row of Table 2. We use this model as the reference model and obtain another solution: $Z_0=0.0165$ and $t=4.98$ Gyr. The solar model with the new results is presented in the seventh row. $D_{ll'}$ of these solar models with about $Z_0=0.0165-0.0170$ and age about $4.9-5.0$ Gyr are very similar values and are compatible with the results inferred from helioseismolgy.
In this context, we also consider $\alpha$ Cen A and B. Their models from Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007) are given in the first three rows of their corresponding part in Table 2. For our analysis of $\alpha$ Cen A and B, we write again three equations similar to equation (4) for $D_{ll'}$ for each star but with three unknowns. In addition to $Z_0$ and $t$ , we assume that the mass of the stars are also unknown. We obtain separate solutions for $\alpha$ Cen A and B. For $\alpha$ Cen B, $Z_0=0.020$, $t=3.50$ Gyr and $M_{\rm B}=1.006$M$_\odot$. For $\alpha$ Cen A, we obtain $t=3.50$ Gyr and $M_{\rm A}=1.19$M$_\odot$. However, value of $Z_0$ for the solution for $\alpha$ Cen A is not a reasonable value and therefore we use the same value of $Z_0$ as obtained for $\alpha$ Cen B. Models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B (SIS2) with these values are given in the fourth row of their corresponding parts in Table 2. Although these values are the optimum values in order to fit model values of $D_{ll'}$ to $D_{ll',\rm obs}$, there are still significant differences between $D_{01}$ and $D_{01,obs}$ of each star. We construct similar models for $\alpha$ Cen A and B with the same values but the masses ($M_{\rm A}=1.15$M$_\odot$ and $M_{\rm B}=0.97$M$_\odot$) are average of the masses we find and the masses given by Pourbaix et al. (2002). These models (SIS2p) are presented in the fifth row of the corresponding parts of $\alpha$ Cen A and B in Table 2. $D_{01}$ values of the SIS2 and SIS2p models are significantly different. However, there is no simultaneous agreement between the model and the observed values of $D_{ll'}$ for $\alpha$ Cen A and B as in the case of the Sun.
Masses and age of $\alpha$ Cen A and B
======================================
[\[f1.4\]]{}
[\[t1.1\]]{}
Star $M/ \rm M_{\odot}$ t(Gyr) $Z_0$ $\alpha$ $X_0$ $L/ \rm L_{\odot}$ $R/ \rm R_{\odot}$ $T_{\rm eff}$(K) $D_{02}(\mu$Hz) $\Delta \nu_{0}(\mu$Hz)
---------- -------------------- -------- ------- ---------- --------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------------- --
A 1.097 5.15 0.025 1.588 0.68950 1.544 1.224 5824 1.072 106.0
B 0.907 5.15 0.025 1.550 0.68950 0.507 0.864 5243 1.679 162.3
A 1.113 5.30 0.025 1.608 0.70133 1.542 1.228 5809 1.049 106.1
B 0.921 5.30 0.025 1.644 0.70133 0.508 0.863 5252 1.670 163.8
A 1.115 5.24 0.025 1.611 0.70256 1.536 1.225 5812 1.039 106.6
B 0.922 5.24 0.025 1.648 0.70256 0.505 0.862 5248 1.679 164.22
A 1.130 5.25 0.025 1.634 0.71180 1.539 1.224 5816 1.067 107.4
B 0.934 5.25 0.025 1.694 0.71180 0.507 0.863 5248 1.687 164.7
A 1.096 5.35 0.020 1.575 0.71830 1.538 1.223 5855 1.086 106.0
B 0.910 5.35 0.020 1.635 0.71830 0.508 0.863 5250 1.681 162.8
A 1.107 5.37 0.020 1.582 0.72504 1.552 1.228 5819 1.075 105.7
B 0.918 5.37 0.020 1.637 0.72504 0.507 0.866 5239 1.680 162.6
A (obs.) 1.105 – – – – 1.544 1.224 5824 1.05 105.6
B (obs.) 0.934 – – – – 0.507 0.863 5250 1.69 161.5
\[ta2\]
$% $$
%\begin{array}{p{0.05\linewidth}lllcclllllllllll}
\begin{array}{ccccc|cccc}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
& & \alpha ~{\rm~Cen~A}& & & & \alpha ~{\rm~Cen~B}& & \\
n & \nu_{n0}& \nu_{n1}& \nu_{n2}& \nu_{n3}& \nu_{n0}& \nu_{n1}& \nu_{n2}& \nu_{n3} \\
%Star& M_{\rm A}/M_\odot& L_{\rm }/L_\odot& R_{\rm }/R_\odot & T_{\rm eff}& X_{\rm 0}& Z_{\rm 0} & Z_{\rm S} & (Z/X)_{\rm S} & \alpha & t(10^9 y) & \delta \nu_{02}&\delta \nu_{13}& D_0 & \Delta \nu_0\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
10 & 1219.56 & 1267.70 & 1320.00 & 1108.49 & 1844.75 & 1924.54 & 1995.22 & 1676.04\\
11 & 1327.68 & 1375.06 & 1426.31 & 1219.56 & 2010.85 & 2089.51 & 2160.28 & 1844.75\\
12 & 1433.86 & 1480.79 & 1532.34 & 1327.68 & 2175.42 & 2253.87 & 2324.48 & 2010.85\\
13 & 1539.96 & 1587.38 & 1639.11 & 1433.86 & 2339.09 & 2418.09 & 2489.06 & 2175.42\\
14 & 1646.69 & 1694.54 & 1746.41 & 1539.96 & 2503.03 & 2581.58 & 2652.87 & 2339.09\\
15 & 1753.84 & 1801.49 & 1852.86 & 1646.69 & 2666.40 & 2744.84 & 2815.82 & 2503.03\\
16 & 1860.08 & 1907.62 & 1958.69 & 1753.84 & 2828.74 & 2907.42 & 2978.97 & 2666.40\\
17 & 1965.66 & 2013.16 & 2064.48 & 1860.08 & 2991.41 & 3070.09 & 3142.26 & 2828.74\\
18 & 2071.30 & 2119.40 & 2171.02 & 1965.66 & 3154.33 & 3233.53 & 3305.99 & 2991.41\\
19 & 2177.64 & 2226.17 & 2278.23 & 2071.30 & 3317.60 & 3397.04 & 3470.18 & 3154.33\\
20 & 2284.65 & 2333.49 & 2385.51 & 2177.64 & 3481.40 & 3560.66 & 3634.05 & 3317.60\\
21 & 2391.67 & 2440.74 & 2492.85 & 2284.65 & 3644.93 & 3724.53 & 3798.19 & 3481.40\\
22 & 2498.74 & 2547.79 & 2599.94 & 2391.67 & 3808.69 & 3888.42 & 3962.70 & 3644.93\\
23 & 2605.60 & 2654.97 & 2707.21 & 2498.74 & 3972.89 & 4052.78 & 4127.39 & 3808.69\\
24 & 2712.60 & 2762.14 & 2814.69 & 2605.60 & 4137.29 & 4217.50 & 4292.41 & 3972.89\\
25 & 2819.87 & 2869.70 & 2922.25 & 2712.60 & 4301.98 & 4382.13 & 4457.40 & 4137.29\\
26 & 2927.18 & 2977.24 & 3029.99 & 2819.87 & 4466.71 & 4546.95 & 4622.34 & 4301.98\\
27 & 3034.68 & 3084.85 & 3137.60 & 2927.18 & 4631.36 & 4711.65 & 4787.36 & 4466.71\\
28 & 3142.05 & 3192.45 & 3245.21 & 3034.68 & 4796.13 & 4876.35 & 4952.35 & 4631.36\\
29 & 3249.41 & 3299.82 & 3352.64 & 3142.05 & 4960.90 & 5041.26 & 5117.37 & 4796.13\\
30 & 3356.62 & 3407.17 & 3459.85 & 3249.41 & 5125.69 & 5206.10 & 5282.43 & 4960.90\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$
An agreement between the ages of $\alpha$ Cen A and B derived from their seismic and non-seismic constraints can be obtained by modification of their masses. To do this, we write down six equations (for luminosity, radius and $D_{02}=\delta \nu_{02}/6$ of the each component) similar to equation (4) and solve them to find $M_{\rm A}$, $M_{\rm B}$, $\alpha_{\rm A}$, $\alpha_{\rm B}$, $X$ and $t$ for fixed $Z$. These equations are not independent and therefore we get a set of solutions. Some of these solutions are given in Table 3, for $Z=0.025$ and $Z=0.020$. For comparison, the values found from the observed data are also given (for $\alpha$ Cen A, Bazot et al. (2007) gives $D_{0}=1.15\pm0.07 \mu$Hz). Different combinations of $M_{\rm A}$ and $M_{\rm B}$ are possible. In Fig. 9, $M_{\rm B}$ is plotted against $M_{\rm A}$. The closest masses to the observed masses are $M_{\rm B}$=0.922 $ \rm M_{\odot}$ and $M_{\rm A}$=1.115 $ \rm M_{\odot}$, for $Z=0.025$. Whereas $M_{\rm B}$ is less than the observed value by 0.012 $ \rm M_{\odot}$, $M_{\rm A}$ is greater than the observed value by 0.010 $ \rm M_{\odot}$. We notice two common properties of these models:\
(i)the age of the system is about 5.2-5.3 Gyr,\
(ii) for each solution, except the one given in the first and the second rows, the convective parameter (fifth column in Table 3) of $\alpha$ Cen A is smaller than that of $\alpha$ Cen B. This result is in good agreement with the result given in fig. 5 of Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007).
The large separations of the models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B whose radii are fitted to the observed radius are greater than the observed large separations. In order to fit the large separations of the models to the values inferred from asteroseismology, the radii of $\alpha$ Cen A and B should be $R_{\rm A}$=1.230 $ \rm R_{\odot}$ and $R_{\rm B}$=0.875 $ \rm R_{\odot}$.
The adiabatic oscillation frequencies of the best fitted models for $\alpha$ Cen A and B with masses $1.115$ $\rm M_{\odot}$ and $0.922$ $\rm M_{\odot}$, respectively, are given in Table 4. The fundamental properties of these models are presented in the sixth and the seventh rows of Table 3.
Conclusions
===========
Using solar models and models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B, the seismic properties of these stars are investigated in detail. Because of inconsistent results on the age of the $\alpha$ Cen system from the classical and seismic constraints, we test how well the small separation indicates age. In this context, we consider two expressions in place of the customarily used form of the small separation between the frequencies ($\delta \nu_{02}$ or $D_0$) :\
(i) the second difference, $\delta \nu_{012} = (\nu_{\rm n,0} - 2 \nu_{\rm n,1} + \nu_{\rm n,2})$; and\
(ii) the frequency ratio ($\nu_{\rm n,0}/\nu_{\rm n,2}$).\
For the Sun, these three expressions give consistent results: the solar models with age of 4.9-5.0 Gyr and with $Z_0\approx 0.0165$ are in better agreement with the helioseismic data than the solar model with $Z_0 = 0.0165$ and age 4.6 Gyr. For $\alpha$ Cen A and B the situation is complicated: although $\delta \nu_{02}$ gives about 5.7-5.9 Gyr for the age of the system (nearly the TAMS of $\alpha$ Cen A), we deduce from the comparison of the observed and model values of $\delta \nu_{012}$ that $\alpha$ Cen A and B are not so much evolved.
The expression we use for the small separation, $\delta \nu_{012}$, has several important advantages over the customarily used expression $\delta \nu_{02}$:\
(i) the resolution of the seismic HR diagram with $\delta \nu_{012}$ for the massive solar-like stars (e.g., $\alpha$ Cen A) is higher than that with $\delta \nu_{02}$;\
(ii) the evolutionary track of a star in the new seismic HR diagram is in agreement with its evolutionary track in the classical HR diagram (luminosity-effective temperature); and\
(iii) $\delta \nu_{012}$ is nearly independent of $n$.\
$\delta \nu_{012}$ deserves more detailed investigation in order to judge whether it has more specific advantages (Christensen-Dalsgaard, private communication).
From the three equations for $D_{ll'}=\delta \nu_{ll'}/(4l+6)$ for $\alpha$ Cen A and B, we obtain solutions for initial heavy element abundance, age and mass of each star: for $\alpha$ Cen B, $Z_0=0.020$, $t=3.50$ Gyr and $M_{\rm B}=1.006$M$_\odot$; for $\alpha$ Cen A, $t=3.50$ Gyr and $M_{\rm A}=1.19$M$_\odot$. $Z_0$ value found for $\alpha$ Cen A is not a reasonable value. Therefore, we adopt $Z_0=0.020$. The ratio of masses ($M_{\rm A}/M_{\rm B}$) is the same as the mass ratio derived from the observation (Pourbaix et al. 2002). The heavy element abundance at the surface of model of $\alpha$ Cen B with diffusion (SIS2) is $Z_{\rm s}=0.0179$. This means that the average overabundance relative to solar ($Z_{\rm s}=0.0122$, AGS2005) is 0.17 dex.
Using the non-seismic constraints and $\delta \nu_{02}$ of $\alpha$ Cen A and B we find from the solution of six equations that the age of the system is about 5.2-5.3 Gyr. We also confirm that the mixing length parameter of $\alpha$ Cen A is smaller than that of $\alpha$ Cen B. This is consistent with the result given in fig. 5 of Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z (2007), which shows that the mixing length parameter of $\alpha$ Cen A is a decreasing function of time. Another interesting result we find is that the ages of the Sun and the $\alpha$ Cen system is very close to each other, about 5 Gyr.
The models of $\alpha$ Cen A and B, that have the same luminosity and radius as the observed values, have large separations greater than the observed values. If $R_{\rm A}$=1.230 $ \rm R_{\odot}$ and $R_{\rm B}$=0.875 $ \rm R_{\odot}$, the large separations of the models are in good agreement with the values inferred from asteroseismology.
In comparing the old (Grec et al. 1983) and the recent (Chaplin et al. 1999) seismic solar data and find that the level of accuracy of the seismic data of $\alpha$ Cen A and B is very similar to that of the old solar data. We hope that the situation will be much better in the near future than the present.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
J. Christensen-Dalsgaard is acknowledged for helpful discussions and for providing his adiabatic pulsation code. This work is supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK).
\#1\#2[ApJ, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[AJ, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1[astro-ph/ [\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2[Phys. Rev., [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[Phys. Rep., [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[Rev. Mod. Phys., [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[Phys. Today., [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[Phys. Rev., [ A]{} [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[A&A, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[A&AR, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[ Ap&SS, [[\#1]{}]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[A&AS, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[ARA&A, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[Phys. Fluids, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[ApJS, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[PASJ, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1\#2[MNRAS, [\#1]{}, \#2]{} \#1[IBVS, No. [\#1]{}]{}
[99]{} Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval, A. J., 2005, in Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 336, Ed. F.N. Bash and T.G. Barnes, San Francisco, p.25 Bahcall J. N., Pinsonneault M. H., Wasserburg G. J., 1995, RvMP, 67, 781 Bahcall J. N., Basu S., Pinsonneault M., Serenelli A. M., 2005, ApJ, 618, 1049 Basu S. Antia H. M., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 1402 Basu S. Antia H. M., 1997, MNRAS, 287, 189 Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 243 Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., New R. , Serenelli A. M., Verner, G. A., 2007, ApJ, 655, 660 Bazot, M., Bouchy, F., Kjeldsen, H., Charpinet, S., Laymand, M., Vauclair, S., 2007, A&A, 470, 295 Bedding, T.R., Kjeldsen H., Butler R.P., McCarthy C., Marcy G.W., O’Toole S.J., Tinney C.G., Wright J.T. 2004, ApJ, 614, 380 (BK2004) Bouchy F., Carrier F., 2002, A&A, 390, 205 (BC2002) Carrier F., Bourban G., 2003, A&A, 406L, 23 (CB2003) Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., Isaak G. R., Miller B. A., New R., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 424 Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1988, in Advances in Helio- and Asteroseismology, IAU Symposium, No. 123, Ed. J. Christensen-Dalsgaard and S. Frandsen, p.295 Christensen-Dalsgaard J., et al., 1996, Sci, 272, 1286 Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Thompson, M.J., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 527 Fletcher S. T., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., Schou J., Buzasi D., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 935 (FC2006) Gabriel M., Carlier F., 1997, A&A, 317, 580 Grec G., Fossat E., Pomerantz M. A., 1983, SoPh, 82, 55 (GF1983) Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., 1998, SSR, 85, 161 Guzik J. A., Watson L. S., Cox, A. N., 2005, ApJ, 627, 1049 Kjeldsen H. et al., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1281 (KB2005) Miglio A., Montalban J., 2005, A&A, 441, 615 Pinsonneault M. H., Delahaye F., 2006, ApJ, submitted, (astro-ph/0606077) Pourbaix D. etal., 2002, A&A, 386, 280 Roxburgh I. W., Vorontsov S. V., 2003, A&A, 411, 215 Tassoul M., 1980, ApJS, 43, 469 Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z M., 2001, in Wilson A., ed. Helio and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millenium: SOGO’2000 Euroconference. ESA Publications Division, p.571 (astro-ph/0611733)
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that closed aspherical manifolds supporting an affine structure, whose holonomy map is injective and contains a pure translation, must have vanishing simplicial volume. This provides some further evidence for the veracity of the Auslander Conjecture. Along the way, we provide a simple cohomological criterion for aspherical manifolds with normal amenable subgroups of $\pi_1$ to have vanishing simplicial volume. This answers a special case of a question due to Lück.'
address:
- Université de Genève
- Indiana University
- Ohio State University
author:
- Michelle Bucher
- 'Chris Connell$^\dagger$'
- 'Jean-François Lafont$^\ddagger$'
title: Vanishing simplicial volume for certain affine manifolds
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
The topology of affine manifolds remains quite poorly understood. In this short note, we consider the simplicial volume of affine manifolds. We show:
\[thm: affine simplicial volume\] Let $M$ be a closed aspherical manifold. Suppose that $M$ admits an affine structure for which the holonomy representation $\rho:\pi_1(M)\rightarrow \mathrm{Aff}(\mathbb{R}^n) = {\mathbb{R}}^n \rtimes GL_n(\mathbb R)$ is injective, and has non-trivial translational subgroup $\rho(\pi_1(M))\cap \mathbb R^n$. Then the simplicial volume of $M$ vanishes.
Recall that, for a closed oriented manifold $M$, the simplicial volume $||M||$ is a topological invariant which measures how efficiently the fundamental class of $M$ can be represented as a real singular chain. This non-negative real valued invariant was introduced by Gromov [@Gr82] and Thurston [@thurston Chapter 6].
A smooth manifold $M$ supports an affine structure if one can choose charts for $M$ so that all transition maps are affine maps. If $M$ has an affine structure, then there is an associated [*holonomy representation*]{} $\rho: \pi_1(M) \rightarrow \mathrm{Aff}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, and a $\rho$-equivariant [*developing map*]{} $D: \tilde M \rightarrow \mathbb R^n$ (unique up to affine transformations). If the developing map $D$ is a homeomorphism, then the affine structure is called [*complete*]{}.
If $M$ has a complete affine structure, then it follows that the holonomy representation is injective, and that $M$ is aspherical. Thus from our [**Main Theorem**]{} we obtain (see also the discussion in Section \[complete-case\]):
If $M$ is a closed manifold with a complete affine structure, and the holonomy contains a pure translation, then $||M|| = 0$.
On the other hand, there exist examples of complete affine manifolds whose (necessarily injective) holonomy representation contains no pure translations – and hence are not covered by our [**Main Theorem**]{}.
We have established a special case of the following natural:
If $M$ is a closed manifold supporting an affine structure, then $||M||=0$.
In the context of closed complete affine manifolds, the Auslander Conjecture predicts that the fundamental group of such a manifold is virtually polycyclic. Since manifolds whose fundamental group are virtually polycyclic have vanishing simplicial volume, for this class of manifolds our conjecture would follow immediately from the Auslander Conjecture. In particular, from the work of Abels-Margulis-Soifer [@Abels-Margulis-Soifer], we see that for [*complete*]{} affine manifolds, our conjecture holds in dimensions $\leq 6$.
Another famous problem is the Chern Conjecture, which asserts that affine manifolds have zero Euler characteristic. But a well-known conjecture of Gromov predicts that aspherical manifolds with vanishing simplicial volume automatically have vanishing Euler characteristic. So if Gromov’s conjecture is correct, then our conjecture would immediately imply the Chern Conjecture. The Chern Conjecture has so far only been established for particular families of affine structures or of manifolds. For example, it is known to hold for complete affine manifolds [@KoSu75], for affine manifolds with linear holonomy in $\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})$ [@Kl15] (a conjecture of Markus predicts this is equivalent to being complete), for surfaces [@Be60], for higher rank irreducible locally symmetric manifolds [@GoHi84], for manifolds which are locally a product of hyperbolic planes [@BuGe11], and for complex hyperbolic surfaces [@Pi16].
**Acknowledgments**
C.C. and J.-F.L. would like to thank the SNFS for its support (grant 200020-159581/1) and the University of Geneva for its hospitality during a visit when much of this work was completed. The authors are grateful to the American Institute of Mathematics for funding a SQuaRE program “New Horizons for Simplicial Volume and the Barycenter Method”, where several ideas of the present paper originated.
The authors would like to thank Jim Davis, Mike Davis, Bill Goldman, and Mike Mandell for helpful comments. We are particularly indebted to Clara Löh, for many insightful comments, and for catching a gap in an earlier version of this paper. We would also like to thank Christoforos Neofytidis, for drawing our attention to Fel’dman’s paper [@F71].
Normal amenable subgroups and a question of Lück {#luck}
================================================
In Lück’s book on $L^2$-invariants, the following question is raised – see [@L02 Question 14.39]:
Let $M$ be a closed aspherical manifold whose fundamental group contains a non trivial amenable normal subgroup $A\triangleleft\pi_1(M)$. Does the simplicial volume of $M$ vanish?
Affirmative answers to this question are only known in some special cases. It is easy to check for fibrations for which the fiber has amenable fundamental group [@L02 Exercise 14.15]. Furthermore, Neofytidis proves it for aspherical manifolds whose fundamental group is infinite index presentable by products while the quotient by the center of the fundamental group is not presentable by products [@Ne15 Corollary 1.2]. While we will not require it for the proof of our [**Main Theorem**]{}, we first establish a special case of the question. Both of these results will rely on the following elementary lemma.
\[lem:claim1\] Let $M$ be a closed connected $n$-manifold, and ${\Gamma}= \pi_1(M)$. Assume $A\triangleleft {\Gamma}$ is an amenable normal subgroup, and $q:{\Gamma}\rightarrow {\Lambda}:= {\Gamma}/A$ is the quotient map. If the induced map $q^*:H^n({\Lambda}; {\mathbb{R}}){\longrightarrow }H^n({\Gamma}; {\mathbb{R}})$ is the zero map, then ${\left\| M \right\| }=0$.
We have the following commutative diagram: $$\label{eq:cd1}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{cd1}}$$ where the vertical arrows are the comparison maps from bounded cohomology to ordinary cohomology, while the horizontal arrows are the morphisms induced by the surjection $q: {\Gamma}\twoheadrightarrow {\Lambda}$. From the hypothesis, the bottom map $q^*$ is the zero map. On the other hand, since $A$ is amenable, we have that the top map $q^*_b$ is an isomorphism (see [@Gr82 Section 3.1], or take $E={\mathbb{R}}$ in [@Monod Remark 8.5.4]). Commutativity of the diagram forces $c_{\Gamma}$ to also be the zero map.
Next, consider the classifying map $\phi:M\rightarrow B{\Gamma}$. The induced map on bounded cohomology is always an isomorphism, so we get a commutative diagram: $$\label{eq:cd2}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{cd2}}$$ Since $c_{\Gamma}$ is the zero map, so is $c_M$, which immediately implies $||M||=0$ by the “duality” of $\ell^1$ and $\ell^\infty$-norms [@Gr82].
\[thm:main\] Let $M$ be a closed connected aspherical $n$-manifold whose fundamental group ${\Gamma}=\pi_1(M)$ contains a non-trivial amenable normal subgroup $A\triangleleft\pi_1(M)$, and let $\Lambda=\pi_1(M)/A$. Assume that the quotient group ${\Lambda}$ has [*finite*]{} cohomological dimension $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb R}(\Lambda) = \ell <\infty$, and that $H^\ell(\Lambda ; H^k(A ; \mathbb{R}))\neq 0$, where $k=\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb R}(A)$. Then $||M|| = 0$.
We consider the cohomological Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence with real coefficients ${\mathbb{R}}$ (and trivial module structure) associated to the short exact sequence $1\rightarrow A \rightarrow {\Gamma}\rightarrow {\Lambda}\rightarrow 1$. The $E_2$-page is given by $$E_2^{p,q}:=H^p({\Lambda}; H^q( A ; {\mathbb{R}})) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}({\Gamma}; {\mathbb{R}}),$$ and the spectral sequence convergences to the cohomology $H^*({\Gamma}; {\mathbb{R}})\cong H^*(M ; {\mathbb{R}})$. Note that $\tilde M/A$ is an $n$-dimensional model for a $K(A,1)$, and hence $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(A) = k \leq n$ is finite. From our hypotheses, we obtain the following observations:
1. Since $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(A)=k$, it follows that $H^q(A ; {\mathbb{R}})=0$ for all $q>k$. This forces $E_2^{p,q}=0$ for all $q>k$.
2. Since $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}({\Lambda})=\ell$, we see that $H^p({\Lambda}; -)=0$ for all $p>\ell$, regardless of the coefficient $\mathbb R[\Lambda]$-module. In particular, this forces $E_2^{p,q}=0$ for all $p>\ell$.
Whence we see that the $E^2$-page looks like $$\label{eq:cd3}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{cd3}}$$
By hypothesis, we also have that the $E_2^{\ell ,k}$ entry is non-zero. Thus the $E_2^{\ell ,k}$ entry survives to the $E_\infty$-page, establishing that $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb R}({\Gamma}) \geq \ell +k$.
Now the closed orientable aspherical manifold $M^n$ is a model for $K({\Gamma}, 1)$, so we obtain the lower bound $n\geq \ell + k$. Since $A$ is non-trivial, we have that $k>0$, and hence that $n>\ell=\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb R}({\Lambda})$. This forces $H^n({\Lambda}; {\mathbb{R}})=0$, and Lemma \[lem:claim1\] allows us to conclude ${\left\| M \right\| }=0$.
As was pointed out to us by C. Löh, the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] still works if instead of $M$ aspherical, we only have $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb{R}}(\pi_1(M))=n$.
It is tempting to use Lemma \[lem:claim1\] to attack the general case of Lück’s question. Notice that the induced homomorphism $q^*: H^n({\Lambda}; {\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow H^n({\Gamma}; {\mathbb{R}})$ appears naturally inside the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence. Indeed, $H^n({\Lambda}; {\mathbb{R}})$ appears as the $E_2^{0,n}$-term in the spectral sequence. Thus, whether or not the induced homomorphism $q^*$ is zero translates to whether or not the $E_2^{0,n}$ survives to the $E_\infty$-page, i.e. whether or not $E_\infty^{0,n}=0$. In the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], our hypotheses already forced $E_2^{0,n} =0$.
Proof of Main Theorem {#proof-main-thm}
=====================
This section is devoted to the proof of the [**Main Theorem**]{}. So let us assume that $M$ is a connected closed aspherical affine manifold, ${\Gamma}= \pi_1(M)$, and the holonomy representation $\rho: {\Gamma}\rightarrow \operatorname{Aff}({\mathbb{R}}^n) = {\mathbb{R}}^n \rtimes GL_n({\mathbb{R}})$ is injective with $\rho(\Gamma)\cap \mathbb R^n$ non-zero. Since the simplicial volume is multiplicative under finite covers, it is sufficient to show that a finite cover of $M$ has vanishing simplicial volume. Since the hypotheses in our theorem are inherited by finite covers, we will from now on assume that the manifold $M$ is orientable.
We have the following commutative diagram relating the various groups we are interested in: $$\label{eq:Aff}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{cd4}}
$$ Here $A$ is the purely translational part of $\pi_1(M)$ – and by hypothesis, $A$ is non-trivial, so of rank $\geq 1$. This forces $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb R}(A)\geq 1$. Since $A\triangleleft \pi_1(M)$ and $M$ is aspherical, $\pi_1(M)$ and $A$ are torsion free. Note that $\tilde M /A$ is an $n$-dimensional model for a $K(A,1)$, which immediately gives us:
[**Fact 1:**]{} $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(A)=k$, with $1\leq k \leq n$, and hence $A\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^k$.
Next we consider $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}({\Lambda})$, where ${\Lambda}$ is the linear part of the holonomy action. A special case of the main theorem of [@Alperin-Shalen] states:
If $S$ is a finitely generated integral domain of characteristic zero, then $G<\operatorname{GL}(S)$ has finite cohomological dimension $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{Z}}} (G)<\infty$ if and only if there is an upper bound on the ranks of abelian subgroups of $G$.
For a finite generating set $\{g_1, \ldots, g_r\}\subset {\Lambda}$, take $S\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ to be the subring of ${\mathbb{R}}$ generated (over ${\mathbb{Z}}$) by the finite collection of matrix entries of $\{{\overline}\rho(g_1), \ldots , {\overline}\rho(g_r)\}$. Then $S$ is a (finitely generated) characteristic zero integral domain, since it is a subring of ${\mathbb{R}}$, and ${\overline}\rho({\Lambda}) \subset \operatorname{GL}(S) \subset \operatorname{GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$. We now use the embedding ${\overline}\rho$ to identify ${\Lambda}$ with its isomorphic copy in $\operatorname{GL}(S)$. Since ${\Lambda}$ is a finitely generated linear group, it has a finite index torsion-free subgroup ${\Lambda}^\prime$; we replace ${\Lambda}, {\Gamma}$ by the finite index subgroups ${\Lambda}^\prime, {\Gamma}^\prime:=q^{-1}({\Lambda}^\prime)$. This replaces $M$ by a finite cover $M^\prime$, so we can now also assume that the quotient group ${\Lambda}$ is torsion-free.
Taking a finitely generated abelian subgroup $H<{\Lambda}$ (necessarily torsion-free), we have a corresponding exact sequence: $$\label{eq:H}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{cd5}}
$$ Since $A$, $H$ are finitely generated torsion-free abelian, we see that ${\widehat}H:= q^{-1}(H)$ is a finitely generated nilpotent group. Also, ${\widetilde}{M}/{\widehat}H$ is an $n$-dimensional $K({\widehat}H,1)$. Hence $h({\widehat}H)=\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}({\widehat}H)\leq n$, where $h({\widehat}H)$ is the Hirsch length of ${\widehat}H$ (see Gruenberg [@G70 Section 8.8]). But from the two step nilpotence sequence above, the Hirsch length of ${\widehat}H$ is just $k+r$ where $r$ is the rank of $H$. Hence $k+ r\leq n$, and $n-k$ is the desired upper bound on the rank of the abelian subgroups of ${\Lambda}$. Applying Alperin and Shalen’s result, we conclude that ${\Lambda}$ has finite cohomological dimension $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}({\Lambda}) <\infty$. Since any finite length free ${\mathbb{Z}}[{\Lambda}]$ resolution of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ can be tensored with ${\mathbb{R}}$ to obtain a same length free ${\mathbb{R}}[{\Lambda}]$ resolution of ${\mathbb{R}}$, this yields $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}({\Lambda}) \leq \operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}({\Lambda})$, which establishes
[**Fact 2:**]{} $\operatorname{cdim}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\Lambda)=\ell$ for some finite $\ell$.
Finally, we will use the following result of Fel’dman [@F71 Theorem 2.4]
For $G$ a group, and $H\triangleleft G$ a normal subgroup, $F$ a field. If $H$ is of type $FP$ (over the field $F$), and $\operatorname{cdim}_F(G/H)<\infty$, then $$\operatorname{cdim}_F (G)=\operatorname{cdim}_F(H) + \operatorname{cdim}_F(G/H).$$
From [**Fact 1**]{} and [**Fact 2**]{} we see that the hypotheses of Fel’dman’s theorem hold for $A\triangleleft \Gamma$ (with $F={\mathbb{R}}$). Since $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb{R}}(A)>0$, Fel’dman’s theorem gives us the inequality $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb{R}}({\Lambda})< \operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb{R}}({\Gamma})=n$. Applying Lemma \[lem:claim1\] concludes the proof of the [**Main Theorem**]{}.
As the reader can easily see, this same proof applies to the following more general setting. Let $M$ be closed connected $n$-manifold, and assume that ${\Gamma}= \pi_1(M)$ has $\operatorname{cdim}_{\mathbb{R}}({\Gamma}) = n$. If $A \triangleleft {\Gamma}$ is a normal elementary amenable subgroup of type $FP$, and ${\Lambda}={\Gamma}/ A$ is a linear group, then $||M||=0$. For the portions of the proof relying on Hirsch length, one can use Hillman’s extension of the Hirsch length to elementary amenable groups, see [@H91 Theorem 1]. Note also that elementary amenable groups of type $FP$ are automatically virtually solvable, see [@KMPN09].
Concluding remarks. {#complete-case}
===================
As mentioned in the introduction, the case of closed [*complete*]{} affine manifolds provides a large class of manifolds satisfying the hypotheses of our [**Main Theorem**]{}. For these manifolds, it is tempting to try and give a more direct, geometrical proof that $||M||=0$. Indeed, one can consider the foliation of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ given by affine subspaces in the directions spanned by the (non-trivial) translational subgroup. Since the developing map is a homeomorphism $D:\widetilde M \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the translational subgroup acts discretely (hence cocompactly) on the leaves of this foliation. Normality of the translational subgroup implies that this foliation of $\widetilde M \cong {\mathbb{R}}^n$ descends to a foliation of $M$ by closed submanifolds, where each leaf is finitely covered by a torus. If this foliation was a fibration, then it would follow that $||M||=0$ [@L02 Exercise 14.15]. More generally, $||M||=0$ if $M$ admits a polarized ${\mathcal}{F}$-structure (see [@CG86]). This geometric approach then motivates the following interesting
[**Question:**]{} If $M$ is a closed aspherical manifold, with a foliation all of whose leaves are finitely covered by tori. Does it follow that $||M||=0$?
In the non-complete case, one can still foliate the image of the development map $D$ by affine subspaces in the directions spanned by the translational subgroup, and then pull back this foliation via $D$ to a foliation on $\widetilde M$. The foliation on $\widetilde M$ will still descend to a foliation on $M$, but it is unclear whether the leaves of the resulting foliation on $M$ are even [*closed*]{}. Indeed, if one takes a leaf of the foliation in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, its pre-image in $\widetilde M$ could consist of countably infinitely many leaves for the induced foliation of $\widetilde M$. The pre-image of the translational subgroup could then act by permuting these individual leaves in $\widetilde M$, none of which would close up in $M$.
[99999999]{}
H. Abels, G. A. Margulis, G. A. Soifer, *On the Zariski closure of the linear part of a properly discontinuous group of affine transformations*. J. Differential Geom. [**60**]{} (2002), 315–344.
R. Alperin, P. Shalen, *Linear groups of finite cohomological dimension.* Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**4**]{} (1981), 339–341.
J.P. Benzécri, *Sur les variétés localement affines et projectives*. Bull. Soc. Math. France [**88**]{} (1960), 229–332.
M. Bucher and T. Gelander, *Milnor-Wood inequalities for manifolds which are locally a product of surfaces*. Advances in Math. [**228**]{} (2011), 1503–1542.
J. Cheeger and M. Gromov, *Collapsing Riemannian manifolds while keeping their curvature bounded. I*. J. Differential Geom. [**23**]{} No. 3 (1986), 309–346.
G.L. Fel’dman, *The homological dimension of group algebras of solvable groups.* Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**35**]{} (1971), 1225–1236.
W. Goldman and M.W. Hirsch, *The radiance obstruction and parallel forms on affine manifolds*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**286**]{} (1984), 629–649.
M. Gromov, *Volume and bounded cohomology*. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. [**56**]{} (1982), 5–99.
K. W. Gruenberg, *Cohomological topics in group theory.* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**143**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970.
J. A. Hillman, *Elementary amenable groups and 4-manifolds with Euler characteristic 0*. J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) [**50**]{} (1991), 160–170.
B. Kostant and D. Sullivan, *The Euler characteristic of a compact affine space form is zero*. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**81**]{} (1974), 937–938.
B. Klingler. *Chern’s Conjecture for special affine manifolds*, preprint 2015.
H. Kropholler, C. Martínez-Pérez, and B. E. A. Nucinkis, *Cohomological finiteness conditions for elementary amenable groups*. J. Reine Angew. Math. [**637**]{} (2009), 49–62.
W. Lück, *$L^2$-invariants: theory and applications to geometry and K-theory*. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, [**44**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
N. Monod, *Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups*. Lecture notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**1758**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
C. Neofytidis, *Fundamental groups of aspherical manifolds and maps of non-zero degree* . Preprint available on the arXiv:1507.07778.
H. Pieters, [*Hyperbolic spaces and bounded cohomology*]{}. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Geneva 2016.
W. Thurston, [*Geometry and topology of $3$-manifolds*]{}. Lecture notes from Princeton University (1980), available at http://library.msri.org/books/gt3m/
[^1]: $\dagger$ This work is supported by the Simons Foundation, under grant \#210442
[^2]: $\ddagger$ This work is supported by the NSF, under grant DMS-1510640.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the problem of a single ion in a radio-frequency trap and immersed in an ultracold Bose gas either in a condensed or a non-condensed phase. We develop master equation formalism describing the sympathetic cooling and we determine the cooling rates of ions. We show that cold atomic reservoir modifies the stability diagram of the ion in the Paul trap creating the regions where the ion is either cooled or heated due to the energy quanta exchanged with the time-dependent potential.'
author:
- 'Micha[ł]{} Krych'
- Zbigniew Idziaszek
bibliography:
- 'master.bib'
title: Description of ion motion in a Paul trap immersed in a cold atomic gas
---
I. Introduction
===============
Hybrid systems combining cold atomic gases with single ions or ionic crystals attract an increasing attention [@Grier2009; @Zipkes2010; @Schmid2010; @Rellergert2011; @Ravi2011; @Hall2011; @Hall2012; @Sivarajah2012; @Denschlag2013; @Denschlag2013a]. They have been proposed for implementation of quantum gates [@Idziaszek2007; @Doerk2010; @Nguyen2012], realization of new mesoscopic quantum states [@Cote2002; @Massignan2005], probing quantum gases [@Sherkunov2009], studying controlled chemical reactions at low temperatures [@Rellergert2011; @Hall2011; @Hall2012; @Hall2013] or emulating some well-known condensed-matter physics phenomena [@Gerritsma2012; @Bissbort2013]. The theoretical framework to describe atom-ion collisions in the quantum regime has been developed [@Cote2000; @Bodo2008; @Idziaszek2009; @Gao2010; @Idziaszek2011; @Gao2011; @Gao2013], however the ab-initio potentials [[@Makarov2003; @Knecht2010; @Krych2011; @Hall2013; @Hall2013a; @Tomza2014]]{} are not known with accuracy sufficient for precise determination of scattering lengths. Their values can be measured in experiments, for instance by applying technique of Feshbach resonances [@Idziaszek2009], provided the ions immersed in cold atomic gas are cooled down to the quantum regime where scattering takes place only in the lowest partial waves. Such low temperatures can be reached, for instance, via sympathetic cooling of ions in contact with cold atomic reservoir [@Goodman2012; @Hudson2009; @Ravi2011]. This method, however, suffers both due to some technical issues (e.g. excess micromotion [@Denschlag2013]), or due to some fundamental limitations resulting from the ion dynamics in the time-dependent Paul trap [@Dehmelt1968; @Ravi2011; @Vuletic2012; @Goodman2012]. Apart from the Paul traps there are first successful experimental attempts on optical ion trapping [[@Huber2014; @Schneider2010]]{}. So far the problem of atom-ion sympathetic cooling has been studied only in the classical regime [@DeVoe2010; @Vuletic2012; @Chen2013]. The purpose of this paper is to provide a consistent framework to describe the process of sympathetic cooling in the quantum regime and to study its limitations for experimental systems where a single ion is immersed in a Bose-Einstein condensate [@Zipkes2010; @Schmid2010].
[The paper is organized as follows.]{} [In Sec. II. we [introduce]{} the master equation formalism and [discuss]{} two reservoirs: an non-condensed ultracold gas and a [Bose-Einstein]{} condensate. A regularization of an atom-ion interaction potential is presented in Sec. III. Next, in Sec. IV. we derive the master equation. After that, in Sec. V. we discuss the evolution of the position operator in the time-dependent Paul trap. In Sec. VI. we present the equations of motion of the ion in contact with the cold reservoir. Finally, in Sec. VII. we discuss the ion cooling rates [and stability regimes]{} for different experimental parameters.]{}
II. Master equation formalism
=============================
We describe the system treating the atomic gas as a reservoir, and deriving an effective equation for the dynamics of the ion. The total Hamiltonian consists of the following parts: $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_S+\hat{H}_R+\hat{H}_{RS}$, where $\hat{H}_S$ is the Hamiltonian of the ion [@leibfried] $$\begin{split}
\label{Ham1}
\hat{H}_S & =\frac{\hat{{\mathbf}{p}}^2}{2M} + \frac{M}2 \sum_j \omega_j^2(t) \hat{r}_j^2,
\end{split}$$ where the time-dependent trapping frequency consists of the static and dynamic parts: $\omega_j^2(t) = \Omega^2\frac14\left( a_j+ 2 q_j \cos \left( \Omega t \right)\right)$ and [$j=x,y,z$ is a spatial direction.]{} Here, $\hat{{\mathbf}{p}} = (\hat{p}_x,\hat{p}_y,\hat{p}_z)$ and $\hat{{\mathbf}{r}} = (\hat{r}_x,\hat{r}_y,\hat{r}_z)$ denote the momentum and position operators, respectively, $M$ is the ion mass and $\Omega$ is the radio frequency of the dynamic part. A homogeneous gas of atoms is described by [$$\label{HamR}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_R&= \int \!\! d^3 r_a \hat{\Psi}^\dagger({\mathbf}{r}_a) \left(\frac{\hat{{\mathbf}{p}}_a^2}{2 m} +
\frac{g}{2} \hat{\Psi}^\dagger({\mathbf}{r}_a) \hat{\Psi}({\mathbf}{r}_a) \right) \hat{\Psi}({\mathbf}{r}_a)\\
&=\sum_{{\mathbf}{k}}\hbar \omega_{{\mathbf}{k}} \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf}{k} \hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k},
\end{split}$$]{} [where $\hat{\Psi}({\mathbf}{r}_{\hat{a}})=\sum_{{\mathbf}{k}}e^{i {\mathbf}{k} {\mathbf}{r}} {\hat{a}}_{\mathbf}{k}/\sqrt{L^3}$ is the field operator, $L$ is the size of the quantization box, $a_{\mathbf}{k}$ is the annihilation operator for mode ${\mathbf}{k}$, $\hbar\omega_k$ is energy of this mode, $\hat{{\mathbf}{p}}_a$ is the [atomic]{} momentum operator, $m$ is the atomic mass, and $g = 4 \pi \hbar^2 a /m $ is the interaction constant with $a$ denoting the $s$-wave scattering length. The ion-atom interaction is given by]{} $$\label{HamRS}
\hat{H}_{RS} = \int d^3 r_a \hat{\Psi}^\dagger({\mathbf}{r}_a) V({\mathbf}{r}_a - \hat{{\mathbf}{r}}) \hat{\Psi}({\mathbf}{r}_a),$$ where $V({\mathbf}{r})$ is the atom-ion interaction potential. In our approach we treat the atomic gas in the second quantization formalism, while the ion is described by position and momentum operators.
For an ion immersed in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) we describe the reservoir in a Bogoliubov approximation $$\label{Bogoliubov}
\hat{H}_R=E_0+\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}\varepsilon({\mathbf}{q})\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf}{q}\hat{b}_{\mathbf}{q}$$ where $\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf}{q}$ and $\hat{b}_{\mathbf}{q}$ are the creation and annihilation operators for Bogoliubov excitations with momentum $\hbar {\mathbf}{q}$ and energy $\varepsilon({\mathbf}{q})$ and $E_0$ is the ground state energy of the superfluid. [Even in the ground state of the Paul trap the speed of motion of the ion is typically much larger than the speed of sound in the condensate, and ion couples only to the particle part of the Bogoliubov spectrum $\varepsilon({\mathbf}{q})\approx \hbar^2 q^2/(2m)$.]{} The ion and the superfluid are coupled by the density-density interaction [@Pitaevskii; @DaleyZoller2004] $$\label{oddzialywanieBEC}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{RS}&=\int d^3 r d^3 r' V({\mathbf}{r}-{\mathbf}{r}')\delta\hat{\rho}({\mathbf}{r})\delta\hat{\rho}_{ion}({\mathbf}{r}')\\
&=\int d^3 r V({\mathbf}{r}-{\mathbf}{\hat{r}})\delta\hat{\rho}({\mathbf}{r})
\end{split}$$ where $\delta\hat{\rho}({\mathbf}{r})=\hat{{\mathbf}{\Psi}}^\dagger \hat{{\mathbf}{\Psi}}-\rho_0$ and $\hat{{\mathbf}{\Psi}}=\sqrt{\rho_0}+\delta\hat{{\mathbf}{\Psi}}$ is the quantized field operator for the superfluid and $\rho_0$ is the condensate density, $\delta\hat{\rho}_{ion}({\mathbf}{r}')=\delta^3 ({\mathbf}{r}'-\hat{{\mathbf}{r}})$ is the density operator of the position of the ion. The field operator for the excitations of the superfluid is given by [@DaleyZoller2004] $\delta\hat{\Psi}=L^{-3/2}\sum_{\mathbf}{q}\left(u_{\mathbf}{q} \hat{b}_{\mathbf}{q} exp(i{\mathbf}{q r})+v_{\mathbf}{q} \hat{b}_{\mathbf}{q}^\dagger exp(-i{\mathbf}{q r})\right)$, where $L$ is the size of a box, and we assume the periodic boundary conditions.
III. Regularized potential {#App:RegulPot}
==========================
Long range interaction between ion and atom is described by the polarization potential $-C_4/r^4$, but at short distances this potential is singular and it needs to be regularized. We introduce a regularized version of the polarization potential $$\label{potential}
V(r)=-C_4\frac{r^2-c^2}{r^2+c^2}\frac{1}{(b^2+r^2)^2}$$ that mimics at large distances the behavior of $-C_4/r^4$ tail. For small separations between particles it supports a single minimum [(cf. Fig. \[Fig:potencjal\])]{}. The short-range repulsive part is finite, which simplifies numerical calculations. We choose $b$ and $c$ parameters in such a way, that scattering amplitude calculated in the first-order Born approximation $$\begin{split}
\label{fq}
f(q)&= \frac{\pi (R^{\star})^2}{4b(b^2-c^2)^2 q}\left(-4b c^2 e^{-cq}\right.\\
&\left.+e^{-bq}(4b c^2+(b^2-c^2)(b^2+c^2)q)\right)
\end{split}$$ is equal to the exact scattering amplitude of the potential at zero energy. Here, $q=|{\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}^\prime|$ is the magnitude of momentum transfer. In this way our description within the master equation formalism [@Carmichael], treating system-reservoir interactions in the Born approximation will be accurate for a single collision in the ultracold regime.
![\[Fig:potencjal\] (Color online). A regularized potential (solid line) and a pure $-C_4/r^4$ (dashed line). ](potencjal.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
With the polarization potential one can associate a characteristic length $R^\ast = \left( 2 \mu C_4/\hbar^2\right)^{1/2}$ and a characteristic energy $E^\ast = \hbar^2/\left[2 \mu (R^\ast)^2\right]$. We choose $b$, $c$ parameters in such a way, that a scattering amplitude calculated in the first order Born approximation is equal to the exact scattering amplitude of the potential at zero energy. For example for $b=0.0781R^{\star}$ and $c=0.2239R^{\star}$ potential supports a single bound state, its scattering length is equal $a_{sc}=R^{\star}$ and the zero-energy scattering amplitudes calculated exactly and from Eq. are equal to $-R^{\star}$.
IV. Master equation {#App:Srednie}
===================
The interaction Hamiltonian of the ion with the ultracold gas (Eq. ) can be rewritten explicitly as $$\label{oddzialywaniegazrozwiniete}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{RS}&=\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}\hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k'}^\dagger \hat{a}_{{\mathbf}{k}} L^{-3}\int d^3 r_a e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}'-{\mathbf}{k}){\mathbf}{r}_a} V({\mathbf}{r}_a-\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}_j)\\
&=\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}\hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k'}^\dagger \hat{a}_{{\mathbf}{k}} e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}'-{\mathbf}{k})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}_j} L^{-3}\int d^3 r e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}'-{\mathbf}{k}){\mathbf}{r}} V({\mathbf}{r}),
\end{split}$$ where $V({\mathbf}{r})$ denotes the interaction potential. It is easy to [separate ion and reservoir operators in a general form used in derivation of the master equation [@Carmichael]]{} $$\hat{H}_{RS}=\hbar \sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'} \hat{s}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'} \hat{\Gamma}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'},$$ where the ion part reads $$\hat{s}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}=e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}'-{\mathbf}{k})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}} c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}/\hbar,$$ and $c_{kk'}$ is a Fourier transform of the interaction potential $$c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}= L^{-3} \int d^3 r e^{i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}} V({\mathbf}{r}).$$ Gas operators can be written down as $$\hat{\Gamma}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}=\hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k}^\dagger \hat{a}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}.$$ General textbook form of a master equation [for a reduced density matrix]{} (page 8 in [@Carmichael]) after the Markov approximation reads $$\label{masterksiazka}
\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\tilde{\rho}}}=\!\!\!\!\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}',{\mathbf}{l},{\mathbf}{l}'}\!\int_0^t \!\!\!\! & dt' \!\left( [\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{l}{\mathbf}{l}'}(t')\hat{\tilde{\rho}}(t),\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)]\langle\hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)\hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{{\mathbf}{l}{\mathbf}{l}'}(t')\rangle_{R_0} \right.\\
&\left.+ [\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t),\hat{\tilde{\rho}}(t)\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{l}{\mathbf}{l}'}(t')]\langle\hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{{\mathbf}{l}{\mathbf}{l}'}(t')\hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)\rangle_{R_0}\right).
\end{split}$$ Here $\langle\dots\rangle_{R_0}$ is a trace over the reservoir density matrix $R_0$, tilded operators denote an interaction picture with respect to the noninteracting system (ion in a Paul trap Eq. ) and a reservoir (noninteracting gas Eq. ) $$\hat{\tilde{X}}(t)=U^\dagger (0,t) e^{(i/\hbar)\hat{H}_R t} \hat{X} e^{-(i/\hbar)\hat{H}_R t}U (0,t)$$ where $U(t_1,t_2)={\cal{T}}\exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}d\tau \hat{H}_S(\tau))$ is the time-ordered evolution operator of an ion immersed in a Paul trap. Let us consider the free evolution of the gas operators $$\hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)=\hat{\tilde{a}}_{\mathbf}{k}^{\dagger}(t)\hat{\tilde{a}}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)=\hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{{\mathbf}{k}'} e^{i(\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})t}.$$ We denote the mean occupation number of the atomic modes as $$\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k}\equiv \langle \hat{a}_{\mathbf}{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{{\mathbf}{k}}\rangle_{R_0}$$ where $\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k}=1/(\exp(\hbar^2 {\mathbf}{k}^2/(2m k_B T)-\mu)-1)$ and $\mu$ denotes the chemical potential, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant nad $T$ is a temperature. Using the commutation relations for creation and annihilation operators we are able to eliminate the reservoir degrees of freedom and rewrite the master equation with an explicit form of gas correlation functions $$\label{masterkolejne}
\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\tilde{\rho}}}=&\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}\int_0^t dt'\\
&\left([\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}' {\mathbf}{k}}(t')\hat{\tilde{\rho}}(t),\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t)] e^{i(t-t')(\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}(\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k'}+1)\right. \\
&+\left.[\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}(t),\hat{\tilde{\rho}}(t)\hat{\tilde{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}' {\mathbf}{k}}(t')] e^{i(t-t')(\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}(\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k}+1)\right).
\end{split}$$ In the next step we [transform the master equation back from the interaction picture]{} $$\dot{\hat{\rho}}=\frac{1}{i\hbar}[\hat{H}_S,\hat{\rho}]+U(0,t) \dot{\hat{\tilde{\rho}}} U^\dagger(0,t).$$ [ After changing the order of terms in commutators and of the summation indices in the last line of and substituting $t-t'\equiv \tau$, the master equation reads $$\label{masterkolejnekolejne}
\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\rho}}&=\frac{1}{i\hbar}[\hat{H}_S,\hat{\rho}]-\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'} \bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k}(\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}+1)\\
&\times \int_0^t d\tau \left( e^{i\tau(\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left[{\hat{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'},{\hat{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}' {\mathbf}{k}}(t,-\tau){\hat{\rho}}\right]\right.\\
&+\left.e^{-i\tau(\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left[{\hat{\rho}} {\hat{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k} {\mathbf}{k}'}(t,-\tau),{\hat{s}}_{{\mathbf}{k}' {\mathbf}{k}}\right]\right).
\end{split}$$ For any operator $\hat{x}$ we define $$\begin{split}
\hat{x}(t,-\tau)&\equiv U(0,t)U^\dagger(0,t-\tau)\hat{x}U(0,t-\tau)U^\dagger(0,t)\\
&\equiv U(0,t)\hat{x}(t-\tau)U^\dagger(0,t)
\end{split}$$ In case of a time independent Hamiltonian this would reduce to $\hat{x}(t,-\tau)=U^\dagger(0,-\tau)\hat{x}U(0,-\tau)$. However, we note that in a Paul trap the evolution cannot be reduced to the single evolution operator with the time difference as in energy-conserving system, since $U(0,t)U^\dagger(0,t-\tau) \neq U^\dagger(0,-\tau)$. The integration over $\tau$ in the master equation is dominated by short timescales, because correlation functions in a large reservoir vanish quickly in time.]{} In this way we can extend the integration limit up to the infinity, as is usually done in the derivation of the master equation [@Carmichael]. [Substituting an explicit form of operators $\hat{s}_{{\mathbf}{k}{\mathbf}{k}'}$ into yields]{} $$\label{masterexp}
\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\rho}}&=\frac{1}{i\hbar}[\hat{H}_S,\hat{\rho}]-\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}(\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}+1) c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'} c_{{\mathbf}{k}',{\mathbf}{k}}/\hbar^2 \\
&\times \int_0^{\infty}\!\!\! d\tau\left( e^{i\tau (\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left[e^{i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}}, e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}(t,-\tau)}{\hat{\rho}}\right]\right.\\
&+\left. e^{-i\tau (\omega_{\mathbf}{k}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left[{\rho}e^{i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}(t,-\tau)}, e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}}\right]\right).
\end{split}$$ [In case of a non-condensed buffer gas the dynamics of the reduced density operator $\hat{\rho}$ obtained by tracing over the reservoir modes, derived within Born and Markov approximations [@Gardiner; @Carmichael] can be straightforwardly rewritten in a compact form]{} $$\label{MasterGas}
\dot{\hat{\rho}}(t)= \frac{1}{i\hbar}\left[\hat{H}_S(t),\hat{\rho}\right]-\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'} \Omega_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}^2
\left\{
\left[
\hat{Z}_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'},\hat{W}_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}(t) \hat{\rho} \right] + H. c.
\right\}$$ [where ${\mathbf}{k}$ and ${\mathbf}{k}^\prime$ are the quantized wave vectors of atoms in a box [of size $L^3$]{}, $\Omega_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}^2 = \bar{n}_{\mathbf}{k} (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}+1) |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}|^2/\hbar^2$. Furthermore, $\hat{Z}_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'} = e^{i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k}')\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}}$, and $\hat{W}_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}(t) = \int_{0}^{\infty} d\tau
e^{i\tau (\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{\mathbf}{k}')}
e^{i({\mathbf}{k}'-{\mathbf}{k})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}(t,-\tau)}$.]{}
For the Bose condensed reservoir
in order to derive the master equation we use the interaction Hamiltonian given by Eq. instead of Hamiltonian and we describe the reservoir in the Bogoliubov approximation (Eq. ). All the following steps of the derivation are analogous to the non-condensed case: (i) [we start with]{} the general textbook form of the master equation for a reduced density matrix after the Markov approximation (Eq. ), (ii) perform the trace operation with respect to the BEC degrees of freedom, (iii) [transform back]{} from the interaction picture, (iv) extend the time integration up to the infinity. [Therefore in case of the BEC reservoir the master equation reads]{} $$\label{MasterBose}
\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\rho}}(t)&= \frac{1}{i\hbar}\left[\hat{H}_S(t),\hat{\rho}\right]-\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}} \Omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}^2 \left\{\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{q}\left[\hat{Z}_{0,{\mathbf}{q}},\hat{W}_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}(t) \hat{\rho} \right]\right.\\
&\left.+(1+\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{q})\left[
\hat{\rho}\hat{W}_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}(t),\hat{Z}_{0,{\mathbf}{q}} \right] + H. c.
\right\}
\end{split}$$ where $\Omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}^2=\rho_0 L^3|c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2/\hbar^2$ [and $\bar{n}_{\mathbf}{q}=1/(\exp(\hbar^2 {\mathbf}{q}^2/(2m k_B T))-1)$ denotes the mean occupation number of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles]{}. [We note that the master equation for a BEC (Eq. ) is equivalent to the low temperature limit of the master equation for the non-condensed gas (Eq. ). This is because of the fact that for typical parameters the ion couples only to the particle region of the Bogoliubov excitations.]{}
V. Time dependence of the position operator
===========================================
In order to determine the coefficients of master equations and we have to find the [evolution of the position operator $\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}(t,-\tau)$ of the ion in a Paul trap in the absence of the ultracold gas.]{} We start from Heisenberg equations of motion for position $\dot{\hat{r}}_j=\hat{p}_j/M$ and momentum $\dot{\hat{p}}_j=-M \omega_j^2(t) \hat{r}_j$ derived with help of Hamiltonian from Eq. , where $j=x,y,x$ denotes the direction in space. Their combination leads to the second order differential equation $$\label{heisenberg}
\ddot{\hat{r}}_j+\omega_j^2(t) \hat{r}_j=0,$$ where the time-dependent trapping frequency consists of the static and dynamic parts: $\omega_j^2(t) = \Omega^2\frac14\left( a_j+ 2 q_j \cos \left( \Omega t \right)\right)$, as was defined before. Above equation has two linearly independent $\cal{C}$-number solutions $u_j(t)$ and $u_j(-t)$, where $u_j(t)=e^{i(\beta_j/2) \Omega t} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}C^j_{n} e^{in\Omega t}$, $u_j(0)=1$ and $C^j_n$ are expansion coefficients of Mathieu functions describing the time evolution of a single ion in a Paul trap and $(\beta_j/2) \Omega$ is an effective secular frequency [@leibfried]. Eq. does not have the first order derivative, so [the Wronskian of $u_j(t)$ and $u_j(-t)$ is constant in time]{} $$\label{wr0}
\begin{split}
W\left(u_j(t),u_j(-t)\right)&=u_j(-t)\dot{u}_j(t)-u_j(t)\dot{u}_j(-t)\\
&=2 i \nu_j={\mathrm}{const},
\end{split}$$ where $\nu_j=\dot{u}_j(0)/i=\Omega \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} C^j_{n} (\beta_j/2+n)$ [is called a reference harmonic oscillator frequency. One can also define two other Wronskians between position operator and $u_j(t)$, which is proportional to]{} $$\label{wr1}
\begin{split}
\hat{c}_{j,1}(t)&=i\sqrt{M/(2\hbar \nu_j)}\times W\left({\hat{r}}_j(t),u_j(t)\right)\\
&=i\sqrt{M/(2\hbar \nu_j)}\left(u_j(t)\dot{\hat{r}}_j(t)-\dot{u}_j(t)\hat{r}_j(t)\right)\\
&=\hat{c}_{j,1}(0)=1/\sqrt{2 M \hbar \nu_j}(M \nu_j \hat{r}_j(0)+i \hat{p}_j(0))
\end{split}$$ [or between position operator and $u_j(-t)$, which is proportional to]{} $$\label{wr2}
\begin{split}
\hat{c}_{j,2}(t)&=-i\sqrt{M/(2\hbar \nu_j)}\times W\left({\hat{r}}_j(t),u_j(-t)\right)\\
&=-i\sqrt{M/(2\hbar \nu_j)}\left(u_j(-t)\dot{\hat{r}}_j(t)-\dot{u}_j(-t)\hat{r}_j(t)\right)\\
&=\hat{c}_{j,2}(0)=1/\sqrt{2 M \hbar \nu_j}(M \nu_j \hat{r}_j(0)-i \hat{p}_j(0))
\end{split}$$ [Since Wronskians of Eq. must be constant in time, operators $\hat{c}_{j,1}(t)$ and $\hat{c}_{j,2}(t)$ are constant.]{} For $\beta_j$ real one can show that they are equivalent to creation and annihilation operator (respectively) of the reference harmonic oscillator of frequency $\nu_j$ [@leibfried]. Both of the above equations connect $\hat{r}_j(t)=U^\dagger(0,t)\hat{r}_j(0)U(0,t)$ and $\hat{p}_j(t)=U^\dagger(0,t)\hat{p}_j(0)U(0,t)$ with their values for $t=0$ ($\hat{r}_j(0)\equiv\hat{r}_j$ and $\hat{p}_j(0)\equiv\hat{p}_j$). Multiplying Eqs. , by $u_j(-t)$ and $u_j(t)$, respectively, adding the first one to the second one and using Eq. we can express $\hat{r}_j(t)$ as a function of $\hat{r}_j(0)$ and $\hat{p}_j(0)$. $$\label{wr3}
\begin{split}
\hat{r}_j(t)&=\frac{\hat{r}_j(0)}{2}(u_j(t)+u_j(-t))+\frac{\hat{p}_j(0)}{2 i M \nu_j}(u_j(t)-u_j(-t))
\end{split}$$ Basing on Heisenberg equations of motion $\hat{p}_j=M \dot{\hat{r}}_j$ [we can express]{} $\hat{p}_j(t)$ also as a function of $\hat{r}_j(0)$ and $\hat{p}_j(0)$. $$\label{wr4}
\begin{split}
\hat{p}_j(t)&=\frac{M\hat{r}_j(0)}{2}(\dot{u}_j(t)+\dot{u}_j(-t)+\frac{\hat{p}_j(0)}{2 i \nu_j}(\dot{u}_j(t)-\dot{u}_j(-t)))
\end{split}$$ [Starting from Eqs. and it]{} is straightforward to derive the following result $$\begin{split}\label{r0}
\hat{r}_j(0)&=\frac{\hat{r}_j(t)}{2i\nu_j}(\dot{u}_j(t)-\dot{u}_j(-t))-\frac{\hat{p}_j(t)}{2 i M \nu_j}(u_j(t)-u_j(-t))
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{p0}
\begin{split}
\hat{p}_j(0)&=-\frac{M\hat{r}_j(t)}{2}(\dot{u}_j(t)+\dot{u}_j(-t))+\frac{\hat{p}_j(t)}{2}(u_j(t)+u_j(-t)).
\end{split}$$ Now we are able to calculate
$$\begin{split}
\hat{r}_j(t,-\tau)&\equiv U(0,t) U^\dagger(0,t-\tau) \hat{r}_j U(0,t-\tau) U^\dagger(0,t) = U(0,t)\hat{r}_j(t-\tau) U^\dagger(0,t)\\
&=U^\dagger (t,0)\left(\frac{\hat{r}_j(0)}{2}(u_j(t-\tau)+u_j(-t+\tau))+\frac{\hat{p}_j(0)}{2 i M \nu_j}(u_j(t-\tau)-u_j(-t+\tau))\right)U(t,0)
\end{split}$$
where we have used the identity $U^\dagger(0,t)\equiv U(t,0)$. [With help of]{} Eqs. and we perform the time evolution from $t$ to $0$. With an explicit form of $u_j(\pm t)$ this can be arranged in a compact form $$\label{rodtau}
\hat{r}(t,-\tau)=\sum_{n,m}\!C_n C_m\!\!\left[\hat{r} \left(\frac{\!\beta}{2}\!+\!m\!\right)\!\frac{\Omega}{\nu} \cos I_{nm}^\tau\!-\!\frac{\hat{p}}{\nu M} \sin I_{nm}^\tau\right]$$ where we have omitted $j$ index for simplicity, $I_{nm}^\tau\equiv \Omega\left(\left(\frac{\beta}{2}+n\right)\tau-(n-m)t\right)$.
VI. Equations of motion {#App:Srednie}
=======================
We expand exponential terms of master equation (Eq. ) in the small Lamb-Dicke parameter $\zeta=a_{i}/\lambda_T$ up to the second-order terms, where $a_{i}=\sqrt{\hbar/(M\nu)}$ is a length scale of the secular potential with a reference oscillator frequency (which is [comparable to the size of the ion wavefunction]{}) and $\lambda_T=\sqrt{2\pi \hbar^2/(m k_B T)}$ is de Broglie wavelength, with $T$ denoting the temperature of the reservoir (a typical change of the atomic momenta $({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k'})$ during a single atom-ion collision is of the order of $\lambda_T^{-1}$). For example $$\begin{split}
&\left[e^{i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k'})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}}, e^{-i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k'})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}}(t,-\tau)}{\rho}\right]=[i({\mathbf}{k}-{\mathbf}{k'})\hat{{\mathbf}{r}},\rho]+\\
&+\sum_j (k_j-k'_j)^2(\frac12[\rho, \hat{r}_j^2]+[\hat{r}_j, \hat{r}_j(t,-\tau)\rho])+\dots
\end{split}$$ where $j=x,y,z$. We [note that the terms with odd powers of $(k_j-k_j')$ vanish due to the symmetric]{} summation in the master equation. Every odd term of the expansion is antisymmetric in $(k_j-k_j')$, so the first neglected term is of the fourth order in a small Lamb-Dicke parameter $\zeta$. The master equation exact up to the third order in $\zeta$ is given by $$\begin{split}
\dot{\hat{\rho}}=&\frac{1}{i\hbar}[\hat{H}_S,\hat{\rho}]-\sum_j\sum_{k_j,k_j'}\frac{c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k}'}c_{{\mathbf}{k}', {\mathbf}{k}}}{2\hbar^2} (k_j-k_j')^2 \bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}(\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}'}+1)\\&\times\int_0^{\infty} d\tau
\left(e^{i\tau (\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left([\hat{\rho},\hat{r}_j^2]+2[\hat{r}_j, \hat{r}_j(t,-\tau)\hat{\rho}]\right)\right.\\
&-\left. e^{-i\tau (\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})} \left([\hat{r}_j^2,\hat{\rho}]+2[\hat{r}_j,\hat{\rho} \hat{r}_j(t,-\tau)]\right)\right).
\end{split}
\label{2rzad}$$ [We note that in this approximation spatial directions are not coupled.]{} In order to derive equations of motion [for expectation values of position and momentum operators]{} we multiply master equation for ultracold gas or BEC, respectively, by $\hat{r}$ or $\hat{p}$ operators and perform tracing over ion degrees of freedom. In this way we obtain $$\label{liniowej}
\begin{split}
\dot{\overline{r}}_j&=\overline{p}_j/M\\
\dot{\overline{p}}_j&=- M\omega_j^2(t) \overline{r}_j +K^j(t)\overline{r}_j- 2 G^j_{\eta,\delta}(t)\overline{p}_j,
\end{split}$$ [where in general, expectation values are defined as follows $${\overline{x}}\equiv{\mathrm}{tr}\left\{\hat{x} {\rho}\right\}$$ $$\dot{\overline{x}}\equiv{\mathrm}{tr}\left\{\hat{x} \dot{\rho}\right\}$$]{}
Similar procedure may be applied to equations involving expectation values of operators quadratic in position and momentum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kwadratowej}
(\dot{\overline{r_j p_j}}+\dot{\overline{p_j r_j}})=&-2M\omega_j^2(t) \overline{r_j^2}+2\overline{p_j^2}/M+2K_j(t)\overline{r_j^2} \nonumber\\
&-2G^j_{\eta,\delta}(t)(\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j})+2\hbar G^j_{\gamma,-\mu}(t),\nonumber\\
\dot{\overline{r_j^2}}=&\frac{1}{M} (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j}),\\
\dot{\overline{p_j^2}}=&-M\omega_j^2(t) (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j})-4 G^j_{\eta,\delta}(t)\overline{p_j^2}\nonumber\\
&+K^j(t) (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j})+2\hbar D^j_{\mu,\gamma}(t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Coefficients in Eqs. and have the following form $$\begin{aligned}
G^j_{\eta,\delta}(t) = & \sum_{n,m}\frac{C_n^j C_m^j}{\nu_j}\frac{\hbar}{M} \\
&\times\big[\eta_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)+\delta_{jn}\sin\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)\big], \nonumber \\
G^j_{\gamma,-\mu}(t) = & \sum_{n,m}\frac{C_n^j C_m^j}{\nu_j}\frac{\hbar}{M} \\
&\times\big[\gamma_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)-\mu_{jn}\sin\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)\big], \nonumber \\
K^j(t) = & 4\hbar\kappa_j- 2 D^j_{\delta_,-\eta}(t),
\\
D^j_{\mu,\gamma}(t) = & \sum_{n,m}\frac{C_n^j C_m^j}{\nu_j}\left(\frac{\beta_j}{2}+m\right)\hbar\Omega \\
&\times\big[\mu_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)+\gamma_{jn}\sin\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)\big], \nonumber
\\
D^j_{\delta,-\eta}(t) = & \sum_{n,m}\frac{C_n^j C_m^j}{\nu_j}\left(\frac{\beta_j}{2}+m\right)\hbar\Omega \\
&\times\big[\delta_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)-\eta_{jn}\sin\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)\big]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $G^j_{\eta,\delta}(t)$ plays the role of the time-dependent friction force, where sequences of constants $\eta_{jn}$ and $\delta_{jn}$ can be calculated for a given atom-ion potential, $\nu_j$ is the frequency of a reference oscillator[, $\beta_j/2$ denotes a characteristic exponent]{}, $C_n^j$, $C_m^j$ are the coefficients in a solution of Mathieu equation of an ion in a Paul trap without the buffer gas [@leibfried], [and $\kappa_j$ is some coefficient that will be defined later separately for a condensed or a non-condensed reservoir.]{}
One can check that free terms $G^j_{\gamma,-\mu}(t)$ and $D^j_{\mu,\gamma}(t)$ assure that the ion energy cannot drop below the ground state energy of the secular trap even if the temperature of the atomic gas is lower. $\mu_{jn}$ and $\gamma_{jn}$ are sequences of constants depending on interaction potential. The form of Eq. and Eq. is general regardless of the interaction potential. They are valid both for an ultracold gas and a Bose-Einstein condensate, but the sequences of constants $\eta_{jn}$, $\delta_{jn}$, $\mu_{jn}$, $\gamma_{jn}$ and $\kappa_j$ have different functional forms [that will be introduced soon]{}.
[In order to derive their explicit form we use the following identity to calculate the integrals with respect to time variable]{} $$\begin{split}
&\int_0^{\infty} d\tau e^{s_1 i \tau(\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})+s_2 i \Omega((\beta_j/2+n)\tau-(n-m)t) }\\
&=e^{-i s_2 \Omega (n-m)t}\left(\pi \delta(s_1 (\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})+s_2\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))\right.\\
&\left.+i\frac{{\cal{ P}}}{s_1 (\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k}'})+s_2\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $s_1$ and $s_2$ can be equal to $+$, $-$ or $0$ and $\delta(\dots)$ and $\cal{P}\dots$ denote Dirac delta and Principal value distributions. With help of above relation and Eq. in case of a reservoir consisting of a non-condensed Bose gas [we obtain]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KappaGas}
\kappa_j = & \frac{1}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}} |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}}|^2 (k_j-k'_j)^2 (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}+\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}) \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}}, \\
\eta_{jn} = & \frac{\pi}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}} |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}}|^2 (k_j-k'_j)^2 (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}+\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}})\\
& \times\big[\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))-\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))\big], \nonumber \\
\mu_{jn} = & \frac{\pi}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}} |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}}|^2 (k_j-k'_j)^2 (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}+\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}})\\
& \times\big[\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))+\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))\big], \nonumber \\
\delta_{jn} = & \frac{1}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}} |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}}|^2 (k_j-k'_j)^2 (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}+\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}})\\
& \times \left( \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)} +\frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)}\right), \nonumber \\
\label{GammaGas}
\gamma_{jn} = & \frac{1}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}} |c_{{\mathbf}{k},{\mathbf}{k'}}|^2 (k_j-k'_j)^2 (\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k'}}\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}}+\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{k}})\\
& \times \left( \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)} -\frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)}\right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{{\mathbf}{kk'}}\equiv \omega_{{\mathbf}{k}}-\omega_{{\mathbf}{k'}}$. For a Bose-condensed reservoir $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KappaBEC}
\kappa_j = & -\frac{\rho_0 L^3}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}(u_{\mathbf}{q}+v_{\mathbf}{q})^2 |c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2 q_j^2 \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_q}, \\
\eta_{jn} = & -\frac{\pi \rho_0 L^3}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}(u_{\mathbf}{q}+v_{\mathbf}{q})^2 |c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2 q_j^2 \\
&\times\big[\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))-\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))\big], \nonumber \\
\mu_{jn} = & \frac{\pi \rho_0 L^3}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}(u_{\mathbf}{q}+v_{\mathbf}{q})^2 |c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2 q_j^2 2\left(\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\frac12\right)\\
&\times\big[\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))+\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n))\big], \nonumber \\
\delta_{jn} = & -\frac{\rho_0 L^3}{2\hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}(u_{\mathbf}{q}+v_{\mathbf}{q})^2 |c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2 q_j^2\\
&\times \left( \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)} +\frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)}\right), \nonumber \\
\label{GammaBEC}
\gamma_{jn} = & \frac{\rho_0 L^3}{2 \hbar^2}\sum_{{\mathbf}{q}}(u_{\mathbf}{q}+v_{\mathbf}{q})^2 |c_{0,{\mathbf}{q}}|^2 q_j^2 2\left(\bar{n}_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\frac12\right)\\
&\times \left( \frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}+\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)} -\frac{\cal{P}}{\omega_{{\mathbf}{q}}-\Omega(\beta_j/2+n)}\right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[In equations of motion and in the following text we omit]{} contributions from principal values present in $\kappa_j$, $\gamma_{jn}$ and $\delta_{jn}$ coefficients. One can check that their main role is renormalization of the trap $a_j$ and $q_j$ parameters due to the interactions with surrounding atomic gas. In typical experimental realizations, such effects are negligibly small. Moreover, we have verified that omitting terms containing principal values [do]{} not change the cooling rate and the final energies of the ion for small $a_j$ and $q_j$ parameters, relevant for current experiments.
[ With this simplifications equations of motion read $$\label{liniowe}
\begin{split}
\dot{\overline{r}}_j&=\overline{p}_j/M\\
\dot{\overline{p}}_j&=- M\tilde{\omega}^2_j(t) \overline{r}_j - \overline{p}_j \sum_{n,m}C^j_n C^j_m \tilde{\eta}_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right),
\end{split}$$ [where $\tilde{\eta}_{jn}=\frac{2 \hbar}{\nu_j M} \eta_{jn}$, $\tilde{\omega}_j^2(t) = \omega_j^2(t)-\sum_{n,m}C^j_n C^j_m \Omega (\beta_j/2+m)\tilde{\eta}_{jn}\sin\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)$.]{} [In case of a Bose-Einstein condensate $\tilde{\eta}_{jn}$ can be calculated analytically $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\eta}_{jn}=&\frac{4\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \frac{m^{1/2}(m+M)^2}{M^{5/2}} \rho {a^j_{i}}^3\left(\frac{f(\tilde{q}_{jn})}{a^j_{i}}\right)^2\\
&\times \frac{\Omega^{3/2}}{\nu_j^{1/2}}|\beta_j/2+n|^{3/2}{\mathrm}{sign}(\beta_j/2+n)
\end{split}$$ where $a^j_{i}=\sqrt{\hbar/(M\nu_j)}$, $\tilde{q}_{jn}=\sqrt{2 m \Omega |\beta_j/2+n|/\hbar}$.]{} The term $\sum_{n,m}C^j_n C^j_m \tilde{\eta}_{jn}\cos\left((n\!-\!m)\Omega t\right)$ in the above equations plays the role of the time-dependent friction force,]{} $f(\tilde{q}_{jn})$ denotes the scattering amplitude for potential $V(r)$ calculated in the first-order Born approximation. Similar procedure may be applied to equations involving expectation values of operators quadratic in position and momentum, which yield
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{kwadratowe}
(\dot{\overline{r_j p_j}}+\dot{\overline{p_j r_j}})=&-2M\tilde{\omega}_j^2(t) \overline{r_j^2}+2\overline{p_j^2}/M \nonumber \\
-\sum_{n,m}&\left[ (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j}) \tilde{\eta}_{jn}\chi^j_{nm}(t)+2 \hbar \tilde{\mu}_{jn}\sigma^j_{nm}(t)\right],\nonumber\\
\dot{\overline{r_j^2}}=&\frac{1}{M} (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j}),\\
\dot{\overline{p_j^2}}=&-M\tilde{\omega}^2(t) (\overline{r_j p_j}+\overline{p_j r_j}) \nonumber \\
-2& \sum_{n,m} \left[ \overline{p_j^2}\tilde{\eta}_{jn}-\hbar \Omega M\!\! \left(\!\frac{\beta_j}{2}\!+\!m\!\right)\!\tilde{\mu}_{jn} \right] \chi^j_{nm}(t),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[where $\tilde{\mu}_{jn}=\frac{2 \hbar}{\nu_j M} \mu_{jn}$,]{} $\sigma^j_{nm}(t) = C^j_n C^j_m \sin((n-m)\Omega t)$ and $\chi^j_{nm}(t) = C^j_n C^j_m \cos((n-m)\Omega t)$. [Free term $\tilde{\mu}_{jn}$ assures that the ion energy cannot drop below the ground state energy of the secular trap even if the temperature of the atomic gas is lower. In case of a BEC it can be calculated analytically]{} $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\mu}_{jn}=&\frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \frac{m^{1/2}(m+M)^2}{M^{5/2}} \rho {a^j_{i}}^3\left(\frac{f(\tilde{q}_{jn})}{a^j_{i}}\right)^2\\
&\times \frac{\Omega^{3/2}}{\nu^{1/2}}|\beta/2+n|^{3/2}(2 \bar{n}_{\tilde{q}_n}+1).
\end{split}$$
[ The form of the equations of motion is similar to classical equations describing particle in harmonic potential with time-dependent frequency and time-dependent damping. For small $a_j,q_j^2\ll 1$ (typical in experimental realizations) and sufficiently small gas density only limited number of terms in sums containing gas-dependent coefficients would be important from the point of view of the dynamics.]{}
In order to solve Eq. we use the following ansatz ${{\mathbf}v}(t) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} {{\mathbf}w}_n e^{i \lambda \Omega t} e^{i n \Omega t}$ (similar to used in [@IdziaszekZoller2011; @Nguyen2012; @Zoller]), while for Eq. we use ${{\mathbf}v}(t) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} {{\mathbf}w}_n e^{i \lambda \Omega t} e^{i n \Omega t}+\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty {{\mathbf}u}_n e^{i n \Omega t}$ where ${{\mathbf}v}(t)$ represents $(\overline{r}(t),\overline{p}(t))$ for Eq. and $(\overline{rp}(t)+\overline{pr}(t),\overline{r^2}(t),\overline{p^2}(t))$ for Eq. , and $\lambda$ is a complex-valued characteristic exponent. Real part of $\lambda$ describes the secular frequency of oscillations of the ion in an effective trap and the imaginary part describes the cooling rate [(see Figs. \[Fig:bifurkacja\] and \[Fig:urojone\])]{}. In case of cooling ($\Im(\lambda)>0$ - discussed below) the first part of the ansatz for Eq. goes to zero for large times and the second one represents the asymptotic solution with ${\mathbf}{u}_0$ being the average value of ${\mathbf}{v}(t)$ with respect to [the time scale given by the RF frequency $\Omega$.]{}
\
\
\
VII. Cooling rates
==================
Let us analyze the ion dynamics for some typical experimental parameters. Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\] shows the cooling rates of a Ba$^{+}$ ion immersed in an ultracold gas of Rb atoms for parameters similar to used in the experiment [@Schmid2010] (middle panel) and for a weaker trap and a higher gas density (top panel). [The bottom panel of Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\] presents the cooling rates of Yb$^{+}$ ion immersed in an ultracold gas of Li atoms.]{} The white color represents the unstable regions of the Paul trap without the buffer gas. In general there are three different regimes of ion dynamics immersed in an ultracold gas: (i) under-damped, (ii) over-damped harmonic motion, (iii) heating. They are marked as points $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, respectively in the top panel of Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\]. In regime (ii) the ion motion is similar to over-damped harmonic oscillator. The real part of the characteristic exponent $\lambda$ drops to zero and the energy asymptotically reaches its final value. However, there still exists the micromotion, that adds the periodic modulation of the energy. For parameters of Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\](a) the region of over-damped motion dominates, but this is only due to relatively weak trapping and high density of the atomic gas. In typical experimental realizations, however, the stability region corresponds mainly to the cooling behavior of the under-damped motion, see Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\](b).
[ The time dependence of the energy for three described regimes is shown in Fig. \[Fig:energie\], for parameters corresponding to points $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, respectively (cf. Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\] (a)). In the regime represented by point $\alpha$ (upper panel) the ion energy decreases exponentially in time while the secular frequency of the trap is renormalized in the presence of cold reservoir. The inset shows the asymptotic behaviour at large $t$. Since the energy is not conserved in the presence of time-dependent potential, one can observe remaining oscillations around the final value. For point $\gamma$ (bottom panel) the motion of the ion is unstable - it gains energy exponentially from the time-dependent trap. The pink line depicts the growing amplitude of the oscillatory motion. For parameters of point $\beta$ (middle panel) one can observes the net cooling effect (green line), after averaging out over fast micromotion. However, the time-scale of cooling in this regime is much longer than for cooling in region represented by point $\alpha$.]{}
![\[Fig:energie\] [(color online). Energy of the ion (expectation value of $H_S$, blue line), average energy with respect to the period of the radio frequency modulation (green), asymptotic average energy (red), and energy amplitude (pink) for parameters of point $\alpha$ (top panel), $\beta$ (middle panel), and $\gamma$ (bottom panel) marked in Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\].]{} ](4.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![\[Fig:urojone\] (Color online). Imaginary part of the characteristic exponent for $q=0.3$ without (left) and with (right) the buffer gas (parameters as in the top panel of Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\]). [Grey line corresponds to stable solution for the Paul trap ($\Im (\lambda)=0$), dark blue line - the region of under-damped harmonic oscillator ($\Im (\lambda)>0$, $\Re(\lambda)\neq 0$), light blue line - over-damped harmonic oscillator ($\Im (\lambda)>0$, $\Re(\lambda)=0$), red line - nonstable harmonic oscillator ($\Im (\lambda)<0$).]{} ](Urojone.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Fig. \[Fig:urojone\] shows the imaginary part of the characteristic exponent $\lambda$ for an isolated ion (left panel) and for the ion immersed in cold reservoir (right panel) for parameters of Fig. \[Fig:bifurkacja\](a). For values larger than zero the ion motion is being damped (regime (i) or (ii)), while for negative values the motion is unstable (regime (iii)). This figure explains the presence of three different regions of ion dynamics. In the absence of the buffer gas there are only two regions - stable and unstable and there is no cooling inside the stable region, because the imaginary part of the characteristic exponent is zero there. Introduction of the buffer gas increases $\Im(\lambda)$ and in the comparison to [the isolated ion case a new region appears (all solutions marked in blue) where the ion motion is damped, and its energy decreases.]{}
There is a possibility of creating molecular states of an atom and an ion in the course of collisions. Such states have been predicted to emerge in a classical simulation of ion-atom collisions [@Vuletic2012] in the presence of the time-dependent RF potential. Ref. [@Vuletic2012] shows that during the collision the particles can be bound for relatively long time, and the work performed by the time-dependent electric field constitutes a significant source of heating, shifting the final temperatures of ions in the sympathetic cooling up to mK regime. Our formalism neglects the effect of bound states association in the atom-ion collisions, but our analysis shows that this process should not be significant in the low-energy quantum regime, because the probability of creation of a molecular complex will be significant only when the resonance condition is fulfilled. In order to verify this assumption we estimated the probability of transition to molecular complex during a single collision using time-dependent perturbation theory. For Rb-Yb$^+$ collisions and $a_{sc} = R^\ast = 307$nm the probability of association of a molecular complex in a single collision is $P = 0.007$, while for $a_{sc} = - R^\ast = - 307$nm is larger: $P = 0.127$. In the association process one or more energy quanta are transferred from the collision complex to RF field, and the probability of association strongly depends on the fulfillment of the resonance condition between the initial and final molecular states. Therefore, by appropriate selection of the trap parameters it should be possible to detune from the resonance, and finally reduce the probability of association.
VIII. Concluding Remarks
========================
[ [Based on the theory of quantum stochastic processes we have developed a master equation for the system in the time-dependent external potential, in which a single trapped ion is brought into a contact with an]{} ultracold gas in a condensed or an non-condensed phase. We have investigated three different stability regimes of the ion motion. Furthermore, we have studied experimentally relevant sets of parameters and we have [calculated]{} cooling rates for Ba$^+$ ion immersed in a [Rb]{} atoms and Yb$^+$ ion immersed in a Li reservoir. [In typical experimental realizations also so called excess micromotion constitutes an additional source of heating. We plan to investigate this issue in future research.]{} ]{}
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma and E. Hudson for stimulating discussions and C. Sias, A. Härter and A. Krükow for providing us with experimental parameters. This work was supported by the Foundation for Polish Science International PhD Projects Programme co-financed by the EU European Regional Development Fund and National Science Centre [(ZI) (Grants No. DEC-2011/01/B/ST2/02030 (ZI) and DEC-2012/07/N/ST2/02879 (MK)).]{}
Appendix: Probability of associating bound states during the collision process {#App:BoundStates}
==============================================================================
In order to estimate the probability of transition to molecular states during a single atom-ion collision, we have developed a one-dimensional model assuming that atom approaches the ion along one-dimensional trajectory, which should be a good approximation to real three-dimensional scattering process in a time-dependent field [@Vuletic2012]. First, we have transformed the total Hamiltonian with the help of the Cook, Shankland, Wells transformation [@Nguyen2012], separating it into static and time-dependent parts: $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = & H_{0} + \tilde{H}(t) \\
H_0 = & \frac{\hat{p}_i^2}{2 M} + \frac{M}{2} \nu^2 x^2+ \frac{\hat{p}_a^2}{2 m} + V(|x-x_a|) \\
\tilde{H}(t) = & - M (\gamma \nu)^2 x^2 \cos \left(2 \Omega t\right) \\
& + 2 i \hbar \gamma \nu \left(
x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \frac12 \right) \sin \left(\Omega t \right)\end{aligned}$$ The first part $H_{0}$ contains kinetic energies of the atom and ion, the static part of the Paul trap with $\nu$ denoting the frequency of the reference harmonic oscillator [@leibfried], and the atom-ion interaction is given by $V(|x|)$. The second part $\tilde{H}(t)$ contains two time-dependent terms oscillating with frequency of the RF field $\Omega$ and $2 \Omega$, respectively. The coefficient $\gamma$ $$\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+\frac{2a}{q^2})}}.$$ depends on the ratio of the static and dynamic amplitudes of the RF field.
We calculate the transition probability from the scattering state to the bound state of $H_0$ in the first-order time-dependent perturbation theory, treating $\tilde{H}(t)$ as perturbation [@Nguyen2012]. The initial and final states of $H_0$ can be represented as $$\Psi(x,x_a) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \phi_n(x) \psi_n(x_a)$$ where $\phi_n(x)$ are the wave functions of the ion in the static trap $$\left(\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2 M} + \frac12 M \nu^2 x^2 \right) \phi_n(x) = E_n \phi_n(x)$$ and $\psi_n(x_a)$ are corresponding wave functions of the atom. We assume that initially the ion is in the ground-state of the Paul trap and the asymptotic kinetic energy of the free atom $E_a= (\hbar^2 k^2)/(2 m) < \hbar \nu$. In this case wave function of the atom for the channel $n=0$ takes the following asymptotic form at large distances: $$\psi_0(x_a) \stackrel{|x_a| \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} e^{i k x_a} + f_{+} e^{i k |x_a|} + f_{-} \textrm{sgn}(x_a) e^{i k |x_a|}$$ Here, $f_{+}$ and $f_{-}$ denote the scattering amplitudes corresponding to even and odd scattered waves, respectively.
The transition probability in the first-order perturbation theory is given by Fermi’s golden rule. We sum independent contributions due to the transitions induced by the first and the second term in $\tilde{H}(t)$. Moreover, we include only the processes in which the energy quanta are transferred from the collision complex to the RF field, which lead to creation of molecular states. Hence the total probability of bound-state association in the single collision can be approximated by $$P \approx P_{1} + P_{2},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_{1} & = \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar} \left|\langle\Psi_i|\tilde{H}_1|\Psi_f\rangle\right|^2 \rho(E-2 \hbar \Omega) j^{-1} \\
P_{2} & = \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar} \left|\langle\Psi_i|\tilde{H}_2|\Psi_f\rangle\right|^2 \rho(E-\hbar \Omega) j^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{H}_1 & = - \frac12 M (\gamma \nu)^2 x^2\\
\tilde{H}_2 & = \hbar \gamma \nu \left(x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \frac12 \right)\end{aligned}$$ Here, $E = \hbar^2 k^2/(2 m) + \frac12 \hbar \nu$ denotes the energy of the initial scattering state $\Psi_i$, while the energy of the final state $\Psi_f$ is $E-2\hbar \nu$ and $E-\hbar \nu$ for transitions induced by $\tilde{H}_1$ and $\tilde{H}_2$ terms, respectively, $j = \hbar k/m$ is the probability flux of the atoms scattering on the ion, and $\rho(E)$ is the density of states. The density of states for energy corresponding to the resonance was determined from the numerical energy spectrum calculated by the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian $H_0$.
The initial and final states were determined by numerically diagonalizing Hamiltonian $H_0$ in a box of size much larger than $R^\ast$. The secular frequency was $\nu = 2 \pi \times 1$MHz. We calculated the probability of transition to bound state for Rb-Yb$^{+}$ system, for two different scattering lengths $a_{sc} = R^\ast = 307$nm and $a_{sc} = - R^\ast = - 307$nm. The RF frequency in both cases was about $2 \pi \times 10$MHz, and its exact value was chosen in order to be resonant with a molecular level resonant with the transition induced by $\tilde{H}_2(t)$ (dominating perturbation). This should overestimate the probability of creation of a molecular state and in real experimental conditions one can always try to modify the RF frequency in order to detune from the resonance.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper considers a communication network comprised of two nodes, which have no mutual direct communication links, communicating two-way with the aid of a common relay node (RN), also known as separated two-way relay (TWR) channel.
We first recall a cut-set outer bound for the set of rates in the context of this network topology assuming full-duplex transmission capabilities. Then, we derive a new achievable rate region based on hash-and-forward (HF) relaying where the RN does not attempt to decode but instead hashes its received signal, and show that under certain channel conditions it coincides with Shannon’s inner-bound for the two-way channel [@shannon_61]. Moreover, for binary adder TWR channel with additive noise at the nodes and the RN we provide a detailed capacity achieving coding scheme based on structure codes.
author:
-
bibliography:
- '../erhan\_biblio.bib'
title: 'Hash-and-Forward Relaying for Two-Way Relay Channel'
---
Introduction
============
Related Work on Two-Way Relaying \[subsec:RelatedWork\]
-------------------------------------------------------
Up to now, different transmission schemes are proposed for two-way relay (TWR) channels [@rankov_asilomar05; @wu/chou_ciss05; @knopp_izs06; @larsson_vtc06; @katti_isit07; @kim/mitran_conf07; @oechtering_ciss07; @avestimehr_allerton08; @gunduz_allerton08; @schnurr_isit08]. However, the capacity region for general TWR channel remains open. The simplest transmission scheme for TWR channel consists of four phases where the two nodes transmit their messages to the relay node (RN) successively and then the RN decodes and forwards each mobile’s message in the following two time slots. However, using ideas from network coding (NC) [@ahlswede_jnl00], it is shown in [@wu/chou_ciss05] that the last two transmissions may be merged into a single transmission, resulting in three time slots and hence a pre-log factor of $2/3$ with respect to the sum-rate. The number of required time slots for the communication between the two nodes can be reduced even further to two time slots by allowing them to simultaneously access the RN [@popovski_icc06; @oechtering_ciss07; @zhang_mobihoc06; @kim/mitran_conf07].
In [@rankov_isit06; @knopp_izs06; @popovski_icc06] amplify-and-forward (AF), decode-and-forward (DF) and compress-and-forward (CF) based relaying strategies consisting only of two time slots are proposed for TWR channel. A NC scheme that requires three time slots is considered in [@wu/chou_ciss05] where in the first two time slots the mobiles send their messages to the RN in orthogonal time slots, the RN decodes both messages and then combines them by means of the bit-wise XOR operation and retransmits it to the mobiles. There the mobiles are assumed to use the bit-wise XOR operation on the decoded message and the own transmitted message to obtain the message sent from the other mobile. Requiring three time slots, this bit-wise XOR based TWR scheme provides a pre-log factor of $2/3$ with respect to the sum-rate. In [@katti_sigcomm07] an analog network coding (ANC) scheme, where the RN amplifies and forwards mixed received signals, is proposed and compared to the traditional and digital network coding (bit-wise XOR at the RN) schemes in terms of network throughput. In [@popovski_icc06] the denoise-and-forward (DNF) relaying is proposed for TWR channel where the RN removes the noise from the combined mobiles’ messages (on the multiple-access channel) before broadcasting and compared with AF, DF based TWR schemes as well as the traditional four phase scheme.
Contributions \[subsec:contributions\]
--------------------------------------
In this paper, we consider a TWR channel where two separated nodes seek to communicate, and can do so, via a common RN. This kind of scenario can occur in satellite communications where different ground stations want to exchange information or in public safety networks where different intervening entities (e.g. fire-fighters) want to communicate with each other to gain information about the current status at different parts of the disaster area [@knopp_meeting07].
Throughout the paper we focus on discrete memoryless TWR channel model assuming full-duplex transmission capabilities at the communicating nodes. A cut-set outer bound for the set of rates in the context of this network topology is recalled and an achievable rate region based on DF relaying is provided where a message-level network coding enabling codebook size reduction at the RN is used. Then, a novel achievable rate region based on random binning, i.e. hash-and-forward (HF) relaying, is provided where the RN does not attempt to fully (or partially) decode but rather hashes its received signal so as to reduce the amount of information needed to send in the DL. Finally, we study a binary adder channel with additive noise at the nodes and the RN and show that the outer bound is virtually achievable by *physical-layer* network coding, using group codes and partial decoding at the RN.
Information-Theoretic System Model
==================================
Consider the discrete-memoryless network in Fig. \[c6f:twoWayRelayEncoderDecoder\] comprising a pair of nodes communicating two-way via a RN. Node $a$ generates $n$-dimensional codewords $X_{ab}^n$ based on an index $W_{ab}\in\left\{1,2,\cdots,2^{nR_{ab}}\right\}$ where $R_{ab}$ is the information rate in bits/dimension in the direction $ab$, for $a \in \{1, 2\}$ and $b \in \{1, 2\} \setminus a$. Each letter of the transmitted codewords, $X_{ab,i},i=1,2,\cdots,n$ belongs to an alphabet $\mathcal{X}_{ab}$ and is chosen according to a deterministic encoding function $X_{ab,i}=f_{ab,i}\left(W_{ab},Y_{a}^{i-1}\right)$ which includes the possibility for exploiting the past observations of the relay channel output (downlink). The RN also uses a deterministic transcoder which generates an $n$-dimensional output sequence $X_{R}^n$ based on the observed noisy multiuser (uplink) channel output $Y_{R}^n$. The transcoding function at the RN is causal and written as $X_{R,i}=f_{R,i}\left(Y_{R}^{i-1}\right)\in\mathcal{X}_R$, where $\mathcal{X}_R$ is the alphabet of the RN transmitter. The multiuser channel is memoryless and successive outputs are identically distributed according to the conditional probability $p(y_R|x_{12},x_{21})$. The observed sequences at the nodes, $Y_{1}^n$ and $Y_{2}^n$, are independent conditioned on the RN output and identically distributed according to the conditional probability $p(y_1,y_2|x_R)=p(y_1|x_R)p(y_2|x_R)$.
Receiver $a$ decodes its message based on the observed sequence $Y_{a}^n$ using a decoding function $\hat{W}_{ba}=g\left(Y_{a}^n,W_{ab}\right)$ with probability of error $P_{e,a}=\Pr\left(\hat{W}_{ba}\neq W_{ba}\right)$.
Outer Bound {#sec:outerbound}
===========
Let us first derive an outer-bound on the capacity region from first principles. It is shown in [@yilmaz_thesis10] that by using Fano’s inequality twice, we have the following outer-bound on achievable rates $$R_{12} \leq \min\left\{\mathrm{I}\left(X_{12};Y_R|X_{21}\right),\mathrm{I}\left(X_R;Y_2\right)\right\}\label{eq:outerbound}.$$
The first term (uplink) in corresponds to the outer-bound of the two-way channel with a common output [@shannon_61] with which no coding strategy is known to coincide, except for additive channels and some special cases [@hekstra_jnl89]. In our system, the achievable rates would be limited to this rate if the DL channels were capable enough to allow the RN to forward a sufficient characterization of $Y_R$ to the nodes.
In the case of a noiseless DL channel our system boils down to a two-way channel with a common output [@shannon_61]. For a weak DL, the information rates will be limited by the second term in . Again, were the uplink channel noiseless, an outer-bound to the achievable rates would be given by the second term.
Forwarding Strategies at the Relay Node {#c6sec:DFHFCF}
=======================================
At the node-1 and node-2 assuming coding schemes which do not exploit the DL signal in the encoding of the UL data so that the data streams are independent, we now consider coding schemes at the RN which do not attempt to decode or partially decode the transmitted data streams, but rather perform binning (hashing) of the received sequence. UL codebooks are generated randomly at each node according to $p(x_{12})$ and $p(x_{21})$. At the RN we will consider two different encoding strategies, namely DF and HF. Prior to discussing these further, we first look at DL coding for degraded broadcast channels (BCs) with successive refinement which will be needed for the probability of error analysis for data transmission on the DL.
Degraded BC with successive refinement\[sec:dbc\_suc\_refinement\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider the case where the DL channel is degraded and a DL channel code where the two users are required to decode the same information but with different degrees of refinement (here two). By this we mean that the user with the weaker channel only receives the heavily-protected data stream, while the user with the stronger channel receives both. This is the general BC where there is common information for both users and extra information for the stronger user. We make use of standard multi-level coding [@book:Cover], and let $R_{R,1}$ and $R_{R,2}$ denote the information rates of the RN to nodes 1 and 2 respectively, and assume further that $R_{R,1}\geq R_{R,2}$. The random codebook, $\{X_{R}(i,j), i = 1, 2, \cdots, 2^{n(R_{R,1} - R_{R,2})}, \;\;j = 1, 2, \cdots,2^{nR_{R,2}}\}$, is generated according to the distributions $p(u)$ and $p(x_{R}|u)$ in the standard-way so that the achievable DL rates are given by the convex hull (with respect to the parameter $\alpha$ and $p(x_{R}, u)$) of $$\begin{aligned}
&(R_{R,1},R_{R,2}) = \displaystyle \big\{(R_{R,1},R_{R,2}): \notag \\
&\quad\quad\quad \operatornamewithlimits{\arg \max}_{{\footnotesize \begin{array}{c} p(x_{R}, u) \\ 0\leq\alpha\leq 1 \end{array}}} \{\alpha (R_{R,1} - R_{R,2})+(1-\alpha)R_{R,2} \} \big\} \notag,\end{aligned}$$ where
\[eq:dbc\_suc\_refinement\_rates\] $$\begin{aligned}
R_{R,2} &= \mathrm{I}(U; Y_2), \label{eq:dbc_suc_refinement_rates1} \\
R_{R,1} - R_{R,2} &= \mathrm{I}(X_R; Y_1|U). \label{eq:dbc_suc_refinement_rates2}\end{aligned}$$
0.1in
Decode-and-Forward Relaying {#ch6:subsec:DF}
---------------------------
In this section, we provide a brief view of the achievable rates for the digital single-relay network with two communicating nodes, wherein a generalized form of network-coding for discrete-memoryless channels is used.
The DL channel is a classical BC except for the fact that the decoders have side information to exploit, namely the transmitted codeword indices that they themselves sent during the UL portion. For simplicity, we assume that the two channel outputs are conditionally independent so that they can be separated into two transition probabilities $p(y_i|x_R), i = 1, 2$. Each node decodes the received sequence $y^n_1$ ($y^n_2$) using the side information from its own transmission to yield the estimates $\hat{\hat{W}}_{21}$ ($\hat{\hat{W}}_{12}$). In the following theorem, we provide an achievable rate region for the above channel model.
\[th:DF\_achievable\_Rates\] An achievable rate region for the two-user single relay network using DF relaying strategy is given by the closure of the following set of inequalities
\[eq:rate\_df\] $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12} &\;\leq \; \min \left\{\mathrm{I}(X_{12}; Y_R|X_{21}), \mathrm{I}(X_R; Y_2) \right\}, \label{eq:rate_df1} \\
R_{21} &\;\leq \; \min \left\{\mathrm{I}(X_{21}; Y_R|X_{12}), \mathrm{I}(X_R; Y_1) \right\}, \label{eq:rate_df2} \\
R_{12} + R_{21} &\;\leq \; \mathrm{I}(X_{12}, X_{21} ; Y_R). \label{eq:rate_df3}\end{aligned}$$
The proof which is briefly explained in the following can be found in [@yilmaz_thesis10].
The RN employs a multi-user receiver to decode the transmitted codeword indices yielding the estimates $(\hat{W}_{12}, \hat{W}_{21})$ at its output. without loss of generality, we assume $R_{12} \geq R_{21}$. Based on these indices, in the downlink phase, it then encodes the two indices using a two-dimensional codebook $\mathcal{X}_R = \{X^n_R(W_R^{(1)}, W_R^{(2)}), W_R^{(1)}=1, \ldots, 2^{n(R_{12}-R_{21})}, W_R^{(2)}=1, \ldots, 2^{n R_{21}}\}$. Here we note that the cardinality of the RN’s codebook is at most $2^{n R_{12}}$.
To send indices $W_R^{(1)}$ and $W_R^{(2)}$, the RN chooses $X^n_R(W_R^{(1)}, W_R^{(2)})$ where $W_R^{(1)}=\left\lfloor \hat{W}_{12} 2^{-n R_{21}}\right\rfloor, \; W_R^{(2)}=\hat{W}_{12} \oplus \hat{W}_{21}$, where $x \oplus y$ denotes $(x+y) \; \mathrm{mod} \; 2^{n R_{21}}$.
At the receiver $1$ (the weak receiver), who has the side information $W_{12}$, the unique $\hat{\hat{W}}_{21}$ is chosen such that $$\begin{aligned}
\{X^n_R(\left\lfloor W_{12} 2^{-n R_{21}}\right\rfloor, W_{12}~\oplus~\hat{\hat{W}}_{21}),Y^n_1 \}~\in~A^{n}_{\epsilon, 1}\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{n}_{\epsilon, k}$ denotes the set of jointly-typical sequences $\{x_R(w_R^{(1)}, w_R^{(2)}), y_k\}$, $k=1,2$. Due to the side information $W_{12}$, $W_R^{(1)}$ is known to receiver $1$; hence the cardinality of the search space is limited to $2^{n R_{21}}$. If none or more than one exist an error is declared. The decoded index is then $W_{12} \oplus \hat{\hat{W}}_{21}$.
At the receiver $2$ (the stronger receiver), who has the side information $W_{21}$, the unique $\hat{\hat{W}}_{12}$ is chosen such that $$\begin{aligned}
\{X^n_R(\left\lfloor \hat{\hat{W}}_{12} 2^{-n R_{21}}\right\rfloor, \hat{\hat{W}}_{12}~\oplus~W_{21}),Y^n_2 \}~\in~A^{n}_{\epsilon, 2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the cardinality of the search space is $2^{n R_{12}}$. If none or more than one exist an error is declared. Due to the side information $W_{21}$, the decoded index at the receiver $2$ is given by $\hat{\hat{W}}_{12} 2^{-n R_{21}} + \hat{\hat{W}}_{12} \oplus W_{21}$.
Hash-and-Forward Relaying
-------------------------
If the RN does not attempt to decode the received sequence $Y_R^n$, it may still attempt to reduce the amount of information needed to convey it to both users, and moreover with a higher degree of refinement for the user with the stronger DL channel. We will proceed similarly to distributed source coding as originally described by Slepian and Wolf in [@slepian_jnl73]. This was recently referred to as [*hashing*]{} at the RN, resulting in an [*hash-and-forward (HF)*]{} transmission scheme [@cover_isit07].
\[th:HF\_achievable\_Rates\] An achievable rate region for the discrete memoryless TWR network with HF relaying strategy is given by the closure of the following set of inequalities
\[eq:hash\_region\] $$\begin{aligned}
&R_{12} \leq \min\big\{\mathrm{I}(X_{12};Y_R|X_{21}), \notag\\
&\hskip1.2in \left[\mathrm{I}(U;Y_2)-H(Y_R|X_1,X_2)\right]^+ \big\} \label{eq:rate_hf1} \\
&R_{21} \leq \min \big\{\mathrm{I}(X_{21};Y_R|X_{12}), \notag\\
&\hskip0.3in \left[\mathrm{I}(X_R;Y_1|U) + \mathrm{I}(U;Y_2)-H(Y_R|X_1,X_2)\right]^+\big\} \label{eq:rate_hf2}\end{aligned}$$
for UL joint probability $p(x_{12})p(x_{21})p(y_R|x_{12},x_{21})$ and the degraded BC with successive refinement defined in Section-\[sec:dbc\_suc\_refinement\].
The set of $\epsilon-$typical sequences $Y_R^n$ is partitioned into $2^{nR_{R,1}}$ bins $B_{ij},i=1,\ldots,2^{n(R_{R,1}-R_{R,2})}$, $j=1,\ldots,2^{n R_{R,2}}$, such that $\bigcup_{i,j} B_{ij}=A_\epsilon^n$ and $B_{ij}\bigcap B_{i'j'}=\emptyset,\mathrm{for}\;i\neq i' \mathrm{or}\;j\neq j'$. Let $\mathcal{B}(y_R^n)=(i,j)$ be a random hash-function which assigns a received sequence to a particular bin.
Encoding at the RN is done in two steps. First, if $y_R^n\in A_\epsilon^n$, we hash $y_R^n$ and let $W_{R,1}=i$ and $W_{R,2}=j$. If $y_R^n \notin A_\epsilon^n$, we set $(W_{R,1},W_{R,2})=(\mathrm{e},\mathrm{e})$ to indicate an error condition at the RN encoder. Then, we generate the transmitted sequence $X_R^n$ according to the multilevel-coding strategy for the (degraded) BC.
Decoder 1 creates a list, $L_1(y_R^n)$ of candidate $y_R^n$ based on the decoded $(\hat{i},\hat{j})$. The number of candidates in the list, $N_1(y_R^n)$ is bounded by $$2^{n(H(Y_R)-R_{R,1}-\epsilon)}\leq N_1(y_R^n)\leq2^{n(H(Y_R)-R_{R,1}+\epsilon)}.$$ Similarly, decoder 2 has a list based solely on $\hat{j}$, $L_2(y_R^n)$, for which the number of elements is bounded by $$2^{n(H(Y_R)-R_{R,2}-\epsilon)}\leq N_2(y_R^n)\leq2^{n(H(Y_R)-R_{R,2}+\epsilon)}.$$ Knowing $x_{12}^n$, decoder 1 tries to find an $x_{21}^n$ such that $(x_{12}^n,x_{21}^n, y^n)\in A_\epsilon^n$ for at least one $y^n\in L_1(y_R^n)$. If more than one $x_{21}^n$ or none are jointly $\epsilon$-typical, then an error is declared. Decoder 2 proceeds similarly and tries to find an $x_{12}^n$ knowing $x_{21}^n$ such that $(x_{12}^n, x_{21}^n, y^n)\in A_\epsilon^n$ for at least one $y^n \in L_2(y_R^n)$.
Assuming $(W_{12},W_{21}) = (1,1)$, the probability of decoding error (conditioned on receiving $(i,j)$ without error and $i\neq\mathrm{e},j\neq\mathrm{e}$) for decoder 1 is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_e^{(1)} &\leq \Pr\{(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(1),y_R^n)\notin A_\epsilon^n\} \notag\\
&\quad + 2^{nR_{21}} \left[\Pr\{(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i\neq 1),y_R^n)\in A_\epsilon^n\} \right. \notag \\
&\quad \left. + N_1(y_R^n) \Pr\{(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i\neq 1),{y'_{R}}^n) \in A_\epsilon^n \}\right] \notag\\
&\quad +\Pr\{(\hat{W}_{R,1},\hat{W}_{R,2})\neq(i,j)\} + \Pr\{W_{R,1}=\mathrm{e}\}. \label{eq:decoder1_hash_pe}\end{aligned}$$ The first element in the sum can be made arbitrarily small by increasing $n$. The probability in the second term is the probability over the random ensemble of codebooks that an $x_{21}^n(i), i\neq 1$ is jointly $\epsilon-$typical with the true RN output (which is always in $L_1(y_R^n)$ if $(i,j)$ are received without error at the RN) and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr\left\{(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i),y_R^n)\in A_\epsilon^n\right\} \notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad = \sum_{\footnotesize (x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i),y_R^n)\in A_\epsilon^n} p(x_{12}^n(1),y_R^n)) p(x_{21}^n(i))\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad \leq 2^{n(H(X_{12},X_{21},Y_R)-H(X_{12},Y_R)-H(X_{21})-3\epsilon)} \notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad \leq 2^{-n(\mathrm{I}(X_{21};Y_R|X_{12})+3\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ The probability in the third term reflects the event that another ${y'_{R}}^n \in L_1(y_R^n)$ sequence from the random list of candidates is jointly $\epsilon-$typical with $x_{12}(1)$ and $x_{21}(i)$. Note that this sequence is independent of both code sequences and thus $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr\left\{(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i),{y'_R}^n)\in A_\epsilon^n\right\} \notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad = \sum_{\small(x_{12}^n(1),x_{21}^n(i),{y_R^{'}}^{n}) \in A_\epsilon^n} p(x_{12}^n(1)) p({y'_R}^n)) p(x_{21}^n(i))\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad \leq 2^{n(H(X_{12},X_{21},Y_R)-H(X_{12})-H(Y_R)-H(X_{21})-4\epsilon)} \notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad \leq 2^{-n(\mathrm{I}(X_{21},X_{12};Y_R)-4\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the two probabilities and the size of the list in yields $$\begin{aligned}
P_e^{(1)} &\leq \Pr\{(\hat{i},\hat{j}) \neq(i,j)\} + 2 \epsilon + 2^{n(R_{21}-\mathrm{I}(X_{21};Y_R | X_{12}) - 3 \epsilon)} \notag \\
&\quad\quad + 2^{n(R_{21}-R_{R,1} + H(Y_R|X_{12},X_{21})-5\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding in an identical fashion for decoder 2 yields $$\begin{aligned}
P_e^{(2)} &\leq \Pr\{\hat{j}\neq j\} + 2 \epsilon + 2^{n(R_{12}-\mathrm{I}(X_{12};Y_R|X_{21}) - 3 \epsilon)} \notag \\
&\quad\quad + 2^{n(R_{12}-R_{R,2} + H(Y_R | X_{12},X_{21}) - 5 \epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ We now turn to the remaining error event in the overall error probability, namely the event that the bin indices $(i,j)$ for decoder 1 and $j$ for decoder 2 are incorrectly decoded. For the degraded BC with successive refinement (see Section-\[sec:dbc\_suc\_refinement\]) we have the two error probabilities vanish if is satisfied.
Consider the special case where $p(y_1|x_R) = p(y_2|x_R)$, and thus $R_{R,1} = R_{R,2} = \mathrm{I}(X_R;Y_1)=\mathrm{I}(X_R;Y_2)$. Assume further the DL channels are very strong in the sense that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{I}(X_R;Y_1) &\geq \; \max\left\{\mathrm{H}(Y_R|X_{12}), \mathrm{H}(Y_R|X_{21})\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Under these conditions, the overall rate region coincides with Shannon’s inner-bound for the two-way channel[@shannon_61] with a common output (which is not tight due to the statistical independence of the input sequences) and is achievable by binning at the RN in the sense of Slepian-Wolf [@slepian_jnl73] with the only difference being that the [*two*]{} destinations now recover $Y_R$ without error using their own DL side information from the UL sequences.
![Binary Adder Channel: Codebook Time-Sharing. \[c6f:twoWayRelayTimeSharing\]](twoWayRelayTimeSharing){width="\linewidth" height="2.2in"}
The capacity region of Binary Adder Channel
-------------------------------------------
We now restrict our treatment to a specific additive channel models, namely the binary adder channel. For this channel model, we will provide capacity achieving coding strategy based on linear group codes.
The input/output relationships for the binary adder channel are given by $$\begin{aligned}
y_{R,n} &= x_{12,n} \oplus x_{21,n}\oplus z_{R,n}, \notag\\
y_{i,n} &= x_{R,n} \oplus z_{i,n}, \quad i=1,2\end{aligned}$$ where all variables are binary and $x \oplus y$ denotes the modulo-2 sum of $x$ and $y$. The probability of taking on the value 1 for the noise terms are denoted $\epsilon_{R}, \epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}$. Here the outer bound from Section-\[sec:outerbound\] is $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12} &\leq \min\left\{\mathrm{I}\left(X_{12};Y_R|X_{21}\right), \mathrm{I}\left(X_R;Y_2\right)\right\} \notag\\
&= \min\big\{\mathrm{H}\left(Y_R|X_{21}\right)-\mathrm{H}\left(Y_R|X_{12},X_{21}\right), \notag\\
&\hspace{1.3in} \mathrm{H}\left(Y_2\right)-\mathrm{H}\left(Y_2|X_R\right)\big\} \notag\\
&\leq \min\left\{1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{R}\right), 1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{2}\right)\right\} \label{eq:bsc-outer}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality becomes equality when the input distributions are uniform, i.e., $p(x_{12} = 1) = p(x_{ba} = 1) = 1/2$.
To show the achievability of we assume that uplink and DL encoding occur in subsequent periods of $n$ output symbols, where $n$ is the length of code sequences. That is to say that after decoding a message from a group of $n$ symbols, the RN transmits the DL message while it receives the next UL message. Suppose without loss of generality that $R_{12}\geq R_{21}$.
Consider two random codebooks $C_{12}$ with rate $R_{12}-R_{21}$ and $C_{c}$ with rate $R_{ba}$. $C_{c}$ is the [*common codebook*]{}. We now time-share between both codebooks as shown in Fig. \[c6f:twoWayRelayTimeSharing\] with $0 \leq \alpha\leq 1$. During the first time-slot of duration $\left(1-\alpha\right)n$ dimensions user $1$ transmits alone to the RN using $C_{12}$. Call the information sequence $X^{(1)}_{12}$. Using standard random coding arguments, arbitrarily small error probability for detection of $X^{(1)}_{12}$ is achievable if $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}-R_{21} &< \left(1-\alpha\right)\mathrm{I}\left(X_{12};Y_R\right) \notag \\
&\leq \left(1-\alpha\right)\left(1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_R\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$
During the second time-slot of duration $\alpha n$ dimensions, both users transmit their information sequences $X^{(2)}_{12}$ and $X_{21}$ which are codewords belonging to the *same linear code* over GF(2), $C_c$. As a result the RN receives the modulo-2 sum of the two codewords which is itself a codeword in $C_c$. Linear codes achieve the capacity of the BSC (see [@book:Gallager]) and thus an arbitrarily small average error probability for the detection of $X^{(2)}_{12} \oplus X_{21}$ is possible if $$\begin{aligned}
R_{21} \leq \alpha (1-\mathcal{H}(\epsilon_R)).\end{aligned}$$
The RN encodes with a two-dimensional codebook of cardinality $2^{nR_{12}}$, indexed by column and row pair $(i,j), i=1,\cdots,2^{n(R_{12}-R_{21})},j=1,\cdots,2^{nR_{21}} $. Column $i$ is used to encode $X^{(1)}_{12}$ and row $j$ to encode $X^{(2)}_{12}\oplus X_{21}$. At receiver 1 (weak receiver), $X_{12}$ is known and so the column $i$ of the transmitted codeword is known. Arbitrarily small error probability is achievable for detection of $j$ or $X^{(2)}_{12}\oplus X_{21}$ (and consequently $X_{21}$) if $$\begin{aligned}
R_{21} < \mathrm{I}(X_R; Y_1) \leq 1-\mathcal{H}(\epsilon_1).\end{aligned}$$ At receiver 2 (strong receiver) $X_{21}$ is known. Arbitrarily small error probability for detection of $(i,j)$ (or $X_{12}$) is achievable if $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12} < \mathrm{I}(X_R; Y_2) \leq 1-\mathcal{H}(\epsilon_2).\end{aligned}$$
Consider first the “strong relay” case where $\epsilon_{R}\geq\max\left(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}\right)$. Here we let $\alpha=1$ so that both users can achieve $1-\mathcal{H}(\epsilon_{R})$. For the “medium relay” case where $\epsilon_{1}\geq\epsilon_{R}\geq\epsilon_{2}$ we choose $\alpha=\frac{1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{1}\right)}{1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{R}\right)}$, so that $R_{12}=1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{R}\right)$ and $R_{21}=1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{1}\right)$ are achievable. Finally in the “weak relay” case when $\epsilon_{1}\geq\epsilon_{2}\geq\epsilon_{R}$ we choose $\alpha=\frac{1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{1}\right)}{1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{2}\right)}$, resulting in $R_{12}=1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{2}\right)$ and $R_{21}=1-\mathcal{H}\left(\epsilon_{1}\right)$.
Conclusions {#c6sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we studied different coding strategies for the discrete memoryless TWR channels. Specifically, a novel relaying strategy based on random binning of the receives signals at the RN, e.g. hash-and-forward relaying, was presented which coincides with Shannon’s inner-bound for the two-way channel under certain channel conditions. For binary adder two-way relay channel, it is shown that the outer bound is achievable by physical-layer network coding, utilizing group codes and partial decoding at the RN. Our current work examines the use of feedback in the coding strategy at the terminals, an issue that was neglected here.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was partially supported by the European Commission’s 7th framework programme under grant agreement FP7-257616 also referred to as CONECT.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain constraints on cosmological parameters from the spherically averaged redshift-space correlation function of the CMASS Data Release 9 (DR9) sample of the Baryonic Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS). We combine this information with additional data from recent CMB, SN and BAO measurements. Our results show no significant evidence of deviations from the standard flat-$\Lambda$CDM model, whose basic parameters can be specified by $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.285\pm0.009$, $100\,\Omega_{\rm b} = 4.59\pm0.09$, $n_{\rm s} = 0.961\pm 0.009$, $H_{0}=69.4\pm0.8 \, {\rm km} \,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ and $\sigma_{8} = 0.80 \pm 0.02$. The CMB+CMASS combination sets tight constraints on the curvature of the Universe, with $\Omega_{k}=-0.0043\pm0.0049$, and the tensor-to-scalar amplitude ratio, for which we find $r<0.16$ at the 95 per cent confidence level (CL). These data show a clear signature of a deviation from scale-invariance also in the presence of tensor modes, with $n_{\rm s}<1$ at the 99.7 per cent CL. We derive constraints on the fraction of massive neutrinos of $f_{\nu}<0.049$ (95 per cent CL), implying a limit of $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.51 {\rm eV}$. We find no signature of a deviation from a cosmological constant from the combination of all datasets, with a constraint of $w_{\rm DE}=-1.033\pm0.073$ when this parameter is assumed time-independent, and no evidence of a departure from this value when it is allowed to evolve as $w_{\rm DE}(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$. The achieved accuracy on our cosmological constraints is a clear demonstration of the constraining power of current cosmological observations.'
author:
- |
\
$^{1}$ Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Postfach 1312, Giessenbachstr., 85741 Garching, Germany.\
$^{2}$ Instituto de Astrof[í]{}sica de Canarias (IAC), C/V[í]{}a Láctea, s/n, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.\
$^{3}$ Dpto. Astrof[í]{}sica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.\
$^{4}$ Institute of Cosmology & Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building, Portsmouth PO1 3FX, UK.\
$^{5}$ Department of Physics, Yale University, 260 Whitney Ave, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.\
$^{6}$ Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138.\
$^{7}$ Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia.\
$^{8}$ Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.\
$^{9}$ Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomia, E-18080 Granada, Spain.\
$^{10}$ Campus of International Excellence UAM+CSIC, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain.\
$^{11}$ Instituto de Fisica Teorica (UAM/CSIC), Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain.\
$^{12}$ APC, University of Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/IRFU, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.\
$^{13}$ Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.\
$^{14}$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.\
$^{15}$ Apache Point Observatory, P.O. Box 59, Sunspot, NM 88349-0059, USA.\
$^{16}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Utah, 115 S 1400 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA\
$^{17}$ Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.\
$^{18}$ Department of Physics and CCAPP, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.\
$^{19}$ Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, New York University, NY 10003, USA.\
$^{20}$ Hubble Fellow.\
$^{21}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.\
$^{22}$ Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.\
$^{23}$ Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.\
$^{24}$ Department of Astronomy and CCAPP, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.\
$^{25}$ Department of Physics, University of California Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.\
$^{26}$ Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.\
$^{27}$ National Astronomy Observatories, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, 100012, P.R.China.\
date: Submitted to MNRAS
title: ' The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological implications of the large-scale two-point correlation function '
---
cosmological parameters, large scale structure of the universe
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In recent years, a wealth of precise cosmological observations have been used to place tight constraints on the values of the fundamental cosmological parameters [e.g. @Riess1998; @Perlmutter1999; @Spergel2003; @Riess2004; @Tegmark2004; @Sanchez2006; @Spergel2007; @Riess2009; @Komatsu2009; @Sanchez2009; @Komatsu2010; @Percival2010; @Reid2010; @Riess2011; @Blake2011; @Montesano2012]. The unexpected conclusion from these studies is that we seem to live in a more complex and richer Universe than originally suspected; one which is currently undergoing a phase of accelerating expansion. Understanding the origin of cosmic acceleration is one of the most outstanding problems in physics as it may hold the key to a true revolution in our understanding of the Universe.
Within the context of general relativity, cosmic acceleration implies that the energy-density budget of the Universe is dominated by a dark energy component, which counteracts the attractive force of gravity. A key parameter that can be used to characterize this component is the dark energy equation of state $w_{\rm DE}$, defined as the ratio of its pressure to density. In the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, dark energy can be described by a fixed equation of state specified by $w_{\rm DE} = -1$, which can be interpreted as the quantum energy of the vacuum. However, a large variety of alternative models have been proposed, which predict different values of $w_{\rm DE}$ and its possible evolution with time [for a review see e.g. @Peebles2003; @Frieman2008; @Gott2011].
Measurements of the large-scale structure (LSS) of the Universe are expected to play a major role at shedding light on the causes of cosmic acceleration. The shape of the galaxy power spectrum, $P(k)$, and its Fourier transform, the two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$, encode useful information which can be used to obtain robust constraints, not only on dark energy, but also on other important physical parameters like neutrino masses, the curvature of the Universe or details of inflationary physics [@Percival2002; @Tegmark2004; @Cole2005; @Sanchez2006; @Spergel2007; @Komatsu2009; @Komatsu2010; @Percival2010; @Reid2010; @Keisler2011; @Blake2011; @Montesano2012]. A special feature of large-scale clustering measurements provides a powerful method to probe the expansion history of the Universe: the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). These are a series of small amplitude oscillations imprinted on the power spectrum [@Eisenstein1998; @Meiksin1999], which are analogous to the acoustic oscillations present in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum. In the correlation function these are transformed into a single peak whose position is related to the sound horizon at the drag redshift [@Matsubara2004]. As this scale can be calibrated to high precision from CMB observations, BAO measurements at different redshifts can be used as a standard ruler to measure the distance-redshift relation [@Blake2003; @Linder2003]. The BAO feature was first detected in the clustering pattern of the luminous red galaxy (LRG) sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS, @York2000] by @Eisenstein2005 and the Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift survey [2dFGRS, @Colless2001; @Colless2003] by @Cole2005 and has been subsequently observed using a variety of datasets and techniques [@Hutsi2006; @Padmanabhan2007; @Percival2007; @Percival2010; @Cabre2009; @Gaztanaga2009; @Kazin2010; @Beutler2011; @Blake2011; @Ho2012; @Seo2012].
Driven by the potential of LSS observations for shedding light on the problem of the nature of dark energy, several ground-breaking galaxy surveys are currently being constructed or designed which will be substantially larger than their predecessors. The ongoing Baryonic Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey [BOSS, @Schlegel2009] is an example of these new surveys. BOSS is a part of SDSS-III [@Eisenstein2011] aimed at obtaining redshifts for $1.5\times10^6$ massive galaxies out to $z=0.7$ over an area of $10,000\,{\rm deg}^2$. This information will provide a high-precision determination of the expansion history of the Universe through accurate measurements of the BAO feature in the large-scale galaxy clustering. BOSS will also attempt to obtain, for the first time, BAO measurements at high redshift ($z \approx 2.5$) through the Ly$\alpha$ forest absorption spectra of about 150,000 quasars.
{width="90.00000%"}
The increasing precision of the new surveys demands accurate models of the LSS observations to extract the maximum amount of information from the data without introducing biases or systematic effects. The BAO signal in the correlation function and power spectrum is modified by the non-linear evolution of density fluctuations, redshift-space distortions, and galaxy bias [@Meiksin1999; @Eisenstein2007; @Seo2007; @Seo2008; @Smith2008; @Angulo2008; @Crocce2008; @Sanchez2008; @Gott2009; @Kim2009; @Montesano2010; @Kim2011]. These effects must be taken into account in the models used to interpret the observations. New developments in perturbation theory, such as Renormalized Perturbation Theory [RPT, @Crocce2006], have provided substantial progress regarding the theoretical understanding of the effects of non-linear evolution, which can now be accurately modelled [@Crocce2006; @Matsubara2008; @Matsubara2008b; @Taruya2009], and even partially corrected for [@Eisenstein2007; @Seo2010; @Padmanabhan2012]. Based on RPT, @Crocce2008 proposed a simple model to describe the full shape of the correlation function on large scales. @Sanchez2008 showed that this model yields an excellent description of the results of N-body simulations, providing a robust tool to extract unbiased cosmological constraints out of measurements of $\xi(r)$. @Sanchez2009 used this model to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters from the correlation function of a sample of LRGs from SDSS-DR6 [@Adelman-McCarthy2008] as measured by @Cabre2009. The same ansatz has been used by @Beutler2011 and @Blake2011 for the analysis of the correlation functions of the 6dF and WiggleZ galaxy surveys, respectively. An analogous approach was used by @Montesano2012 to study the cosmological implications of the LRG power spectrum in SDSS-DR7 [@Abazajian2009].
In this paper we apply the parametrization of @Crocce2008 to the redshift-space correlation function of a high redshift galaxy sample from BOSS Data Release 9 (DR9). This sample, denoted CMASS, is constructed through a set of colour-magnitude cuts designed to select a roughly volume-limited sample of massive, luminous galaxies [@Eisenstein2011 Padmanabhan et al. in prep.]. We combine the CMASS clustering information with recent measurements of CMB, BAO and type Ia supernovae data. We derive constraints on the parameters of the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, and on a number of potential extensions, with an emphasis on the constraints on the dark energy equation of state. Our analysis is part of a series of papers aimed at providing a thorough and comprehensive description of the galaxy clustering in the CMASS sample [@Blanton2012; @Manera2012; @Reid2012; @Ross2012; @Samushia2012; @Tojeiro2012].
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:corfunc\] we describe the galaxy sample that we use and the procedure we follow to compute its correlation function. We also present a discussion on the cosmological information contained in this measurement. Section \[sec:moredata\] describes the additional datasets that we combine with the CMASS correlation function to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters. Our model of the full shape of the correlation function, the parameter spaces we explore and the applied methodology is described in Section \[sec:method\]. In Section \[sec:results\] we present our results for constraints on cosmological parameters from different combinations of datasets and parameter spaces. In Section \[ssec:northsouth\] we analyse the differences in the clustering of the northern and southern Galactic hemispheres and explore their implications on the obtained cosmological constraints. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusions\] contains our main conclusions.
Clustering analysis of the BOSS-CMASS galaxies {#sec:corfunc}
==============================================
We base our analysis on the large-scale two-point correlation function, $\xi(s)$, of the BOSS-CMASS galaxy sample. In this Section we review the most important details of the construction of the sample (Section \[ssec:cmass\]), and our clustering analysis (Section \[ssec:clustering\]).
The CMASS galaxy sample {#ssec:cmass}
-----------------------
The galaxy target selection of BOSS consists of two separate samples, dubbed LOWZ and CMASS, designed to cover different redshift ranges [@Eisenstein2011 Padmanabhan et al. in prep.]. These samples are selected on the basis of photometric observations done with the dedicated 2.5-m Sloan Telescope [@Gunn2006], located at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, using a drift-scanning mosaic CCD camera [@Gunn1998]. These samples are constructed on the basis of $gri$ colour cuts designed to select luminous galaxies at different redshifts at a roughly constant number density. Spectra of the LOWZ and CMASS samples are obtained using the double-armed BOSS spectrographs, which are significantly upgraded from those used by SDSS-I/II, covering the wavelength range 3600 Å to 10000 Å with a resolving power of 1500 to 2600 [@Smee2012]. Spectroscopic redshifts are then measured using the minimum-$\chi^2$ template-fitting procedure described in @Aihara2011, with templates and methods updated for BOSS data as described in @Bolton2012.
Our analysis is based on the clustering properties of the CMASS sample, which is selected to be an approximately complete galaxy sample down to a limiting stellar mass [@Maraston2012]. The CMASS sample is dominated by early type galaxies, although it contains a significant fraction of massive spirals [$\sim$26 per cent, @Masters2011]. Most of the galaxies in this sample are central galaxies, with a $\sim$10 per cent satellite fraction [@White2011; @Nuza2012].
@Blanton2012 presents a detailed description of the construction of the catalogue for LSS studies based on this sample, and the calculation of the completeness of each sector of the survey mask, that is, the areas of the sky covered by a unique set of spectroscopic tiles [@Blanton2003], which we characterize using the [Mangle]{} software [@Hamilton2004; @Swanson2008]. We only include sectors with completeness larger than 75%. Our results are not affected by this limit, as this leaves out only a small fraction of the total DR9 area. We restrict our analysis to the redshift range $0.43 < z < 0.7$, producing a final sample of 262,104 galaxies, of which 205,947 and 56,157 are located in the Northern and Southern Galactic hemispheres, respectively. Fig. \[fig:map\] shows the angular footprint, in Galactic coordinates, of the resulting sample for the Northern (left) and Southern (right) Galactic caps (hereafter NGC and SGC, respectively), colour-coded according to sector completeness.
@Nuza2012 compared the small and intermediate-scale clustering of this sample to the expectations of a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model by applying an abundance matching technique to the Multidark simulation. In three companion papers, @Reid2012, @Samushia2012 and @Tojeiro2012 study the signature of redshift-space distortions in this sample and explore its cosmological implications. Here we focus on the shape of the large-scale monopole correlation function to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters.
The redshift-space correlation function {#ssec:clustering}
----------------------------------------
We characterize the clustering of the CMASS galaxy sample by means of the angle-averaged redshift-space two-point correlation function $\xi(s)$. Here we summarize the procedure we follow to obtain this measurement.
The first step in the calculation of three-dimensional clustering statistics is the conversion of the observed redshifts into distances. For this we assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM fiducial cosmology with matter density, in units of the critical density, of $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.274$, and a Hubble parameter $h=0.7$ (expressed in units of $100\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$). This is the same fiducial cosmology assumed by @White2011 and our companion papers [@Blanton2012; @Manera2012; @Ross2012; @Reid2012; @Tojeiro2012]. As will be discussed in Section \[ssec:info\], the choice of the fiducial cosmology has implications on the resulting correlation function.
We then compute the full correlation function $\xi(s,\mu)$, where $\mu\equiv s_{||}/|\vec{s}|$ and $s_{||}$ is the radial component of the separation vector $\vec{s}$, using the estimator of @Landy1993, namely $$\xi(s,\mu) = \frac{DD- 2 DR + RR}{ RR},
\label{eq:lys}$$ where $DD$, $DR$ and $RR$ are the normalized pair counts in each bin of $(s,\mu)$ in the data and a random sample with 50 times more objects than the original data, constructed to follow the same selection function [for more details on the construction of the random catalogue see @Blanton2012]. We infer the angle-averaged redshift-space correlation function as the monopole of $\xi(s,\mu)$, that is $$\xi(s) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1} \xi(s,\mu) {\rm d}\mu.$$ This method should be preferred over the commonly used one, in which the $DD$, $DR$, and $RR$ counts are integrated over $\mu$ before they are combined as in equation (\[eq:lys\]) to compute $\xi(s)$, ignoring the fact that the geometry of the survey introduces a $\mu$ dependence on $RR$ [@Samushia2011; @Kazin2012], although the differences between the two approaches are more significant for higher multipoles.
When computing the pair counts in equation (\[eq:lys\]), a few important corrections must be taken into account. This is done by assigning a series of weights to each object in the real and random catalogues. First, we apply a radial weight given by $$w_{\rm r}=\frac{1}{1+P_{w}\bar{n}(z)},
\label{eq:wradial}$$ where $\bar{n}(z)$ is the expected number density of the catalogue at the given redshift and $P_{w}$ is a free parameter. @Hamilton1993 showed that setting $P_{w}=4\pi J_3(s)$, where $J_3(s)=\int_0^s\xi(s')s'^2{\rm d}s'$, minimizes the variance on the measured correlation function for the given scale $s$. Following standard practice we use a scale-independent value of $P_w=2\times 10^4\,h^{-3}{\rm Mpc}^3$. @Reid2012 show that the full scale-dependent weight provides only a marginal improvement over the results obtained using this constant value.
We include additional weights to account for non-random contributions to the sample incompleteness and to correct for systematic effects. The incompleteness in a given sector of the mask has a random component due to the fact that not all galaxies satisfying the CMASS selection criteria are observed spectroscopically. In any clustering measurement this is taken into account by down-sampling the random catalogue in that region of the sky by the same fraction. However, there are two other sources of missing redshifts which require special treatment: redshift failures and fibre collisions.
Even when the spectrum of a galaxy is observed, it might not be possible to obtain a reliable estimation of the redshift of the object, leading to what is called a redshift failure. As shown in @Ross2012, the probability that a spectroscopic observation leads to a redshift failure is not uniform across the field since these tend to happen for fibres located near the edges of the observed plates. Hence, these missing redshifts cannot be considered as an extra component affecting the overall completeness of the sector.
However, the main cause of missing redshift is fibre collisions [@Zehavi2002; @Masjedi2006]. The BOSS spectrographs are fed by optical fibres plugged on plates, which must be separated by at least 62$''$. It is then not possible to obtain spectra of all galaxies with neighbours closer than this angular distance in one single observation. The problem is alleviated in sectors covered by multiple exposures but, in general, it is impossible to observe all the objects in crowded regions.
![ Panel (a): spherically averaged redshift-space two-point correlation function of the full CMASS sample. The errorbars were obtained from a set of 600 mock catalogues constructed to follow the same selection function of the survey [@Manera2012]. The dashed line corresponds to the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model obtained by combining the information from the shape of the correlation function and CMB measurements (see Section \[ssec:lcdm\]). Panel (b): same as panel (a), but rescaled by $(s/s_{\rm BAO})^2$, where $s_{\rm BAO}=153.2 \, {\rm Mpc}$ (which corresponds to 107.2 $h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$), to highlight the baryonic acoustic feature. []{data-label="fig:corfunc"}](figs/figure2a.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ Panel (a): spherically averaged redshift-space two-point correlation function of the full CMASS sample. The errorbars were obtained from a set of 600 mock catalogues constructed to follow the same selection function of the survey [@Manera2012]. The dashed line corresponds to the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model obtained by combining the information from the shape of the correlation function and CMB measurements (see Section \[ssec:lcdm\]). Panel (b): same as panel (a), but rescaled by $(s/s_{\rm BAO})^2$, where $s_{\rm BAO}=153.2 \, {\rm Mpc}$ (which corresponds to 107.2 $h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$), to highlight the baryonic acoustic feature. []{data-label="fig:corfunc"}](figs/figure2b.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
To correct for these effects we follow @Ross2012 and implement two sets of weights, $w_{\rm rf}$ and $w_{\rm fc}$, whose default value is $1$ for all galaxies in the sample. For every galaxy with a redshift failure, we increase by one the value of $w_{\rm rf}$ of the nearest galaxy with a good redshift measurement. Similarly, for each galaxy whose redshift was not observed due to fibre collisions, the value of $w_{\rm fc}$ of its neighbour, closer than 62$''$, is increased by one. These are then combined into a single weight to correct for missing redshifts given by $$w_{\rm mr} = w_{\rm rf}+w_{\rm fc}-1.
\label{eq:wangular}$$ On the scales analysed in this paper, the application of these weights effectively corrects for the effects of fibre collisions and redshift failures providing an excellent agreement with the results obtained using the method recently proposed by @Guo2011.
@Ross2012 performed a detailed analysis of the systematic effects that could potentially affect any clustering measurement based on the CMASS sample showing that, besides redshift failures and fibre collisions, other important corrections must be considered in order to obtain unbiased clustering measurements. They found that the local stellar density is the dominant source of systematic errors as it has a significant effect on the probability of detecting a CMASS galaxy. In this way, the variations of stellar density across the sky introduce spurious fluctuations in the galaxy density field which affect all clustering measurements. @Ross2012 found that this systematic effect can be corrected for by applying a set of weights $w_{\rm sys}$ which depend on both the stellar density and the galaxy $i_{\rm fiber2}$ magnitude, that is, the $i$-band magnitude measured within a 2$''$ aperture. We include these weights in the final total weight $w_{\rm tot}$ used in all our clustering measurements $$w_{\rm tot} = w_{\rm r}\,w_{\rm mr}\,w_{\rm sys}.
\label{eq:wtotal}$$
Additional potential systematics such as Galactic extinction, seeing, airmass, and sky background have also been investigated, and all have been found to potentially introduce much smaller spurious fluctuations. These non-cosmological fluctuations can be corrected for using a weighting scheme that minimises these fluctuations as a function of a given systematic effect.
The upper panel of Fig. \[fig:corfunc\] shows the large-scale redshift-space correlation function of the full CMASS sample obtained through the procedure described above. The dashed line corresponds to the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model obtained from the combination of this measurement with CMB observations as described in Section \[ssec:lcdm\]. The BAO peak can be seen more clearly in the lower panel, which shows the same measurement rescaled by the ratio $(s/s_{\rm BAO})^2$, where $s_{\rm BAO}=153.2\,{\rm Mpc}$ corresponds to the sound horizon scale in our fiducial cosmology. As will be discussed in more detail in Section \[ssec:northsouth\], the measurements of the two-point correlation function in the NGC and SGC sub-samples exhibit intriguing differences. Although the overall shapes of these measurements are similar, they show differences at the scale of the acoustic peak. In Section \[ssec:northsouth\] we discuss the significance of these differences and their impact on the inferred cosmological constraints.
To obtain an estimate of the covariance matrix of the correlation function measured in these samples, we use a set of $N_{\rm m}=600$ independent mock catalogues based on a method similar to [PTHalos]{} [@Scoccimarro2002], although with some important differences. A detailed description of the construction of these mock catalogues and a comparison with the results of N-body simulations is presented in @Manera2012[^1]. These simulations correspond to the same fiducial cosmology used to measure $\xi(s)$ in the real catalogue and were designed to follow the selection function of the NGC and SGC CMASS sub-samples. We measured the correlation function of each mock catalogue using the same binning schemes as for the real data and the radial weights of equation (\[eq:wradial\]). We then use these measurements to obtain an estimate of the covariance matrix of $\xi(s)$ in the NGC, SGC as $$C_{ij} = \frac{1}{(N_{\rm m}-1)}
\sum_{\rm k=1}^{N_{\rm m}} \left(\xi_{\rm k}(s_{\rm i})-{\bar\xi}(s_{\rm i})\right)
\left(\xi_{\rm k}(s_{\rm j})-{\bar\xi}(s_{\rm j})\right),
\label{eq:covmat}$$ where $\xi_{\rm k}(s)$ is the correlation function from the $k$-th mock catalogue, and ${\bar\xi}(s)$ is the mean correlation correlation function from the ensemble of realizations. As in @Ross2012, we assume that the NGC and SGC regions are independent and compute the covariance matrix of the full CMASS sample as $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm full}^{-1}=\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm NGC}^{-1}+\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm SGC}^{-1}$. The errorbars in Fig. \[fig:corfunc\] correspond to the square root of the diagonal entries in $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm full}$.
Additional data-sets {#sec:moredata}
====================
As described in Section \[ssec:info\], the two-point correlation function contains valuable cosmological information. However, it is not possible to constrain high-dimensional parameter spaces to high precision using this measurement alone. Here we describe the additional datasets with which we combine the CMASS $\xi(s)$ in order to improve the obtained cosmological constraints.
Undoubtedly, the measurements of the temperature and polarization fluctuations of the CMB constitute the most powerful and robust cosmological probe to date. In particular, the results from the seven-year of observations of the WMAP satellite [@Hinshaw2008] and the South Pole Telescope [SPT, @Keisler2011] provide a detailed picture of the structure of the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum up to multipoles $\ell\simeq3000$. This information places tight constraints on the parameters of the basic $\Lambda$CDM model. However, the power of these observations is limited by nearly exact degeneracies that arise when deviations from this simple model are explored [@Efstathiou1999]. These degeneracies can be broken by combining the CMB information with additional datasets, such as the shape of $\xi(s)$.
In our analysis we use the temperature power spectrum in the range $2 \leq \ell \leq 1000$ and the temperature-polarization power spectrum for $2 \leq \ell \leq 450$ from the seven-year of observations of the WMAP satellite [@Jarosik2010; @Komatsu2011; @Larson2011], combined with the recent SPT observations of @Keisler2011 for $650 \leq \ell \leq 3000$. While for $\ell \lesssim 650$ the CMB power spectrum is dominated by primary anisotropies, at smaller angular scales it contains a non-negligible contribution from secondary anisotropies. To take this into account, we follow the treatment of @Keisler2011 and include the contributions from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect, and the emission from foreground galaxies (considering both a clustered and a Poisson point source contribution) in the form of templates whose amplitudes are considered as nuisance parameters and marginalized over. These templates are only applied to the SPT data. We refer to the WMAP-SPT combination as our “CMB” dataset.
Additionally, we consider the constraints provided by the Hubble diagram of type Ia supernovae (SN) obtained from the compilation of @Conley2011. This sample contains 472 SN, combining the high-redshift SN from the first three years of the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) with other samples, primarily at lower redshifts. In order to take into account the effect of the systematic errors in our cosmological constraints we follow the recipe of @Conley2011, who performed a detailed analysis of all identified systematic uncertainties, characterizing them in terms of a covariance matrix that incorporates effects such as the recently discovered correlations between SN luminosity and host galaxy properties, as well as the uncertainties of the empirical light-curve models. When only SN data are used to constrain cosmological parameters, the uncertainty budget is dominated by statistical errors. However, when these data are combined with external datasets, as in our case, statistical and systematic uncertainties are comparable, highlighting the importance of an accurate treatment of the later.
We also use information from other clustering measurements in the form of constraints on $y_s(z)$ and $A(z)$ from independent BAO analyses. We use the results of @Beutler2011, who obtained an estimate of $y_{\rm s}(z=0.106)= 0.336 \pm 0.015$ from the large-scale correlation function of the 6dF Galaxy Survey [6DFGS, @Jones2009]. We also include the 2% distance measurement of $(y_{\rm s}(0.35))^{-1}= 8.88\pm0.17$ recently obtained by @Padmanabhan2012 and @Xu2012 from the application of an updated version of the reconstruction technique proposed by @Eisenstein2007 to the clustering of galaxies from the final SDSS-II LRG sample. The application of this algorithm resulted in an improvement of almost a factor two in the accuracy on $y_{\rm s}$ over the constraint obtained from the unreconstructed sample. We combine the result from these analyses into our “BAO” dataset. In a recent analysis, @Blake2011 used the full shape of the two-point correlation function from the final dataset of the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey [@Drinkwater2010] to obtain constraints on $y_{\rm s}(z)$ and $A(z)$ for three independent redshift slices of width $\Delta z = 0.4$. We do not include these measurements in our analysis given the significant overlap of the WiggleZ data with the sample analysed here. However, as shown in @Blanton2012, the WiggleZ BAO measurements are in excellent agreement with those inferred from the CMASS sample.
The datasets described above are used in different combinations to check the consistency of the constraints returned. We start from the constraints obtained using CMB data alone, which we then combine with the CMASS correlation function in our “CMB+CMASS” combination. We then add separately the SN and additional BAO data to test the impact of these datasets on the obtained results. Our tightest constraints are obtained from the combination of all four datasets.
Methodology {#sec:method}
===========
We obtain constraints on cosmological parameters following a similar approach to that of @Sanchez2009. In this Section we summarize the main points of our analysis method. The parametric model we use to describe the shape of the correlation function in redshift space is summarized in Section \[ssec:rpt\]. Section \[ssec:param\] describes the different parameter sets that we consider, together with the methodology we follow to explore and constrain them. Section \[ssec:info\] describes the way in which cosmological information is extracted out of a measurement of $\xi(s)$.
Modelling the full-shape of $\xi(s)$ {#ssec:rpt}
------------------------------------
Following @Crocce2008 and @Sanchez2008, we model the shape of the large-scale correlation function, $\xi(s)$, by applying the following parametrization: $$\xi(s) = b^2 \left[\xi_{\rm L}(s)\otimes {\rm e}^{-(k_{\star}s)^2}
+ A_{\rm MC} \,\xi'_{\rm L}(s)\,\xi^{(1)}_{\rm L}(s) \right],
\label{eq:xi_model}$$ where $b$, $k_{\star}$ and $A_{\rm MC}$ are treated as free parameters, and the symbol $\otimes$ denotes a convolution. Here $\xi'_{\rm L}$ is the derivative of the linear correlation function $\xi_{\rm L}$, and $\xi^{(1)}_{\rm L}$ is defined by $$\xi_{\rm L}^{(1)}(s) \equiv \hat{s} \cdot \nabla^{-1}\xi_{\rm L}(s)
=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int P_{\rm L}(k)\,j_1(ks)k\,{\rm d}k ,
\label{eq:xi1}$$ with $j_{\rm 1}(y)$ denoting the spherical Bessel function of order one. This parametrization was originally proposed by @Crocce2008 and it is based on the theoretical framework of Renormalized Perturbation Theory [RPT, @Crocce2006], where the non-linear power spectrum $P_{\rm NL}(k,z)$ can be computed as the sum of two terms $$P_{\rm NL}(k, z) = G(k,z)^2P_{\rm L}(k,z) + P_{\rm MC}(k,z).
\label{eq:pk_rpt}$$ The first of these contributions represents a re-summation in the renormalized propagator, $G(k, z)$, of all the terms in the perturbation theory expansion of $P_{\rm NL}(k,z)$ proportional to the linear theory power spectrum $P_{\rm L}(k)$. The second term groups all the remaining contributions, which arise from the coupling of different Fourier modes. The non-linear correlation function is then given by an analogous decomposition, which motivates the parametrization of equation (\[eq:xi\_model\]). The exponential in the first term of equation (\[eq:xi\_model\]) is based on the fact that, in the high-$k$ limit, the propagator can be accurately described as a Gaussian damping, while the second term corresponds to the leading order contribution to $\xi_{\rm MC}$ arising from the coupling of two initial modes.
@Sanchez2008 compared this model against the results of an ensemble of large volume N-body simulations [L-BASICC-II, @Angulo2008] at various redshifts, and showed that it provides an accurate description of the full shape of the correlation function, including also the effects of bias and redshift-space distortions. @Sanchez2009 used this model to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters from the correlation function of the LRG sample from SDSS-DR6 measured by @Cabre2009. This parametrization has also been used by @Beutler2011 and @Blake2011 for their analyses of the correlation function measurements from the 6dF Galaxy Survey and the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey. @Montesano2012 applied an analogous parametrization to study the cosmological implications of the power spectrum of an LRG sample drawn from SDSS-DR7.
The smoothing length $k_{\star}$ depends on cosmology and redshift, but also on galaxy type through its dependence on halo mass. For this reason, we follow a conservative approach and consider $k_{\star}$ as a free parameter.
Following @Sanchez2009, we restrict the comparison of the model of equation (\[eq:xi\_model\]) and the measured CMASS correlation function to $s > 40\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. Although this is a conservative lower limit, on smaller scales further contributions to $\xi_{\rm MC}(s)$ should be considered. We also limit our analysis to scales $s<200\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, since on larger scales all viable models predict similar shapes for $\xi(s)$. We compute the likelihood of the model assuming a Gaussian form ${\cal L}\propto\exp(-\chi^2/2)$. This choice is justified by the results of @Manera2012, who found that the probability distribution function of $\xi(s)$ inferred from the ensemble of mock catalogues can be described by a Gaussian distribution to high accuracy.
To allow for the fact that, when computing the CMASS correlation function, galaxy distances were calculated with our fiducial cosmology, a correction must be applied to the model before computing its corresponding $\chi^2$ value (see Section \[ssec:info\]).
Cosmological parameter spaces {#ssec:param}
-----------------------------
The starting point of our analysis is the basic $\Lambda$CDM parameter space. This is the simplest model able to successfully describe a large variety of cosmological datasets. It corresponds to a flat universe where the energy budget contains contributions from cold dark matter (CDM), baryons, and dark energy, which is given by vacuum energy or a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (i.e. with an equation of state parameter $w_{\rm DE} = -1$). Primordial density fluctuations are adiabatic, Gaussian, and have a power-law spectrum of Fourier amplitudes, with a negligible contribution from tensor modes. This model can then be defined by specifying the values of the following six parameters: $${\bf P}_{\rm \Lambda CDM} = (\omega_{\rm b}, \omega_{\rm dm}, \Theta, \tau,A_s,n_s).
\label{eq:param}$$ The baryon and dark matter densities, $\omega_{\rm b} = \Omega_{\rm b}h^2$ and $\omega_{\rm dm} = \Omega_{\rm dm}h^2$, and the ratio between the horizon scale at recombination and the angular diameter distance to the corresponding redshift, $\Theta$, characterize the homogeneous background model. This set is equivalent to fixing the values of $\Omega_{\rm b}$, $\Omega_{\rm dm}$ and $h$, but it is better constrained by the CMB data. The primordial power spectrum of the scalar fluctuations is described by its amplitude, $A_{\rm s}$, and spectral index, $n_{\rm s}$. The values of these parameters are quoted at the pivot wavenumber of $k= 0.05\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Finally, $\tau$ gives the optical depth to the last scattering surface, which we compute assuming instantaneous reionisation. Our constraints on the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space are described in Section \[ssec:lcdm\].
In order to constrain possible deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM model, in Sections \[ssec:omk\]–\[ssec:darkenergy\] we explore a number of extensions of this parameter space by allowing for variations on the following set of parameters: $${\bf P}_{\rm extra} = (\Omega_{\rm k}, f_{\nu}, r, w_{\rm DE}).
\label{eq:paramextra}$$ These are the curvature of the Universe, the dark matter fraction in the form of massive neutrinos, $f_{\nu}=\Omega_{\nu}/\Omega_{\rm dm}$, the tensor-to-scalar mode amplitude ratio of the primordial fluctuations[^2], and the dark energy equation of state parameter. For most of this paper, we assume that the dark energy equation of state is independent of redshift. In Section \[ssec:wa\] we allow also for a time variation of this parameter using the standard linear parametrization of @Chevallier2001 and @Linder2003 given by $$w_{\rm DE}(a) = w_0 + w_a(1-a),
\label{eq:wa}$$ where $a$ is the expansion factor and $w_0$ and $w_a$ are the parameters we constrain.
We also present constraints on other quantities which can be derived from the ones listed in equations (\[eq:param\]) and (\[eq:paramextra\]). In particular we are interested in: $${\bf P}_{\rm der} = (\Omega_{\rm DE}, \Omega_{\rm m}, h, \sigma_8, t_0, z_{\rm re}, D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m}),\sum m_{\nu}, f).
\label{eq:paramder}$$ These are the dark energy and total matter densities (i.e., including the contributions from baryons, cold dark matter and neutrinos), the Hubble factor, the rms linear perturbation theory variance in spheres of radius $8\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, the age of the universe, the redshift of reionization, the average distance to the mean redshift of the sample (given by equation \[eq:dv\]), the sum of the neutrino masses, given by $$\sum m_{\nu}= 94.4\,\omega_{\rm dm}f_{\nu}\, {\rm eV},
\label{eq:mnu}$$ and the logarithmic derivative of the growth factor, $f(z_m)={\rm d}\ln D/{\rm d}\ln a$.
We explore these parameter spaces using the [CosmoMC]{} code of @Lewis2002. [CosmoMC]{} uses [camb]{} to compute power spectra for the CMB and matter fluctuations [@Lewis2000]. We use a generalized version of [camb]{} which supports a time-dependent dark energy equation of state [@Fang2008]. We included additional modifications from @Keisler2011 and @Conley2011 to compute the likelihood of the SPT and SNLS datasets.
In order to compare a given cosmological model with the datasets described in Sections \[sec:corfunc\] and \[sec:moredata\] it is necessary to include a set of nuisance parameters given by $$\mathbf{P_{\rm nuisance} }\equiv (b,k_{\star},A_{\rm MC},D^{\rm SZ}_{3000},D^{\rm PS}_{3000},D^{\rm CL}_{3000},\alpha,\beta),$$ to the parameter sets described above. The bias factor $b$, the damping scale $k_{\star}$ and the mode-coupling amplitude $A_{\rm MC}$ are described in detail in Section \[ssec:rpt\]. The quantities $D^{\rm SZ}_{3000}$, $D^{\rm CL}_{3000}$ and $D^{\rm PS}_{3000}$ give the amplitudes of the contributions from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, the clustering of the foreground emissive galaxies and their shot-noise fluctuation power, respectively, to the high-$\ell$ CMB angular power spectrum. The foreground terms are used only when calculating the SPT likelihood; they are not used when calculating the WMAP likelihood. We follow @Keisler2011 and apply Gaussian priors on the amplitude of each of these foreground terms given by $D^{\rm PS}_{3000} = 19.3 \pm 3.5\,\mu{\rm K}^2$, $D^{\rm CL}_{3000} = 5.0 \pm 2.5\,\mu{\rm K}^2$, and $D^{\rm SZ}_{3000} = 5.5 \pm 3.0\,\mu{\rm K}^2$. The parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are additional nuisance parameters introduced by @Conley2011 for the correct treatment of the systematics in the analysis of the SN data. When quoting constraints on the parameters of equations (\[eq:param\])-(\[eq:paramextra\]), the values of these parameters are marginalized over.
![ Panel (a): mean correlation function from our ensemble of mock catalogues obtained by assuming the true cosmological parameters as fiducial values (circles connected by a solid line) and a flat cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.4$ (squares connected by a dashed line). The shaded region correspond to the variance between the different realizations of the ensemble. Panel (b): same measurements as panel (a), but expressed as a function of $y=s/D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$, which removes the dependence on the fiducial cosmology. []{data-label="fig:fiducial"}](figs/figure3a.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ Panel (a): mean correlation function from our ensemble of mock catalogues obtained by assuming the true cosmological parameters as fiducial values (circles connected by a solid line) and a flat cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.4$ (squares connected by a dashed line). The shaded region correspond to the variance between the different realizations of the ensemble. Panel (b): same measurements as panel (a), but expressed as a function of $y=s/D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$, which removes the dependence on the fiducial cosmology. []{data-label="fig:fiducial"}](figs/figure3b.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Extracting information out of $\xi(s)$ {#ssec:info}
--------------------------------------
In this Section we describe the information encoded in the shape of the two-point correlation function and how it can be used to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters. As described in Section \[ssec:clustering\], the measurement of the correlation function requires the assumption of a fiducial cosmology to map the observed redshifts into distances. This fact has important implications on the parameter combinations that are constrained by $\xi(s)$.
Different choices of the fiducial cosmology lead to a rescaling of the distances to the individual galaxies $s\rightarrow s'$, affecting the volume element of the survey. This effect can be encapsulated in the Jacobian of the transformation [@Eisenstein2005; @Sanchez2009; @Kazin2012] $${\rm d}^3s'=\left(\frac{D_{\rm V}'(z_{\rm m})}{D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})}\right)^3{\rm d}^3s.
\label{eq:jacobian}$$ Here $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$ is a measure of the average distance to the mean redshift of the survey, $z_{\rm m}=0.57$, given by $$D_{\rm V}(z)=\left((1+z)^2D_{\rm A}(z)^2\frac{cz}{H(z)}\right)^{1/3}
\label{eq:dv}$$ where $H(z)$ is the Hubble parameter and $D_{\rm A}(z)$ is the proper angular diameter distance.
Fig. \[fig:fiducial\] illustrates the effect of assuming different fiducial cosmologies on the measurement of $\xi(s)$. The points connected by a solid line in panel (a) show the mean correlation function of our ensemble of mock catalogues, obtained assuming as fiducial cosmology the true values of the simulation parameters. The shaded region corresponds to the variance between the individual realizations. The squares connected by a dashed line correspond to the mean correlation function from the same set of mock catalogues, but obtained assuming a flat $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.4$. The two measurements show significantly different slopes and positions of the acoustic peak. As equation (\[eq:jacobian\]) suggests, this change is simply due to a rescaling of the horizontal axis. This effect can be better appreciated in panel (b) of Fig. \[fig:fiducial\], where the impact of the fiducial cosmology has been removed by expressing the measured correlation functions in terms of the dimensionless variable $y\equiv s/D_{\rm V}^{\rm fid}(z_{\rm m})$. This exercise shows that, although the true underlying correlation function is not a real observable, it is possible to obtain a measurement which is independent of the fiducial cosmology by expressing it as $\xi(y)$.
The particular choice of the fiducial cosmology must be taken into account when comparing a measurement of $\xi(s)$ with theoretical predictions. As described above, this can be achieved by expressing both model and measurements in terms of $y$. Alternatively, the effect of the fiducial cosmology might be introduced in the model by rescaling the scales $s$ by a factor $$\gamma = \frac{D_{{\rm V}}^{\rm fiducial}(z_{\rm m})}{D_{\rm V}^{{\rm model}}(z_{\rm m})},
\label{eq:cor_fact}$$ before comparing it to the measured $\xi(s)$. We follow this approach in our analysis.
![ The 68 and 95 per cent marginalized constraints in the $\omega_{\rm m}-D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$ plane, where $\omega_{\rm m}\equiv \Omega_{\rm m} h^2$, obtained from the shape of the CMASS correlation function alone (solid lines). The dashed, dot-dashed and dotted lines correspond to constant values of $D_{\rm v}(z_{\rm m})\,\omega_{\rm m}$, $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ (equation \[eq:ys\]), and $A(z_{\rm m})$ (equation \[eq:apar\]), respectively. []{data-label="fig:om_dv"}](figs/figure4.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
The most important source of cosmological information in $\xi(s)$ is the location of the acoustic peak, which is closely related to the sound horizon at the drag redshift $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$. Associating the position of the peak in $\xi(y)$ with this scale, it is clear that this measurement will provide constraints on the parameter combination $$y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=\frac{r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})}{D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})}.
\label{eq:ys}$$ However, the location of the acoustic peak does not correspond exactly to the acoustic scale. Non-linear evolution and redshift space distortions damp the acoustic peak and shift its position towards smaller scales [@Smith2008; @Crocce2008; @Angulo2008; @Sanchez2008]. Nonetheless, if these effects are modelled correctly, a measurement of $\xi(s)$ would still provide constraints on the parameter combination of equation (\[eq:ys\]), allowing for the correct underlying cosmology to be recovered.
Similarly, the measurement of the power spectrum, $P(k)$, will be subject to the same effect, which can be removed by multiplying the measured wave-numbers by $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$. In this way, the wavelength of the acoustic oscillations inferred from a measurement of $P(k)$ will provide constraints on $y_{\rm s}^{-1}(z_{\rm m})$. As $P(k)$ is not a dimensionless quantity, its amplitude is also affected by the fiducial cosmology (by a factor proportional to $(D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m}))^3$). This can be avoided by working with the dimensionless power spectrum $\Delta^2(k)=P(k)k^3/(2\pi^2)$.
Besides the BAO, the power spectrum contains information on another useful scale. The location of the turn-over in $P(k)$ is related to the size of the sound horizon at the time of matter-radiation equality. In the absence of massive neutrinos, and for a fixed effective number of relativistic species, this scale is $k_{\rm eq}\propto \Omega_{\rm m}h^2\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Taking into account the effect of the fiducial cosmology, the quantity that can actually be constrained is $k_{\rm eq}D_{\rm v}(z_{\rm m})$. The information about this parameter combination is also encoded in the shape of the correlation function, where it is related to the position of the zero-crossing at scales larger than those of the acoustic peak [@Prada2011]. In this way, a measurement of $\xi(s)$ provides constraints on the same parameter combination. This quantity is degenerate with other parameters, like the baryon density and the scalar spectral index, which also affect the shape of $\xi(s)$. However, the later are tightly constrained by CMB observations [e.g., @Komatsu2011; @Keisler2011].
The contours in Fig. \[fig:om\_dv\] show the two-dimensional marginalized constraints in the $\omega_{\rm m}-D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$ plane, where $\omega_{\rm m}\equiv \Omega_{\rm m} h^2$, obtained from the shape of the CMASS correlation function, using the model described in Section \[ssec:rpt\]. To ameliorate the effect of the degeneracies between $\omega_{\rm m}$, and $\omega_{\rm b}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ in this exercise, we have applied Gaussian priors of $\omega_{\rm b}=0.0222\pm0.0010$ and $n_{\rm s}=0.966\pm0.020$. These priors are weaker than the corresponding accuracy with which these parameters are determined by current CMB data (see Section \[sec:results\]), allowing us to quantify more clearly the information provided by $\xi(s)$. The full combination of this measurement with CMB data will result in slightly tighter constraints.
The dashed and dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:om\_dv\] correspond to constant values of $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ and $D_{\rm v}(z_{\rm m})\omega_{\rm m}$. The interplay between the constraints on these parameter combinations shapes the allowed region in the $\omega_{\rm m}-D_{\rm V}$ plane. The dotted line in Fig. \[fig:om\_dv\] corresponds to a constant value of the quantity [@Eisenstein2005] $$A(z_{\rm m})=D_{\rm v}(z_{\rm m})\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{\rm m}H^2_0}}{cz_{\rm m}},
\label{eq:apar}$$ which approximately describes the resulting degeneracy between $\omega_{\rm m}$ and $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$. To take into account the effect of the baryon density on the scale $k_{\rm eq}$, this quantity should be defined in terms of the shape parameter $\Gamma$. However, we maintain the usual definition to simplify the comparison with previous analyses. The CMASS correlation function implies a constraint of $A(z_{\rm m})=0.444\pm0.014$.
Two of our companion papers, @Blanton2012 and @Reid2012, study the cosmological implications of the galaxy clustering in the CMASS sample. While @Blanton2012 is based on the constraints inferred from the BAO signal, @Reid2012 deals with the analysis of redshift-space distortions. Both of these studies present constraints on the quantity $$\alpha=y_{\rm s}^{\rm fid}(z_{\rm m})/y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m}),$$ where $y_{\rm s}^{\rm fid}(z_{\rm m})$ is the value corresponding to our fiducial cosmology. Dropping the priors on $\omega_{\rm b}$ and $n_{\rm s}$, we obtain the constraint $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0745\pm0.0014$, which implies $\alpha=1.015 \pm 0.019$. This result is in good agreement with the constraints reported in our companion papers: @Reid2012 obtain $\alpha=1.023\pm0.019$, while @Blanton2012 find $\alpha=1.016\pm0.017$ from the pre-reconstruction correlation function, and a post-reconstruction“consensus” value between $\xi(s)$ and $P(k)$ of $\alpha=1.033\pm0.017$. This agreement is a clear demonstration of the consistency between the different analysis techniques implemented in these studies.
Cosmological implications {#sec:results}
=========================
In this Section, we perform a systematic study of the constraints placed on the values of the cosmological parameters described Section \[ssec:param\]. In Section \[ssec:lcdm\], we present the results for the simple $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with six free parameters. In Section \[ssec:omk\] we discuss our constraints on non-flat models. Section \[ssec:fnu\] deals with the constraints on the fraction of massive neutrinos. In Section \[ssec:tensor\] we allow for non-zero tensor modes. In Section \[ssec:darkenergy\] we focus on the constraints on the nature of dark energy. Models where the dark energy equation of state is constant over time are analysed in Section \[ssec:wde\], while Section \[ssec:wa\] explores the constraints on the redshift dependence of $w_{\rm DE}$, parametrized according to equation (\[eq:wa\]). Finally, Section \[ssec:wok\] shows the impact of allowing also for models with $\Omega_k\neq0$ on the constraints on $w_{\rm DE}$. Tables \[tab:lcdm\]-\[tab:wok\] in Appendix \[sec:tables\] summarize the constraints obtained in these parameter spaces using different combinations of the datasets described in Sections \[sec:corfunc\] and \[sec:moredata\].
The $\Lambda$CDM model {#ssec:lcdm}
----------------------
In this Section we focus on the $\Lambda$CDM model and discuss the constraints on the parameter space of equation (\[eq:param\]). The CMB data alone are able to provide tight constraints on this parameter space, especially on quantities such as $\omega_{\rm b}$, $\theta$ and $\tau$, whose constraints show almost no variation when other datasets are included in the analysis. However, the constraints on other parameters are improved by considering additional datasets.
![ The marginalized constraints in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-h$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. []{data-label="fig:om_h"}](figs/figure5.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:om\_h\] show the two-dimensional marginalized constraints in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-h$ plane obtained using CMB data alone. The contours show a degeneracy that follows approximately a line of constant $\Omega_{\rm m}h^3$ [@Percival2002]. This degeneracy limits the accuracy of the one-dimensional constraints on these parameters, which from the CMB data alone are $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.266\pm0.024$ and $h=0.710\pm 0.020$. The solid lines in Fig. \[fig:om\_h\] show the result of combining the CMB measurements with the CMASS correlation function. The extra information contained in the shape of $\xi(s)$ partially breaks this degeneracy, leading to tighter constraints of $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.282 \pm 0.015$ and $h=0.696\pm0.012$. The dashed line in Fig. \[fig:corfunc\] corresponds to the best fitting model obtained in this case. This model gives an excellent match to both the location of the BAO peak and the full shape of the CMASS correlation function. On scales $s > 80\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, the model slightly under-predicts the amplitude of $\xi(s)$. Note, however, that on these scales the individual points in the measurement are correlated. Taking into account the full covariance matrix, this model gives $\chi^2=27$ for 32 degrees of freedom, providing an excellent fit. This model requires a real-space bias factor [i.e., computed after accounting for the boost factor of @Kaiser1987] of $b_{\rm r}=1.96\pm0.09$. This value is in excellent agreement with the results of [@Nuza2012], who estimated a bias factor of $b_{\rm r}\simeq2$ from an abundance matching analysis of the small and intermediate scale clustering of the CMASS sample based on the Multidark simulation.
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-\Omega_{k}$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended to allow for non-flat models. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dotted line corresponds to the $\Lambda$CDM model, where $\Omega_{k}=0$. []{data-label="fig:om_ok"}](figs/figure6.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
The results presented here are completely consistent with those of @Blanton2012, who explored the cosmological implications of the BAO signal in the CMASS correlation function. From the combination of this information with the latest data from the WMAP satellite, they find $\Omega_{\rm m}= 0.298\pm0.017$ and $h=0.684\pm0.013$ when the parameter space is restricted to the $\Lambda$CDM model. Although this agreement is not surprising, as the two analyses are based on the same galaxy sample, it is a clear indication of the consistency between the two analysis techniques.
{width="90.00000%"}
Although consistent within 1 $\sigma$, the CMASS correlation function prefers somewhat higher values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ than the CMB data. This difference can be traced back to the values of $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ obtained from these datasets individually. In the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space it is possible to obtain a constraint on this quantity on the basis of CMB information alone. In this case we obtain $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0762\pm0.0018$, while the CMASS $\xi(s)$ gives $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0742\pm0.0014$. We will return to this point in Section \[ssec:northsouth\], where we analyse the clustering properties of the NGC and SGC sub-samples separately.
As can be seen in Figure \[fig:om\_h\], by preferring higher values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$, the CMASS correlation function also leads to slightly lower values of the Hubble parameter than in the CMB only case. Although this value is lower than the direct measurement of @Riess2011, the difference is not statistically significant. As discussed in @Blanton2012 and @Mehta2012 this difference can be reduced if the effective number of relativistic species, $N_{\rm eff}$, is allowed to deviate from the standard value of $N_{\rm eff}=3.04$.
As shown in Table \[tab:lcdm\], when the SN and BAO data are added to the analysis, the results point towards values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ similar to those of the CMB+CMASS case. Combining the information from all these datasets, the recovered values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$ are similar to the CMB+CMASS results and the uncertainties are reduced by 33%. In this case we find $\Omega_{\rm m}= 0.2846_{-0.0097}^{+0.0095}$ and $h=0.6941\pm0.0081$.
Recent analyses have consistently shown evidence of a departure from the scale-invariant primordial power spectrum of scalar fluctuations [@Sanchez2006; @Spergel2007; @Komatsu2009; @Komatsu2011; @Keisler2011]. Our CMB+CMASS constraint on the spectral index is $n_{\rm s}=0.9620_{-0.0091}^{+0.0093}$, increasing the significance of this detection to 4.1 $\sigma$. This limit is almost unchanged when all datasets are considered, in which case we get $n_{\rm s}=0.9613_{-0.0090}^{+0.0089}$. The deviation from scale-invariance of the primordial power spectrum has important implications, as most inflationary models predict that the scalar spectral index is less than one [@Linde2008]. However, these models also predict the presence of non-zero tensor primordial fluctuations. As we will see in Section \[ssec:tensor\], although the constraints on $n_{\rm s}$ become weaker when the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$, is allowed to vary, we also detect a deviation from scale invariance at the 99.7 per cent confidence level (CL) in this case.
The results from our study show that the standard $\Lambda$CDM model is able to accurately describe all the datasets that we have included in our analysis and that the values of its basic parameters are constrained to an accuracy higher than 5 per cent. In the following sections we focus on constraining possible deviations from this simple model.
Non-flat models {#ssec:omk}
---------------
In this Section we drop the assumption of a flat Universe and allow for models where $\Omega_k\neq0$. This parameter space is poorly constrained by the CMB data due to the so-called geometrical degeneracy [@Efstathiou1999] relating the physical size of the sound horizon at recombination $r_{\rm s}(z_*)$, and the angular diameter distance $D_{\rm A}(z_*)$. The former determines the true physical scale of the acoustic oscillations, while the later controls its mapping onto angular scales in the sky. Models with the same value of $\Theta=r_{\rm s}(z_*)/D_{\rm A}(z_*)$ predict the same position of the acoustic peaks in the CMB spectrum and cannot be distinguished on the basis of the primary CMB fluctuations alone. This degeneracy is shown by the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:om\_ok\], which correspond to the 68 and 95 per cent CL contours in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-\Omega_{k}$ plane obtained from the CMB data. The dashed line in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:extensions\] shows the corresponding marginalized constraints on $\Omega_{k}$, which allow for significant deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM model value. In this case we obtain $\Omega_{k}=-0.014_{-0.025}^{+0.022}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.32_{-0.09}^{+0.10}$.
As shown by the solid lines in Fig. \[fig:om\_ok\], the constraints on $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ and $A(z_{\rm m})$ provided by the CMASS correlation function are very effective at breaking this degeneracy, leading to a drastic decrease in the range of allowed values for these parameters. The solid line in panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:extensions\] corresponds to the posterior distribution of $\Omega_{k}$ obtained from the CMB+CMASS combination, which is in much closer agreement with a flat universe. In this case we obtain $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.285\pm0.015$ and $\Omega_{k}=-0.0043\pm0.0049$.
@Blanton2012 explored the same parameter space using the CMASS BAO signal. From the combination of this measurement with WMAP data they find $\Omega_{\rm m}= 0.299\pm0.016$ and $\Omega_{k}=-0.008\pm0.005$. These constraints are in good agreement with findings reported here, although they show a preference for slightly higher values of the matter density parameter.
The inclusion of the SN and BAO datasets does not significantly improve the results over those obtained using the CMB+CMASS combination, with a final constraint of $\Omega_{k}=-0.0045\pm0.0042$ obtained from the combination of all datasets. This means that current observations restrict possible variations in the spatial curvature of the Universe up to a level of $\Delta \Omega_k\simeq 4 \times 10^{-3}$.
Massive neutrinos {#ssec:fnu}
-----------------
In the standard $\Lambda$CDM scenario the dark matter component is given entirely by cold dark matter. However, over the last decade a number of experiments have shown clear evidence of neutrino oscillations, implying that the three known types of neutrino have a non-zero mass and contribute to the total energy budget of the Universe. These observations are only sensitive to the mass-squared differences between neutrino flavours rather than on their absolute masses. Absolute neutrino mass measurements can be obtained from tritium $\beta$-decay experiments, which at present provide upper limits of $\sum m_{\nu} < 6\,{\rm eV}$ at the 95 per cent CL [@Lobashev2003; @Eitel2005; @Lesgourgues2006]. Future experiments like KATRIN are expected to improve these bounds by an order of magnitude [@Otten2008]. Until then, the best observational window into neutrino masses is provided by cosmological observations, in particular by the combination of CMB and LSS datasets [@Hu1998; @Elgaroy2002; @Hannestad2002; @Sanchez2006; @Reid2010b; @Deputter2012]. A variation in the neutrino mass can alter the redshift of matter-radiation equality, thereby affecting the CMB power spectrum. Additionally, until the time when they become non-relativistic, neutrinos free-stream out of density perturbations, suppressing the growth of structures on scales smaller than the horizon at that time, which is a function of their mass. This affects the shape of the matter power spectrum and the correlation function.
In this Section we explore the constraints on the neutrino fraction, $f_{\nu}$. As current estimates of the differences in the neutrino mass hierarchy are an order of magnitude lower than the constraints on $\sum m_{\nu}$ from cosmological observations, these are not yet sensitive to the masses of individual neutrino eigenvalues; we therefore assume three neutrino species of equal mass. The dashed line in panel (b) of Fig. \[fig:extensions\] corresponds to the constraints on the neutrino fraction obtained from CMB data alone. In this case, we find $f_{\nu} < 0.11$ at 95 per cent CL. The solid line in the same panel shows the effect of including also the information from the shape of the CMASS correlation function, which drastically reduces this limit to $f_{\nu} < 0.055$ at 95 per cent CL. Our results can be converted into constraints on the sum of the three neutrino masses using equation (\[eq:mnu\]) to obtain $\sum m_{\nu}< 1.4\,{\rm eV}$ (95 per cent CL) in the CMB only case, and $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.61\,{\rm eV}$ (95 per cent CL) for CMB data plus the CMASS $\xi(s)$.
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $f_{\nu}-\Omega_{\rm m}$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by allowing for a non-negligible fraction of massive neutrinos. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. []{data-label="fig:fnu_om"}](figs/figure8.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:fnu\_om\] shows the 68% and 95% constraints in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-f_{\nu}$ plane. As shown by the dashed lines, when CMB data alone is considered, allowing for $f_{\nu}\neq 0$ leads to significantly weaker constraints on $\Omega_{\rm m}$ with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM case, with its range of allowed values increasing by more than a factor of two. The information in the shape of the CMASS correlation function improves these constraints, leading to $\Omega_{\rm m}= 0.298\pm0.019$, with a similar accuracy to that of the $f_{\nu}=0$ case.
In a recent analysis, @Deputter2012 explored the constraints on $\sum m_{\nu}$ from the angular power spectrum of a galaxy sample drawn from BOSS-DR8 following the CMASS selection criteria, as measured by @Ho2012. From the combination of this measurement with WMAP7 information, @Deputter2012 obtained a limit of $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.56\,{\rm eV}$ at 95% CL, which is relaxed to $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.90\,{\rm eV}$ (95% CL) when a more conservative galaxy bias model is implemented. The similarity between these limits and our CMB+CMASS constraint illustrates the power of using the full three dimensional clustering information, which can compensate for the much larger volume probed by the sample analysed by @Deputter2012.
Although not directly sensitive to $f_{\nu}$, the additional information from SN or BAO measurements improves the limits on the neutrino fraction by constraining parameters which are degenerate with this quantity. Combining all datasets we obtain $f_{\nu}< 0.049$ and $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.51\,{\rm eV}$ at 95 per cent CL. In the analysis of @Deputter2012, the inclusion of the SN and $H_0$ measurements provided a tighter constraint, with $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.26\,{\rm eV}$ at 95% CL and $\sum m_{\nu}< 0.36\,{\rm eV}$ (95% CL) for the two galaxy bias models they analysed.
An extension of the current analysis to include information from $\xi(s)$ on smaller scales, where it is more sensitive to the effect of neutrino free-streaming, could help to improve the constraints on the neutrino fraction even further. However, as pointed out by @Swanson2010, effects related to non-linearities and galaxy bias on these scales might impose a limitation on the robustness of clustering measurements as a means to obtain bounds on the neutrino mass. For this reason, the constraints on $\sum m_{\nu}$ presented here should be regarded as conservative, while the full constraining power of the CMASS sample on this quantity will be explored in future studies.
Tensor modes {#ssec:tensor}
------------
We now extend the parameter space of equation (\[eq:param\]) to include the tensor-to-scalar amplitude ratio $r$. This is the parameter space most relevant for the study of inflation as the most simple inflationary models predict non-zero primordial tensor modes [i.e. gravitational waves, @Linde2008].
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $n_{\rm s}-r$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by allowing for non-zero primordial tensor modes. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dotted line corresponds to the scale-invariant scalar primordial power spectrum, with $n_{\rm s}=1$. []{data-label="fig:ns_r"}](figs/figure9.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Panel (c) of Fig. \[fig:extensions\] shows the marginalized constraints on $r$ for the cases of CMB data only (dashed lines) and CMB plus the CMASS $\xi(s)$ (solid lines). The constraints imposed on $r$ by CMB information alone are $r < 0.21$ (95 per cent CL). The CMASS correlation function tightens this limit to $r<0.16$ at the 95 per cent CL. This result is only marginally improved by the additional information of the SN and BAO datasets to our final constraint of $r<0.15$ (95 per cent CL). These results show good agreement with the constraints of @Keisler2011, who found $r<0.17$ (95 per cent CL) from the combination of the same CMB datasets with BAO and $H_0$ measurements.
Fig. \[fig:ns\_r\] shows the likelihood contours in the $n_{\rm s}-r$ plane obtained by means of CMB data alone (dashed lines), and its combination with the CMASS $\xi(s)$ (solid lines). Tensor modes contribute to the CMB temperature power spectrum only on large angular scales ($\ell < 400$). An increase in the value of $r$ can be compensated for by reducing the amplitude of the scalar modes, thereby maintaining the total amplitude of the temperature fluctuations at a constant level. The consequent decrease of power on smaller angular scales can be compensated for by increasing in the scalar spectral index, $n_{\rm s}$. Although, as discussed in @Keisler2011, the information from the small angular scales of the CMB fluctuations provided by SPT does a good job at breaking this degeneracy, a residual relation between these parameters limits the accuracy of their marginalized constraints. By also including the information from the shape of the CMASS correlation function, it is possible to restrict the range of allowed values for these parameters even further. In particular, this combination allows us to detect a deviation from the scale-invariant primordial power spectrum (indicated by the vertical dotted line) with $n_{\rm s}<1$ at the 99.7% CL, even in the presence of tensor modes. This detection has strong implications for the inflationary paradigm.
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by allowing for non-zero primordial tensor modes. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dot-dashed lines correspond to chaotic inflationary models with $p=1$, 2 and 4, as indicated by the labels. The dotted line corresponds to a constant value of $N=60$. []{data-label="fig:e1_e2"}](figs/figure10.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We can explore the implications of our results in terms of constraints on inflationary models by analysing the horizon flow parameters of @Schwarz2001. These are a hierarchy of parameters describing the evolution of the Hubble factor during inflation. The first parameter is given by $\epsilon_1\equiv -{\rm d}\ln H(N)/{\rm d}N$, where $N$ is the number of e-foldings before the end of inflation at which our pivot scale crosses the Hubble radius during inflation, and the remaining ones are defined through the relation $$\epsilon_{j+1}\equiv\frac{{\rm d}\ln |\epsilon_{j}|}{{\rm d}N},\, j\ge 1.
\label{eq:ei}$$ The weak energy condition implies that $\epsilon_1>0$, while a necessary condition for inflation is $\epsilon_1<1$ (which implies $\ddot{a}>0$). The slow-roll approximation can be expressed as $|\epsilon_{j}|\ll1$, for all $j>0$. In this limit, these parameters satisfy the relations $$\begin{aligned}
r &=& 16\epsilon_1, \\
n_{\rm s} &=& 1-2\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2.
\label{eq:inflation1}\end{aligned}$$ These relations can be used to translate our constraints on $n_{\rm s}$ and $r$ into the $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ plane. Fig. \[fig:e1\_e2\] shows the constraints obtained in this way. Marginalizing over $\epsilon_2$, the combination of CMB data plus the CMASS correlation function implies the limit $\epsilon_1<0.0097$ at the 95 per cent CL. These datasets strongly favour models with positive values of $\epsilon_2$, in which inflation will end naturally with a violation of the slow-roll approximation [@Leach2003]. From the CMB+CMASS combination we obtain the limit $\epsilon_2>0$ at the 95.8 per cent CL, which is only marginally improved to the 97 per cent CL with the inclusion of the SN and additional BAO measurements.
The horizon flow parameters are related to the inflaton potential $V$ and its derivatives with respect to the inflaton field $\phi$. Then, they can be used to constrain which type of potentials are compatible with the observations [see e.g. @Liddle2003a; @Kinney2008; @Finelli2010]. As an example, we explore the constraints on a particular class of models, that of the chaotic (or monomial) inflation, in which the inflationary phase is driven by a potential of the form $V(\phi)\propto \phi^p$. These models predict a simple relation between the horizon flow parameters, the power-law index, $p$, and the number of e-folds, $N$, given by [@Leach2003]: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_2 &=& \frac{4}{p}\epsilon_1, \label{eq:inflation2}\\
N &=& \frac{p}{4}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon_1}-1\right).
\label{eq:inflation3}\end{aligned}$$ The dot-dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:e1\_e2\] correspond to chaotic inflationary models with $p=1$, 2 and 4, as indicated by the labels. As can be seen from equations (\[eq:inflation2\]) and (\[eq:inflation3\]), a given value of $N$ corresponds approximately to a constant value of $\epsilon_2$. For the pivot scale considered here, a plausible upper limit for the number of e-folds is $N\lesssim60$ [@Dodelson2003; @Liddle2003b], corresponding to $\epsilon_2\gtrsim0.017$ (indicated by the dotted line in Fig. \[fig:e1\_e2\]). If we restrict our analysis to this region of the parameter space, we see that models with $p\gtrsim2$ are strongly disfavoured by the data. In fact, the marginalized distribution for $p$ obtained from the CMB+CMASS combination after applying this prior implies a limit of $p<1.2$ at the 95 per cent CL, imposing a strong constraint on the viable chaotic inflationary models.
The dark energy equation of state {#ssec:darkenergy}
---------------------------------
Until now we have assumed that the dark energy component corresponds to a cosmological constant, with a fixed equation of state specified by $w_{\rm DE} = -1$. In this Section, we allow for more general dark energy models. In Section \[ssec:wde\] we explore the constraints on the value of $w_{\rm DE}$ (assumed redshift-independent). In Section \[ssec:wa\] we obtain constraints on the time evolution of this parameter, parametrized according to equation (\[eq:wa\]). Section \[ssec:wok\] deals with the effect of the assumption of a flat universe on the constraints on $w_{\rm DE}$.
In these tests we consider models with $w_{\rm DE} < -1$, corresponding to phantom energy [see @Copeland2006 and references therein]. When exploring constraints on dynamical dark energy models, these are allowed to cross the so-called phantom divide, $w_{\rm DE} = -1$. In the framework of general relativity, a single fluid, or a single scalar field without higher derivatives, cannot cross this threshold since it would become gravitationally unstable [@Feng2004; @Vikman2005; @Hu2005; @Xia2008], requiring at least one extra degree of freedom. However, models with more degrees of freedom are difficult to implement in general dark energy studies. Here we follow the parametrized post-Friedmann (PPF) approach of @Fang2008, as implemented in [CAMB]{}, which provides a simple solution to these problems for models in which the dark energy component is smooth compared to the dark matter. Alternatively, as proposed by @Zhao2005, it is possible to consider the dark energy perturbations using a two-field model, with one of the fields being quintessence-like and the other one phantom-like [e.g. the quintom model proposed in @Feng2004] without introducing new internal degrees of freedom. Both approaches give consistent results.
### Time-independent dark energy equation of state {#ssec:wde}
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-w_{\rm DE}$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by including the redshift-independent value of $w_{\rm DE}$ as an additional parameter. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dot-dashed lines indicate the results obtained from the full dataset combination (CMB+CMASS+SN+BAO). The dotted line corresponds to the $\Lambda$CDM model, where $w_{\rm DE}=-1$. []{data-label="fig:wde"}](figs/figure11.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
In this Section we explore the constraints on the parameter set of equation (\[eq:param\]) extended by including the redshift-independent value of $w_{\rm DE}$ as an additional parameter. The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:wde\] show the two-dimensional marginalized constraints in the $\Omega_{\rm m}-w_{\rm DE}$ plane obtained from CMB data alone. There is a strong degeneracy between these parameters along which different models predict the same angular position for the peaks in the CMB power spectrum. This is analogous to the geometrical degeneracy described in Section \[ssec:omk\], corresponding to models with constant values of $\Theta$. This degeneracy leads to poor one-dimensional constraints of $w_{\rm DE}=-1.15_{-0.39}^{+0.39}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.248_{-0.088}^{+0.093}$.
The solid lines in Fig. \[fig:wde\] show the effect of including the CMASS correlation function in the analysis. The constant-$\Theta$ degeneracy can be partially broken by providing an additional distance constraint. The constraint on $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ provided by $\xi(s)$ breaks the degeneracy between $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $w_{\rm DE}$, tightening the constraints on the dark energy equation of state. The impact of including the CMASS correlation function on the marginalized constraints on $w_{\rm DE}$ can be seen in panel (d) of Fig. \[fig:extensions\] where the dashed lines correspond to the result of the CMB only case and the solid lines the one of the CMB+CMASS combination. In this case we obtain $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.295_{-0.042}^{+0.041}$ and $w_{\rm DE}=-0.95_{-0.20}^{+0.21}$, in good agreement with a cosmological constant.
From the combination of the BAO signal inferred from the CMASS $P(k)$ and $\xi(s)$ with WMAP data, @Blanton2012 obtained the constraints $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.323\pm0.043$ and $w_{\rm DE}=-0.87\pm0.24$, in good agreement with our findings. As in the previous parameter spaces, this is a clear indication of the consistency between the two analysis techniques. The extra information in the shape of $\xi(s)$ improves the constraints on the dark energy equation of state by $\sim$20% with respect to the BAO only result, indicating that, at this redshift, most of the information on this parameter is obtained through the measurement of $y_{\rm s}$.
In a recent analysis, @Montesano2012 used the full shape of the power spectrum of a sample of LRGs from the final SDSS-II, combined with a compilation of CMB experiments, to obtain the constraint $w_{\rm DE}=-1.02\pm0.13$. @Mehta2012 combined the BAO distance measurement derived by [@Padmanabhan2012] and [@Xu2012] from the same galaxy sample with WMAP data, to obtain $w_{\rm DE}=-0.92\pm0.13$. As these measurements are based on observations are lower redshifts, which are more sensitive to variations in $w_{\rm DE}$, they provide slightly tighter constraints on this parameter than the CMB+CMASS combination.
Including also the additional BAO data in the analysis gives similar results to the CMB+CMASS case, with a constraint on the dark energy equation of state of $w_{\rm DE}=-0.91_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$. When the SN data is considered in the analysis instead of the BAO, the resulting constraints are in better agreement with the standard $\Lambda$CDM value, with $w_{\rm DE}=-1.054_{-0.076}^{+0.077}$. It is interesting to note that this result is mostly driven by the CMASS+SN combination. In fact, the combined information from these two datasets provides the constraint $w_{\rm DE}=-1.04\pm0.11$, independently of any CMB data. Our final constraints obtained from the combination of all datasets are shown by the dot-dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:wde\], corresponding to $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.281\pm0.012$ and $w_{\rm DE}=-1.033_{-0.073}^{+0.074}$. This result is in excellent agreement with the standard $\Lambda$CDM model value of $w_{\rm DE}=-1$, indicated by a dotted line in Fig.\[fig:wde\].
### The time evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$ {#ssec:wa}
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $w_0-w_a$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by allowing for variations on $w_{\rm DE}(a)$, parametrized as in equation (\[eq:wa\]). The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dot-dashed lines indicate the results obtained from the full dataset combination (CMB+CMASS+SN+BAO). The dotted lines correspond to the canonical values in the $\Lambda$CDM model. []{data-label="fig:bwa_w0_wa"}](figs/figure12.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
In the $\Lambda$CDM model, the equation of state parameter is characterized by the fixed value $w_{\rm DE}=-1$ at all times. A detection of a deviation from this prediction would be a clear signature of the need of alternative dark energy models. In this Section, we explore the constraints on the redshift dependence of $w_{\rm DE}$ which we parametrize according to equation (\[eq:wa\]).
The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:bwa\_w0\_wa\] show the two-dimensional marginalized constraints in the $w_0-w_a$ plane obtained from the CMB data alone. This case provides only weak constraints on these parameters, allowing for models where the value of $w_{\rm DE}$ can vary significantly over time. The inclusion of the CMASS correlation function reduces this allowed region to a linear degeneracy between $w_0$ and $w_a$ which can still accommodate large deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM values, indicated by the dotted lines. At least a third dataset is required to obtain more restrictive constraints. In the CMB+CMASS+SN case, we obtain $w_0=-1.09\pm0.11$ and $w_a=0.12_{-0.47}^{+0.48}$, that change to $w_0=-0.95\pm0.27$ and $w_a=0.05_{-0.61}^{+0.62}$ if the SN data are replaced by the additional BAO measurements. The dot-dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:bwa\_w0\_wa\] correspond to our tightest constraints, obtained by combining all datasets, where we obtain the marginalized values $w_0=-1.08\pm0.11$ and $w_a=0.23\pm0.42$.
A useful quantity to characterize the constraints on the redshift evolution of the dark energy equation of state is the pivot redshift, $z_{\rm p}$, defined as the point where the uncertainty on $w_{\rm DE}(a)$ is minimized [@Huterer2001; @Hu2004; @Albrecht2006]. The parametrization of equation (\[eq:wa\]) implies that this redshift corresponds to the scale factor $$a_{\rm p}=1+\frac{\langle \delta w_{\rm 0}\delta w_{\rm a} \rangle}{\langle\delta w_{\rm a}^2 \rangle}.
\label{eq:pivot}$$ The corresponding pivot redshift for the CMB+CMASS combination is given by $z_{\rm p}=1.21$, for which we obtain $w_{\rm DE}(z_{\rm p}=1.21)=-0.94\pm0.20$. The pivot redshift for the combination of all datasets is $z_{\rm p}=0.23$, which corresponds to our tightest constraint on the dark energy equation of state, with $w_{\rm DE}(z_{\rm p}=0.23)=-1.040\pm0.072$, in good agreement with a cosmological constant.
### Dark energy and curvature {#ssec:wok}
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $w_{\rm DE}-\Omega_k$ plane for the $\Lambda$CDM parameter set extended by allowing for simultaneous variations on $w_{\rm DE}$ (assumed time-independent) and $\Omega_k$. The dashed lines show the 68 and 95 per cent contours obtained using CMB information alone. The solid contours correspond to the results obtained from the combination of CMB data plus the shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$. The dot-dashed lines indicate the results obtained from the full dataset combination (CMB+CMASS+SN+BAO). The dotted lines correspond to the values of these parameters in the $\Lambda$CDM model. []{data-label="fig:wok"}](figs/figure13.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We now explore the constraints on the dark energy equation of state (assumed time-independent) when the assumption of a flat Universe is dropped. This parameter space presents similar characteristics to the one studied in Section \[ssec:wa\], where the dark energy equation of state is allowed evolve over time. As discussed by @Komatsu2009 and @Sanchez2009, when both $w_{\rm DE}$ and $\Omega_k$ are allowed to vary, the one-dimensional degeneracies corresponding to constant values of $\Theta$ obtained from the CMB observations in the analyses of Sections \[ssec:omk\] and \[ssec:wde\] gain an extra degree of freedom. As shown by the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:wok\], when projected in the $w_{\rm DE}-\Omega_k$ plane, this two-dimensional degeneracy extends over a large region of the parameter space. The solid lines in Fig. \[fig:wok\] show the resulting constraints from the CMB+CMASS combination. Although the constraint on $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ provided by the CMASS correlation function substantially reduces the allowed region for these parameters, the remaining degeneracy between them corresponds to poor one-dimensional marginalized restrictions.
The distance measurements provided by the additional BAO or SN datasets can break the remaining degeneracy, leading to meaningful constraints on these parameters. The dot-dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:wok\] correspond to the constraints obtained with the combination of all four datasets, showing good agreement with the $\Lambda$CDM model values (indicated by the dotted lines). In this case, we obtain $\Omega_k=-0.0054\pm0.0044$ and $ w_{\rm DE}=-1.060\pm0.075$, with similar accuracies to the constraints obtained when each of these parameters are varied independently (Sections \[ssec:omk\] and \[ssec:wde\]).
![ Large-scale correlation function of the NGC (circles) and SGC (squares) CMASS sub-samples. The dashed line corresponds to the best-fitting $\Lambda$CDM model obtained by combining the CMB data with the information from the shape of the NGC correlation function. Although the two measurements exhibit the same broad-band shape, in the SGC data the BAO peak has a larger amplitude and is located at smaller scales than in the NGC $\xi(s)$. []{data-label="fig:xi_ns"}](figs/figure14.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
The clustering signal in the Northern and Southern Galactic hemispheres {#ssec:northsouth}
=======================================================================
Our analysis is based on the full CMASS sample, combining the NGC and SGC data. Compared to the NGC, the SGC observations correspond to a region with larger average Galactic extinction and were taken under higher airmass and sky background and over different periods of time. These differences make the NGC-SGC split a sensible cut to study the clustering properties of these sub-samples individually. In fact, when analysed separately, the clustering of the NGC and SGC CMASS sub-samples presents some intriguing differences. This can be seen in Fig. \[fig:xi\_ns\], which shows the measurements of $\xi(s)$ in these two regions, obtained as described in Section \[sec:corfunc\]. It is clear that, although they exhibit the same overall shape, the BAO feature in the SGC has a higher amplitude, and its centroid is located at smaller scales than in the NGC. In this Section, we explore the significance of these differences and their implications on the obtained cosmological constraints.
@Ross2012 performed a comprehensive analysis of the differences between the NGC and SGC CMASS sub-samples and found no treatment of the data that could alleviate them. @Schlafly2010 and @Schlafly2011 found small systematic offsets between the colours of SDSS objects in the NGC and SGC, which lead to slightly different selection criteria for the CMASS sample in the two galactic hemispheres. @Ross2011 found a 3.2% difference in the number density of CMASS targets between the NGC and SGC, which reduces to 0.3% when the offset of @Schlafly2011 is applied to the galaxies in the SGC before applying the CMASS selection criteria. However, @Ross2012 found that these factors do not produce a measurable effect on the clustering signal of the SGC CMASS sample, and the differences between the correlation function of the SGC and NGC remain the same.
The consistency between the measurements in the NGC and SGC can be assessed by examining the difference $\xi_{\rm NGC}(s)-\xi_{\rm SGC}(s)$. As these regions correspond to well separated volumes, we can neglect the covariance between them and estimate the covariance matrix for this difference simply as $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm diff}=\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm NGC}+\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm SGC}$, where $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm NGC}$ and $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm SGC}$ correspond to the covariance matrices of the individual NGC and SGC regions. The consistency of the difference $\xi_{\rm NGC}(s)-\xi_{\rm NGC}(s)$ with cosmic variance can be estimated from its $\chi^2$ value, with respect to $\mathbfss{ C}_{\rm diff}$. In the range of scales used in our analysis, $40 < s/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}) < 200$, we find $\chi^2=53.9$ for 41 data points. This number changes to $\chi^2=25.2$ for 15 points if the test is restricted to the range of scales of the BAO peak ($70 < s/(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}) < 130$). Using a different bin size of $\Delta s=7\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, @Ross2012 performed the same test and found similar values of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom. This result shows quantitatively that the general shapes of these measurements are in agreement, and the differences between them are localized at the scales of the acoustic peak. Note, however, that this is the range of scales from where the constraints on $y_{\rm s}$ are obtained.
![ The marginalized posterior distribution in the $A(z_{\rm m})-y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ plane obtained from the correlation function of the NGC (solid lines) and SGC (dashed lines) CMASS sub-samples. The contours correspond to the 68 and 95 per cent CL. While the two measurements point towards consistent values of $A(z_{\rm m})$, their preferred values of $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ deviate by approximately 2 $\sigma$. []{data-label="fig:tension_ns"}](figs/figure15.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Another view of this is presented in Fig. \[fig:tension\_ns\], which shows the two-dimensional marginalized constraints in the $A(z_{\rm m})-y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ plane. While the two measurements point towards consistent values of $A(z_{\rm m})$, with $A(z_{\rm m})=0.426\pm0.021$ and $A(z_{\rm m})=0.447\pm0.030$ from the NGC and SGC, respectively, the different locations of the acoustic peak inferred from these regions lead to $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0762 \pm 0.0015$ and $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0704 \pm 0.0017$, which are approximately 2 $\sigma$ apart. Despite the fact that the errors in the SCG correlation function are almost a factor two larger than those of its NGC counterpart, the accuracies of the constraints on $y_{\rm s}$ obtained from these measurements are similar. This is due to the high amplitude of the BAO bump in the SGC $\xi(s)$ which, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:xi\_ns\], gives a precise determination of the centroid of the peak, leading to a slightly smaller than expected uncertainty on $y_{\rm s}$. As was pointed out in Section \[ssec:lcdm\], within the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space the CMB data alone is sufficient to obtain the estimate $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0762\pm0.0018$. This value shows a remarkable consistency with the result obtained from the NGC. A comparison of Figs. \[fig:corfunc\] and \[fig:xi\_ns\] shows that, although the correlation function of the full CMASS sample is dominated by that of the NGC, which covers a larger volume, adding the data from the SGC moves the BAO peak towards somewhat smaller scales, leading to the result $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})=0.0742\pm0.0014$.
The conclusion from the tests of @Ross2012 is that the differences between the NGC and SGC are simply due to a statistical fluctuation. However, as the data in the NGC covers a volume 3.7 times larger, providing a better knowledge of the survey selection function, for completeness we also discuss here the constraints on the parameter spaces of Section \[ssec:param\] obtained from the combination of the correlation function of the NGC sub-sample with our CMB dataset. We do not consider here, however, the extension of the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space in which both $w_{\rm DE}$ and $\Omega_k$ are allowed to float since, as discussed in Section \[ssec:wok\], the combination of CMB data with a measurement of $\xi(s)$ is not enough to break the strong degeneracy between these parameters. The complete lists of parameter constraints obtained from the CMB+NGC combination is summarized in Table \[tab:ngc\] of Appendix \[sec:tables\].
For the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space, the mean values for the cosmological parameters obtained in the CMB+NGC case are in closer agreement with those obtained by means of the CMB data alone than in the full CMB+CMASS case. For example, in the CMB+NGC case we find constraints of $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.265\pm0.014$ and $h=0.711\pm 0.012$, in excellent agreement with the CMB only results of $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.266\pm 0.024$ and $h=0.710\pm0.20$. The slightly higher value of the Hubble parameter obtained in this case reduces the difference with the measurement of @Riess2011 to the 1 $\sigma$ level.
When the curvature of the Universe is included as a free parameter, the value of $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ from the NGC breaks the geometrical degeneracy in the CMB data closer to the locus of the flat models, yielding a constraint of $\Omega_{k}=-0.0002\pm0.0049$, completely consistent with the flat Universe prediction from the inflationary paradigm.
When constraining the fraction of massive neutrinos, the CMB+NGC combination yields $f_{\nu}<0.044$ and $\sum m_{\nu}<0.52$ eV at 95% CL. These limits are slightly tighter than those obtained in the CMB+CMASS case. Regarding the constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, from the CMB+NGC combination we find $r < 0.17$ at the 95 per cent CL, which is equivalent to the limit found using the full CMASS $\xi(s)$, albeit with a preference for lower matter density values, with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.276\pm0.016$
The results for the dark energy related parameter spaces also change when the full CMASS $\xi(s)$ is replaced by the one of the NGC. In this case we obtain weaker constraints, with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.246_{-0.42}^{0.045}$ and $w_{\rm DE}=-1.14\pm0.26$. When Equation (\[eq:wa\]) is used to explore the redshift dependence of the dark energy equation of state, we find $w_{0}=-1.21_{-0.61}^{+0.79}$ and $w_{a}=0.1_{-1.0}^{+1.0}$ and a constraint of $w_{\rm DE}(z_{\rm p})=-1.21\pm0.26$ at the pivot redshift of $z_{\rm p}=0.96$.
In all cases analysed, when we restrict our analysis to the NGC-CMASS sub-sample the constraints change at most by 1 $\sigma$. This is in agreement with the results of @Ross2012, who found the same level of consistency. In general, we find that the NGC data points towards slightly lower values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and higher ones of $h$ than those obtained from the full CMASS sample and in closer agreement with the CMB only case. It should be emphasised, however, that the extensive tests of @Ross2012, together with our internal investigations, show no reason for preferring the measurements from the NGC alone to the measurements from the full CMASS sample, which provides our best picture of the clustering of galaxies at $z\simeq0.57$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have presented an analysis of the cosmological implications of the monopole of the redshift-space two-point correlation function, $\xi(s)$, measured from BOSS-DR9 CMASS sample. The large volume and average number density of this sample make it ideally suited for large-scale structure analysis. The information contained in the full shape of the CMASS $\xi(s)$ allowed us to obtain accurate constraints of the parameters $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ and $A(z_{\rm m})$, given by equations (\[eq:ys\]) and (\[eq:apar\]). By adopting an explicit, perturbation-theory based model for the correlation function in the mildly non-linear regime, and marginalizing over its uncertain parameters, we are able to exploit information beyond that in the scale of the BAO peak alone. We combined this information with that of additional cosmological probes, including CMB, SN, and BAO measurements from other data sets, to derive constraints on cosmological parameters. We studied the parameters of the $\Lambda$CDM parameter space, and a number of its extensions. The main results from our analysis can be summarized as follows:
1. Our results show that the simple $\Lambda$CDM model is able to describe all the datasets that we have included in our analysis. Given the different nature of these observations and the range of redshifts they probe, this is not a minor achievement. The basic parameters of this model are constrained to an accuracy better than 5%; a clear demonstration of the constraining power of observations in the current era of precision cosmology.
2. Fig. \[fig:extensions\] summarizes our constraints on possible extensions of the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. We considered non-flat models, massive neutrinos, non-zero primordial tensor fluctuations, and more general dark energy models. In all of these cases the inclusion of the CMASS $\xi(s)$ in the analysis significantly improves the obtained constraints with respect to those obtained using the CMB data alone. Our results show no significant evidence of deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM picture, which can still be considered as our best cosmological model.
3. The information provided by the CMASS correlation function is essential to obtain tight constraints on the curvature of the Universe. We obtain the constraint $\Omega_{k}=-0.0043_{-0.0049}^{+0.0049}$ from the CMB+CMASS combination which is not significantly improved by adding information from SN or other BAO data.
4. When massive neutrinos are considered in the analysis, we find a constraint of $f_{\nu}<0.056$ at the 95% CL, implying a limit of $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.61\,{\rm eV}$ on the sum of the three neutrino species. This limit is improved to $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.51 {\rm eV}$ when the SN and BAO data are added to the analysis.
5. When considering tensor modes the CMB+CMASS combination allowed us to obtain a limit on the tensor-to-scalar amplitude ratio of $r<0.16$ at the 95% CL, which is almost unchanged by considering additional datasets. The combination of CMB data with the shape of the CMASS correlation function reveals a clear signature of a deviation from scale-invariance, with $n_{\rm s}<1$ at the 99.7% CL, also in the presence of tensor modes.
6. We explored models where the dark energy component does not correspond to a cosmological constant and found no signature of a deviation from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. When the value of $w_{\rm DE}$, assumed time-independent, is allowed to vary, the CMB+CMASS combination provides the constraint $w_{\rm DE}=-0.95_{-0.20}^{+0.21}$. Interestingly, the CMASS+SN combination alone provides a tighter constraint, with $w_{\rm DE}=-1.04\pm0.11$, independently of any CMB data. Our tighter constraints are obtained from the combination of all datasets, with $w_{\rm DE}=-1.033_{-0.074}^{+0.073}$, in good agreement with a cosmological constant. This result does not change significantly if the assumption of a flat universe is relaxed. We also find no evidence of a redshift evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$.
7. Our results are in excellent agreement with those of @Blanton2012 and @Reid2012, who explored the cosmological implications of the BAO and redshift-space distortions measurements in the CMASS sample. This highlights the consistency between the different analysis techniques implemented in each of these studies, and provides a reassuring demonstration of the robustness of our results.
8. We studied the clustering of the NGC and SGC regions separately. The overall shapes of the correlation functions in these two sub-samples show good agreement, but they differ in the location and amplitude of the BAO peak. This translates into constraints of $y_{\rm s}(z_{\rm m})$ which differ at the 2 $\sigma$ level. @Ross2012 performed a detailed analysis of the clustering signal in these regions and found no evidence of additional systematic effects in the SGC data, indicating that the observed differences are simply due to a statistical fluctuation. For completeness, we explored the constraints obtained when the NGC correlation function is used in combination with our CMB datasets. In all cases our results remain unchanged within 1 $\sigma$, with the NGC data pointing towards slightly lower values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and higher ones of $h$ than those obtained from the full CMASS sample.
The current analysis is based on the first spectroscopic data release of BOSS. The larger volume that will be probed by subsequent data releases, plus the extension of the analysis to the lower redshift BOSS galaxies, will reduce the uncertainties in the measurement of $\xi(s)$ and the calibration of the corrections for potential systematic effects, providing even more accurate views of the LSS clustering pattern in the Universe. This improvement will be accompanied by the release of the CMB power spectra measurement from the Planck satellite in early 2013. The combination of these datasets will undoubtedly provide new, more stringent constraints on cosmological parameters, and open up the possibility to explore additional extensions to the $\Lambda$CDM model which have not yet been fully explored.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Ryan Keisler for his help with the implementation of the SPT likelihood code in [CosmoMC]{}. We also thank Bradford Benson for helping us find a bug in our modifications to [CosmoMC]{} by pointing out a discrepancy between our constraints on the equation of state of dark energy using only CMB data and the reported values by the WMAP team. AGS would like to thank all users of the Pan-STARRS cluster in Garching for their patience and support. CGS and JAR-M acknowledge funding from project AYA2010-21766-C03-02 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN). AJR is grateful to the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council for financial support through the grant ST/I001204/1. WJP is grateful for support from the the UK Science and Technology Facilities Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust, and the European Research Council. FP acknowledges support from the Spanish MICINN’s Consolider grant MultiDark CSD2009-00064. JAR-M is a Ramón y Cajal fellow of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN).
Funding for SDSS-III has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
SDSS-III is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS-III Collaboration including the University of Arizona, the Brazilian Participation Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Florida, the French Participation Group, the German Participation Group, Harvard University, the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, the Michigan State/Notre Dame/JINA Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, New Mexico State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the Spanish Participation Group, University of Tokyo, University of Utah, Vanderbilt University, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and Yale University.
We acknowledge the use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). Support for LAMBDA is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science.
[99]{} Abazajian K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543
Adelman-McCarthy J. K., et al., 2008, ApJS, 175, 297
Aihara H.,et al., 2011, ApJS, 193, 29
Albrecht A., Bernstein G., Cahn R., et al., 2006, astro, arXiv:astro-ph/0609591
Anderson L., et al., 2012, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1203.6594
Angulo R., Baugh C. M., Frenk C. S., Bower R. G., Jenkins A., Morris S. L., 2005, MNRAS, 362, L25
Angulo R. E., Baugh C. M., Frenk C. S., Lacey C. G., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 755
Beutler F., Blake C., Colless M., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017
Blake C., Glazebrook K., 2003, ApJ, 594, 665
Blake C., Kazin E. A., Beutler F., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1707
Blanton M. R., Lin H., Lupton R. H., Maley F. M., Young N., Zehavi I., Loveday J., 2003, AJ, 125, 2276
Bolton A. S., et al., in prep.
Cabr[é]{} A., Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1183
Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, IJMPD, 10, 213
Cole S., Percival W. J., Peacock J. A., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 505
Colless M. et al. (The 2dFGRS Team), 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039
Colless M. et al. (The 2dFGRS Team), 2003, astro-ph/0306581
Conley A., Guy J., Sullivan M., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 1
Copeland E. J., Sami M., Tsujikawa S., 2006, Int. J. Modern Phys. D, 15, 1753
Crocce M., Scoccimarro R., 2008, PhRvD, 77, 023533
Crocce M., Scoccimarro R., 2006, PhRvD, 73, 063519
de Putter R., Mena O., Giusarma E., et al., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1201.1909
Dodelson S., Hui L., 2003, , 91, 131301
Drinkwater M. J., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1429
Efstathiou G., Bond J. R., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 75
Eisenstein D. J., Hu W., 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
Eisenstein D. J., Seo H.-J., Sirko E., Spergel D. N., 2007, ApJ, 664, 675
Eisenstein D. J., Weinberg D. H., Agol E., et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 72
Eisenstein D. J., Zehavi I., Hogg D. W., et al., 2005, ApJ, 633, 560
Eitel K., 2005, NuPhS, 143, 197
Elgar[ø]{}y [Ø]{}., Lahav O., Percival W. J., et al., 2002, PhRvL, 89, 061301
Fang W., Hu W., Lewis A., 2008, PhRvD, 78, 087303
Feng B., Wang X., Zhang X., 2005, Physics Letters B, 607, 35
Finelli F., Hamann J., Leach S.M., Lesgourgues J., 2010, JCAP, 04, 011
Frieman J. A., Turner M. S., Huterer D., 2008, ARA&A, 46, 1
Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., Cabré A., Hui L., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1663
Gott J. R., Choi, Y-Y., Park C., Kim J., 2009, ApJ, 695, 45
Gott J. R., Slepian Z., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 907
Gunn J. E., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 3040
Gunn J. E., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332
Guo H., Zehavi I., Zheng Z., 2011, arXiv, arXiv:1111.6598
Hamilton A. J. S., 1993, ApJ, 417, 19
Hamilton A. J. S., Tegmark M., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 115
Hannestad S., 2002, PhRvD, 66, 125011
Hinshaw G. et al., 2009, ApJS, 180, 225
Ho S., Cuesta A., Seo H.-J., et al., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1201.2137
Hu W., Eisenstein D. J., Tegmark M., 1998, PhRvL, 80, 5255
Hu W., Jain B., 2004, PhRvD, 70, 043009
Hu W., 2005, PRD, 71, 047301
Huterer D., Turner M. S., 2001, PhRvD, 64, 123527
H[ü]{}tsi G., 2006, A&A, 449, 891
Jarosik N. et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 14
Jones D. H., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 683
Kaiser, N. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1
Kazin E. A., Blanton M. R., Scoccimarro R., et al., 2010, ApJ, 710, 1444
Kazin E. A., S[á]{}nchez A. G., Blanton M. R., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3223
Keisler R., Reichardt C. L., Aird K. A., et al., 2011, ApJ, 743, 28
Kim J., Park C., Gott J. R., Dubinski J., 2009, ApJ, 701, 1547.
Kim J., Park C., Rossi G., Lee S. M., Gott J. R., 2011, JKAS, 44, 217
Kinney W. H., Kolb E. W., Melchiorri A., Riotto A., 2008, PRD, 78, 087302
Komatsu E., Dunkley J., Nolta M. R., et al., 2009, ApJS, 180, 330
Komatsu E., 2010, CQGra, 27, 124010
Komatsu E., Smith K. M., Dunkley J., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 18
Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, ApJ, 412, 64
Larson D., Dunkley J., Hinshaw G., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 16
Leach S. M., Liddle A. R., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 123508
Lesgourgues J., Pastor S., 2006, Phys. Rep., 429, 307
Lewis A., Challinor A., Lasenby A., 2000, ApJ, 538, 473
Lewis A., Bridle S., 2002, PhRvD, 66, 103511
Liddle A. R., Leach S. M., 2003a, MNRAS, 341, 1151
Liddle A. R., Leach S. M., 2003b, PRD, 68, 103503
Linde, A. D., 1983, Phys. Lett. B., 129, 177
Linde A. D., 2008, LNP, 738, 1
Linder E. V., 2003, PhRvL, 90, 091301
Lobashev V. M., 2003, NuPhA, 719, 153
Manera M., et al., 2012, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1203:6609
Maraston C., et al., in prep.
Masjedi M., Hogg D. W., Cool R. J., et al., 2006, ApJ, 644, 54
Masters K. L., Maraston C., Nichol R. C., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1055
Matsubara T., 2004, ApJ, 615, 573
Matsubara T., 2008a, PhRvD, 77, 063530
Matsubara T., 2008b, PhRvD, 78, 083519
Mehta K. T., Cuesta A. J., Xu X., Eisenstein D. J., Padmanabhan N., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1202.0092
Meiksin A., White M., Peacock J. A., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 851
Montesano F., Sánchez A. G., Phleps S., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2397
Montesano F., Sánchez A. G., Phleps S., 2012, MNRAS in press, arXiv:1107.4097
Nuza S. E., Sanchez A. G., Prada F., et al., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1202.6057
Otten E. W., Weinheimer C., 2008, RPPh, 71, 086201
Padmanabhan N., Schlegel D. J., Seljak U., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 852
Padmanabhan N., Xu X., Eisenstein D. J., Scalzo R., Cuesta A. J., Mehta K. T., Kazin E., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1202.0090
Peebles P. J., Ratra B., 2003, RvMP, 75, 559
Percival W. J., Baugh C. M., Bland-Hawthorn J., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1297
Percival W. J., Cole S., Eisenstein D. J., Nichol R. C., Peacock J. A., Pope A. C., Szalay A. S., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1053
Percival W. J., Reid B. A., Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2148
Percival W. J., Sutherland W., Peacock J. A., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1068
Perlmutter S., et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
Prada F., Klypin A., Yepes G., Nuza S. E., Gottloeber S., 2011, arXiv, arXiv:1111.2889
Reid B. A., Percival W. J., Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2010a, MNRAS, 404, 60
Reid B. A., Verde L., Jimenez R., Mena O., 2010b, JCAP, 1, 3
Reid B. A., et al., 2012, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1203.6641
Riess A. G., et al., 1998, ApJ, 116, 1009
Riess A. G., et al., 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
Riess A. G., et al., 2009, ApJ, 699, 539
Riess A. G., et al., 2011, ApJ, 730, 119
Ross, A. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1350
Ross A. J., et al., 2012, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1203.6499
Samushia L., Percival W. J., Guzzo L., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1993
Samushia L., Percival W. J., Raccanelli A., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2102
Samushia L., et al., in prep.
S[á]{}nchez A. G., Baugh C. M., Percival W. J., Peacock J. A., Padilla N. D., Cole S., Frenk C. S., Norberg P., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 189
S[á]{}nchez A. G., Baugh C. M., Angulo R., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1470
S[á]{}nchez A. G., Crocce M., Cabr[é]{} A., Baugh C. M., Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1643
Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, ApJ, 737, 103
Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., Schlegel D. J., Juri[ć]{} M., Ivezi[ć]{} [Ž]{}., Gibson R. R., Knapp G. R., Weaver B. A., 2010, ApJ, 725, 1175
Schlegel D., White M., Eisenstein D., 2009, astro, 2010, 314
Schwarz D. J., Terrero-Escalante C. A., García A. A., 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 517, 243
Scoccimarro R., Sheth R. K., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 629
Seo H.-J., Eisenstein D. J., 2007, ApJ, 665, 14
Seo H.-J., Siegel E. R., Eisenstein D. J., White M., 2008, ApJ, 686, 13
Seo H.-J., Eckel J., Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 1650
Seo H.-J., Ho S., White M., et al., 2012, AAS, 219, \#402.02
Smith R. E., Scoccimarro R., Sheth R. K., 2008, PhRvD, 77, 043525
Smee S., et al., in prep.
Spergel D. N., Verde L., Peiris H. V., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
Spergel D. N., Bean R., Dor[é]{} O., et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
Swanson M. E. C., Tegmark M., Hamilton A. J. S., Hill J. C., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1391
Swanson M. E. C., Percival W. J., Lahav O., 2010, MNRAS, 409, 3
Taruya A., Nishimichi T., Saito S., Hiramatsu T., 2009, PhRvD, 80, 123503
Tegmark M., Blanton M. R., Strauss M. A., et al., 2004, ApJ, 606, 702
Tojeiro R., et al., 2012, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1203.6565
Vikman A., 2005, PRD, 71, 023515
Weinheimer C., 2003, arXiv:hep-ex/0306057
White M., et al., 2011, ApJ, 728, 126
Xia J., Cai Y., Qiu T., Zhao G., Zhang X., (2008), Int. J. Modern Phys. D, 17, 1229
Xu X., Padmanabhan N., Eisenstein D. J., Mehta K. T., Cuesta A. J., 2012, MNRAS submitted, arXiv:1202.0091
York D. G., Adelman J., Anderson J. E., Jr., et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
Zehavi I., Blanton M. R., Frieman J. A., et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, 172
Zhao G., Xia J., Li M., Feng B., Zhang X., 2005, PRD, 123515
Summary of the obtained cosmological constraints {#sec:tables}
================================================
In this section we summarize the constraints on cosmological parameters obtained using different combinations of the datasets described in Sections \[sec:corfunc\] and \[sec:moredata\]. Table \[tab:lcdm\] lists the 68% confidence limits on the parameters of the $\Lambda$CDM model, as discussed in Section \[ssec:lcdm\]. Tables \[tab:omk\]-\[tab:wok\] correspond to the extensions of this parameter space analysed in Sections \[ssec:omk\] to \[ssec:darkenergy\]. Finally, Table \[tab:ngc\] presents the constraints on these parameter spaces, obtained from the combination of the correlation function of the NGC sub-sample with the CMB data.
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$100\,\Theta$ $1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0407_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0408_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0406_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0406_{ -0.0015}^{+0.0015}$
\[1.5mm\] $100\,\omega_{\rm b}$ $2.223_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$ $2.21_{-0.039}^{+0.039}$ $2.22_{-0.039}^{+0.039}$ $2.21_{-0.038}^{+0.038}$ $2.21_{-0.038}^{+0.038}$
\[1.5mm\] $100\,\omega_{\rm c}$ $11.16_{-0.45}^{+0.45}$ $11.45_{-0.29}^{+0.28}$ $11.35_{-0.28}^{+0.28}$ $11.58_{-0.22}^{+0.22}$ $11.50_{-0.20}^{+0.20}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau $ $0.0857_{-0.0068}^{+0.0061}$ $0.0822_{-0.0064}^{+0.0060}$ $0.0834_{-0.0068}^{+0.0059}$ $0.0811_{-0.0062}^{+0.0056}$ $0.0815_{-0.0065}^{+0.0059}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $0.967_{-0.011}^{+0.010}$ $0.9620_{-0.0091}^{+0.0093}$ $0.9638_{-0.0092}^{+0.0091}$ $ 0.9604_{-0.0087}^{+0.0087}$ $0.9613_{-0.0090}^{+0.0089}$
\[1.5mm\] $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm s})$ $3.082_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.085_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$ $3.084_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$ $3.086_{-0.027}^{+0.028}$ $3.084_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $0.734_{-0.024}^{+0.024}$ $0.718_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$ $0.724_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.711_{-0.010}^{+ 0.010}$ $0.7154_{-0.0094}^{+0.0097}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $0.266_{-0.024}^{+0.024}$ $0.282_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$ $0.276_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.289_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $0.2846_{-0.0097}^{+0.0095}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{8}$ $0.814_{-0.023}^{+0.023}$ $0.825_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.821_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.830_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.827_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{0}/{\rm Gyr}$ $13.725_{-0.084}^{+0.086}$ $13.769_{-0.071}^{+0.072}$ $13.753_{-0.072}^{+0.072}$ $13.780_{-0.066}^{+0.066}$ $13.774_{-0.068}^{+0.067}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $10.4_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.2_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.1}$ $10.2_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.2_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $0.710_{-0.020}^{+0.020}$ $0.696_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.701_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.691_{-0.084}^{+0.084}$ $0.694_{-0.081}^{+0.082}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})/{\rm Mpc}$ $2006_{-32}^{+33}$ $ 2028_{-20}^{+20}$ $2020_{-20}^{+20}$ $ 2036_{-15}^{+15}$ $ 2031_{-15}^{+15}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $0.743_{-0.021}^{+0.021}$ $0.757_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.752_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.7628_{-0.0083}^{+0.0082}$ $0.7595_{-0.0078}^{+0.0077}$
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
\[tab:lcdm\]
---------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$\Omega_K$ $ -0.014_{-0.025}^{+0.022}$ $-0.0042_{-0.0049}^{+0.0050}$ $-0.0047_{ -0.0048}^{+0.0047}$ $-0.0042_{-0.0043}^{+ 0.0044}$ $-0.0045_{-0.0042}^{+0.0043}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\Theta$ $1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $ 1.0411_{ -0.0016}^{+ 0.0016}$ $1.0410_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_b$ $2.221_{-0.041}^{+0.043}$ $ 2.220_{-0.040}^{+0.040}$ $2.227_{-0.040}^{+ 0.041}$ $ 2.222_{-0.041}^{+ 0.040}$ $ 2.223_{-0.037}^{+ 0.039}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm dm}$ $ 11.20_{-0.47}^{+0.46}$ $ 11.19_{-0.43}^{+ 0.44}$ $ 11.04_{ -0.42}^{+ 0.41}$ $ 11.24_{-0.41}^{+ 0.42}$ $ 11.13_{ -0.40}^{+ 0.40}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau$ $ 0.0840_{ -0.0071}^{+0.0062}$ $ 0.0842_{-0.0066}^{+0.0058}$ $0.0862_{-0.0068}^{+ 0.0060}$ $ 0.0850_{-0.0071}^{+0.0064}$ $ 0.0848_{-0.0074}^{+ 0.0064}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $ 0.965_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $ 0.965_{-0.010}^{+ 0.010}$ $ 0.967_{-0.0098}^{+ 0.0099}$ $ 0.965_{ -0.010}^{+ 0.0010}$ $ 0.966_{-0.0095}^{+ 0.0098}$
\[1.5mm\] ln($10^{10}A_{\rm s}$) $ 3.079_{ -0.030}^{+0.029}$ $ 3.079_{- 0.030}^{+ 0.030}$ $ 3.078_{-0.030}^{+ 0.029}$ $ 3.083_{ -0.030}^{+ 0.031}$ $ 3.078_{ -0.031}^{+ 0.032}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $ 0.693_{ -0.079}^{+0.074}$ $ 0.719_{-0.015}^{+ 0.016}$ $ 0.726_{ -0.014}^{+ 0.014}$ $ 0.717_{ -0.012}^{+ 0.012}$ $ 0.721_{ -0.012}^{+ 0.012}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $ 0.321_{ -0.094}^{+ 0.104}$ $ 0.285_{ -0.016}^{+ 0.015}$ $ 0.279_{ -0.015}^{+ 0.015}$ $ 0.287_{ -0.010}^{+ 0.011}$ $ 0.283_{-0.010}^{+ 0.010}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ $ 0.806_{ -0.027}^{+ 0.027}$ $ 0.812_{ -0.024}^{+ 0.024}$ $ 0.806_{ -0.023}^{+ 0.023}$ $ 0.815_{ -0.023}^{+ 0.023}$ $ 0.809_{ -0.023}^{+ 0.024}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{\rm 0}/{\rm Gyr}$ $ 14.20_{ -1.00}^{+ 1.07}$ $ 13.95_{ -0.23}^{+0.22}$ $ 13.96_{ -0.21}^{+ 0.23}$ $ 13.95_{ -0.20}^{+ 0.20}$ $13.97_{ -0.20}^{+ 0.19}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $ 10.3_{ -1.2}^{+ 1.2}$ $ 10.3_{ -1.2}^{+ 1.2}$ $ 10.4_{ -1.2}^{+ 1.1}$ $ 10.4_{ -1.2}^{+ 1.2}$ $ 10.3_{ -1.2}^{+ 1.2}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $ 0.669_{ -0.106}^{+ 0.097}$ $ 0.687_{ -0.017}^{+ 0.017}$ $ 0.690_{ -0.016}^{+ 0.016}$ $ 0.685_{-0.011}^{+ 0.011}$ $ 0.687_{ -0.010}^{+ 0.011}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$ $ 2116_{ -222}^{+ 242}$ $ 2057_{ -39}^{+ 39}$ $ 2053_{ -38}^{+ 39}$ $ 2059_{ -29}^{+ 29}$ $ 2057_{ -30}^{+ 29}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $ 0.779_{ -0.076}^{+ 0.083}$ $ 0.761_{ -0.013}^{+ 0.013}$ $ 0.756_{ -0.013}^{+ 0.013}$ $ 0.7629_{ -0.0085}^{+ 0.0085}$ $ 0.7600_{ -0.0086}^{+ 0.0083}$
\[1.5mm\]
---------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
\[tab:omk\]
----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$f_\nu$ $< 0.11 $ (95% CL) $< 0.055$ (95% CL) $ <0.049$ (95% CL) $ < 0.050 $ (95% CL) $ < 0.049 $ (95% CL)
\[1.5mm\] 100$\Theta$ $ 1.0405_{ -0.0016}^{+ 0.0016}$ $ 1.0407_{ -0.0015}^{+ 0.0015}$ $ 1.0408_{ -0.0014}^{+ 0.0014}$ $ 1.0408_{ -0.0015}^{+ 0.0015}$ $ 1.0409_{ -0.0015}^{+ 0.0014}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm b}$ $ 2.191_{ -0.047}^{+ 0.046}$ $ 2.214_{ -0.040}^{+ 0.040}$ $ 2.219_{ -0.039}^{+ 0.038}$ $ 2.213_{ -0.038}^{+ 0.038}$ $ 2.217_{ -0.039}^{+ 0.039}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm dm}$ $ 12.12_{ -0.78}^{+ 0.79}$ $ 11.53_{ -0.29}^{+ 0.29}$ $ 11.38_{ -0.27}^{+ 0.28}$ $ 11.5076_{ -0.21}^{+ 0.20}$ $ 11.45_{ -0.21}^{+ 0.21}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau$ $ 0.0829_{-0.0066}^{+ 0.0060}$ $ 0.0852_{ -0.0067}^{+ 0.0059}$ $ 0.0860_{ -0.0064}^{+ 0.0057}$ $ 0.0845_{ -0.0069}^{+0.0064}$ $0.0856_{-0.0074}^{+ 0.0062}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $ 0.956_{-0.014}^{+ 0.014}$ $ 0.965_{-0.009}^{+ 0.010}$ $ 0.966_{-0.009}^{+ 0.009}$ $0.964_{ -0.009}^{+ 0.009}$ $ 0.966_{-0.010}^{+ 0.010}$
\[1.5mm\] ln$(10^{10} A_{\rm s})$ $ 3.079_{ -0.029}^{+ 0.029}$ $ 3.082_{ -0.028}^{+ 0.029}$ $ 3.080_{ -0.028}^{+ 0.029}$ $ 3.080_{ -0.029}^{+ 0.030}$ $ 3.082_{-0.030}^{+ 0.031}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sum m_\nu$ $ < 1.4\,{\rm eV} $ (95% CL) $ < 0.61\,{\rm eV} $ (95% CL) $ < 0.52\,{\rm eV} $ (95% CL) $ < 0.54\,{\rm eV} $ (95% CL) $ < 0.51\,{\rm eV}$ (95% CL)
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $ 0.643_{ -0.073}^{+ 0.070}$ $ 0.702_{ -0.020}^{+ 0.020}$ $ 0.712_{ -0.016}^{+ 0.016}$ $ 0.704_{ -0.011}^{+ 0.011}$ $ 0.708_{-0.011}^{+ 0.011}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $ 0.357_{ -0.070}^{+ 0.073}$ $ 0.298_{ -0.019}^{+ 0.019}$ $ 0.288_{ -0.016}^{+ 0.016}$ $ 0.296_{-0.010}^{+ 0.011}$ $ 0.292_{ -0.011}^{+ 0.011}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ $ 0.683_{ -0.079}^{+ 0.081}$ $ 0.752_{ -0.048}^{+0.484}$ $ 0.759_{ -0.045}^{+ 0.046}$ $ 0.756_{ -0.049}^{+ 0.051}$ $ 0.758_{ -0.046}^{+ 0.046}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_0/$Gyr $ 14.116_{ -0.258}^{+ 0.251}$ $ 13.902_{-0.112}^{+ 0.110}$ $ 13.865_{ -0.097}^{+ 0.099}$ $ 13.890_{ -0.093}^{+ 0.094}$ $ 13.873_{-0.089}^{+ 0.088}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $ 10.507_{ -1.145}^{+ 1.194}$ $ 10.519_{ -1.135}^{+ 1.172}$ $ 10.535_{ -1.136}^{+ 1.137}$ $ 10.452_{ -1.207}^{+ 1.139}$ $ 10.523_{ -1.242}^{+ 1.283}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $ 0.640_{ -0.048}^{+ 0.048}$ $ 0.680_{ -0.0160}^{+ 0.016}$ $ 0.688_{ -0.014}^{+ 0.014}$ $ 0.681_{ -0.011}^{+ 0.011}$ $ 0.685_{ -0.010}^{+ 0.010}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_m)$ $ 2135_{ -87}^{+ 87}$ $ 2062_{ -29}^{+ 30}$ $ 2047_{ -26}^{+ 25}$ $ 2058_{ -20}^{+ 21}$ $ 2052_{ -20}^{+ 20}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $ 0.806_{ -0.044}^{+ 0.045}$ $ 0.770_{ -0.014}^{+ 0.014}$ $ 0.762_{ -0.013}^{+ 0.013}$ $ 0.768_{ -0.008}^{+ 0.009}$ $ 0.765_{ -0.009}^{+ 0.0089}$
----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
\[tab:fnu\]
----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$r$ $<0.21$ (95% CL) $<0.16$ (95% CL) $<0.16$ (95% CL) $<0.15$ (95% CL) $<0.15$ (95% CL)
\[1.5mm\] 100$\Theta$ $1.0413_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0408_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0409_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0406_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0407_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm b}$ $2.240_{-0.045}^{+0.045}$ $2.221_{-0.040}^{+0.040}$ $2.228_{-0.038}^{+0.038}$ $2.215_{-0.038}^{+0.039}$ $2.219_{-0.038}^{+0.039}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm dm}$ $ 10.95_{-0.48}^{+0.50}$ $11.42_{-0.31}^{+0.31}$ $11.31_{-0.28}^{+0.27}$ $ 11.55_{-0.21}^{+0.21}$ $11.47_{-0.20}^{+0.20}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau$ $0.0856_{-0.0071}^{+0.0062}$ $0.0815_{-0.0067}^{+0.0059}$ $0.0825_{-0.0068}^{+0.0061}$ $0.0808_{-0.0064}^{+0.0060}$ $ 0.0812_{-0.0064}^{+0.0060}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $0.974_{-0.013}^{+0.013}$ $0.966_{-0.011}^{+0.010}$ $ 0.9679_{-0.0096}^{+0.0094}$ $ 0.9636_{-0.0096}^{+0.0094}$ $ 0.9652_{-0.0093}^{+0.0093}$
\[1.5mm\] ln$(10^{10} A_{\rm s})$ $3.077_{-0.029}^{+0.030}$ $3.083_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$ $3.082_{-0.029}^{+0.030}$ $3.086_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$ $3.084_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $0.745_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ $0.720_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $ 0.726_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.713_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $ 0.7173_{-0.0098}^{+0.0098}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $0.255_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ $0.280_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.274_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.287_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $ 0.2827_{-0.0010}^{+0.0098}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ $0.805_{-0.024}^{+0.025}$ $ 0.824_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.820_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.830_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $ 0.827_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_0/$Gyr $13.690_{-0.095}^{+0.094}$ $13.754_{-0.075}^{+0.075}$ $13.738_{-0.071}^{+0.071}$ $13.771_{-0.067}^{+0.068}$ $ 13.763_{-0.069}^{+0.065}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $10.3_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ $10.1_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ $10.2_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.1_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ $10.1_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $0.721_{-0.023}^{+0.023}$ $ 0.699_{-0.013}^{+0.013}$ $ 0.704_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $ 0.6930_{-0.0083}^{+0.0085}$ $ 0.6962_{-0.0083}^{+0.0084}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_m)$ $ 1990_{-37}^{+37}$ $2024_{-22}^{+22}$ $ 2016_{-20}^{+20}$ $ 2033_{-15}^{+15}$ $ 2028_{-15}^{+15}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $ 0.733_{-0.023}^{+0.023}$ $0.755_{-0.013}^{+0.013}$ $0.750_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.7613_{-0.0081}^{+0.0082}$ $ 0.7580_{-0.0080}^{+0.0080}$
----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------
\[tab:r\]
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$w_{\rm DE}$ $-1.15_{-0.39}^{+0.39}$ $-0.95_{-0.20}^{+0.21}$ $-1.054_{-0.076}^{+0.077}$ $-0.91_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ $-1.033_{-0.074}^{+0.073}$
\[1.5mm\] $100\,\Theta$ $1.0410_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0410_{0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0406_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0409_{-0.00156}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0405_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$
\[1.5mm\] $100\,\omega_{\rm b}$ $2.219_{-0.042}^{+0.042}$ $2.220_{-0.042}^{+0.043}$ $2.211_{-0.038}^{+0.039}$ $2.221_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$ $2.210_{-0.039}^{+0.039}$
\[1.5mm\] $100\,\omega_{\rm dm}$ $11.21_{-0.47}^{+0.47}$ $11.33_{-0.47}^{+0.48}$ $11.48_{-0.33}^{+0.33}$ $11.24_{-0.43}^{+0.43}$ $11.58_{-0.32}^{+0.32}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau $ $0.0847_{-0.0071}^{+0.0060}$ $0.0831_{-0.0070}^{+0.0063}$ $0.0819_{-0.0064}^{+0.0059}$ $0.0840_{-0.0070}^{+0.0062}$ $0.0814_{0.0063}^{+0.0057}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $0.965_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.964_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.9615_{-0.0098}^{+0.0097}$ $0.966_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.9606_{-0.0095}^{+0.0096}$
\[1.5mm\] $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm s})$ $3.081_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.083_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.084_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$ $3.081_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.087_{-0.028}^{+0.028}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $0.751_{-0.093}^{+0.088}$ $0.704_{-0.041}^{+0.042}$ $0.729_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.702_{-0.017}^{+0.017}$ $0.719_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $0.248_{-0.088}^{+0.093}$ $0.295_{-0.042}^{+0.041}$ $0.270_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.297_{-0.017}^{+0.017}$ $0.281_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{8}$ $0.86_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ $0.801_{0.084}^{+0.085}$ $0.842_{-0.035}^{+0.035}$ $0.787_{-0.054}^{+0.054}$ $0.840_{-0.036}^{+0.036}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{0}/{\rm Gyr}$ $13.69_{-0.24}^{+0.25}$ $13.82_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ $13.74_{-0.075}^{+0.074}$ $13.82_{-0.084}^{+0.085}$ $13.763_{-0.072}^{+0.071}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $10.4_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.2_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.2_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $0.77_{-0.14}^{+0.15}$ $0.683_{-0.056}^{+0.054}$ $0.713_{-0.020}^{+0.020}$ $0.674_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ $0.701_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})/{\rm Mpc}$ $ 1993_{-90}^{+96}$ $ 2045_{-40}^{+40}$ $2018_{21}^{+21}$ $2044_{-19}^{+19}$ $2030_{-16}^{+16}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $ 0.755_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$ $0.754_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ $0.760_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.748_{-0.019}^{+0.019}$ $0.764_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------
\[tab:wde\]
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$w_0$ $-1.12_{-0.51}^{+0.52}$ $-1.12_{-0.58}^{+0.61}$ $-1.09_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ $-0.95_{-0.27}^{+0.27}$ $-1.08_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$
\[1.5mm\] $w_a$ $-0.3_{-1.7}^{+1.2}$ $0.32_{-0.99}^{+0.98}$ $0.12_{-0.47}^{+0.48}$ $0.05_{-0.61}^{+0.62}$ $0.23_{-0.42}^{+0.42}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\Theta$ $1.0409_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0409_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0408_{-0.0016}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0409_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0408_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_b$ $2.219_{-0.042}^{+0.042}$ $2.218_{-0.041}^{+0.042}$ $2.215_{-0.040}^{+0.040}$ $2.218_{-0.042}^{+0.00042}$ $0.0221_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{dm}$ $11.22_{0.47}^{+0.47}$ $11.31_{-0.46}^{+0.46}$ $11.40_{-0.45}^{+0.45}$ $11.28_{-0.47}^{+0.48}$ $11.38_{-0.47}^{+0.47}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau$ $0.0852_{-0.0069}^{+0.0061}$ $0.0833_{0.0067}^{+0.0062}$ $0.0823_{-0.0067}^{+0.0058}$ $0.0833_{-0.0068}^{+0.0061}$ $0.0825_{-0.0068}^{+0.0060}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_s$ $0.965_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.965_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.963_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.965_{-0.012}^{+0.011}$ $0.963_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$
\[1.5mm\] $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm s})$ $3.083_{-0.029}^{+0.030}$ $3.082_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.083_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$ $3.080_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$ $3.083_{-0.029}^{+0.030}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $0.760_{-0.087}^{+0.081}$ $0.722_{-0.091}^{+0.081}$ $0.730_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.706_{-0.032}^{+0.032}$ $0.724_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $0.239_{-0.081}^{+0.087}$ $0.278_{-0.081}^{+0.091}$ $0.269_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.294_{-0.032}^{+0.032}$ $0.276_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ $0.87_{-0.12}^{+0.12}$ $0.82_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ $0.832_{-0.049}^{+0.049}$ $0.792_{-0.057}^{+0.057}$ $0.821_{-0.048}^{+0.048}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{\rm 0}/$Gyr $13.64_{-0.22}^{+0.22}$ $13.79_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$ $13.763_{-0.091}^{+0.089}$ $13.827_{-0.086}^{+0.085}$ $13.80_{-0.083}^{+0.083}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $10.4_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.2_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $0.78_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$ $0.72_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ $0.712_{-0.020}^{+0.020}$ $0.680_{-0.038}^{+0.038}$ $0.070_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_m)/{\rm Mpc}$ $1974_{-83}^{+86}$ $2040_{-45}^{+47}$ $2027_{-25}^{+25}$ $2046_{-20}^{+20}$ $2038_{-19}^{+19}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $0.733_{-0.078}^{+0.077}$ $0.770_{-0.069}^{+0.064}$ $0.766_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ $0.753_{-0.040}^{+0.040}$ $0.771_{-0.019}^{+0.019}$
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
\[tab:wa\]
----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS CMB + CMASS
+SN +BAO + BAO + SN
$\Omega_K$ $-0.026_{-0.033}^{+0.028}$ $-0.0029_{-0.0064}^{+0.0068}$ $-0.0051_{-0.0048}^{+0.0048}$ $-0.0013_{-0.0061}^{+0.0064}$ $-0.0054_{-0.0044}^{+0.0044}$
\[1.5mm\] $w_{\rm DE}$ $-0.91_{-0.47}^{+0.46}$ $-1.07_{-0.38}^{+0.34}$ $-1.070_{-0.078}^{+0.079}$ $-0.946_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$ $-1.060_{-0.075}^{+0.075}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\Theta$ $1.0410_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0412_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+ 0.0016}$ $1.0411_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.041_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_b$ $2.218_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$ $2.224_{-0.043}^{+0.043}$ $2.221_{-0.042}^{+0.042}$ $2.224_{-0.037}^{+0.038}$ $2.220_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm dm}$ $11.19_{-0.47}^{+0.47}$ $11.16_{-0.45}^{+0.45}$ $11.18_{-0.44}^{+0.44}$ $0.11_{-0.46}^{+0.46}$ $11.18_{-0.44}^{+0.44}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau$ $0.0839_{-0.0071}^{+0.0060}$ $0.0843_{-0.0066}^{+0.0062}$ $0.0844_{-0.0068}^{+0.0063}$ $0.0850_{-0.0060}^{+0.0055}$ $0.0850_{-0.0069}^{+0.0059}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_s$ $0.964_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.966_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.964_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $0.965_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $0.964_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$
\[1.5mm\] $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm s})$ $3.078_{-0.031}^{+0.030}$ $3.079_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$ $3.079_{-0.030}^{+0.029}$ $3.081_{-0.029}^{+0.028}$ $3.080_{-0.030}^{+0.030}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $0.62_{-0.18}^{+0.17}$ $0.725_{-0.064}^{+0.069}$ $0.733_{-0.017}^{+0.017}$ $0.707_{-0.027}^{+0.0273}$ $0.730_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_m$ $0.40_{-0.20}^{+0.21}$ $0.277_{-0.064}^{+0.059}$ $0.271_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$ $0.294_{-0.023}^{+0.023}$ $0.275_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{\rm 8}$ $0.77_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$ $0.826_{-0.11}^{+0.12}$ $0.832_{-0.036}^{+0.036}$ $0.795_{-0.061}^{+0.063}$ $0.829_{-0.035}^{+0.035}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{\rm 0}/$Gyr $14.7_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $13.90_{-0.23}^{+0.24}$ $13.97_{-0.23}^{+0.23}$ $13.88_{0.22}^{+0.21}$ $13.99_{-0.20}^{+0.20}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.3_{-1.2}^{+1.12}$ $10.4_{1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.4_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $0.62_{-0.16}^{+0.17}$ $0.707_{-0.079}^{+0.087}$ $0.703_{-0.021}^{+0.021}$ $0.677_{-0.029}^{+0.028}$ $0.698_{-0.016}^{+0.016}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})$ $2245_{-277}^{+282}$ $2061_{-40}^{+40}$ $2054_{-40}^{+40}$ $2053_{-31}^{+30}$ $2061_{-30}^{+30}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $0.814_{-0.073}^{+0.073}$ $0.768_{-0.037}^{+0.041}$ $0.767_{-0.017}^{+0.017}$ $0.754_{-0.026}^{+0.026}$ $0.768_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$
----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
\[tab:wok\]
$\Lambda$CDM $\Lambda$CDM$+\Omega_k$ $\Lambda$CDM$+f_{\nu}$ $\Lambda$CDM$+r$ $\Lambda$CDM$+w_{\rm DE}$ $\Lambda$CDM$+w_{\rm DE}(a)$
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------
$100\Theta$ $ 1.0411_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $ 1.0411_{-0.0016}^{+0.0015}$ $ 1.0411_{-0.0014}^{+0.0014}$ $1.0411_{-0.0015}^{+0.0015}$ $1.0409_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$ $1.0409_{-0.0016}^{+0.0016}$
\[1.5mm\] $\omega_{\rm dm}$ $ 11.14_{-0.28}^{+0.28}$ $ 11.18_{-0.46}^{+0.46}$ $11.23_{-0.28}^{+0.28}$ $11.10_{-0.28}^{+0.28}$ $2.217_{-0.042}^{+0.042}$ $2.217_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$
\[1.5mm\] 100$\omega_{\rm b}$ $ 2.223_{-0.039}^{+0.039}$ $ 2.223_{-0.040}^{+0.040}$ $2.224_{ -0.039}^{+0.039}$ $2.234_{-0.041}^{+0.041}$ $11.32_{-0.46}^{+0.47}$ $11.29_{-0.45}^{+0.46}$
\[1.5mm\] $\tau $ $ 0.0850_{-0.0067}^{+0.0059}$ $ 0.0848_{-0.0069}^{+0.0058}$ $0.0862_{-0.0076}^{+0.0067}$ $0.0842_{-0.0066}^{+0.0060}$ $0.0833_{-0.0065}^{+0.0059}$ $0.0836_{-0.0068}^{+0.0060}$
\[1.5mm\] $n_{\rm s}$ $ 0.9666_{-0.0095}^{+0.0092}$ $ 0.966_{-0.011}^{+0.011}$ $0.9678_{-0.0095}^{+0.0095}$ $0.971_{-0.010}^{+0.010}$ $0.9636_{-0.0111}^{+0.0111}$ $0.9641_{0.0111}^{+0.0111}$
\[1.5mm\] $\ln(10^{10}A_{\rm s})$ $ 3.080_{-0.028}^{+0.029}$ $ 3.080_{-0.023}^{+0.030}$ $3.077_{-0.031}^{+0.031}$ $3.079_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$ $3.082_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$ $3.082_{-0.029}^{+0.029}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{k}$ $ 0 $ $ -0.0002_{-0.0049}^{+0.0049}$ $ 0 $ 0 $0$ $0$
\[1.5mm\] $f_{\nu}$ $ 0 $ 0 $ <0.044$ (95% CL) $0$ $0$ $0$
\[1.5mm\] $r$ $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ $<0.17$ (95% CL) $0$ $0$
\[1.5mm\] $w_{\rm DE}\,(w_0)$ $ -1 $ $-1$ $ -1 $ $-1$ $-1.14_{-0.27}^{+0.26}$ $-1.21_{-0.79}^{+0.61}$
\[1.5mm\] $w_a$ $ 0 $ $-1$ $ -1 $ $0$ $0$ $0.14_{-1.0}^{+1.0}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sum m_{\nu}$ $ 0 $ 0 $ <0.52\,{\rm eV}$ (95% CL) $0$ $0$ $0$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ $ 0.735_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.733_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$ $ 0.723_{-0.017}^{+0.016}$ $0.738_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.753_{-0.042}^{+0.045}$ $0.756_{-0.081}^{+0.071}$
\[1.5mm\] $\Omega_{\rm m}$ $ 0.265_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.267_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$ $ 0.276_{-0.016}^{+0.017}$ $ 0.262_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.246_{-0.045}^{+0.042}$ $0.244_{-0.071}^{+0.081}$
\[1.5mm\] $\sigma_{8}$ $ 0.813_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.814_{-0.025}^{+0.024}$ $ 0.764_{-0.042}^{+0.040}$ $0.811_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$ $0.861_{-0.09}^{+0.10}$ $0.87_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$
\[1.5mm\] $t_{0}/{\rm Gyr}$ $ 13.727_{-0.071}^{+0.072}$ $13.74_{-0.24}^{+0.23}$ $ 13.818_{-0.098}^{+0.10}$ $13.713_{-0.075}^{+0.074}$ $13.69_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ $13.69_{-0.14}^{+0.14}$
\[1.5mm\] $z_{\rm re}$ $ 10.4_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.4_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $ 10.5_{-1.2}^{+1.3}$ $ 10.3_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ $10.3_{-1.1}^{+1.1}$ $10.3_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$
\[1.5mm\] $h$ $ 0.711_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.708_{-0.017}^{+0.017}$ $ 0.698_{-0.015}^{+0.015}$ $0.713_{-0.013}^{+0.013}$ $0.751_{-0.073}^{+0.078}$ $0.77_{-0.12}^{+0.12}$
\[1.5mm\] $D_{\rm V}(z_{\rm m})/{\rm Mpc}$ $ 2005_{-20}^{+20}$ $2010_{-40}^{+40}$ $ 2030_{-27}^{+28}$ $ 2001_{-22}^{+21}$ $1997_{-37}^{+37}$ $1996_{-41}^{+43}$
\[1.5mm\] $f(z_{\rm m})$ $0.754_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.745_{-0.013}^{+0.013}$ $ 0.753_{-0.014}^{+0.014}$ $0.740_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ $0.757_{-0.027}^{+0.028}$ $0.760_{-0.071}^{+0.064}$
\[tab:ngc\]
[^1]: These mock catalogues will be made available in http://www.marcmanera.net/mocks/
[^2]: When including tensor modes we assume the slow-roll consistency relation and fix the tensor spectral index as $n_{\rm t}=-r/8$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have obtained time series optical spectra of the cataclysmic variable PQ And in quiescence. The spectra show a white dwarf continuum with narrow Balmer emission superimposed over strong Balmer absorption. The emission lines have blue and red components whose strength changes with time. An analysis of the H$\alpha$ emission line implies a short orbital period below the period gap. Given its lack of accretion disk features, its large and infrequent outbursts, and an orbital period below the period gap, PQ And is probably a low accretion rate object similar to WZ Sge. In addition, white dwarf model fits imply that PQ And is an excellent ZZ Cet candidate.'
author:
- 'Greg J. Schwarz, Travis Barman, Nicole Silvestri, Paula Szkody, Sumner Starrfield, Karen Vanlandingham, and R. Mark Wagner'
title: Quiescent observations of the WZ Sge type dwarf nova PQ Andromedae
---
Introduction
============
PQ And was discovered by McAdam on 21 March 1988 [@iauc4570] at a visual magnitude of 10. Examination of the Palomar Sky Survey plates showed a precursor object with a blue magnitude between 18-19 and a red magnitude of about 20 [@iauc4577; @iauc4579]. Within 19 days the light curve had declined by 2 magnitudes. The large outburst amplitude and rapid decline led to the initial classification of a classical nova but spectra taken 3.5 months after the outburst by @iauc4629 lacked the nebular features typically observed in classical novae. Instead, the spectra had strong Balmer emission surrounded by broad absorption similar to the quiesent spectra of the dwarf nova WZ Sge. The strong absorption indicated that the energy distribution was primarily from the white dwarf (WD) and implied an extremely low accretion rate. Recently, it has been shown that systems with this type of spectra are good candidates for containing non-radially pulsating DA WDs or ZZ Cet stars [@WW04a; @WW04b].
WZ Sge is a dwarf nova whose outbursts occur on timescales of tens of years and with amplitudes of 7-8 magnitudes. Cataclysmic variables (CVs) of this type are also known as TOADS or Tremendous Outburst Amplitude Dwarf novae [@HSC95]. These characteristics are thought to be due to the very close binary separation and the extremely low accretion rate in these systems. TOAD orbital periods are all below the period gap and are typically of order 90 minutes. The mass transfer rates implied by the models are only 10$^{-11}$M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@HSC95].
Given PQ And’s similarities to a dwarf nova, @richter90 searched archival plates for evidence of previous outbursts. Two other outbursts with maximum magnitudes of $\sim$ 11 were found on 23 August 1938 and 7 March 1967. With decades long superoutburst timescales, an outburst amplitude of $\sim$ 9 mag, and a WZ Sge like quiescent spectrum, PQ And clearly has TOAD characteristics. In this paper we show that the orbital period [*appears to be*]{} below the period gap and that the system likely contains a WD in the instability strip.
Observations
============
We obtained 10 spectra of PQ And on the 6.5m Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) on 16 September 2003. We used the blue channel CCD spectrograph with a 500 grooves per millimeter grating and a 1 wide slit for a spectral resolution of 3.6Å. Spectral coverage extends from 4100Å to 7200Å. The exposure time was set to 480 seconds in order to resolve an orbital period as low as 80 minutes. The seeing ranged from 10-15 during the night. Biases and flat fields were obtained at the beginning and end of each night and a HeNeAr comparison lamp spectrum was obtained after each PQ And observation for optimum wavelength calibration. Standard stars were also observed throughout the night for flux calibration. The spectra were reduced using standard IRAF[^1] routines.
The combined spectrum is shown in Figure \[modelfit\][^2]. The combined spectrum has narrow emission lines flanked by broad absorption similar to that described by @iauc4629. The equivalent widths, fluxes, and FWZI values of the observed emission lines in the combined spectrum are given in Table \[tab:emission\]. All the emission lines have a red and a blue component whose strength and peak vary with time. The evolution of these components can best be seen in H$\alpha$ and is shown in Figure \[evolve\].
Emission line analysis
======================
Radial velocities from the line wings were measured by convolving the line profiles with a pair of Gaussian bandpasses [see @shaft; @P1 for details] whose width is set to the resolution and whose separation is varied. For each separation, the velocities are fit to a sine function of the form $$v = \gamma - K\rm sin[2\pi(\phi - \phi_{0})]$$ where $\gamma$ is the systemic velocity, K is the semiamplitude, and $\phi$ is the offset from superior conjunction of the WD. The best solution is chosen as the one producing the smallest errors in the individual parameters and the total $\sigma$ of the fit.
We fit both the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines with this method but unfortunately not all the observed line profiles were useful. Two H$\alpha$ and one H$\beta$ profiles were discarded due to cosmic rays or noise at a particular separation. Even with one less data point the H$\alpha$ fit was significantly better than that determined for H$\beta$ thus we adopt the H$\alpha$ separation and period as the best solution and force H$\beta$ to match. The best fit period is 1.7$\pm$0.1 hours where this is the formal uncertainty from the analysis. The true uncertainty in the period is greater since the derived period is longer than the sampling time. Figure \[radvel\] shows the radial velocity data for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ fits. The radial velocity data is provided in Table \[tab:RV\]. The orbital parameters of the lowest total $\sigma$ fit are given in Table \[tab:parms\] along with other parameters of PQ And.
To quantify the component changes, we calculated the ratio of the blue (violet) to red components (V/R) for each spectrum that shows H$\alpha$. The V/R ratios were calculated with the IRAF program splot with two Gaussians which had the same FWHM and were centered at 6554Åand 6574Å. In each spectrum the Gaussians were only allowed a single wavelength shift provided that the separation was always 20Å. The results are shown in Figure \[ratio\].
Superior conjunction of the WD is defined as the red to blue crossing point of the emission lines. In Figure \[ratio\] we have fit the V/R data with a sine wave of the form: $$V/R = A + B\rm sin[2\pi(t-t_0/P_{orb})]$$ to determine the crossing point. With P$_{orb}$ = 1.7 hours the best fit gives a superior conjunction date of HJD 2,452,898.902. The other model parameters are provided in Table \[tab:parms\].
Differential photometry
-----------------------
As an added check on the derived period we utilized differential photometry of PQ And from a CV orbital period survey taken in early 1999. The data were obtained at the Steward Observatory 1.6m Kuiper Telescope on Mount Bigalow with the 2K$\times$2K back-illuminated CCD Imager. The CCD was set at 2$\times$2 binning giving an image scale of 0.3$\arcsec$/pixel. The seeing varied during the run between 1$\arcsec$ and 2$\arcsec$. The observations were carried out in the $I$ band where the accretion disk and secondary star are typically of comparable brightness. The exposure time in the PQ And field was 600 seconds. Biases and flats were taken at the beginning and end of each night and the data were reduced in IRAF. The only night that we spent sufficient time to confirm a 1.7 hour period was 19 January 1999. On that night PQ And was observed 18 times over 3 hours. A differential light curve of the results is shown in Figure \[lightcurve\]. The observed changes are suggestive of a variation similar to our derived spectroscopic period. The normalized periodogram [@Scar82; @HB86] of the photometry gives a longer period of 2.1 hours but at a low confidence level of only 50%.
We emphasize that these are not definitive orbital period solutions since the derived periods are similar in length to the total time that PQ And was observed. More data are necessary to reach a more definitive orbital period for this object. However, the fact that the radial velocities and the changes in the blue and red components show sine wave like behavior on the timescale of our observation runs imply that the period must be short. A firm upper limit on the orbital period can be established since the accretion disk would overwhelm the WD at periods $>$ 3 hours and there are no known dwarf novae in the gap. Thus for the remainder of the paper we will assume an orbital period range between 1.7 and 2.1 hours.
White dwarf model fitting
=========================
The WD effective temperature and gravity were determined by comparing the observed spectrum to a grid of synthetic spectra computed using the [PHOENIX]{} model atmosphere code. Details of the modeling can be found in [@Barman00]. The grid includes models with $T_{eff}$ = 9,000K – 15,000K (in steps of 1000K), $\log(g)$ = 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 10$^{-1}$, 10$^{-2}$ and solar metallicities. After masking the Balmer emission lines due to the accretion disk, $T_{eff}$ was first determined using least-squares minimization across the full observed spectral range. Fixing $T_{eff}$, the surface gravity was found by fitting only the wings of H$\delta$, H$\gamma$, and H$\beta$ since these were the only features available that are reasonably sensitive to gravity. The models with sub-solar metallicities gave only marginally better fits; however, models with solar metallicities indicate that several metal absorption lines should have been detected but clearly were not observed. Consequently, the metallicity is likely less than 10$^{-1}$ solar. Overall, varying metallicity had little effect on the final $T_{eff}$ and $\log(g)$ values. The final best-fitting model had $T_{eff}$ = 12,000K $\pm$ 1000K and $\log(g)$ = 7.7 $\pm$ 0.3 (cgs units) with 10$^{-2}$ solar metallicity. Estimates for the WD mass and radius were found by using theoretical cooling tracks on a $T_{eff}$ – $\log(g)$ plane [@Driebe98]. Figure \[wdplot\] shows that the best fit $T_{eff}$ and $\log(g)$ values give $M_{wd} = 0.47\pm0.13 M_\odot$ and $R_{WD} = 0.0165 R_\odot$. Note that this is only a mass estimate since the WDs in CVs are heated by accretion. The WD in PQ And might not follow this exactly.
There was residual flux red-ward of 6000Å between the observed and the best fit WD model spectra. This red excess is from the secondary. To improve the model fit, a synthetic spectrum of an M dwarf was added to the best-fitting WD synthetic spectrum. Since the secondary in CVs fill their Roche lobe, their characteristics are determined by the properties of the binary system. Equation 2.101 in @War95, $$R_2(\odot) = 0.094 P^{1.08}_{orb}(h),$$ relates the orbital period and secondary radius. Applying this equation to our derived periods gives a range of $R_{2} = 0.17-0.20 R_\odot$. The best fit effective temperature of the secondary from visual inspection was 2500 K, however, this should not be taken as definitive since the uncertainty is easily $\pm$ 500 K. Even this range and the short orbital period still imply a late M dwarf as the secondary star. The best fit WD plus secondary model spectral energy distribution is shown in Figure \[modelfit\]. An attempt was made to extract the secondary spectrum by subtracting the best-fitting WD synthetic spectrum from the observed spectrum. Unfortunately, the resulting spectrum was too noisy and did not cover enough of the TiO and VO bands to make a reliable determination of the spectral type. The only reported infrared color for PQ And, ($J-K$) = 0.85$\pm$0.49 [@SHM96], is consistent within the uncertainty with a late M spectral type. PQ And is too faint have been detected by the 2MASS survey [@2MASS].
The mass equation, Equation 2.100 in @War95, $$M_2(\odot) = 0.065 P^{5/4}_{orb}(h),$$ is valid for P$_{orb}$ between 1.3 and 9 hours and provides a secondary mass range of 0.13-0.16 M$_{\odot}$ for periods between 1.7 and 2.1 hours. Given the derived WD mass the binary system mass ratio, $q = M_2/M_1$, is 0.28-0.34.
Using the derived WD radius, an absolute magnitude was computed for the best-fitting WD synthetic spectrum; M$_v$ = 11.2. With an apparent magnitude, m$_v$ = 19 [@DS93] and E(B-V) = 0.06, the distance to PQ And was found to be $330 \pm 50$ pc. This distance places PQ And 110 pc below the galactic plane. The only other distance estimate in the literature is from @SHM96. They use the observed $K$ band magnitude to determine the absolute magnitudes. Their method depends on knowledge of the secondary’s size and its fractional contribution to the $K$ band flux. Without any period information @SHM96 obtained a large range in distance for PQ And by assuming orbital periods between 80 minutes and 6 hours. Using their same method but now with our derived period range gives a distance between 319-817 pc. This estimate is still only an lower limit since it assumes that the secondary contributes 100% of the $K$ band flux however it is consistent with the distance from our WD analysis.
The best fit [PHOENIX]{} WD model puts PQ And in the region of the ZZ Ceti instability strip [@B95]. The low accretion rate implied by the strong Balmer absorption makes PQ And an ideal candidate for follow-up observations for non-radial pulsations. If found, an analysis of the oscillations will provide information on important WD parameters including mass, composition, magnetic field, rotation, temperature, and luminosity [@Win91]. GW Lib [@van04], SDSS J161033.64-010223.3 [@WW04a], SDSSJ013132.39-090122.3 and SDSSJ220553.98+115553.7 [@WW04b] are other WZ Sge type dwarf novae of similar WD temperature that have already been shown to exhibit non-radial pulsations.
Conclusions
===========
PQ And has characteristics similar to WZ Sge type variable stars. Its quiescent spectra show little indication of an accretion disk implying a low mass transfer rate. PQ And had three known superoutbursts of amplitude $\sim$ 9 magnitudes in the 50 years prior to 1988. Fits to spectra give P$_{orb}$ = 1.7 hours while the period derived from photometry is slightly longer at 2.1 hours. More observations are required to confirm the true period but the available evidence strongly supports an orbital period below the orbital gap. The best fit WD model gives T$_{eff}$ = 12,000 K, log(g) = 7.7, and a distance of 330 pc. The WD parameters place it within the ZZ Cet instability strip. With a quiescent magnitude of $V$ = 19, non-radial pulsations could be detected in PQ And with a mid-sized telescope.
SS is grateful to the NSF and NASA for partial support of this research.
Barman, T. S., Hauschildt, P. H., Short, C. I, & Baron, E., 2000, , 537, 946
Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., Lamontagne, R., Fontaine, G., Saffer, R. A., & Allard, N. F. 1995, , 449, 258
Downes R.A., & Shara M., 1993, PASP, 105, 127
Driebe, T., Schönberner, D., Blöcker T., & Herwig, F., 1998, , 339, 123
Hoard, D. W., Wachter, S., Clark, L. L., & Bowers, T. P. 2002, , 565, 511
Howell, S. B., Szkody, P., & Cannizzo, J. K. 1995, , 439, 337
Horne, J. H. & Baliunas, S. L. 1986, , 302, 757
Hurst, G. M., McAdam, D., Mobberley, M., & James, N. 1988, , 4570, 2
Hurst, G. M., Young, A., Manning, B., Mobberley, M., Oates, M., Boattini, A., & Scovil, C. 1988, , 4577, 3
Hurst, G. M. & Young, A. 1988, , 4579, 1
Richter, G. A. 1990, Informational Bulletin on Variable Stars, 3546, 1
Scargle, J. D. 1982, , 263, 835
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Shafter, A. W. 1985, in Cataclysmic Variable and Low Mass X-Ray Binaries, ed. D. Q. Lamb & J. Patterson (Dordrecht: Reidel), 355
Sproats, L. N., Howell, S. B., & Mason, K. O. 1996, , 282, 1211
Szkody, P., et al. 2002, , 123, 430 (Paper 1)
van Zyl. L. et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 307
Wade, R. A. & Hamilton, D. 1988, , 4629, 1
Warner, B., 1995, in Cataclysmic Variable Stars, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)
Winget, D. E., et al. 1991, , 378, 326
Warner, B. & Woudt, P. A. 2004, in ASP Conf Ser. Variable Stars in the Local Group, eds. D. Kurtz & Karen Pollard, in press
Woudt, P. A. & Warner, B. 2004, , 348, 599
[lrcc]{} H$\delta$ & 4 & 2.6e-16 & 2100\
H$\gamma$ & 7 & 4.6e-16 & 2100\
H$\beta$ & 21 & 1.0e-15 & 2500\
& 5 & 2.1e-16 &\
H$\alpha$ & 75 & 2.1e-15 & 2700\
[crrrr]{} 2898.890 & 0.92 & 149.1 & 0.84 & 116.6\
2898.897 & 0.02 & -20.9 & 0.94 & 202.4\
2898.904 & 0.12 & -23.4 & 0.04 & 72.8\
2898.911 & 0.21 & -88.1 & 0.13 & -86.4\
2898.918 & 0.31 & -80.0 & 0.23 & -88.2\
2898.925 & & & 0.32 & -83.3\
2898.932 & 0.50 & 52.3 & &\
2898.945 & 0.68 & 155.9 & 0.60 & 183.9\
2898.952 & & & 0.70 & 240.7\
2898.958 & 0.88 & 142.7 & 0.80 & 88.3\
[ll]{} RA (J2000) & +02:29:29.54\
DEC (J2000) & +40:02:39.40\
b & -19.06$^{\circ}$\
E(B-V) & 0.06 [@SFD98]\
Outbursts & 23 August 1938 [@richter90]\
& 7 March 1967 [@richter90]\
& 21 March 1988 [@iauc4570]\
Recurrence Timescale & 25$\pm$4 years\
Maximum magnitude & 10 (visual) [@iauc4570]\
Minimum magnitude & 19.0 (V band) [@DS93]\
Orbital period & 1.7$\pm$0.1 hours\
Systemic velocity & 46.0$\pm$3.5 km s$^{-1}$ (Equ. 1)\
Semiamplitude & 135.7$\pm$13.7 km s$^{-1}$ (Equ. 1)\
Superior conjunction & 2,452,898.902 HJD (Equ. 2)\
A & 0.95$\pm$0.01 (Equ. 2)\
B & 0.25$\pm$0.01 (Equ. 2)\
T$_{eff}$ & 12,000$\pm$1,000 K\
log(g) & 7.7$\pm$0.3\
Z & 10$^{-2}$ Z$_\odot$\
Distance & 330$\pm$50 pc\
M$_1$ & 0.47$\pm$0.13 M$_\odot$\
[^1]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: Since the extinction toward PQ And provided by the @SFD98 maps is extremely low, E($B-V$) = 0.06, none of the spectra shown in this paper have been dereddened nor have they been Doppler corrected.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang could not have been infinite in duration — it must have had a beginning also. Where did it come from? Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question — that [*that*]{} is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs — giving [*no*]{} first-cause. This region of CTCs may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models — with CTCs — are [*not*]{} necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein’s equations. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: a metastable vacuum inflates producing an infinite number of (Big-Bang-type) bubble universes. In many of these, either by natural causes or by action of advanced civilizations, a number of bubbles of metastable vacuum are created at late times by high energy events. These bubbles will usually collapse and form black holes, but occasionally one will tunnel to create an expanding metastable vacuum (a baby universe) on the other side of the black hole’s Einstein-Rosen bridge as proposed by Farhi, Guth, and Guven. One of the expanding metastable-vacuum baby universes produced in this way simply turns out to be the original inflating metastable vacuum we began with. We show that a Universe with CTCs can be stable against vacuum polarization. And, it can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials in this Universe are retarded — which gives a natural explanation of the arrow of time in our universe. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.'
address: 'Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544'
author:
- 'J. Richard Gott, III and Li-Xin Li'
date: 'December 29, 1997'
title: 'Can the Universe Create Itself?'
---
\#1[[$\backslash$\#1]{}]{}
Introduction
============
The question of first-cause has been troubling to philosophers and scientists alike for over two thousand years. Aristotle found this sufficiently troubling that he proposed avoiding it by having the Universe exist eternally in both the past and future. That way, it was always present and one would not have to ask what caused it to come into being. This type of model has been attractive to modern scientists as well. When Einstein developed general relativity and applied it to cosmology, his first cosmological model was the Einstein static universe, which had a static $S^3$ spatial geometry which lasted forever, having no beginning and no end [@ein17].
As we shall discuss, since the Big Bang model’s success, models with a finite beginning have taken precedence, even when inflation and quantum tunneling are included. So the problem of first-cause reasserts itself. The big question appears to be how to create the universe out of nothing. In this paper we shall explore the idea that this is the wrong question. A remarkable property of general relativity is that it allows solutions that have closed timelike curves (CTCs) [@sto37; @god49; @tau51; @new63; @mis67; @mor88; @got91a] (for review see [@tho93; @vis95]). Often, the beginning of the universe, as in Vilenkin’s tunneling model [@vil82] and Hartle and Hawking’s no-boundary model [@har83], is pictured as being like the south pole of the earth and it is usually said that asking what happened before that is like asking what is south of the south pole [@haw88]. But, suppose the early universe contains a region of CTCs. Then, asking what was the earliest point might be like asking what is the easternmost point on the Earth. You can keep going east around and around the Earth — there is no eastern-most point. In such a model every event in the early universe would have events that preceded it. This period of CTCs could well have ended by now, being bounded by a Cauchy horizon. Some initial calculations of vacuum polarization in spacetimes with CTCs indicated that the renormalized energy-momentum tensor diverged at the Cauchy horizon separating the region with CTCs from the region without closed causal curves, or at the polarized hypersurfaces nested inside the Cauchy horizon [@his82; @fro91; @kim91; @kli92; @gra93]. Some of these results motivated Hawking [@haw92a; @haw92b] to propose the chronology protection conjecture which states that the laws of physics do not allow the appearance of CTCs. But, a number of people have challenged the chronology protection conjecture by giving counter-examples [@kim91; @tho93; @bou92; @li93; @li94; @low95; @tan95; @li96; @kra96; @sus97; @vis97; @li97]. In particular, Li and Gott [@li97] have recently found that there is a self-consistent vacuum in Misner space for which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization is zero everywhere. (Cassidy [@cas97a] has independently given an existence proof that there should be a quantum state for a conformally coupled scalar field in Misner space, for which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor is zero everywhere, but he has not shown what state it should be. Li and Gott [@li97] have found that it is the “adapted” Rindler vacuum.) In this paper we give some examples to show how it is possible in principle to find self-consistent vacuum states where the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not blow up as one approaches the Cauchy horizon. To produce such a region of CTCs, the universe must, at some later time, be able to reproduce conditions as they were earlier, so that a multiply connected solution is possible. Interestingly, inflation is well suited to this. A little piece of inflationary state expands to produce a large volume of inflationary state, little pieces of which resemble the starting piece. Also there is the possibility of forming baby universes at late times where new pieces of inflating states are formed. Farhi, Guth, and Guven [@far90], Harrison [@har95], Smolin [@smo92a; @smo97], and Garriga and Vilenkin [@gar97] have considered such models. If one of those later inflating pieces simply turns out to be the inflating piece that one started out with, then the Universe can be its own mother. Since an infinite number of baby universes are created, as long as the probability of a particular multiple connection forming is not exactly zero, then such a connection might be expected, eventually. Then the Universe neither tunneled from nothing, nor arose from a singularity; it created itself (Fig. \[f1\]).
Before discussing this approach to the first-cause problem, let us review just how troublesome this problem has been. As we have noted, Einstein [@ein17] initially tried to avoid it by siding with Aristotle in proposing a model which had an infinite past and future. The Einstein static universe appears to be the geometry Einstein found [*a priori*]{} most aesthetically appealing, thus presumably he started with this preferred geometry and substituted it into the field equations to determine the energy-momentum tensor required to produce it. He found a source term that looks like dust (stars) plus a term that was proportional to the metric which he called the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant, because of its homogeneous large negative pressure, exerts a repulsive gravitational effect offsetting the attraction of the stars for each other; allowing a static model which could exist (ignoring instabilities, which he failed to consider) to the infinite past and future. If one did not require a static model, there would be no need for the cosmological constant. Friedmann [@fri22] calculated models without it, of positive, negative or zero curvature, all of which were dynamical. When Hubble [@hub29] discovered the expansion of the universe, Einstein pronounced the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life.
But now there was a problem: all three Friedmann models ($k=0$, $k=1$, and $k=-1$) that were expanding at the present epoch had a beginning in the finite past (see e.g. [@wei72; @haw73]). In the Friedmann models the universe began in a singularly dense state at a finite time in the past. The equations could not be pushed beyond that finite beginning singularity. Furthermore, if today’s Hubble constant is $H_0$, then all of the Friedmann models had ages less than $t_H=H_0^{-1}$. The universe thus began in a Big Bang explosion only a short time ago, a time which could be measured in billions of years. The universe was not infinitely old. Gamow [@gam48a; @gam48b] and his colleagues Alpher and Herman [@alp48] calculated the evolution of such a Big Bang cosmology, concluding correctly that in its early phases it should have been very dense and very hot, and that the thermal radiation present in the early universe should still be visible today as microwave radiation with a temperature of approximately $5K$. Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the radiation with a temperature of $2.7K$ [@pen65] cinched the case for the Big Bang model. The COBE results which have shown a beautifully thermal spectrum [@mat90; @mat94] and small fluctuations in the temperature $\delta T/T=10^{-5}$ [@smo92], fluctuations that are of approximately the right magnitude to grow into the galaxies and clusters of galaxies that we see at the present epoch, have served to make the Big Bang model even more certain. With the Big Bang model in ascendancy, attention focused on the initial singularity. Hawking and Penrose proved a number of singularity theorems [@haw67; @haw70; @haw73] showing that, with some reasonable constraints on the energy-momentum tensor, if Einstein’s equations are correct and the expansion of the universe is as observed today, there is no way to avoid an initial singularity in the model; that is, initial singularities would form even in models that were not exactly uniform. So the initial singularity was taken to be the first-cause of the Universe. This of course prompted questions of what caused the singularity and what happened before the singularity. The standard answer to what happened before the Big Bang singularity has been that time was created at the singularity, along with space, and that there was no time before the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang was considered to be like asking what is south of the south pole. But particularly troublesome was the question of what caused the initial singularity to have its almost perfect uniformity — for otherwise the microwave background radiation would be of vastly different temperatures in different directions on the sky. Yet the initial singularity could not be exactly uniform, for then we would have a perfect Friedmann model with no fluctuations which would form no galaxies. It needed to be almost, but not quite perfectly uniform — a remarkable situation — how did it get that way? These seemed to be special initial conditions with no explanation for how they got that way.
Another problem was that singularities in physics are usually smeared by quantum effects. As we extrapolated back toward the initial singularity (of infinite density), we would first reach a surface where the density was equal to the Planck density and at this epoch classical general relativity would break down. We could not extrapolate confidently back to infinite density, we could only say that we would eventually reach a place where quantum effects should become important and where classical general relativity no longer applied. Since we do not have a theory of quantum gravity or a theory-of-everything we could honestly say that the singularity theorems only told us that we would find regions in the early universe where the density exceeded the GUT or Planck densities beyond which we did not know what happened — rather much like the Terra Incognita of old maps. We could not then say how our universe formed.
So, questions about how the initial Big Bang singularity was formed and what preceded it remained. The closed Friedmann model, popular because it is compact and therefore needs no boundary conditions, re-collapses in a finite time in the future to form a Big Crunch singularity at the end. Singularity theorems tell us that in a collapsing universe the final Big Crunch singularity cannot be avoided. Classical general relativity tells us that a closed universe begins with a singularity and ends with a singularity, with nothing before and nothing after. Nevertheless, many people speculated that there could be more than one connected cycle — after all, the singularities only indicated a breakdown of classical general relativity and the quantum Terra Incognita at the Planck density might allow a cosmology collapsing toward a Big Crunch to bounce and make another Big Bang [@lem33; @bek75; @dur96]. In support of this is the fact that de Sitter space (representing the geometry of a false vacuum — an inflationary state as proposed by Guth [@gut81] — with a large cosmological constant) looks like a spatially closed $S^3$ universe whose radius as a function of proper time is $a(t)=r_0\cosh({t/r_0})$, where $r_0=(3/\Lambda)^{1/2}$ is the radius of the de Sitter space and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant (throughout the paper we use units $G=c=\hbar=k_{\rm B}=1$), which is a collapsing cosmology which bounces and turns into an expanding one. Thus if quantum gravitational effects make the geometry look like de Sitter space once the density reaches the Planck density as some have suggested [@fro90; @bar96a; @bar96b], then a Big Crunch singularity might be avoided as the closed universe bounced and began a Big Bang all over again. This bouncing model avoids the first-cause problem. The answer to what caused our universe in this model is “the collapse of the previous universe”, and so on. An infinite number of expansion and contraction cycles make up the Universe (note the capital U — in this paper this denotes the ensemble of causally connected universes) which consists of an infinite number of closed Big Bang models laid out in time like pearls on a string. The Universe (the infinite string of pearls) has always been in existence and will always be in existence, even though our cycle, our standard closed Big Bang cosmology (our pearl) has a finite duration. So we are back to Aristotle, with an eternal Universe, and close to Einstein with just an oscillating (rather than static) closed Universe that has infinite duration to the past and future. Thus in this picture there is no first-cause because the Universe has existed infinitely far back in the past.
The oscillating universe was thought to have some problems with entropy [@tol34]. Entropy is steadily increasing with time, and so each cycle would seem to be more disordered than the one that preceded it. Since our universe has a finite entropy per baryon it was argued, there could not be an infinite number of cycles preceding us. Likewise it was argued that each cycle of the universe should be larger than the preceding one, so if there were an infinite number preceding us, our universe would have to look indistinguishable from flat (i.e., closed but having an infinite radius of curvature). The real challenge in this model is to produce initial conditions for our universe (our pearl) that were as uniform and low entropy as observed. COBE tells us that our universe at early times was uniform to one part in a hundred thousand [@smo92]. At late times we expect the universe at the Big Crunch to be very non-uniform as black hole singularities combine to form the Big Crunch. In the early universe the Weyl tensor is zero, whereas at the Big Crunch it would be large [@pen79; @pen89]. How does the chaotic high-entropy state at the Big Crunch get recycled into the low-entropy, nearly uniform, state of the next Big Bang? If it does not, then after an infinite number of cycles, why are we not in a universe with chaotic initial conditions?
Entropy and the direction of time may be intimately tied up with this difference between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. Maxwell’s equations (and the field equations of general relativity) are time-symmetric, so why do we see only retarded potentials? Wheeler and Feynman addressed this with their absorber theory [@whe45]. They supposed that an electron shaken today produces half-advanced-half-retarded fields. The half-advanced fields propagate back in time toward the early universe where they are absorbed (towards the past the universe is a perfect absorber) by shaking charged particles in the early universe. These charged particles in turn emit half-advanced-half-retarded fields; their half-retarded fields propagate toward the future where they: (a) perfectly cancel the half-advanced fields of the original electron, (b) add to its retarded fields to produce the electron’s full retarded field, and (c) produce a force on the electron which is equal to the classical radiative reaction force. Thus, the electron only experiences forces due to fields from other charged particles. This is a particularly ingenious solution. It requires only that the early universe is opaque — which it is — and that the initial conditions are low-entropy; that is, there is a cancelation of half-advanced fields from the future by half-retarded fields from the past, leaving no “signals” in the early universe from later events — a state of low-entropy. (Note that this argument works equally well in an open universe where the universe may not be optically thick toward the future — all that is required is that the universe be a perfect absorber in the past, i.e., toward the state of low-entropy.) Wheeler and Feynman noted that entropy is time-symmetric like Maxwell’s equations. If you find an ice cube on the stove, and then come back and re-observe it a minute later, you will likely find it half-melted. Usually an ice cube gets on a stove by someone just putting it there (initial conditions), but suppose we had a truly isolated system so that the ice cube we found was just a statistical fluctuation. Then if we asked what we would see if we had observed one minute [*before*]{} our first observation, we will also be likely to see a half-melted ice cube, for finding a still larger ice cube one minute before would be unlikely because it would represent an even more unlikely statistical fluctuation than the original ice cube. In an [*isolated*]{} system, an (improbable) state of low-entropy is likely to be both followed and preceded by states of higher-entropy in a time-symmetric fashion. Given that the early universe represents a state of high order, it is thus not surprising to find entropy increasing after that. Thus, according to Wheeler and Feynman [@whe45], the fact that the retarded potentials arrow of time and the entropy arrow of time point in the same direction is simply a reflection of the low-entropy nature of the Big Bang. The Big Crunch is high-entropy, so time follows from past to future between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
Thus, in an oscillating universe scenario, we might expect entropy to go in the opposite direction with respect to time, in the previous cycle of oscillation. In that previous universe there would be only advanced potentials and observers there would sense a direction of time opposite to ours (and would have a reversed definition of matter and anti-matter because of CPT invariance). Thus the cycle previous to us would, according to [*our*]{} definition of time, have advanced potentials and would end with a uniform low-entropy Big Crunch and begin with a chaotic high-entropy Big Bang (see Gott [@got74] for further discussion). Thus, an infinite string of oscillating universes could have alternating high and low-entropy singularities, with the direction of the entropy (and causality — via electromagnetic potentials) time-reversing on each succeeding cycle. Every observer using the entropy direction of time would see in his “past” a low-entropy singularity (which he would call a Big Bang) and in his “future” a high-entropy singularity (which he could call a Big Crunch). Then the mystery is why the low-entropy Big Bangs exist — they now look improbable. An oscillating universe with chaotic bangs and crunches and half-advanced-half-retarded potentials throughout would seem more likely. At this point anthropic arguments [@car74] could be brought in to say that only low-entropy Big Bangs might produce intelligent observers and that, with an infinite number of universes in the string, eventually there would be — by chance — a sufficiently low-entropy Big Bang to produce intelligent observers. Still, the uniformity of the early universe that we observe seems to be more than that required to produce intelligent observers, so we might wonder whether a random intelligent observer in such a Universe would be expected to see initial conditions in his/her Big Bang as uniform as ours. (Among intelligent observers, the Copernican principle tells us that you should not expect to be special. Out of all the places for intelligent observers to be there are by definition only a few special places and many non-special places, so you should expect to be in one of the many non-special places [@got93].)
Inflation as a Solution
=======================
Guth’s proposal of inflation [@gut81] offered an explanation of why the initial conditions in the Big Bang should be approximately, but not exactly uniform. (For review of inflation see [@lin90; @kol90].) In the standard Big Bang cosmology this was always a puzzle because antipodal points on the sky on the last scattering surface at $1+z\simeq1000$ had not had time to be in communication with each other. When we see two regions which are at the same temperature, the usual explanation is that they have at some time in the past been in causal communication and have reached thermal equilibrium with each other. But there is not enough time to do this in the standard Big Bang model where the expansion of the scale factor at early times is $a(t)\propto t^{1/2}$. Grand unified theories (GUT) of particle physics suggest that at early times there might have been a non-zero cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which then decayed to the zero cosmological constant we see today. This means that the early universe approximates de Sitter space with a radius $r_0=(3/\Lambda)^{1/2}$ whose expansion rate at late times approaches $a(t)=r_0\exp({t/r_0})$. Regions that start off very close together, and have time to thermally equilibrate, end up very far apart. When they become separated by a distance $r_0$, they effectively pass out of causal contact — if inflation were to continue forever, they would be beyond each other’s event horizons. But eventually the epoch of inflation ends, the energy density of the cosmological constant is dumped into thermal radiation, and the expansion then continues as $a(t)\propto t^{1/2}$ as in a radiation-dominated Big Bang cosmology. As the regions slow their expansion from each other, enough time elapses so that they are able to interchange photons once again and they come back into effective causal contact. As Bill Press once said, they say “hello”, “goodbye”, and “hello again”. When they say “hello again” they appear just like regions in a standard Big Bang cosmology that are saying “hello” for the first time (i.e., are just coming within the particle horizon) except that with inflation these regions are already in thermal equilibrium with each other, because they have seen each other in the past. Inflation also gives a natural explanation for why the observed radius of curvature of the universe is so large ($a\geq cH_0^{-1}\simeq3000h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$; here $H_0=100h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ is the Hubble constant). During the Big Bang phase, as the universe expands, the radius of the universe $a$ expands by the same factor as the characteristic wavelength $\lambda$ of the microwave background photons, so $a/\lambda= {\rm
costant}\geq e^{67}$. How should we explain this large observed dimensionless number? Inflation makes this easy. The energy density during the inflationary epoch is $\Lambda/8\pi$. Let $\lambda$ be the characteristic wavelength of thermal radiation which would have that density. Even if $a$ started out of the same order as $\lambda$, by the end of the inflationary epoch $a\geq\lambda e^{67}$, providing that the inflationary epoch lasts at least as long as $67r_0$, or $67$ $e$-folding times. At the end of the inflationary epoch when the inflationary vacuum of density $\Lambda/8\pi$ decays and is converted into an equivalent amount of thermal radiation, the wavelength of that radiation will be $\lambda$ and the ratio of $a/\lambda$ is fixed at a constant value which is a dimensionless constant $\geq e^{67}$, retained as the universe continues to expand in the radiation and matter-dominated epochs. Thus, even a short run of inflation, of $67$ $e$-folding times or more, is sufficient to explain why the universe is as large as it is observed to be.
Another success of inflation is that the observed Zeldovich-Peebles-Yu-Harrison fluctuation spectrum with index $n=1$ [@zel72; @pee70; @har70] has been naturally predicted as the result of random quantum fluctuations [@bar83; @gut82; @haw82; @sta82]. The inflationary power spectrum with CDM has been amazingly successful in explaining the qualitative features of observed galaxy clustering (cf. [@bah83; @lap86; @got86a; @got87; @gel89; @par90a; @par90b; @par91; @got91; @par92a]). The amount of large scale power seen in the observations suggests an inflationary CDM power spectrum with $0.2<\Omega h<0.3$ [@mad90; @sau91; @par92b; @she95; @vog94; @got97].
Open Bubble Universes
=====================
Gott [@got82] has shown how an open inflationary model might be produced. The initial inflationary state approximates de Sitter space, which can be pictured by embedding it as the surface $W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2-V^2=r_0^2$ in a five-dimensional Minkowski space with metric $ds^2=-dV^2+dW^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2$ [@haw73; @sch56]. Slice de Sitter space along surfaces of $V={\rm constant}$, then the slices are three-spheres of positive curvature $W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2=a^2$ where $a^2=r_0^2+V^2$. If $t$ measures the proper time, then $V=r_0\sinh(t/r_0)$ and $a(t)=r_0\cosh(t/r_0)$. This is a closed universe that contracts then re-expands — at late times expanding exponentially as a function of proper time. If slices of $V+X={\rm constant}$ are chosen, the slices have a flat geometry and the expansion is exponential with $a(t)=r_0\exp(t/r_0)$. If the slices are vertical ($W={\rm constant}>r_0$), then the intersection with the surface is $H^3$, a hyperboloid $X^2+Y^2+Z^2-V^2=-a^2$ living in a Minkowski space, where $a^2=W^2-r_0^2$. This is a negatively curved surface with a radius of curvature $a$. Let $t$ be the proper time from the event E ($W=r_0,X=0,Y=0,Z=0,V=0$) in the de Sitter space. Then the entire future of E can be described as an open $k=-1$ cosmology where $a(t)=r_0\sinh(t/r_0)$. At early times, $t\ll r_0$, near E, $a(t)\propto t$, and the model resembles a Milne cosmology [@mil32], but at late times the model expands exponentially with time as expected for inflation. This is a negatively curved (open) Friedmann model with a cosmological constant and nothing else. Note that the entire negatively curved hyperboloid ($H^3$), which extends to infinity, is nevertheless causally connected because all points on it have the event E in their past light cone. Thus, the universe should have a microwave background that is isotropic, except for small quantum fluctuations. At a proper time $\tau_1$ after the event E, the cosmological constant would decay leaving us with a hot Big Bang open ($k=-1$) cosmology with a radius of curvature of $a=r_0\sinh(\tau_1/r_0)$ at the end of the inflationary epoch. If $\tau_1=67r_0$, then $\Omega$ is a few tenths today; if $\tau_1\gg67r_0$, then $\Omega\simeq 1$ today [@got82].
Gott [@got82] noted that this solution looks just like the interior of a Coleman bubble [@col77]. Coleman and de Luccia [@col80] showed that if a metastable symmetric vacuum (with the Higgs field $\phi=0$), with positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$ were to decay by tunneling directly through a barrier to reach the current vacuum with a zero cosmological constant (where the Higgs field $\phi=\phi_0$), then it would do this by forming a bubble of low-density vacuum of radius $\sigma$ around an event E. The pressure inside the bubble is zero while the pressure outside is negative (equal to $-\Lambda/8\pi$), so the bubble wall accelerates outward, forming in spacetime a hyperboloid of one sheet (a slice of de Sitter space with $W={\rm constant}<r_0$). This bubble wall surrounds and is asymptotic to the future light cone of E. If the tunneling is direct, the space inside the bubble is Minkowski space (like a slice $W={\rm
constant}<r_0$ in the embedding space, which is flat). The inside of the future light cone of E thus looks like a Milne cosmology with $\Omega=0$ and $a(t)=t$. Gott [@got82] noted that what was needed to produce a realistic open model with $\Omega$ of a few tenths today was to have the inflation continue inside the bubble for about $67$ $e$-folding times. Thus, our universe was one of the bubbles and this solved the problem of Guth’s inflation that in general one expected the bubbles not to percolate [@haw82a; @gut83]. But, from inside one of the bubbles, our view could be isotropic [@got82].
It was not long before a concrete mechanism to produce such continued inflation inside the bubble was proposed. A couple of weeks after Gott’s paper appeared Linde’s [@lin82] proposal of new inflation appeared, followed shortly by Albrecht and Steinhardt [@alb82]. They proposed that the Higgs vacuum potential $V(\phi)$ had a local minimum at $\phi=0$ where $V(0)=\Lambda/8\pi$. Then there was a barrier at $\phi=\phi_1$, followed by a long flat plateau from $\phi_1$ to $\phi_0$ where it drops precipitately to zero at $\phi_0$. The relation of this to the open bubble universe’s geometry is outlined by Gott [@got86] (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in [@got86]). The de Sitter space outside the bubble wall has $\phi=0$. Between the bubble wall, at a spacelike separation $\sigma$ from the event E, and the end of the inflation at the hyperboloid $H^3$ which is the set of points at a future timelike separation of $\tau_1$ from E, the Higgs field is between $\phi_1$ and $\phi_0$, and $\tau_1$ is the time it takes the field (after tunneling) to roll along the long plateau \[where $V(\phi)$ is approximately equal to $\Lambda/8\pi$ and the geometry is approximately de Sitter\]. After that epoch, $\phi=\phi_0$ where the energy density has been dumped into thermal radiation and the vacuum density is zero (i.e., a standard open Big Bang model). In order that inflation proceeds and the bubbles do not percolate, it is required that the probability of forming a bubble in de Sitter space per four volume $r_0^4$ is $\epsilon<\epsilon_{\rm cr}$ where $5.8\times10^{-9}<\epsilon_{\rm
cr}<0.24$ [@gut83]. In order that there be a greater than $5\%$ chance that no bubble should have collided with our bubble by now, so as to be visible in our past light cone, $\epsilon<0.01$ for $\Omega=0.4$, $\Lambda=0$, $h=0.63$ today [@got97], but this is no problem since we expect tunneling probabilities through a barrier to be exponentially small. This model has an event horizon, which is the future light cone of an event E$^\prime$ ($W=-r_0, X=0,Y=0,Z=0,V=0$) which is antipodal to E. Light from events within the future light cone of E$^\prime$ never reaches events inside the future light cone of E. So we are surrounded by an event horizon. This produces Hawking radiation; and, if $r_0$ is of order the Planck length, then the Gibbons-Hawking thermal state [@gib77] (which looks like a cosmological constant due to the trace anomaly [@pag82]) should be dynamically important [@got82].
If we observe $\Omega<1$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0$, then $k=-1$ and we need inflation more than ever — we still need it to explain the isotropy of the microwave background radiation and we would now have a large but [*finite*]{} radius of curvature to explain, which $67$ $e$-folds of inflation could naturally produce. When Gott told this to Linde in 1982, Linde said, yes, if we found that $\Omega<1$, he would still have to believe in inflation but he would have a headache in the morning! Why? Because one has to produce a particular amount of inflation, approximately $67$ $e$-folds. If there were $670$ $e$-folds or $670$ million $e$-folds, then $\Omega$ currently would be only slightly less than 1. So there would be what is called a “fine tuning of parameters” needed to produce the observed results.
The single-bubble open inflationary model [@got82] discussed above has recently come back into fashion because of a number of important developments. On the theoretical side, Ratra and Peebles [@rat94; @rat95a] have shown how to calculate quantum fluctuations in the $H^3$ hyperbolic geometry with $a(t)=r_0\sinh(t/r_0)$ during the inflationary epoch inside the bubble in the single bubble model. This allows predictions of fluctuations in the microwave background. Bucher, Goldhaber, and Turok [@buc95a; @buc95b] have extended these calculations, as well as Yamamoto, Sasaki and Tanaka [@yam95]. Importantly, they have explained [@buc95a; @buc95b] that the fine tuning in these models is only “logarithmic” and, therefore, not so serious. Linde and Mezhlmian [@lin95a; @lin95b] have shown how there are reasonable potentials which could produce such bubble universes with different values of $\Omega$. In a standard chaotic inflationary potential $V(\phi)$ [@lin83], one could simply build in a bump, so that one would randomly walk to the top of the curve via quantum fluctuations and then roll down till one lodged behind the bump in a metastable local minimum. One would then tunnel through the bump, forming bubbles that would roll down to the bottom in a time $\tau_1$. One could have a two-dimensional potential $V(\phi,\sigma)={1\over2}g^2\phi^2\sigma^2+V(\sigma)$, where $g$ is a constant and there is a metastable trough at $\sigma=0$ with altitude $V(\phi,0)=\Lambda/8\pi$ with a barrier on both sides, but one could tunnel through the barrier to reach $\sigma>0$ where $V(\phi,\sigma)$ has a true minimum, and at fixed $\sigma$, is proportional to $\phi^2$ [@lin95a; @lin95b]. Then individual bubbles could tunnel across the barrier at different values of $\phi$, and hence have different roll-down times $\tau_1$ and thus different values of $\Omega$. With a myriad of open universes being created, anthropic arguments [@car74] come into play and if shorter roll-down times were more probable than large ones, we might not be surprised to find ourselves in a model which had $\Omega$ of a few tenths, since if $\Omega$ is too small, no galaxies will form [@got75].
A second reason for the renaissance of these open inflationary models is the observational data. A number of recent estimates of $h$ (the present Hubble constant in units of 100 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) have been made (i.e., $h=0.65\pm0.06$ [@rie95], $0.68
\leq h\leq 0.77$ [@mou96], $0.55\leq h\leq0.61$ [@san96], and $h=0.64\pm0.06$ [@kun97]). Ages of globular cluster stars have a $2\sigma$ lower limit of about 11.6 billion years [@bol95], we require $h<0.56$ if $\Omega=1$, but a more acceptable $h<0.65$ if $\Omega=0.4$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0$. Models with low $\Omega$ but $\Omega+\Omega_\Lambda=1$ are also acceptable. Also, studies of large scale structure have shown that with the inflationary CDM power spectrum, the standard $\Omega=1$, $h=0.5$ model simply does not have enough power at large scales. A variety of observational samples and methods have suggested this: counts in cells, angular covariance function on the sky, power spectrum analysis of 3D samples, and finally topological analysis, all showing that $0.2<\Omega h<0.3$ [@par92a; @mad90; @sau91; @par92b; @she95; @vog94; @got97]. If $h>0.55$ this implies $\Omega<0.55$, which also agrees with what one would deduce from the age argument as well as the measured masses in groups and clusters of galaxies [@got77]. With the COBE normalization there is also the problem that with $\Omega=1$, $(\delta M/M)_{8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}=1.1-1.5$ and this would require galaxies to be anti-biased \[since for galaxies $(\delta
M/M)_{8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}=1$\] and would also lead to an excess of large-separation gravitational lenses over those observed [@cen94]. These things have forced even enthusiasts of $k=0$ models to move to models with $\Omega<1$ and a cosmological constant so that $\Omega+\Omega_{\Lambda}=1$ and $k=0$ [@ost95]. They then have to explain the small ratio of the cosmological constant to the Planck density ($10^{-120}$). Currently we do not have such a natural explanation for a small yet finite $\Lambda$ as inflation naturally provides for explaining why the radius of curvature should be a big number in the $k=-1$ case.
Turner [@tur90] and Fukugita, Futamase, and Kasai [@fuk90] showed that a flat $\Omega_{\Lambda}=1$ model produces about 10 times as many gravitational lenses as a flat model with $\Omega=1$, and Kochanek [@koc96] was able to set a $95\%$ confidence lower limit of $0.34<\Omega$ in flat models where $\Omega+\Omega_{\Lambda}=1$, and a $90\%$ confidence lower limit $0.15<\Omega$ in open models with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$. Thus, extreme-$\Lambda$ dominated models are ruled out by producing too many gravitational lenses.
Data on cosmic microwave background fluctuations for spherical harmonic modes from $l=2$ to $l=500$ will provide a strong test of these models. With $\Omega_Bh^2=0.0125$, the $\Omega=1$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$ model power spectrum reaches its peak value at $l=200$; an $\Omega=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ model reaches its peak value also at $l=200$ [@rat95c]; while an $\Omega=0.4$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$ model reaches its peak value at $l=350$ [@rat95b]. This should be decided by the MAP and PLANCK satellites which will measure this range with high accuracy [@par97].
For the rest of this paper we shall usually assume single-bubble open inflationary models for our Big Bang universe (while recognizing that chaotic inflationary models and models with multiple epochs of inflation are also possible; it is interesting to note that Penrose also prefers an open universe from the point of view of the complex-holomorphic ideology of his twister theory [@haw96]). If the inflation within the bubble is of order 67 $e$-folds, then we can have $\Omega$ of a few tenths; but if it is longer than that, we will usually see $\Omega$ near 1 today. In any case, we will be assuming an initial metastable vacuum which decays by forming bubbles through barrier penetration. The bubble formation rate per unit four volume $r_0^4$ is thus expected to be exponentially small so the bubbles do not percolate. Inflation is thus eternal to the future [@vil83; @sta86; @lin86; @gon87]. Borde and Vilenkin have proved that if the Universe were infinitely old (i.e., if the de Sitter space were complete) then the bubbles would percolate immediately and inflation would never get started (see [@bor94; @bor96] and references cited therein). Recall that a complete de Sitter space may be covered with an $S^3$ coordinate system (a $k=1$ cosmology) whose radius varies as $a(t)=r_0\cosh(t/r_0)$ so that for early times ($t<0$) the universe would be contracting and bubbles would quickly collide preventing the inflation from ever reaching $t=0$. Thus Borde and Vilenkin have proved that in the inflationary scenario the universe must have a beginning. If it starts with a three-sphere of radius $r_0$ at time $t=0$, and after that expands like $a(t)=r_0\cosh(t/r_0)$, the bubbles do not percolate (given that the bubble formation rate per four volume $r_0^4$ is $\epsilon\ll
1$) and the inflation continues eternally to $t=\infty$ producing an infinite number of open bubble universes. Since the number of bubbles forming increases exponentially with time without limit, our universe is expected to form at a finite but arbitrarily large time after the beginning of the inflationary state. In this picture our universe (our bubble) is only 12 billion years old, but the Universe as a whole (the entire bubble forming inflationary state) is of a finite but arbitrarily old age.
Vilenkin’s Tunneling Universe and Hartle-Hawking’s No-Boundary Proposal
=======================================================================
But how to produce that initial spherical $S^3$ universe? Vilenkin [@vil82] suggested that it could be formed from quantum tunneling. Consider the embedding diagram for de Sitter space. De Sitter space can be embedded as the surface $W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2-V^2=r_0^2$ in a five-dimensional Minkowski space with metric $ds^2=-dV^2+dW^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2$. This can be seen as an $S^3$ cosmology with radius $a(t)=r_0\cosh(t/r_0)$ where $V=r_0\sinh(t/r_0)$ and $a^2=W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2$ gives the geometry of $S^3$. This solution represents a classical trajectory with a turning point at $a=r_0$. But just as it reaches this turning point it could tunnel to $a=0$ where the trajectory may be shown as a hemisphere of the Euclidean four-sphere $W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2+V^2=r_0^2$ embedded in a flat Euclidean space with the metric $ds^2=dV^2+dW^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2$ and $a(t_E)=r_0\cos(t_E/r_0)$ where $a^2=W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2$ and $V=r_0\sin(t_E/r_0)$. The time-reversed version of this process would show tunneling from a point at $(V=-r_0, W=0, X=0, Y=0, Z=0)$ to a three sphere at $V=0$ of radius $r_0$ which then expands with proper time like $a(t)=r_0\cosh(t/r_0)$ giving a normal de Sitter space — thus Vilenkin’s universe created from nothing is obtained [@vil82].
Hawking has noted that in this case, in Hartle and Hawking’s formulation, the point $(V=-r_0, W=0, X=0, Y=0, Z=0)$ is not special, the curvature does not blow up there: it is like other points in the Euclidean hemispherical section [@haw88]. However, this point is still the earliest point in Euclidean time since it is at the center of the hemisphere specified by the Euclidean boundary at $V=0$. So the beginning point in the Vilenkin model is indeed like the south pole of the Earth [@haw88].
Vilenkin’s tunneling universe was based on an analogy between quantum creation of universes and tunneling in ordinary quantum mechanics [@vil82]. In ordinary quantum mechanics, a particle bounded in a well surrounded by a barrier has a finite probability to tunnel through the barrier to the outside if the height of the barrier is finite (as in the $\alpha$-decay of radioactive nuclei [@gam28a; @gam28b; @gur29]). The wave function outside the barrier is an outgoing wave, the wave function in the well is the superposition of an outgoing wave and an ingoing wave which is the reflection of the outgoing wave by the barrier. Due to the conservation of current, there is a net outgoing current in the well. The probability for the particle staying in the well is much greater than the probability for the particle running out of the barrier. The energy of the particle in the well [*cannot*]{} be zero, otherwise the uncertainty principle is violated. Thus there is always a finite zero-point-energy. The Vilenkin universe was supposed to be created from “nothing”, where according to Vilenkin “nothing” means “a state with no classical spacetime” [@vil84]. Thus this is essentially different from tunneling in ordinary quantum mechanics since in ordinary quantum mechanics tunneling always takes place from one classically allowed region to another classically allowed region where the current and the probability are conserved. But creation from “nothing” is supposed to take place from a classically forbidden (Euclidean) region to a classically allowed (Lorentzian) region, so the conservation of current is obviously violated. Vilenkin obtained his tunneling universe by choosing a so-called “tunneling boundary condition” for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation [@vil84; @vil88]. His “tunneling from nothing” boundary condition demands that when the universe is big ($a^2\Lambda/3>1$ where $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant and $a$ is the scale factor of the universe) there is only an outgoing wave in the superspace [@vil84; @vil88]. If the probability and current are conserved (in fact there does exist a conserved current for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation [@hal91], and a classically allowed solution with $a=0$ and zero “energy”), there must be a finite probability for the universe being in the state before tunneling (i.e., $a=0$) and this probability is much bigger than the probability for tunneling. This implies that there must be “something” instead of “nothing” before tunneling. This becomes more clear if matter fields are included in considering the creation of universes. In the case of a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and a conformally coupled scalar field $\phi$ (conformal fields are interesting not only for their simplicity but also because electromagnetic fields are conformally invariant) as the source terms in Einstein’s equations, in the mini-superspace model (where the configurations are the scale factor $a$ of the $S^3$ Robertson-Walker metric and a homogeneous conformally coupled scalar field $\phi$) the Wheeler-DeWitt equation separates [@har83; @haw84] $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over2}\left(-{d^2\over d\chi^2}+\chi^2\right)\Phi(\chi)=E\Phi(\chi),
\label{EA1a}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over2}\left[-{1\over a^p}{d\over da}\left(a^p{d\over da}\right)
+\left(a^2-
{\Lambda\over3}a^4\right)\right]\Psi(a)=E\Psi(a),
\label{EA1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi(a)\Phi(\chi)$ is the wave function of the universe \[$\chi\equiv(4\pi/3)^{1/2}\phi a$\], $E$ is the “energy level” of the conformally coupled scalar field , (we use quotes because for radiation the conserved quantity is $E=4\pi\rho a^4/3$ instead of the energy $4\pi\rho a^3/3$ where $\rho$ is the energy density), and $p$ is a constant determining the operator ordering. Eq. (\[EA1a\]) is just the Schrödinger equation of a harmonic oscillator with unit mass and unit frequency and energy $E$, the eigenvalues of $E$ are $n+{1\over2}$ where $n=0,1,2,...$ Eq. (\[EA1\]) is equivalent to the Schrödinger equation for a unit mass particle with total energy $E=n+{1\over2}$ in the one-dimensional potential $$\begin{aligned}
U(a)={1\over2}\left(a^2-{\Lambda\over3}a^4\right).
\label{EA2}\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that in the case of $n<{1\over2}({3\over4\Lambda}-1)$, there exist one classically forbidden region $a_1<a<a_2$ and two classically allowed regions $0\leq a<a_1$ and $a>a_2$ where $a^2_{1,2}\equiv{3\over2\Lambda}\left[1\mp\sqrt{1-{4\over3}(2n+1)\Lambda}
\right]$ (Fig. \[f2\]). Because $U(a)$ is regular at $a=0$, we expect that the wave function $\Psi(a)$ is also regular at $a=0$. If $\Lambda\ll 1$ and the conformally coupled scalar field is in the ground state with $n=0$, we have $a_1\simeq 1$, $a_2\simeq(3/\Lambda)^{1/2}$ and the potential in region $0\leq a<a_1$ is $U(a)\simeq{1\over2}a^2$ like a harmonic oscillator. The quantum behavior of the universe in region $0\leq a<a_1$ is like a quantum harmonic oscillator. This may describe a quantum oscillating (Lorentzian) universe without Big Bang or Big Crunch singularities, which has a finite (but small) probability \[$\simeq\exp(-1/\Lambda)$\] to tunnel through the barrier to form a de Sitter-type inflating universe. The existence of this tiny oscillating universe is due to the existence of a finite “zero-point-energy” ($1/2$) of a conformally coupled scalar field and this “zero-point-energy” is required by the uncertainty principle. Since a conformally coupled scalar field has an equation of state like that of radiation, the Friedmann equation for $k=+1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left({da\over dt}\right)^2={C\over a^2}+{\Lambda\over3}a^2-1,
\label{EA3}\end{aligned}$$ where $C=8\pi\rho a^4/3={\rm constant}$ and $\rho$ is the energy density of the conformally coupled scalar field. Eq. (\[EA3\]) is equivalent to the energy-conservation equation for a classical unit mass particle with zero total energy moving in the potential $$\begin{aligned}
V(a)={1\over2}\left(1-{\Lambda\over3}a^2-{C\over a^2}\right).
\label{EA4}\end{aligned}$$ The difference between $U(a)$ and $V(a)$ is caused by the fact that in the integral of action the volume element contains a factor $a^3$ which is also varied when one makes the variation to obtain the dynamical equations. The potential $V(a)$ is singular at $a=0$ and near $a=0$ we have $V(a)\simeq-{C\over2a^2}$. For $\Lambda\ll 1$ and $n=0$ (we take $C=2E=2n+1$), the classical universe in region $0\leq a< a_1$ is radiation dominated. This universe expands from a Big Bang singularity, reaches a maximum radius, then re-collapses to a Big Crunch singularity: $a=0$ is a singularity in the classical picture. But from the above discussion, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation gives a regular wave function at $a=0$. In such a case near $a=0$ the quantum behavior of the universe is different from classical behavior. This implies that, near $a=0$, classical general relativity breaks down and quantum gravity may remove singularities. This case is like that of a hydrogen atom where the classical instability (according to classical electrodynamics, an electron around a hydrogen nucleus will fall into the nucleus due to electromagnetic radiation) is cured by quantum mechanics. Anyway, it is [*not*]{} nothing at $a=0$. There is a small classically allowed, oscillating, radiation dominated, closed, quantum (by “quantum” we mean that its quantum behavior deviates significantly from its classical behavior) Friedmann universe near $a=0$, which has a small probability to tunnel through the barrier to form an inflationary universe. (If $\Lambda>0.75$ there is no classically forbidden region and thus no tunneling.)
So in this model the universe did not come from a point (nothing) but from a tiny classically allowed, oscillating, quantum Friedmann universe whose radius is of order the Planck magnitude. But where did this oscillating universe come from? Because it has a finite probability to tunnel (each time it reaches maximum radius) to a de Sitter space, it has a finite “half-life” for decay into the de Sitter phase and cannot last forever. It could, of course, originate by tunneling from a collapsing de Sitter phase (the time-reversed version of the creation of a de Sitter state from the oscillating state), but then we are back where we started. In fact, starting with a collapsing de Sitter phase one is more likely to obtain an expanding de Sitter phase by simply re-expanding at the classical turning point rather than tunneling into and then out of the tiny oscillating universe state. An alternative might be to have the original tiny oscillating universe created via a quantum fluctuation (since it has just the “zero-point-energy”) but here we are basically returning to the idea of Tryon [@try73] that you could get an entire Friedmann universe of any size directly via quantum fluctuation. But quantum fluctuation of what? You have to have laws of physics and a potential etc.
Hartle and Hawking [@har83] made their no-boundary proposal and obtained a model of the universe similar to Vilenkin’s tunneling universe. The no-boundary proposal is expressed in terms of a Euclidean path integral of the wave function of the universe $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(h_{ab},\phi_1,\partial M)=\sum_M\int{\cal D}g_{ab}{\cal D}\phi
\exp[-I(g_{ab}, \phi, M)],
\label{EA5}\end{aligned}$$ where the summation is over compact manifolds $M$ with the prescribed boundary $\partial M$ (being a compact three-manifold representing the shape of the universe at a given epoch) as the [*only*]{} boundary; $g_{ab}$ is the Euclidean metric on the manifold $M$ with induced three-metric $h_{ab}$ on $\partial M$, $\phi$ is the matter field with induced value $\phi_1$ on $\partial
M$; $I$ is the Euclidean action obtained from the Lorentzian action $S$ via Wick rotation: $I=-iS(t\rightarrow-i\tau)$. In the mini-superspace model the configuration space is taken to include the $k=+1$ Robertson-Walker metric and a homogeneous matter field. In the WKB approximation the wave function is (up to a normalization factor) $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi\simeq\sum_MB_M\exp[-I_{\rm cl}(g_{ab}, \phi,M)],
\label{EA5a}\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{\rm cl}$ is the Euclidean action for the solutions of the Euclidean field equations (Einstein’s equations and matter field equations). The factor $B_M$ is the determinant of small fluctuations around solutions of the field equations [@har83]. If the matter field is a conformally coupled scalar field $\phi\equiv(3/4\pi)^{1/2}\chi/a$ (which is the case that Hartle and Hawking [@har83] discussed), $\rho a^4$ is conserved where $\rho$ is the energy density of $\phi$ satisfying the field equations. Then the Friedmann equation is given by Eq. (\[EA3\]). The corresponding Euclidean equation is obtained from Eq. (\[EA3\]) via $t\rightarrow-i\tau$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left({da\over d\tau}\right)^2=1-{\Lambda\over3}a^2-{C\over a^2}.
\label{EA6}\end{aligned}$$ The solution to Eq. (\[EA6\]) is (for the case ${4\over3}\Lambda C<1$) $$\begin{aligned}
a(\tau)=H^{-1}\left[{1\over2}+{1\over2}\left(1-4H^2C\right)^{1/2}
\cos(2H\tau)\right]^{1/2},
\label{EA7}\end{aligned}$$ where $H=({\Lambda\over3})^{1/2}$. This is a Euclidean bouncing space with a maximum radius $a_{\max}=H^{-1}\left[{1\over2}+{1\over2}(1-4H^2C)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}$ and a minimum radius $a_{\min}=H^{-1}\left[
{1\over2}-{1\over2}(1-4H^2C)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}$ (Fig. \[f3\]). If $C=0$, we have $a_{\max}=H^{-1}$, $a_{\min}=0$, and $a(\tau)=H^{-1}\cos(H\tau)$, one copy of this bouncing space is a four-sphere with the Euclidean de Sitter metric $ds^2=d\tau^2+H^{-2}\cos^2(H\tau)[d\chi^2+\sin^2\chi(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
d\phi^2)]$ — which is just a four-sphere embedded in a five-dimensional Euclidean space $(V,W,X,Y,Z)$ with metric $ds^2=dV^2+
dW^2+dX^2 +dY^2+dZ^2$ — this is the solution that Hartle and Hawking used [@har83]. But, as we have argued above, according to Hartle and Hawking [@har83] and Hawking [@haw84], the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for $\Phi(\chi)$ \[Eq. (\[EA1a\])\] gives rise to a “zero-point-energy” for the conformally coupled scalar field: $C_0=2E(n=0)=1$ (the state with $C=0$ violates the uncertainty principle). One copy of this bouncing Euclidean space is [*not*]{} a compact four-dimensional manifold with no boundaries, but has two boundaries with $a=a_{\min}$ (see Fig. \[f3\]). If $H\ll 1$ (i.e. $\Lambda\ll 1$), we have $a_{\max}\simeq H^{-1}$, $a_{\min}\simeq 1$.
Penrose [@haw96] has criticized Hawking’s no-boundary proposal and the model obtained by gluing a de Sitter space onto a four-sphere hemisphere by pointing out that there are only very few spaces for which one can glue a Euclidean and a Lorentzian solution together since it is required that they have both a Euclidean and a Lorentzian solution, but the generic case is certainly very far from that. Here “with a zero-point-energy” we have have both a Euclidean solution and a Lorentzian solution, and they can be glued together. But the Euclidean solution is not closed in any way; that is, it does not enforce the no-boundary proposal. Hartle and Hawking argued that there should be a constant $\epsilon_0$ in $E$ which arises from the renormalization of the matter field, i.e., $E$ should be $n+{1\over2}+\epsilon_0$ [@har83]. But there is [*no*]{} reason that $\epsilon_0$ should be $-{1\over2}$ to exactly cancel the “zero-point-energy” ${1\over2}$. (As in the case of a quantum harmonic oscillator, we have no reason to neglect the zero-point-energy.) In fact, since $\epsilon_0$ comes from the renormalization of the matter field (without quantization of gravity), it should be much less than the Planck magnitude, i.e., $\epsilon_0\ll 1$, and thus $\epsilon_0$ is negligible compared with ${1\over2}$. In fact in [@haw84] Hawking has dropped $\epsilon_0$.
In [@har83] Hartle and Hawking have realized that for excited states ($n>0$), there are two kinds of classical solutions: one represents universes which expand from zero volume, to reach a maximum radius, and then re-collapse (like our tiny oscillating universe); the other represents the de Sitter-type state of continual expansion. There are probabilities for a universe to tunnel from one state to the other. Here we argue that for the ground state ($n=0$), there are also two such kinds of Lorentzian universes. One is a tiny quantum oscillating universe (having a maximum radius with Planck magnitude). Here “quantum” just means that the classical description fails (so singularities might be removed). The other is a big de Sitter-type universe. These two universes can be joined to one another through a Euclidean section, which describes quantum tunneling from a tiny oscillating universe to an inflating universe (or from a contracting de Sitter-type universe to a tiny oscillating universe). During the tunneling, the radius of the universe makes a jump (from the Planck length to $H^{-1}$ or [*vice versa*]{}).
As Hartle and Hawking [@har83] calculated the wave function of the universe for the ground state, they argued that, for the conformally coupled scalar field case, the path integral over $a$ and $\chi=(4\pi/3)^{1/2}\phi a$ separates since “not only the action separates into a sum of a gravitational part and a matter part, but the boundary condition on the $a(\eta)$ and $\chi(\eta)$ summed over do not depend on one another” where $\eta$ is the conformal time. The critical point for the variable’s separation in the path integral is that “the ground state boundary conditions imply that geometries in the sum are conformal to half of a Euclidean-Einstein static universe; i.e., the range of $\eta$ is $(-\infty,0)$. The boundary conditions at infinite $\eta$ are that $\chi(\eta)$ and $a(\eta)$ vanish. The boundary conditions at $\eta=0$ are that $a(0)$ and $\chi(0)$ match the arguments of the wave function $a_0$ and $\chi_0$” [@har83]. But this holds only for some specific cases, such as de Sitter space. Our solution (\[EA7\]) does not obey Hartle and Hawking’s assumption that $\eta$ ranges from $-\infty$ to $0$. For a general $k=+1$ (Euclidean) Robertson-Walker metric, $\eta=
\int{d\tau\over a}$ is a functional of $a$, and the action of matter (an integral over $\eta$) is a functional of $a$. Therefore, the action [*cannot*]{} be separated into a sum of a gravitational part and a matter part as Hartle and Hawking did. The failure of Hartle and Hawking’s path integral calculation is also manifested in the fact that de Sitter space is [*not*]{} a solution of the Friedmann equation if the “zero-point-energy” of the conformally coupled scalar field is considered, whereas the semiclassical approximation implies that the principal contribution to the path integral of the wave function comes from the configurations which solve Einstein’s equations. One may hope to overcome this difficulty by introducing a scalar field with a flat potential $V(\phi)$ (as in the inflation case). But this does not apply to the quantum cosmology case since as $a\rightarrow0$ the universe always becomes radiation-dominated unless the energy density of radiation is exactly zero (but the uncertainty principle does not allow this case to occur).
CTCs and the Chronology Protection Conjecture
=============================================
From the arguments in the last section, we find that the Universe does [*not*]{} seem to be created from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe is created from [*something*]{}, that something could have been [*itself*]{}. Thus it is possible that the Universe is its own mother. In such a case, if we trace the history of the Universe backward, inevitably we will enter a region of CTCs. Therefore CTCs may play an important role in the creation of the Universe. It is interesting to note that Hawking and Penrose’s singularity theorems do not apply if the Universe has had CTCs. And, it has been shown that, if a compact Lorentzian spacetime undergoes topology changes, there must be CTCs in this spacetime [@ger67; @haw92a; @haw92b]. \[Basically there are two type of spacetimes with CTCs: for the first type, there are CTCs everywhere (Gödel space belongs to this type); for the second type, the CTCs are confined within some regions and there exists at least one region where there are no closed causal (timelike or null) curves, and the regions with CTCs are separated from the regions without closed causal curves by Cauchy horizons (Misner space belongs to this type). In this paper, with the word “spacetimes with CTCs” we always refer to the second type unless otherwise specified.\]
While in classical general relativity there exist many solutions with CTCs, some calculations of vacuum polarization of quantum fields in spacetimes with CTCs indicated that the energy-momentum tensor (in this paper when we deal with quantum fields, with the word “the energy-momentum tensor” we always refer to “the renormalized energy-momentum tensor” because “the unrenormalized energy-momentum tensor” has no physical meaning) diverges as one approaches the Cauchy horizon separating the region with CTCs from the region without closed causal curves. This means that spacetimes with CTCs may be unstable against vacuum polarization since when the energy-momentum tensor is fed back to the semiclassical Einstein’s equations (i.e. Einstein’s equations with quantum corrections to the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields) the back-reaction may distort the spacetime geometry so strongly that a singularity may form and CTCs may be destroyed. Based on some of these calculations, Hawking [@haw92a; @haw92b] has proposed the chronology protection conjecture which states that the laws of physics do not allow the appearance of CTCs. (It should be mentioned that the chronology protection conjecture does [*not*]{} provide any restriction on spacetimes with CTCs but no Cauchy horizons since there is [*no*]{} any indication that this type of spacetime is unstable against vacuum polarization. In the next section we will show a simple example of a spacetime with CTCs but no Cauchy horizons, where the energy-momentum tensor is finite everywhere.)
But, on the other hand, Li, Xu, and Liu [@li93] have pointed out that even if the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization diverges at the Cauchy horizon, it does [*not*]{} mean that CTCs must be prevented by physical laws because: (1) Einstein’s equations are local equations and the energy-momentum tensor may diverge only at the Cauchy horizon (or at the polarized hypersurfaces) and be well-behaved elsewhere within the region with CTCs; (2) the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor at the Cauchy horizon does [*not*]{} mean that the Cauchy horizon must be destroyed by the back-reaction of vacuum polarization, [*but*]{} instead means that near the Cauchy horizon the usual quantum field theory on a prescribed classical spacetime background cannot be used and the quantum effect of gravity must be considered. (This is like the case that Hawking and Penrose’s singularity theorems do [*not*]{} mean that the Big Bang cosmology is wrong but mean that near the Big Bang singularity quantum gravity effects become important [@haw88].) When Hawking proposed his chronology protection conjecture, Hawking [@haw92b] and Kim and Thorne [@kim91] had a controversy over whether quantum gravity can save CTCs. Kim and Thorne claimed that quantum gravitational effects would cut the divergence off when an observer’s proper time from crossing the Cauchy horizon was the Planck time, and this would only give such a small perturbation on the metric that the Cauchy horizon could not be destroyed. But, Hawking [@haw92b] noted that one would expect the quantum gravitational cut-off to occur when the invariant distance from the Cauchy horizon was of order the Planck length, and this would give a very strong perturbation on the metric so that the Cauchy horizon would be destroyed. Since there does not exist a self-consistent quantum theory of gravity at present, we cannot judge who (Hawking or Kim and Thorne) is right. But in any case, these arguments imply that in the case of a spacetime with CTCs where the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization diverges at the Cauchy horizon, quantum gravity effects should become important near the Cauchy horizon. Li, Xu, and Liu [@li93] have argued that if the effects of quantum gravity are considered, in a spacetime with CTCs the region with CTCs and the region without closed causal curves may be separated by a [*quantum barrier*]{} (e.g. a region where components of the metric have complex values) instead of a Cauchy horizon generated by closed null geodesics. By quantum processes, a time traveler may tunnel from the region without closed causal curves to the region with CTCs (or [*vice versa*]{}), and the spacetime itself can also tunnel from one side to the other side of the quantum barrier [@li93]. In classical general relativity, a region with CTCs and a region without closed causal curves must be separated by a Cauchy horizon (compactly generated or non-compactly generated) which usually contains closed null geodesics if it is compactly generated [@haw92b]. But if quantum gravity effects are considered (e.g. in quantum cosmology), they can be separated by a complex geometric region (as a quantum barrier) instead of a Cauchy horizon [@li93]. (In the path integral approach to quantum cosmology, complex geometries are [*required*]{} in order to make the path integral convergent and to overcome the difficulty that in general situations a Euclidean space [*cannot*]{} be directly joined to a Lorentzian space [@hal90]). And, using a simple example of a space with a region with CTCs separated from a region without closed causal curves by a complex geometric region, Li, Xu, and Liu [@li93] have shown that in such a space the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization is finite everywhere and the chronology protection conjecture has been challenged.
Without appeal to quantum gravity, counter-examples to the chronology protection conjecture also exist. By introducing a spherical reflecting boundary between two mouths of a wormhole, Li [@li94] has shown that with some boundary conditions for geodesics (e.g. the reflection boundary condition) closed null [*geodesics*]{} \[usually the “archcriminal” for the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor as the Cauchy horizon is approached (see e.g. [@kim91])\] may be removed from the Cauchy horizon separating the region with CTCs and the region without closed causal curves. In such a case the spacetime contains neither closed null [*geodesics*]{} nor closed timelike [*geodesics*]{}, though it contains both closed timelike [*non-geodesic*]{} curves and closed null [*non-geodesic*]{} curves. Li [@li94] has shown that in this spacetime the energy-momentum tensor is finite everywhere. Following Li [@li94], Low [@low95] has given another example of spacetime with CTCs but without closed causal [*geodesics*]{}.
Recently, with a very general argument, Li [@li96] has shown that the appearance of an absorber in a spacetime with CTCs may make the spacetime stable against vacuum polarization. Li [@li96] has given some examples to show that there exist many collision processes in high energy physics for which the total cross-sections increase (or tend to a constant) as the frequency of the incident waves increases. Based on these examples, Li [@li96] has argued that material will become opaque for waves (particles) with extremely high frequency or energy, since in such cases the absorption caused by various types of scattering processes becomes very important. Based on calculation of the renormalized energy-momentum tensor and the fluctuation in the metric, Li [@li96] has argued that if an absorbing material with appropriate density is introduced, vacuum polarization may be smoothed out near the Cauchy horizon so that the metric perturbation caused by vacuum fluctuations will be very small and a spacetime with CTCs can be stable against vacuum polarization.
Boulware [@bou92] and Tanaka and Hiscock [@tan95] have found that for sufficiently massive fields in Gott space [@got91a; @hea94] and Grant space [@gra93] respectively, the energy-momentum tensor remains regular on the Cauchy horizon. Krasnikov [@kra96] has found some two-dimensional spacetimes with CTCs for which the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization is bounded on the Cauchy horizon. Sushkov [@sus97] has found that for an automorphic complex scalar field in Misner space there is a vacuum state for which the energy-momentum tensor is zero everywhere. More recently, Cassidy [@cas97a] and Li and Gott [@li97] have independently found that for the real conformally coupled scalar field in Misner space there exists a quantum state for which the energy-momentum tensor is zero everywhere. Li and Gott [@li97] have found that this quantum state is the “adapted” Rindler vacuum (i.e. the usual Rindler vacuum with multiple images) and it is a self-consistent vacuum state because it solves the semiclassical Einstein’s equations exactly. Li and Gott [@li97] have also found that for this “adapted” Rindler vacuum in Misner space, an inertial particle detector perceives nothing. In this paper, we find that for a multiply connected de Sitter space there also exists a self-consistent vacuum state for a conformally coupled scalar field (see section \[IX\]).
Thorne [@tho93] has noted that, even if Hawking’s argument that a quantum gravitational cut-off would occur when the geometric invariant distance from the Cauchy horizon is of order the Planck length is correct, by using two wormholes the metric fluctuations near the Cauchy horizon can be made arbitrarily small so a spacetime with CTCs created from two wormholes can be stable against vacuum polarization. Recently Visser [@vis97] has generalized this result to the Roman-ring case.
The above arguments indicate that the back-reaction of vacuum polarization may [*not*]{} destroy the Cauchy horizon in spacetimes with CTCs, and thus such spacetimes can be stable against vacuum polarization.
In a recent paper, Cassidy and Hawking [@cas97b] have admitted that “back-reaction does not enforce chronology protection”. On the other hand, Cassidy and Hawking [@cas97b] have argued that the “number of states” may enforce the chronology protection conjecture since “this quantity will always tend to zero as one tries to introduce CTCs”. Their arguments are based on the fact that for the particular spacetime with CTCs they constructed \[which is the product of a multiply connected (via a boost) three-dimensional de Sitter space and $S^1$\] the entropy of a massless scalar field diverges to minus infinity when the spacetime develops CTCs [@cas97b]. However, whether this conclusion holds for general spacetimes with CTCs remains an open question and further research is required. And, from ordinary statistical thermodynamics we know that entropy is always positive, so the physical meaning of a [*negative*]{} entropy is unclear. The number of states in phase space is given by $N=\Delta p\Delta q/(2\pi\hbar)^s$ where $\Delta q=\Delta q_1\Delta q_2...\Delta q_s$, $\Delta p=\Delta p_1\Delta p_2...\Delta p_s$, $q_i$ ($i=1,2,...s$) is a canonical coordinate, $p_i$ is a canonical momentum, and $s$ is the number of degrees of freedom. The uncertainty principle demands that $\Delta p_i\Delta q_i\geq2\pi\hbar$ and thus we should always have $N\geq 1$. Thus the “fact” that the number of states tends to zero as one tries to develop CTCs (i.e. as one approaches the Cauchy horizon) may simply imply that near the Cauchy horizon quantum effects of gravity cannot be neglected, which is consistent with Li, Xu, and Liu’s argument [@li93]. The entropy is defined by $k_{\rm B}\ln N$ where $N$ is the number of states and $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. When $N$ is small, quantization of the entropy becomes important (remember that the number of states $N$ is always an integer). The entropy cannot [*continuously*]{} tend to negative infinity; it should [*jump*]{} from $k_{\rm B}\ln3$ to $k_{\rm B}\ln2$, [*jump*]{} from $k_{\rm B}\ln2$ to zero (but in Cassidy and Hawking’s arguments [@cas97b] we have not seen such a jump), then the uncertainty principle demands that the entropy should stand on the zero value as one approaches the Cauchy horizon. On the other hand, ordinary continuous thermodynamics holds only for the case with $N\gg1$. Thus, as one approaches the Cauchy horizon the thermodynamic limit has already been violated and ordinary thermodynamics should be revised near the Cauchy horizon. In other words, Cassidy and Hawking’s results [@cas97b] cannot be extended to the Cauchy horizon. Based on the fact that the effective action density diverges at the polarized hypersurfaces of spacetimes with CTCs [@cas97a], Cassidy and Hawking [@cas97b] have argued that the effective action “would provide new insight into issues of chronology protection”. But we should note that the effective action is only a [*tool*]{} for computing some physical quantities (such as the energy-momentum tensor) and the effective action itself has not much physical meaning. The divergence of the effective action may imply that the effective action is not a good [*tool*]{} as the polarized hypersurfaces are approached. Our argument is supported by the fact that there exist many examples for which the energy-momentum tensor is finite everywhere, as mentioned above.
Recently, Kay, Radzikowski, and Wald [@kay97] have proved two theorems which demonstrate that some fundamental quantities such as Hadamard functions and energy-momentum tensors must be ill-defined on a compactly generated Cauchy horizon in a spacetime with CTCs, as one extends the [*usual*]{} quantum field theory in a global hyperbolic spacetime to an acausal spacetime with a compactly generated Cauchy horizon. Basically speaking, their theorems imply that the [*usual*]{} quantum field theory cannot be [*directly*]{} extended to a spacetime with CTCs [@kay97]. Their theorems tell us that serious difficulties arise when attempting to [*define*]{} quantum field theory on a spacetime with a compactly generated Cauchy horizon [@kay97]. The ordinary quantum field theory must be significantly changed or some new approach must be introduced when one tries to do quantum field theory on a spacetime with CTCs. A candidate procedure for overcoming this difficulty is the Euclidean quantization proposed by Hawking [@haw78; @haw79]. Quantum field theory is well-defined in a Euclidean space because there are no CTCs in a Euclidean space [@haw95]. In fact, even in simply connected Minkowski spacetime, quantum field theory is [*not*]{} well-defined since the path integral does not converge. To overcome this difficulty, the technique of Wick-rotation (which is essentially equivalent to Euclidean quantization) is used. Kay, Radzikowski, and Wald [@kay97] have also argued that their results may be interpreted as indicating that in order to create CTCs it would be necessary to enter a regime where quantum effects of gravity will be dominant (see also the discussions of Visser [@vis97a; @vis97b]); this is also consistent with Li, Xu, and Liu’s arguments [@li93]. Cramer and Kay [@cra96; @cra97] have shown that Kay, Radzikowski, and Wald’s theorems [@kay97] also apply to Misner space (for Sushkov’s automorphic field case [@sus97] and Krasnikov’s two-dimensional case [@kra96], respectively) where the Cauchy horizon is not compactly generated, in the sense that the energy-momentum tensor must be ill-defined on the Cauchy horizon itself. But we note that this only happens in a set of measure zero which does not make much sense in physics for if the renormalized energy-momentum tensor is zero everywhere except on a set of measure zero where it is formally ill-defined, then continuity would seem to require setting it to zero there also [@li97].
Perhaps a conclusion on the chronology protection conjecture can only be reached after we have a quantum theory of gravity. However, we can conclude that the back-reaction of vacuum polarization does [*not*]{} enforce the chronology protection conjecture, a point Hawking himself also admits [@cas97b]. (Originally the back-reaction of vacuum polarization was supposed to be the strongest candidate for chronology protection [@haw92a; @haw92b].)
Multiply Connected Minkowski Spacetimes with CTCs {#VI}
=================================================
A simple spacetime with CTCs is obtained from Minkowski spacetime by identifying points that are related by time translation. Minkowski spacetime is $(R^4, \eta_{ab})$. In Cartesian coordinates $(t, x, y, z)$ the Lorentzian metric $\eta_{ab}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2.
\label{E1}\end{aligned}$$ Now we identify points $(t, x, y, z)$ with points $(t+nt_0, x, y, z)$ where $t_0$ is a positive constant and $n$ is any integer. Then we obtain a spacetime with topology $S^1\times R^3$ and the Lorentzian metric. Such a spacetime is closed in the time direction and has no Cauchy horizon. All events in this spacetime are threaded by CTCs. (This is the only acausal spacetime without a Cauchy horizon considered in this paper.) Minkowski spacetime $(R^4,\eta_{ab})$ is the covering space of this spacetime.
Usually there is no well-defined quantum field theory in a spacetime with CTCs. (Kay-Radzikowski-Wald’s theorems [@kay97] enforce this claim, though they do not apply directly to an acausal spacetime without a Cauchy horizon.) However, in the case where a covering space exists, we can do it in the covering space with the method of images. In fact in most cases where the energy-momentum tensor in spacetimes with CTCs has been calculated, this method has been used (for the theoretical basis for the method of images see Ref. [@fro91] and references cited therein). The method of images is sufficient for our purposes in this paper (computing the energy-momentum tensor and the response function of particle detectors). Thus in this paper we use this method to deal with quantum field theory in spacetimes with CTCs.
For any point $(t, x, y, z)$ in $(S^1\times R^3, \eta_{ab})$, there are an infinite number of images of points $(t+nt_0, x, y, z)$ in the covering space $(R^4, \eta_{ab})$. For the Minkowski vacuum $\vert 0_{\rm M}\rangle$ of a conformally coupled scalar field (by “conformally coupled” we mean that the mass of the scalar field is zero and the coupling between the scalar field $\phi$ and the gravitational field is given by ${1\over6}R\phi^2$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar curvature) in the Minkowski spacetime, the Hadamard function is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm M}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}~
{1\over
-(t-t^\prime)^2+(x-x^\prime)^2+(y-y^\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2},
\label{E2}\end{aligned}$$ here $X=(t,x,y,z)$ and $X^\prime=(t^\prime,x^\prime,y^\prime,
z^\prime)$. With the method of images, the Hadamard function of the “adapted” Minkowski vacuum (which is the Minkowski vacuum with multiple images) in the spacetime $(S^1\times R^3, \eta_{ab})$ is given by the summation of the Hadamard function in (\[E2\]) for all images $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{1\over
-(t-t^\prime+nt_0)^2+(x-x^\prime)^2+(y-y^\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2}.
\label{E3}\end{aligned}$$ The regularized Hadamard function is usually taken to be $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm
reg}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)&=&G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_{\rm M}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)
\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n\not=0}
{1\over
-(t-t^\prime+nt_0)^2+(x-x^\prime)^2+(y-y^\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2}.
\label{E4}\end{aligned}$$ The renormalized energy-momentum tensor is given by [@wal78; @bir82] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}={1\over2}\lim_{X^\prime\rightarrow
X}\left({2\over3}\nabla_a\nabla_{b^\prime}
-{1\over3}\nabla_a\nabla_b-{1\over6}\eta_{ab}
\nabla_c\nabla^{c^\prime}\right)G^{(1)}_{\rm reg}.
\label{E5}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[E4\]) into Eq. (\[E5\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{\mu}^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm
ren}={\pi^2\over90t_0^4}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right).
\label{E6}\end{aligned}$$ We find that this energy-momentum tensor is constant and finite everywhere and has the form of radiation. Thus CTCs do not mean that the energy-momentum tensor must diverge.
Now let us consider a particle detector [@bir82; @unr76] moving in this spacetime. The particle detector is coupled to the field $\phi$ by the interaction Lagrangian $cm(\tau)\phi[X(\tau)]$, where $c$ is a small coupling constant, $m$ is the detector’s monopole moment, $\tau$ is the proper time of the detector’s worldline, and $X(\tau)$ is the trajectory of the particle detector [@bir82]. Suppose initially the detector is in its ground state with energy $E_0$ and the field $\phi$ is in some quantum state $\vert\rangle$. Then the transition probability for the detector to all possible excited states with energy $E>E_0$ and the field $\phi$ to all possible quantum states is given by [@bir82] $$\begin{aligned}
P=c^2\sum_{E>E_0}\vert\langle E\vert m(0)\vert E_0\rangle\vert^2
{\cal F}(\Delta E),
\label{E14a}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta E=E-E_0>0$ and ${\cal F}(\Delta E)$ is the response function $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\Delta E)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\int_{-\infty}^\infty
d\tau^\prime
e^{-i\Delta E(\tau-\tau^\prime)}G^+(X(\tau),X(\tau^\prime)),
\label{E7}\end{aligned}$$ which is independent of the details of the particle detector and is determined by the positive frequency Wightman function $G^+(X,X^\prime)
\equiv\langle\vert\phi(X)\phi(X^\prime)\vert\rangle$ (while the Hadamard function is defined by $G^{1}(X,X^\prime)\equiv\langle\vert\phi(X)\phi(X^\prime)+
\phi(X^\prime)\phi(X)\vert\rangle$). The response function represents the bath of particles that the detector effectively experiences [@bir82]. The remaining factor in Eq. (\[E14a\]) represents the selectivity of the detector to the field and depends on the internal structure of the detector [@bir82]. The Wightman function for the Minkowski vacuum is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm M}^+(X,X^\prime)=
{1\over4\pi^2}~
{1\over
-(t-t^\prime-i\epsilon)^2+(x-x^\prime)^2+(y-y^\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2},
\label{E8}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal positive real number which is introduced to indicate that $G^+$ is the boundary value of a function which is analytic in the lower-half of the complex $\Delta t\equiv t-t^\prime$ plane. For the adapted Minkowski vacuum in our spacetime $(S^1\times R^3, \eta_{ab})$, the Wightman function is $$\begin{aligned}
G^+(X,X^\prime)={1\over4\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{1\over
-(t-t^\prime+nt_0-i\epsilon)^2+(x-x^\prime)^2+(y-y^
\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2}.
\label{E9}\end{aligned}$$ Assume that the detector moves along the geodesic $x=\beta t$ $(\beta<1)$, $y=z=0$, then the proper time is $\tau=t/\zeta$ with $\zeta=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. On the geodesic, the Wightman function is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
G^+(\tau,\tau^\prime)&=&{1\over4\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^
{\infty}{1\over-(t-t^\prime+nt_0-i\epsilon)^2+\beta^2(t-t^\prime)^2}
\nonumber\\
&=&-{1\over4\pi^2\zeta^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^
{\infty}{1\over(\tau-\tau^\prime+nt_0/\zeta-i\epsilon/\zeta)^2
-\beta^2(\tau-\tau^\prime)^2}.
\label{E10}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[E10\]) into Eq. (\[E7\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\Delta E)=-{1\over4\pi^2\zeta^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^
{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dT\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\Delta\tau
e^{-i\Delta E\Delta\tau}{1\over(\Delta\tau+nt_0/\zeta-i\epsilon/\zeta)^2
-\beta^2(\Delta\tau)^2},
\label{E11}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\tau=\tau-\tau^\prime$ and $T=(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2$. The integration over $\Delta\tau$ is taken along a contour closed in the lower-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$. Inspecting the poles of the integrand, we find that all poles are in the upper-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$ (remember that $\beta<1$). Therefore according to the residue theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\Delta E)=0.
\label{E12}\end{aligned}$$ Such a particle detector perceives no particles, though the renormalized energy-momentum tensor of the field has the form of radiation.
Another simple space with CTCs constructed from Minkowski space is Misner space [@mis67]. In Cartesian coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$ in Minkowski spacetime, a boost transformation in the $(t,x)$ plane (we can always adjust the coordinates so that the boost is in this plane) takes point $(t,x,y,z)$ to point $(t\cosh b+x\sinh
b, x\cosh b+t\sinh b, y, z)$ where $b$ is the boost parameter. In Rindler coordinates $(\eta, \xi, y, z)$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
t=\xi\sinh\eta,\\
x=\xi\cosh\eta,\\
y=y,\\
z=z,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{E55}\end{aligned}$$ the Minkowski metric can then be written in the Rindler form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-\xi^2d\eta^2+d\xi^2+dy^2+dz^2.
\label{E56}\end{aligned}$$ The Rindler coordinates $(\eta,\xi,y,z)$ only cover the right quadrant of Minkowski space (i.e. the region R defined by $x>|t|$). By a reflection $(t,x,y,z)\rightarrow(-t,-x,y,z)$ \[or $(\eta,\xi,y,z)\rightarrow$ $(\eta,-\xi,y,z)$\], the Rindler coordinates and the Rindler metric can be extended to the left quadrant (L, defined by $x<-|t|$). By the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\eta\rightarrow\tilde{\xi}-i{\pi\over2},~~~
\xi\rightarrow\pm i\tilde{\eta},~~~
y\rightarrow y,~~~
z\rightarrow z,
\label{E56a}\end{aligned}$$ the Rindler coordinates can be extended to the future quadrant (F, defined by $t>|x|$) and the past quadrant (P, defined by $t<-|x|$). In region L the Rindler metric has the same form as the metric in region R, which is given by Eq. (\[E56\]). But in F and P the Rindler metric is extended to be $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-d\tilde{\eta}^2+\tilde{\eta}^2d\tilde{\xi}^2+dy^2+dz^2.
\label{E56b}\end{aligned}$$ Misner space is obtained by identifying $(t,x,y,z)$ with $(t\cosh
nb+x\sinh nb,x\cosh nb+t\sinh nb,y,z)$. Under such an identification, point $(\eta,\xi,y,z)$ in R (or L) is identified with points $(\eta+nb,\xi,y,z)$ in R (or L), point $(\tilde{\eta},
\tilde{\xi},y,z)$ in F (or P) is identified with points $(\tilde{\eta},
\tilde{\xi}+nb,y,z)$ in F (or P). Clearly there are CTCs in R and L but there are no closed causal curves in F and P, and these regions are separated by the Cauchy horizons $x=\pm t$, generated by closed null geodesics.
Misner space is not a manifold at the intersection of $x=t$ and $x=-t$. However, as Hawking and Ellis [@haw73] have pointed out, if we consider the bundle of linear frames over Minkowski space, the corresponding induced bundle of linear frames over Misner space is a Hausdorff manifold and therefore well-behaved everywhere.
The energy-momentum tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field in Misner space has been studied in [@his82; @li97]. Hiscock and Konkowski [@his82] have calculated the energy-momentum tensor of the adapted Minkowski vacuum. In Rindler coordinates their results can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm M,ren}={A\over12\pi^2\xi^4}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}
\right),
\label{E67}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $A$ is $$\begin{aligned}
A=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{2+\cosh nb\over(\cosh nb-1)^2}.
\label{E68}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[E67\]) holds only in region R \[because Rindler coordinates defined by Eq. (\[E55\]) only cover R\], but it can be analytically extended to other regions by writing $\langle
T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm M,ren}$ in Cartesian coordinates or by the transformations mentioned above. Obviously for any finite $b$, $\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm
M,ren}$ diverges as one approaches the Cauchy horizon ($\xi\rightarrow0$). This divergence is coordinate independent since $\langle T^{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm M,ren}\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm
M,ren}$ also diverges as $\xi\rightarrow0$. This indicates that though the Minkowski vacuum is a good and self-consistent vacuum for simply connected Minkowski space, the adapted Minkowski vacuum is [*not*]{} self-consistent for Misner space (i.e. it does not solve Einstein’s equations given the Misner space geometry). This result has led Hawking [@haw92a; @haw92b] to conjecture that the laws of physics do not allow the appearance of CTCs (i.e., his chronology protection conjecture).
Li and Gott [@li97] have studied the adapted Rindler vacuum in Misner space. The Hadamard function for the Rindler vacuum is [@dow78] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm R}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}{\gamma\over\xi\xi^\prime
\sinh\gamma~[-(\eta-\eta^\prime)^2+\gamma^2]},
\label{E76}\end{aligned}$$ where $X=(\eta,\xi,y,z)$, $X^\prime=(\eta^\prime,\xi^\prime,y^\prime,
z^\prime)$, and $\gamma$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\gamma={\xi^2+{\xi^\prime}^2+(y-y^\prime)^2+(z-z^\prime)^2\over
2\xi\xi^\prime}.
\label{E77}\end{aligned}$$ The Hadamard function for the adapted Rindler vacuum in Misner space is $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{\gamma\over\xi\xi^\prime
\sinh\gamma[-(\eta-\eta^\prime+nb)^2+\gamma^2]}.
\label{E78}\end{aligned}$$ Though $G_{\rm R}^{(1)}$ and $G^{(1)}$ given by Eq. (\[E76\]) and Eq. (\[E78\]) are defined only in region R, they can be analytically extended to regions L, F, and P in Minkowski and Misner space. The regularized Hadamard function for the adapted Rindler vacuum is $G_{\rm reg}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)=G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_{\rm
M}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)$, where $G_{\rm M}^{(1)}$ is the Hadamard function for the Minkowski vacuum given by Eq. (\[E2\]). Inserting this together with Eq. (\[E78\]) and Eq. (\[E2\]) into Eq. (\[E5\]), we obtain the energy-momentum tensor for a conformally coupled scalar field in the adapted Rindler vacuum [@li97] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm R,ren}={1\over1440\pi^2\xi^4}
\left[\left({2\pi\over b}\right)^4-1\right]
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}
\right),
\label{E69}\end{aligned}$$ which is expressed in Rindler coordinates and thus holds only in region R but can be analytically extended to other regions with the method mentioned above for the case of the adapted Minkowski vacuum. We [@li97] have found that unless $b=2\pi$, $\langle
T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm R,ren}$ blows up as one approaches the Cauchy horizon ($\xi\rightarrow0$) (as also does$\langle T^{\mu\nu}
\rangle_{\rm R,ren}\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm
R,ren}$). But, if $b=2\pi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm R,ren}=0,
\label{E70}\end{aligned}$$ which is regular as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and can be regularly extended to the whole Misner space, where it is also zero. In such a case, the vacuum Einstein’s equations without cosmological constant are automatically satisfied. Thus this is an example of a spacetime with CTCs at the semiclassical quantum gravity level. We [@li97] have called this vacuum the [*self-consistent vacuum*]{} for Misner space, and $b=2\pi$ is the [*self-consistent condition*]{}. (Cassidy [@cas97a] has also independently proven that for a conformally coupled scalar field in Misner space there should exist a quantum state for which the energy-momentum tensor is zero everywhere. But he has not shown what quantum state it should be. We [@li97] have shown that it is the adapted Rindler vacuum.)
Another way to deal with quantum fields in spacetimes with CTCs is to do the quantum field theory in the Euclidean section and then analytically extend the results to the Lorentzian section [@haw95]. For Misner space the Euclidean section is obtained by taking $\eta$ and $b$ to be $-i\bar{\eta}$ and $-i\bar{b}$. The resultant space is the Euclidean space with metric $ds^2=\xi^2d\bar{\eta}^2+d\xi^2+dy^2+dz^2$ and $(\bar{\eta},\xi,y,z)$ and $(\bar{\eta}+n\bar{b},\xi,y,z)$ are identified where $(\bar{\eta},\xi,y,z)$ are cylindrical polar coordinates with $\bar{\eta}$ the angular polar coordinate and $\xi$ the radial polar coordinate. The geometry at the hypersurface $\xi=0$ is conical singular unless $\bar{b}=2\pi$. When extending that case to the Lorentzian section, we get $b=2\pi$ which is just the self-consistent condition. This may be the geometrical explanation of the self-consistent condition. By doing quantum field theory in the Euclidean space, then analytically extending the results to the Lorentzian section, we obtain the renormalized energy-momentum tensor in R (or L) region of the Misner space. Then we can extend the renormalized energy-momentum tensor in R (or L) to regions F (or P). The results are the same as that obtained with the method of images.
Let us consider a particle detector moving in Misner space with the adapted Rindler vacuum. Suppose the detector moves along a geodesic with $x=a$, $y=\beta t$, and $z=0$ ($a$ and $\beta$ are constants and $a$ is positive), which goes through the P, R, and F regions. The proper time of the detector is $\tau=t/\zeta$ with $\zeta=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. On this geodesic, the Hadamard function in (\[E78\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(1)}(t,t^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}{\gamma\over
\sinh\gamma\sqrt{(a^2-t^2)(a^2-{t^\prime}^2)}}
\sum
_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}{1\over-(\eta-\eta^\prime+nb)^2+\gamma^2},
\label{I1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\gamma={2a^2-t^2-{t^\prime}^2+\beta^2(t-t^\prime)^2\over
2\sqrt{(a^2-t^2)(a^2-{t^\prime}^2)}},
\label{I2}\end{aligned}$$ and $\eta-\eta^\prime$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sinh(\eta-\eta^\prime)={a(t-t^\prime)\over
\sqrt{(a^2-t^2)(a^2-{t^\prime}^2)}}.
\label{I3}\end{aligned}$$ Though this Hadamard function is originally defined only in R, it can be analytically extended to F, P, and L. The Wightman function is equal to $1/2$ of the Hadamard function with $t$ replaced by $t-i\epsilon/2$ and $t^\prime$ replaced by $t^\prime+i\epsilon/2$, where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal positive real number. Then the response function is [@li97] $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal F}(E)={1\over4\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dT\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\Delta\tau \nonumber\\
&&{\gamma^+e^{-iE\Delta\tau}\over\sinh\gamma^+\sqrt{[a^2-\zeta^2
(T+{\Delta\tau\over2}-{i\epsilon\over2\zeta})^2]
[a^2-\zeta^2(T-{\Delta\tau\over2}+{i\epsilon\over2\zeta})^2]}~\left\{-
[(\eta-\eta^\prime)^++nb]^2+{\gamma^+}^2\right\}},
\label{I4}\end{aligned}$$ where $T\equiv(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2$, $\Delta\tau\equiv\tau-\tau^\prime$; $\gamma^+$ and $(\eta-\eta^\prime)^+$ are given by (\[I2\]) and (\[I3\]) with $t$ replaced by $t-i\epsilon/2$ and $t^\prime$ replaced by $t^\prime+i\epsilon/2$. The integral over $\Delta\tau$ can be worked out by the residue theorem where we choose the integration contour to close in the lower-half complex-$\Delta\tau$ plane. The result is zero since there are no poles in the lower-half plane. Therefore such a detector cannot be excited and so it detects nothing [@li97]. We [@li97] have also calculated the response functions for detectors on worldlines with constant $\xi$, $y$, and $z$ and worldlines with constant $\tilde{\xi}$, $y$, and $z$ — both are zero.
Vacuum Polarization in Vilenkin’s Tunneling Universe
====================================================
In order to compare our model for the creation of the universe with Vilenkin’s tunneling universe, in this section we calculate the vacuum fluctuation of a conformally coupled scalar field in Vilenkin’s tunneling universe. The geometry of Vilenkin’s tunneling universe has been described in section IV. Such a universe is described by a Lorentzian-de Sitter space joined to a Euclidean de Sitter space [@vil82]. The Lorentzian section has the topology $R^1\times S^3$ and the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-d\tau^2+ r_0^2\cosh^2{\tau\over r_0}[d\chi^2+\sin^2\chi(
d\theta^2+ \sin^2\theta d\phi^2)].
\label{E13}\end{aligned}$$ The Euclidean section has the topology $S^4$ and the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=d\tau^2+ r_0^2\cos^2{\tau\over r_0}[d\chi^2+\sin^2\chi(
d\theta^2+ \sin^2\theta d\phi^2)].
\label{E14}\end{aligned}$$ The Lorentzian section and the Euclidean section are joined at the boundary $\Sigma$ defined by $\tau=0$. $\Sigma$ is a three-sphere with the minimum radius in de Sitter space and the maximum radius in the Euclidean four-sphere. The boundary condition for a conformally coupled scalar field $\phi$ is [@hay92; @hay93] $$\begin{aligned}
\left.{\partial\phi\over\partial\tau}\right|_\Sigma=0,
\label{E15}\end{aligned}$$ which is a kind of Neumann boundary condition and indicates that the boundary $\Sigma$ is like a kind of reflecting boundary. The Green functions (including both the Hadamard function and the Wightman function) should also satisfy this boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
\left.{\partial G(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi;\tau^\prime,\chi^\prime,
\theta^\prime, \phi^\prime)\over\partial\tau}\right\vert_\Sigma=0.
\label{E16}\end{aligned}$$
The vacuum state of a conformally coupled scalar field in de Sitter space is usually taken to be that obtained from the Minkowski vacuum by the conformal transformation according to which de Sitter space is conformally flat. (The quantum state so obtained is usually called the conformal vacuum [@bir82].) Such a vacuum is de Sitter invariant and we call it the conformal Minkowski vacuum. The Hadamard function for this de Sitter vacuum (i.e. the conformal Minkowski vacuum) is [@bun78] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over4\pi^2 r_0^2}~{1\over1-Z(X,X^\prime)},
\label{E17}\end{aligned}$$ where $X=(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$, $X^\prime=(\tau^\prime,\chi^\prime,
\theta^\prime,\phi^\prime)$, and $Z(X,X^\prime)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
Z(X,X^\prime)&=&-\sinh{\tau\over r_0}\sinh{\tau^\prime\over r_0}+
\cosh{\tau\over r_0}\cosh{\tau^\prime\over r_0}\{\cos\chi\cos\chi^\prime
\nonumber\\
&&+\sin\chi\sin\chi^\prime[\cos\theta\cos\theta^\prime+
\sin\theta\sin\theta^\prime\cos(\phi-\phi^\prime)]\}.
\label{E18}\end{aligned}$$ In Vilenkin’s tunneling universe, the Hadamard function satisfying the boundary condition (\[E16\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)&=&G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime) +
G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X^-,X^\prime)
\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over4\pi^2 r_0^2}\left[{1\over1-Z(X,X^\prime)}+{1\over1-
Z(X^-,X^\prime)}\right],
\label{E19}\end{aligned}$$ where $X^-=(-\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$ is the image of $X=(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$ with respect to the reflecting boundary $\Sigma$.
There are various schemes for obtaining the renormalized energy-momentum tensor for de Sitter space (e.g. [@bun78; @ber86]). They all are equivalent to subtracting from the Hadamard function a reference term $G^{(1)}_{\rm ref}$ to obtain a regularized Hadamard function and then calculating the renormalized energy-momentum tensor by [@wal78; @bir82] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}={1\over2}\lim_{X^\prime\rightarrow X}
{\cal D}_{ab^\prime}(X,X^\prime)G_{\rm reg}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime).
\label{E21}\end{aligned}$$ For the conformally coupled scalar field, the differential operator ${\cal D}_{ab^\prime}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{ab^\prime}={2\over3}\nabla_a\nabla_{b^\prime}-{1\over6}
g_{ab^\prime}g_{dd^\prime}\nabla^d\nabla^{d^\prime}-{1\over3}
\nabla_{a^\prime}\nabla_{b^\prime}+{1\over3}g_{ab^\prime}\nabla_
{d^\prime}\nabla^{d^\prime}+{1\over6}\left(R_{ab}-{1\over2}Rg_{ab}\right),
\label{E22}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{ab^\prime}$ is the geodesic parallel displacement bivector [@dew65]. \[It is easy to show that if $R_{ab}=0$ Eq. (\[E21\]) and Eq. (\[E22\]) are reduced to Eq. (\[E5\]).\] The regularized Hadamard function for the adapted conformal Minkowski vacuum in Vilenkin’s tunneling universe is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm
reg}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)=G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_{\rm ref}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)
=\left[G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_{\rm ref}^{(1)}\right] +
G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X^-,X^\prime).
\label{E20}\end{aligned}$$ (In this paper the exact form of $G^{(1)}_{\rm ref}$ is not important for us.) Substituting Eqs. (\[E17\]-\[E19\]) and Eq. (\[E20\]) into Eq. (\[E21\]), we find that $\lim_{X^\prime\rightarrow X}{\cal D}_{ab^\prime}G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X^-,X^\prime)=0,
$ which shows that the boundary condition (\[E15\]) does not produce any renormalized energy-momentum tensor; but the action of ${\cal D}_{ab^\prime}$ on $G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}
(X,X^\prime)-G_{\rm ref}^{(1)}$ should give the energy-momentum tensor for the conformal Minkowski vacuum in an eternal de Sitter space [@bun78; @ber86] $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over2}\lim_{X^\prime\rightarrow X}
{\cal D}_{ab^\prime}\left[G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-
G_{\rm ref}^{(1)}\right]=-
{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4} g_{ab}.
\label{E24}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the energy-momentum tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field in the adapted Minkowski vacuum in Vilenkin’s tunneling universe is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}=-
{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4} g_{ab},
\label{E25}\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as that for an eternal de Sitter space.
Now consider a particle detector moving along a geodesic with $\chi,\theta,\phi={\rm constants}$. The response function is given by Eq. (\[E7\]) but with the integration over $\tau$ and $\tau^\prime$ ranging from $0$ to $\infty$. The Wightman function is obtained from the corresponding Hadamard function by the relation $$\begin{aligned}
G^+(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi;\tau^\prime,\chi^\prime,\theta^\prime,
\phi^\prime)={1\over2}G^{(1)}\left(\tau-i\epsilon/2,\chi,\theta,
\phi;\tau^\prime+i\epsilon/2,\chi^\prime,\theta^\prime,
\phi^\prime\right),
\label{E26}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal positive real number. Along the worldline of the detector, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&Z(\tau,\tau^\prime)=-\sinh{\tau\over r_0}
\sinh{\tau^\prime\over r_0^\prime}+\cosh{\tau\over r_0}
\cosh{\tau^\prime\over r_0^\prime}=\cosh{\tau-\tau^\prime\over r_0},
\label{E27}\\
&&Z(-\tau,\tau^\prime)=+\sinh{\tau\over r_0}
\sinh{\tau^\prime\over r_0^\prime}+\cosh{\tau\over r_0}
\cosh{\tau^\prime\over r_0^\prime}=\cosh{\tau+\tau^\prime\over r_0},
\label{E28}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G^+(X,X^\prime)={1\over8\pi^2 r_0^2}\left({1\over1-\cosh
{\tau-\tau^\prime-i\epsilon\over r_0}}+{1\over1-\cosh{\tau+
\tau^\prime\over r_0}}\right).
\label{E29}\end{aligned}$$ Then the response function is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\Delta E)={1\over8\pi^2}\int_0^{\infty} dT\int_{-\infty}
^{\infty}d\Delta\tau e^{-i\Delta Er_0\Delta\tau}\left[{1\over1-\cosh
(\Delta\tau-i\epsilon)}+{1\over1-\cosh 2T}\right],
\label{E30}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\tau=(\tau-\tau^\prime)/ r_0$ and $T=
(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2 r_0$. It is easy to calculate the contour integral over $\Delta\tau$. We find that the integration of the second term is zero and therefore, the result is the same as that for an inertial particle detector in an eternal de Sitter space [@gib77; @bir82]. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
{d{\cal F}\over dT}={r_0\over2\pi}{\Delta E\over e^{2\pi r_0 \Delta E}-1},
\label{E31}\end{aligned}$$ which is just the response function for a detector in a thermal radiation with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature [@gib77] $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm G-H}={1\over2\pi r_0}.
\label{E32}\end{aligned}$$ \[The factor $r_0$ over $2\pi$ in Eq. (\[E31\]) is due to the fact that by definition $T=(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2r_0$ is dimensionless.\] Therefore such a detector perceives a thermal bath of radiation with the temperature $T_{\rm G-H}$.
Though the boundary between the Lorentzian section and the Euclidean section behaves as a reflecting boundary, a particle detector cannot distinguish Vilenkin’s tunneling universe from an eternal de Sitter space, and they have the same energy-momentum tensor for the conformally coupled scalar field.
A Time-Nonorientable de Sitter Space {#VIII}
====================================
A time-nonorientable de Sitter space can be constructed from de Sitter space by identifying antipodal points [@cal62; @haw73]. Under such an identification, point $X=(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$ is identified with $-X=(-\tau,\pi-\chi,\pi-\theta,\pi+\phi)$. Friedman and Higuchi [@fri95; @fri97] have described this space as a “Lorentzian universe from nothing” (without any Euclidean section), although one could also describe it as always existing. Friedman and Higuchi have studied quantum field theory in this space but have not calculated the renormalized energy-momentum tensor [@fri95].
De Sitter space is the covering space of this time-nonorientable model. Using the method of images, the Hadamard function of a conformally coupled scalar field in the time-nonorientable de Sitter space with the “adapted” conformal Minkowski vacuum can be constructed as $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)&=&G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)+G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(-X,X^\prime)
={1\over4\pi^2 r_0^2}\left[{1\over1-Z(X,X^\prime)}+{1\over1-Z(-X,X^\prime)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over4\pi^2 r_0^2}\left[{1\over1-Z(X,X^\prime)}+
{1\over1+Z(X,X^\prime)}\right].
\label{E33}\end{aligned}$$ The regularized Hadamard function is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm reg}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)&=&G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_
{\rm ref}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)\nonumber\\
&=&\left[G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)-G_
{\rm ref}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)\right]+G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(-X,X^\prime).
\label{E34}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[E33\]) and Eq. (\[E34\]) into Eq. (\[E21\]), we find that the contribution of $G_{\rm CM}^{(1)}(-X,X^\prime)$ to the energy-momentum tensor is zero. Therefore the renormalized energy-momentum tensor is the same as that in an eternal de Sitter space, which is given by Eq. (\[E25\]).
Suppose a particle detector moves along a worldline with $\chi,\theta,
\phi={\rm constants}$. The response function is given by Eq. (\[E7\]). The Wightman function is obtained from the Hadamard function through Eq. (\[E26\]). On the worldline of the particle detector, we have $$\begin{aligned}
G^+(\tau,\tau^\prime)={1\over8\pi^2 r_0^2}\left({1\over1-\cosh{\tau-\tau^\prime-i
\epsilon\over r_0}}+
{1\over1+\cosh{\tau-\tau^\prime-i\epsilon\over r_0}}\right).
\label{E35}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this into Eq. (\[E7\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
{d{\cal F}\over dT}={r_0\over2\pi}{\Delta E\over e^{\pi r_0 \Delta E}-1},
\label{E36}\end{aligned}$$ which represents a thermal spectrum with a temperature equal to twice the Gibbons-Hawking temperature. Therefore a particle detector moving along such a geodesic in this time-nonorientable spacetime perceives thermal radiation with temperature $T=2T_{\rm G-H}$.
For this time-nonorientable de Sitter space, the area of the event horizon is one half that of an eternal de Sitter space. This together with $T=2T_{\rm G-H}$ tells us that the first thermodynamic law of event horizons $\delta M_c=T\delta A$ is preserved, where $M_c$ is the mass within the horizon, and $A$ is the area of the horizon [@gib77].
A Multiply Connected de Sitter Space with CTCs {#IX}
==============================================
Construction of a Multiply Connected de Sitter Space {#IX.A}
----------------------------------------------------
De Sitter space is a solution of the vacuum Einstein’s equations with a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which is one of the maximally symmetric spacetimes (the others being Minkowski space and anti-de Sitter space) [@wei72; @haw73]. De Sitter space can be represented by a timelike hyperbolic hypersurface $$\begin{aligned}
W^2+X^2+Y^2+Z^2-V^2= r_0^2,
\label{E39}\end{aligned}$$ embedded in a five-dimensional Minkowski space $(V, W, X, Y, Z)$ with the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-dV^2+dW^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2,
\label{E40}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0=(3/\Lambda)^{1/2}$ [@haw73; @sch56]. De Sitter space has ten killing vectors — four of them are boosts, and the other six are rotations. The global coordinates $(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$ have been described in previous sections. Static coordinates $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$ on de Sitter space are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
V=( r_0^2-r^2)^{1/2}\sinh{t\over r_0},\\
W=( r_0^2-r^2)^{1/2}\cosh{t\over r_0},\\
X=r\sin\theta\cos\phi,\\
Y=r\sin\theta\sin\phi,\\
Z=r\cos\theta,
\end{array}\right.
\label{E41}\end{aligned}$$ where $-\infty<t<\infty$, $0\leq r<r_0$, $0<\theta<\pi$, and $0\leq\phi<2\pi$. In these coordinates the de Sitter metric is written as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-\left(1-{r^2\over r_0^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1-{r^2\over r_0^2}
\right)^{-1}dr^2+r^2
(d\theta^2+\sin\theta^2 d\phi^2).
\label{E42}\end{aligned}$$ We divide de Sitter space $dS$ into four regions $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal R}\equiv\{p\in dS\vert W>\vert V\vert\},\\
\label{E43}
&&{\cal L}\equiv\{p\in dS\vert W<-\vert V\vert\},\\
\label{E44}
&&{\cal F}\equiv\{p\in dS\vert V>\vert W\vert\},\\
\label{E45}
&&{\cal P}\equiv\{p\in dS\vert V<-\vert W\vert\},
\label{E46}\end{aligned}$$ which are separated by horizons where $W=\pm V$ and $X^2+Y^2+Z^2=r_0^2$. (See Fig. \[f4\]). It is obvious that the static coordinates defined by Eq. (\[E41\]) only cover region ${\cal R}$. However, similar to the Rindler coordinates, these static coordinates can be extended to region ${\cal F}$ by the complex transformation $$\begin{aligned}
t\rightarrow l-i{\pi\over2} r_0,~~~
r\rightarrow\tilde{t},~~~
\theta\rightarrow\theta,~~~
\phi\rightarrow\phi,
\label{E47}\end{aligned}$$ where $-\infty<l<\infty$ and $\tilde{t}>2r_0$. In region ${\cal F}$, with the coordinates $(\tilde{t},l,\theta,\phi)$, the de Sitter metric can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-\left({\tilde{t}^2\over r_0^2}-1\right)^{-1}d\tilde{t}^2+\left(
{\tilde{t}^2\over r_0^2}-1\right)dl^2+
\tilde{t}^2(d\theta^2+\sin\theta^2 d\phi^2).
\label{E48} \end{aligned}$$ Transforming the coordinate $\tilde{t}$ to the proper time $\tau$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{t}= r_0\cosh{\tau\over r_0},
\label{E49}\end{aligned}$$ the de Sitter metric in ${\cal F}$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-d\tau^2+ \sinh^2{\tau\over r_0}d l^2+
r_0^2\cosh^2{\tau\over r_0}(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2).
\label{E50}\end{aligned}$$ (See Fig. \[f4\].) The coordinates $(\tau,l,\theta,\phi)$ are related to $(V,W,X,Y,Z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
V=r_0\sinh{\tau\over r_0}\cosh{l\over r_0},\\
W=r_0\sinh{\tau\over r_0}\sinh{l\over r_0},\\
X=r_0\cosh{\tau\over r_0}\sin\theta\cos\phi,\\
Y=r_0\cosh{\tau\over r_0}\sin\theta\sin\phi,\\
Z=r_0\cosh{\tau\over r_0}\cos\theta.
\end{array}\right.
\label{E50a}\end{aligned}$$ The universe with metric (\[E50\]) is a type of Kantowski-Sachs universe [@kan66]. Any hypersurface of $\tau={\rm constant}$ has topology $R^1\times S^2$ and has four killing vectors. Similarly, the static coordinates can also be extended to ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal L}$.
Another coordinate system which will be used in this paper is the steady-state coordinate system $(\tau,x,y,z)$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\tau= r_0\ln{W+V\over r_0},\\
x={ r_0 X\over W+V},\\
y={ r_0 Y\over W+V},\\
z={ r_0 Z\over W+V}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{E51}\end{aligned}$$ These coordinates cover regions ${\cal R}+{\cal F}$ and the horizon at $W=V>0$. With these steady-state coordinates, the de Sitter metric can be written in the steady-state form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-d\tau^2+e^{2\tau/ r_0}(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2).
\label{E52}\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the conformal time $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\eta}=- r_0 e^{-\tau/ r_0}=-{r_0^2\over W+V},
\label{E53}\end{aligned}$$ and spherical coordinates $(\rho,\theta,\phi)$ defined by $x=\rho\sin\theta\cos\phi$, $y=\rho\sin\theta\sin\phi$, and $z=\rho\cos\theta$, the de Sitter metric can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2={ r_0^2\over{\overline{\eta}}^2}\left[-d\overline{\eta}^2+d\rho^2+
\rho^2(d\theta^2 +\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\right].
\label{E54}\end{aligned}$$
The de Sitter metric is invariant under the action of the de Sitter group. Because the boost group in de Sitter space is a sub-group of the de Sitter group, the de Sitter metric is also invariant under the action of the boost group. A boost transformation in the $(V,W)$ plane in the embedding five-dimensional Minkowski space induces a boost transformation in the de Sitter space. Under such a transformation, point $(V,W,X,Y,Z)$ is taken to $(V\cosh b+W\sinh
b, W\cosh b+V\sinh b, X, Y, Z)$. In static coordinates in ${\cal R}$, point $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$ is taken to $(t+\beta,r,\theta,\phi)$ where $\beta=br_0$. In coordinates $(\tilde{t}, l, \theta, \phi)$ in ${\cal F}$, point $(\tilde{t},
l, \theta, \phi)$ is taken to $(\tilde{t}, l+\beta,
\theta, \phi)$. Similar to Misner space, our multiply connected de Sitter space is constructed by identifying points $(V,W,X,Y,Z)$ with $(V\cosh nb+W\sinh nb,
W\cosh nb+V\sinh nb, X, Y, Z)$ on de Sitter space $dS$. In regions ${\cal R}$, points $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$ are identified with $(t+n\beta,r,\theta,\phi)$; in region ${\cal F}$, points $(\tilde{t},
l, \theta, \phi)$ are identified with $(\tilde{t},
l+n\beta, \theta, \phi)$. We denote the multiply connected de Sitter space so obtained by $dS/B$, where $B$ denotes the boost group. Under the identification generated by the boost transformation, clearly $dS/B$ has CTCs in regions ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal L}$, but has no closed causal curves in regions ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal P}$. The boundaries at $W=\pm V$ and $X^2+Y^2+Z^2=r_0^2$ are the Cauchy horizons which separate the causal regions ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal P}$ from the acausal regions ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal L}$ and are generated by closed null geodesics (Fig. \[f4\]).
Similar to the case of Misner space, $dS/B$ is not a manifold at the two-sphere defined by $W=V=0$ and $X^2+Y^2+Z^2= r_0^2$. However, as in Hawking and Ellis’s arguments for Misner space [@haw73], the quotient of the bundle of linear frames over de Sitter space by the boost group is a Hausdorff manifold and thus is well-behaved everywhere. It may not be a serious problem in physics that $dS/B$ is not a manifold at the two-sphere mentioned above since this is a set of measure zero.
Conformal Relation between Our Multiply Connected de Sitter Space and Misner Space {#IX.B}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that de Sitter space is conformally flat. The de Sitter metric is related to the Minkowski metric by the conformal transformation $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ab}=\Omega^2\eta_{ab}.
\label{E58}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to show this relation by writing the steady-state de Sitter metric using conformal time \[see Eq. (\[E54\])\]. However, in this paper it is more convenient to show this conformal relation by writing the de Sitter metric in the static form and the Minkowski metric in the Rindler form, and using the transformation [@can79] $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\eta={t\over r_0},\\
\xi={\sqrt{1-r^2/ r_0^2}\over1-r\cos\theta/ r_0},\\
y={r\sin\theta\cos\phi/ r_0\over 1-r\cos\theta/ r_0},\\
z={r\sin\theta\sin\phi/ r_0\over 1-r\cos\theta/ r_0},
\end{array}
\right.
\label{E59}\end{aligned}$$ then the conformal factor $\Omega^2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^2= r_0^2(1-r\cos\theta/ r_0)^2.
\label{E60}\end{aligned}$$ The conformal relations given by Eq. (\[E59\]) and Eq. (\[E60\]) define a [*conformal map*]{} between the static de Sitter space and the Rindler space. The horizon at $r=r_0$ in the static de Sitter space coordinates corresponds to the horizon $\xi=0$ in Rindler space, and the worldline $r=0$ in de Sitter space corresponds to the worldline with $\xi=1$ and $y=z=0$ in Rindler space. This conformal relation can also be extended to region ${\cal F}$ in de Sitter space and region F in Minkowski space, where we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\tilde{\eta}=\pm{\sqrt{\tilde{t}^2/ r_0^2-1}\over1-\tilde{t}
\cos\theta/ r_0},\\
\tilde{\xi}={l\over r_0},\\
y={\tilde{t}\sin\theta\cos\phi/ r_0\over 1-\tilde{t}\cos\theta/ r_0},\\
z={\tilde{t}\sin\theta\sin\phi/ r_0\over 1-\tilde{t}\cos\theta/ r_0},
\end{array}
\right.
\label{E59a}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^2= r_0^2(1-\tilde{t}\cos\theta/ r_0)^2.
\label{E60a}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[E59a\]) and Eq. (\[E60a\]) give a [*locally*]{} conformal map in the sense that in ${\cal F}$ in de Sitter space, the map given by Eq. (\[E59a\]) and Eq. (\[E60a\]) with a “$+$” sign only covers $\theta_0<\theta<\pi$, where $\theta_0={\rm Arccos}(r_0/\tilde{t})$; the map given by Eq. (\[E59a\]) and Eq. (\[E60a\]) with a “$-$” sign only covers $0<\theta<\theta_0$. (Remember that in F in Rindler space we have $\tilde{\eta}>0$.) This conformal map is singular at $\theta=\theta_0$. However, since the hypersurfaces $\tilde{t}={\rm constant}$ and $\tilde{\eta}={\rm
constant}$ are homogeneous, in a neighborhood of any point in region F, we can always adjust coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$ so that Eq. (\[E59a\]) and Eq. (\[E60a\]) hold, except for the points lying in region O defined by $\tilde{\eta}^2\geq 1+y^2+z^2$ (i.e. $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2\geq1$) in F; because as $\tilde{t}\rightarrow\infty$ we have $\tilde{\eta}^2/(1+y^2+z^2)\rightarrow 1$. This means that there always exists a [*locally*]{} conformal map between ${\cal
F}$ and F-O (defined by $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2<1$ in F), and future infinity ($\tilde{t}\rightarrow\infty$) in ${\cal F}$ corresponds to the hyperbola $\tilde{\eta}^2= 1+y^2+z^2$ (i.e. $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=1$) in F.
With the above conformal transformation, Misner space is naturally transformed to the multiply connected de Sitter space $dS/B$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\beta= br_0.
\label{E61}\end{aligned}$$
For a conformally coupled scalar field in a conformally flat spacetime, the Green function $G(X,X^\prime)$ of the conformal vacuum is related to the corresponding Green function $\overline{G}(X,X^\prime)$ in the flat spacetime by [@bir82] $$\begin{aligned}
G(X,X^\prime)=\Omega^{-1}(X)\overline{G}(X,X^\prime)\Omega^{-1}(X^\prime),
\label{E62}\end{aligned}$$ the renormalized energy-momentum tensors are related by [@bir82] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_a^{~b}\rangle_{\rm ren}=\Omega^{-4}\langle\overline
{T}_a^{~b}\rangle_{\rm ren}+{1\over16\pi^2}\left[{1\over9}
a_1 ~^{(1)}H_a^{~b}+2a_3 ~^{(3)}H_a^{~b}\right],
\label{E63}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&^{(1)}H_{ab}=2\nabla_a\nabla_bR-2g_{ab}\nabla^c\nabla_cR
-{1\over2}R^2g_{ab}+2RR_{ab}, \\
&&^{(3)}H_{ab}=R_a^{~c}R_{cb}-{2\over3}RR_{ab}-{1\over2}R_{cd}R^{cd}
g_{ab}+{1\over4}R^2g_{ab},
\label{E63a}\end{aligned}$$ and for scalar field we have $a_1={1\over120}$ and $a_3=-{1\over360}$ [@bir82]. \[The sign before $1/16\pi^2$ is positive here because we are using signature $(-,+,+,+)$\]. For de Sitter space we have $R_{ab}=\Lambda g_{ab}$, $R=4\Lambda$, and thus $^{(1)}H_{ab}=0$, $^{(3)}H_{ab}={1\over3}\Lambda^2g_{ab}
={3\over r_0^4}g_{ab}$. Inserting them into Eq. (\[E63\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_a^{~b}\rangle_{\rm ren}=\Omega^{-4}\langle\overline
{T}_a^{~b}\rangle_{\rm ren}-{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4}\delta_a^{~b}.
\label{E65}\end{aligned}$$ Since the renormalized energy-momentum tensor for Minkowski space in the Minkowski vacuum is zero, we have $\langle\overline
{T}_a^{~b}\rangle_{\rm ren}=0$, and thus for a conformally coupled scalar field in the conformal Minkowski vacuum in a simply connected de Sitter space $dS$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}=-{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4}g_{ab},
\label{E66}\end{aligned}$$ which is just the expected result \[see Eq. (\[E25\])\].
If we insert the energy-momentum tensor in Eq. (\[E66\]) into the semiclassical Einstein’s equations $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ab}+\Lambda g_{ab}=8\pi\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren},
\label{E75a}\end{aligned}$$ and recall that for de Sitter space we have $G_{ab}=R_{ab}-{1\over2}R
g_{ab}=-{3\over r_0^2}g_{ab}$, we find that the semiclassical Einstein’s equations are satisfied if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda-{3\over r_0^2}+{1\over120\pi r_0^4}=0.
\label{E75b}\end{aligned}$$ If $\Lambda=0$, the solutions to Eq. (\[E75b\]) are $r_0=(360\pi)^{-1/2}$ and $r_0=\infty$ [@got82]. Gott [@got82] has called the vacuum state in de Sitter space with $r_0=(360\pi)^{-1/2}$ the self-consistent vacuum state (it has a Gibbons-Hawking thermal temperature $T_{\rm G-H}=1/2\pi r_0$) [@gib77]. In this self-consistent case, $\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}=-g_{ab}/960\pi^2r_0^4$ itself is the source term producing the de Sitter geometry [@got82]. This may give rise to inflation at the Planck scale [@got82]. (In a recent paper of Panagiotakopoulos and Tetradis [@pan97], inflation at the Planck scale has been suggested to lead to homogeneous initial conditions for a second stage inflation at the GUT scale.) The second solution $r_0=\infty$ corresponds to Minkowski space. These perhaps supply a possible reason that the effective cosmological constant is either of order unity in Planck units or exactly zero. That is interesting because we observe $\Lambda_{\rm eff}=0$ today and a high $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ is needed for inflation. If $\Lambda\not=0$, we find that the solutions to Eq. (\[E75b\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
r_0^2={3\over2\Lambda}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-{\Lambda\over270\pi}}\right).
\label{E75c}\end{aligned}$$ A de Sitter space with $r_0$ given by Eq. (\[E75c\]) automatically satisfies the semiclassical Einstein’s equations (\[E75a\]). Such a de Sitter space and its corresponding vacuum are thus self-consistent.
Renormalized Energy-Momentum Tensor in Multiply Connected de Sitter Space
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eq. (\[E65\]) we find that if we know the energy-momentum tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field in some vacuum state in Misner space, we can get the energy-momentum tensor in the corresponding conformal vacuum in the multiply connected de Sitter space.
Two fundamental vacuums in Minkowski space are the Minkowski vacuum and the Rindler vacuum [@bir82; @wal94]. The energy-momentum tensor of the conformally coupled scalar field in the adapted Minkowski vacuum in Misner space has been worked out by Hiscock and Konkowski [@his82]; their results are given by Eq. (\[E67\]). Inserting Eq. (\[E67\]) into Eq. (\[E65\]), and using Eqs. (\[E59\]-\[E61\]), we obtain the energy-momentum tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field in the adapted conformal Minkowski vacuum in our multiply connected de Sitter space $dS/B$. In static coordinates $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$, it is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm CM,ren}={\tilde{A}\over12\pi^2
r_0^4\left(1-r^2/ r_0^2\right)^2}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}
\right)-{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4}\delta_{\mu}^{~\nu},
\label{E71}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{2+\cosh {n\beta\over r_0}
\over\left(\cosh {n\beta\over r_0}-1\right)^2}.
\label{E72}\end{aligned}$$ This result is defined in region ${\cal R}$, but it can be extended to region ${\cal F}$ through the transformation in Eq. (\[E47\]), and can also be extended to region ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal P}$ through similar transformations. Similar to Misner space, this energy-momentum tensor diverges at the Cauchy horizon as $r\rightarrow r_0$ for any finite $\beta$; and the divergence is coordinate independent since $\langle T^{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm CM,ren}\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm
CM,ren}$ also diverges there. Though the conformal Minkowski vacuum is a good vacuum for simply connected de Sitter space [@bun78; @ber86], it (in the adapted version) is not self-consistent for the multiply connected de Sitter space $dS/B$. (That is, it does not solve the semiclassical Einstein’s equations.)
In the case of an eternal Schwarzschild black hole, there are the Boulware vacuum [@bou75] and the Hartle-Hawking vacuum [@har76]. The globally defined Hartle-Hawking vacuum bears essentially the same relationship to the Boulware vacuum as the Minkowski vacuum does to the Rindler vacuum [@sci81]. For the Boulware vacuum, the energy-momentum tensor diverges at the event horizon of the Schwarzschild black hole, which means that this state is [*not*]{} a good vacuum for the Schwarzschild black hole because, when one inserts this energy-momentum tensor back into Einstein’s equations, the back-reaction will seriously alter the Schwarzschild geometry near the event horizon. For the Hartle-Hawking vacuum, however, the energy-momentum tensor is finite everywhere and a static observer outside the horizon sees Hawking radiation [@can80]. People usually regard the Hartle-Hawking vacuum as the reasonable vacuum state for an eternal Schwarzschild black hole because, when its energy-momentum tensor is fed back into Einstein’s equations, the Schwarzschild geometry is only altered slightly [@yor85]. Therefore, in the case of Misner space, Li and Gott [@li97] have tried to find a vacuum which is also self-consistent and found that the adapted Rindler vacuum is such a vacuum if $b=2\pi$.
Here we also try to find a self-consistent vacuum for our multiply connected de Sitter space. Let us consider the adapted conformal Rindler vacuum in $dS/B$. The energy-momentum tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field in the adapted Rindler vacuum in Misner space is given by Eq. (\[E69\]). Inserting Eq. (\[E69\]) into Eq. (\[E65\]) and using Eqs. (\[E59\]-\[E61\]), we obtain the energy-momentum tensor for the adapted conformal Rindler vacuum of a conformally coupled scalar field in our multiply connected de Sitter space $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm CR,ren}={1\over1440\pi^2
r_0^4\left(1-r^2/ r_0^2\right)^2}\left[\left({2\pi r_0
\over\beta}\right)^4-1\right]
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}
\right)-{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4}\delta_{\mu}^{~\nu},
\label{E73}\end{aligned}$$ where the coordinate system is the static coordinate system $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$. Similarly, this result can also be analytically extended to the whole $dS/B$, though the static coordinates only cover region ${\cal R}$. We find that, if $$\begin{aligned}
\beta=2\pi r_0,
\label{E74}\end{aligned}$$ this energy-momentum tensor is regular on the whole space. \[Eq. (\[E74\]) corresponds to $b=2\pi$ via Eq. (\[E61\])\]. Otherwise both $\langle T_\mu^{~\nu}\rangle_{\rm CR,ren}$ and $\langle T^{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm CR,ren}\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle_{\rm
CR,ren}$ diverge as the Cauchy horizon is approached. For the case $\beta=2\pi r_0$, the energy-momentum tensor is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm CR,ren}=-{1\over960\pi^2 r_0^4}g_{ab},
\label{E75}\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as the energy-momentum tensor for the conformal Minkowski vacuum in the simply connected de Sitter space.
The Euclidean section of our multiply connected de Sitter space is a four-sphere $S^4$ embedded in a five dimensional flat Euclidean space with those points related by an azimuthal rotation with angle $\beta/r_0$ being identified. There are conical singularities unless $\beta/r_0=2\pi$. This may be regarded as a geometrical explanation of the self-consistent condition in (\[E74\]).
Similarly, our multiply connected de Sitter space solves the semiclassical Einstein’s equations with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and the energy-momentum tensor in Eq. (\[E75\]) (and thus it is self-consistent) if $r_0^2={3\over2\Lambda}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-{\Lambda\over 270\pi}}\right)$ (if $\Lambda=0$, we have the two solutions $r_0^2=1/360\pi$ and $r_0=\infty$ [@got82]).
Particle Detectors in the Multiply Connected de Sitter Space
------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that in the simply connected de Sitter space, an inertial particle detector perceives thermal radiation with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature \[Eq. (\[E32\])\] if the conformally coupled scalar field is in the conformal Minkowski vacuum [@gib77; @bir82]. Now we want to find what a particle detector perceives in the adapted conformal Rindler vacuum in our multiply connected de Sitter space.
The response function of the particle detector is still given by Eq. (\[E7\]). The Wightman function is obtained from the corresponding Hadamard function by Eq. (\[E26\]). The Hadamard function for the conformally coupled scalar field in multiply connected de Sitter space is related to that in Misner space via Eq. (\[E62\]) \[with $G(X,X^\prime)$ replaced by $G^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)$\]. The Hadamard function for the adapted Rindler vacuum in Misner space is given by Eq. (\[E78\]). Inserting Eq. (\[E78\]) \[as $\overline{G}_R^{(1)}$\] into Eq. (\[E62\]) and using Eqs. (\[E59\]-\[E61\]), we obtain the Hadamard function for the adapted conformal Rindler vacuum of the conformally coupled scalar field in our multiply connected de Sitter space $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)={1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{\gamma\over\sinh\gamma\sqrt{(1-r^2/ r_0^2)(1-{r^\prime}^2/ r_0^2)}
~\left[-(t-t^\prime+n\beta)^2+ r_0^2\gamma^2\right]},
\label{E79}\end{aligned}$$ where $X=(t,r,\theta,\phi)$, $X^\prime=(t^\prime,r^\prime,
\theta^\prime,\phi^\prime)$, and $\gamma$ is written in $(t,r,
\theta,\phi)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\gamma={1\over\sqrt{(1-r^2/ r_0^2)(1-{r^\prime}^2/ r_0^2)}}\left\{
1-{rr^\prime\over r_0^2}[\cos\theta\cos\theta^\prime+\sin\theta
\sin\theta^\prime\cos(\phi-\phi^\prime)]\right\}.
\label{E80}\end{aligned}$$ The Wightman function is obtained from Eq. (\[E79\]) via Eq. (\[E26\]). The Hadamard function given by Eq. (\[E79\]) and the Wightman function obtained from that are defined in region ${\cal R}$ in the multiply connected de Sitter space, but they can be analytically extended to region ${\cal F}$ via the transformation in Eq. (\[E47\]). However, it should be noted that as we make the continuation from ${\cal R}$ to ${\cal F}$, $\sqrt{(1-r^2/r_0^2)(1-{r^\prime}^2/r_0^2)}$ should be continued to be $-\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/r_0^2-1)(\tilde{t}^{\prime2}/r_0^2-1)}$ instead of $+\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/r_0^2-1)(\tilde{t}^{\prime2}/r_0^2-1)}$. This is because if we take $\sqrt{1-z^2}=i\sqrt{z^2-1}$, we should also take $\sqrt{1-{z^\prime}^2}=i\sqrt{{z^\prime}^2-1}$ (instead of $-i\sqrt{{z^\prime}^2-1}$) ($z$ and $z^\prime$ should be continued along the same path), thus $\sqrt{(1-z^2)({z^\prime}^2-1)}=
(i\sqrt{z^2-1}) (i\sqrt{{z^\prime}^2-1})=-\sqrt{(z^2-1)({z^\prime}^2-1)}$. Using similar transformations, the results can also be continued to regions ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal L}$ (we do not write them out because we do not use them here).
We consider particle detectors moving along three kinds of worldlines in our multiply connected de Sitter space:
[*1. A particle detector moving along a worldline with $r,\theta,\phi={\rm constants}$ in ${\cal R}$.*]{} In such a case, on the worldline of the particle detector, $\gamma$ is zero and the Hadamard function is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(\tau,\tau^\prime)&=&-{1\over2\pi^2(1-r^2/r_0^2)}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}{1\over(t-t^\prime+n\beta)^2}\nonumber\\
&=&-{1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}{1\over\left(\tau-\tau^\prime+n
\beta\sqrt{1-r^2/r_0^2}\right)^2},
\label{E81}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau=t\sqrt{1-r^2/r_0^2}$ is the proper time of the particle detector. The corresponding Wightman function obtained from Eq. (\[E26\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^+(\tau,\tau^\prime)
=-{1\over4\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}{1\over\left(\tau-\tau^\prime+n
\beta\sqrt{1-r^2/r_0^2}-i\epsilon\right)^2},
\label{E82}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal positive real number. Inserting it into Eq. (\[E7\]), obviously the integration over $\Delta\tau=\tau-\tau^\prime$ is zero since all poles of the integrand are in the upper-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$ while the integration contour is closed in the lower-half plane. Therefore the response function ${\cal F}(\Delta E)$ is zero and no particles are detected. All of these worldlines are accelerated, except for the one at $r=0$.
[*2. A particle detector moving along a geodesic with $l,\theta,\phi={\rm constant}$ in region ${\cal F}$.*]{} In this region the Hadamard function is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(X,X^\prime)=-{1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{\tilde{\gamma}\over\sinh\tilde{\gamma}\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/r_0^2-1)
(\tilde{t}^{\prime2}/r_0^2-1)}~
\left[-(l-l^\prime+n\beta)^2+ r_0^2\tilde{\gamma}^2\right]},
\label{E83}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\gamma}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\tilde{\gamma}={1\over\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/ r_0^2-1)({\tilde{t^
\prime}}^2/ r_0^2-1)}}\left\{
-1+{\tilde{t}\tilde{t}^\prime\over r_0^2}
\left[\cos\theta\cos\theta^\prime+\sin\theta
\sin\theta^\prime\cos(\phi-\phi^\prime)\right]\right\}.
\label{E84}\end{aligned}$$ \[Eq. (\[E83\]) and Eq. (\[E84\]) are obtained from Eq. (\[E79\]) and Eq. (\[E80\]) via the transformation in Eq. (\[E47\]) respectively.\] On the worldline of the particle detector, the Hadamard function is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(\tilde{t},\tilde{t}^\prime)=-
{1\over2\pi^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{\tilde{\gamma}\over\sinh\tilde{\gamma}\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/r_0^2-1)
(\tilde{t}^{\prime2}/r_0^2-1)}~
\left(-n^2\beta^2+ r_0^2\tilde{\gamma}^2\right)},
\label{E85}\end{aligned}$$ and $\cosh\tilde{\gamma}$ is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\tilde{\gamma}={\tilde{t}\tilde{t}^\prime/r_0^2-
1\over\sqrt{(\tilde{t}^2/ r_0^2-1)({\tilde{t^
\prime}}^2/ r_0^2-1)}}.
\label{E86}\end{aligned}$$ Using the proper time $\tau$ defined by Eq. (\[E49\]), on the worldline of the particle detector $\cosh\tilde{\gamma}$ and $G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\tilde{\gamma}={\cosh2T+\cosh\Delta\tau-2\over\cosh2T-\cosh\Delta\tau},
\label{E88} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(T,\Delta\tau)=
{1\over\pi^2r_0^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
{\tilde{\gamma}\over\sinh\tilde{\gamma}(\cosh2T-\cosh\Delta\tau)
(n^2b^2- \tilde{\gamma}^2)},
\label{E89}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau>0$, $\tau^\prime>0$, $\Delta\tau=(\tau-\tau^\prime)/r_0$, $T=(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2r_0$, and $b=\beta/r_0$. The Wightman function is equal to one half of the Hadamard function with $\Delta\tau$ replaced by $\Delta\tau-i\epsilon$ \[Eq. (\[E26\])\]. Thus the response function is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\Delta E)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{\cal F}_n(\Delta E),
\label{E90}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}_n(\Delta E)&=&{1\over2\pi^2 r_0^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}
dT\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\Delta\tau
e^{-i\Delta Er_0\Delta\tau}\times\nonumber\\
&&\left[{\tilde{\gamma}\over
\sinh\tilde{\gamma}~(\cosh2T-\cosh\Delta\tau)(n^2b^2-
\gamma^2)}\right]_{\Delta\tau\rightarrow\Delta\tau-i\epsilon}.
\label{E91}\end{aligned}$$ Now we consider the poles in the complex $\Delta\tau$ plane of the integrand in the integral of ${\cal F}_n(\Delta E)$. The poles are given by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\gamma=\pm nb.
\label{E92}\end{aligned}$$ (It is easy to check that $\cosh2T=\cosh\Delta\tau$ does not give any poles.) From Eq. (\[E92\]) and Eq. (\[E88\]), we have (we neglect the term $i\epsilon$, and at the end of the calculation we return it back to the expressions) $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh2T+\cosh\Delta\tau-2=\cosh nb ~(\cosh2T-\cosh\Delta\tau).
\label{E93}\end{aligned}$$ Solutions to Eq. (\[E93\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau=\Delta\tau_n+i2m\pi\equiv\Delta\tau_{nm},
\label{E94}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau_n=\pm{\rm Arccosh}{(\cosh nb-1)\cosh2T+2\over
\cosh nb+1}=\pm2{\rm Arcsinh}\left(\sinh T\tanh{nb\over2}\right),
\label{E95}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm Arccosh}z$ is the principal value of ${\rm arccosh}z$, and here it is real (similarly for ${\rm Arcsinh}z$). We need to check if all $\Delta\tau_{nm}$ are roots of Eq. (\[E92\]), because the number of roots might increase as we go from Eq. (\[E92\]) to Eq. (\[E93\]). \[E.g., for any integer $m$, $x_m=\pm2+im\pi$ solves the equation $\cosh(2x)=\cosh4$; but, only $x_0=+2$ solves the equation $2x=4$.\] $\Delta\tau_n$ is obviously a root of Eq. (\[E92\]). The question is: as $\Delta\tau$ goes from $\Delta\tau_n$ to $\Delta\tau_n+i2m\pi$, does Eq. (\[E88\]) give the same $\tilde{\gamma}$ which is a real value \[$\pm nb$; see Eq. (\[E92\])\]? (Remember that ${\rm arccosh}z$ is a multi-valued complex function.) To answer this question, let $\Delta\tau=\Delta\tau_n+i\theta$ (where $\theta$ is real). Then from Eq. (\[E88\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\gamma}&=&{\rm arccosh}{\cosh2T+\cosh\Delta\tau-
2\over\cosh2T-\cosh\Delta\tau}=\ln{\sinh T+
\sinh{\Delta\tau\over2}\over\sinh T-
\sinh{\Delta\tau\over2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\ln{\sinh T+
\sinh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}\cos{\theta\over2}+i\cosh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}
\sin{\theta\over2}\over\sinh T-
\sinh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}\cos{\theta\over2}-i\cosh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}
\sin{\theta\over2}}\equiv\ln{z_1\over z_2},
\label{E96}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used ${\rm arccosh}z=\ln(z+\sqrt{z^2-1})$. The real components of $z_1$ and $z_2$ are respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\Re (z_1)=\sinh T+\sinh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}\cos{\theta\over2},
\label{E97}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Re (z_2)=\sinh T-\sinh{\Delta\tau_n\over2}\cos{\theta\over2}.
\label{E98}\end{aligned}$$ By Eq. (\[E95\]), we find that $\Re(z_1)$ and $\Re(z_2)$ are always positive for any real $\theta$. This means that as $\Delta\tau$ goes from $\Delta\tau_n$ to $\Delta\tau_n+i2m\pi$, the arguments (the argument of a complex number $z=\vert z\vert
e^{i\alpha}$ is $\alpha$) of $z_1$ and $z_2$ do not change, neither does the argument of $z_1/z_2$. The value of $\tilde{\gamma}$ remains in the same branch of $\ln z$ as $\theta$ varies. Thus, for all $\Delta\tau_{nm}=\Delta\tau_n+i2m\pi$, we have $\tilde{\gamma}=\pm nb$ and Eq. (\[E92\]) is satisfied. Therefore all $\Delta\tau_{nm}$ in Eq. (\[E94\]) are poles.
The residues of the integrand in (\[E91\]) at poles $\Delta\tau_{nm}$ are (here $i\epsilon$ is returned to the expressions) $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\rm Res}(\Delta\tau=i2m\pi+i\epsilon,n=0)={iEr_0\over4\pi^2}
e^{2m\pi \Delta Er_0},
\label{E99}\\
&&{\rm Res}(\Delta\tau=\Delta\tau_n+i2m\pi+i\epsilon,n\not=0)=
-{1\over4\pi^2}
{e^{2m\pi \Delta Er_0-i\Delta Er_0\Delta\tau_n}\over(\cosh nb+1)
\sinh\Delta\tau_n}.
\label{E100}\end{aligned}$$ Then by the residue theorem (the contour for the integral is closed in the lower-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
{d{\cal F}_0\over dT}={r_0\over2\pi}{\Delta E\over
e^{2\pi \Delta Er_0}-1},
\label{E101}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{d{\cal F}_{n\not=0}\over
dT}={\sin(\Delta Er_0\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert)
\over\pi(\cosh nb+1)\sinh\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert}
~{1\over
e^{2\pi \Delta Er_0}-1}.
\label{E102}\end{aligned}$$ The $\sin(\Delta Er_0\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert)$ factor in Eq. (\[E102\]) indicates that the $n\not=0$ terms’ contribution can be both positive (absorption by the detector) and negative (emission from the detector). We see that the contribution of the $n=0$ term is just the Hawking radiation with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature $T_{\rm G-H}=1/2\pi r_0$ in the simply connected de Sitter space. The contribution of the $n\not=0$ terms is a kind of “grey-body” Hawking radiation: the temperature is $T_{\rm G-H}$, but its density or flux decreases as the universe expands ($\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert$ increases as the universe expands). The sum of all $n\not=0$ contributions is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\not=0}{d{\cal F}_n\over dT}={1\over\pi^2}{1\over
e^{2\pi r_0\Delta E}-1}\sum_{n\not=0}{\sin(\Delta Er_0\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert)
\over(\cosh nb+1)\sinh\vert\Delta\tau_n\vert}.
\label{E103}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of $b=2\pi$ (the self-consistent case), we have $\cosh nb\simeq \exp(\vert n\vert b)/2\gg1$ ($
n\not=0$) and thus $\Delta\tau_n\simeq\pm2T$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\not=0}{d{\cal F}_n\over dT}\simeq{1\over2\pi}
{A\over
e^{2\pi r_0\Delta E}-1}{\sin(2\Delta Er_0T)
\over\sinh2T},
\label{E104}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=4\sum_{n=1}^\infty (\cosh2n\pi+1)^{-1}\simeq0.015$. As $T\rightarrow\infty$, the contribution of all $n\not=0$ terms decreases exponentially to zero. Thus, at events far from the Cauchy horizon in ${\cal F}$, the particle detector perceives pure Hawking radiation given by the $n=0$ term. As $T\rightarrow0$ (near the Cauchy horizon), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\not=0}{d{\cal F}_n\over dT}\simeq{Ar_0\over2\pi}{\Delta E\over
e^{2\pi r_0 \Delta E}-1}.
\label{E105}\end{aligned}$$ This is a “grey-body” Hawking radiation with $A\simeq1.5\%$. Near the Cauchy horizon the total radiation is the sum of a pure Hawking radiation (given by the $n=0$ term) and a “grey-body” Hawking radiation (given by all $n\not=0$ terms). The total intensity of the radiation near the Cauchy horizon is a factor of $\simeq101.5\%$ that of regular Hawking radiation, but its spectrum is the same as the usual Hawking radiation.
[*3. A particle detector moving along a co-moving worldline in the steady-state coordinate system*]{}. Suppose the detector moves along the geodesic $\rho,\theta,\phi={\rm constants}$ (such a worldline is a timelike geodesic passing through ${\cal R}$ and into ${\cal F}$) where $\rho\equiv(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}$ and the proper time $\tau$ are related to the static radius $r$ by $$\begin{aligned}
r=-r_0\rho/\overline{\eta}=\rho e^{\tau/r_0}.
\label{E106}\end{aligned}$$ The Cauchy horizon is at $r=r_0$, or $\rho=-\overline{\eta}=r_0
e^{-\tau/r_0}$. On the worldline of the detector the Hadamard function is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\rm CR}^{(1)}(T,\Delta\tau)={1\over2\pi^2r_0^2}~
{\gamma\over2L\sinh{\Delta\tau\over2}}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty
{1\over\gamma^2-\left({t-t^\prime\over r_0}+n b\right)^2},
\label{E107}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\tau=(\tau-\tau^\prime)/r_0$, $T=(\tau+\tau^\prime)/2r_0$, $L=\rho e^T/r_0\equiv r(T)/r_0$, $\gamma$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\gamma={1-L^2\over\sqrt{1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau}},
\label{E108}\end{aligned}$$ and $t-t^\prime$ is related to $T$ and $\Delta\tau$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh{t-t^\prime\over r_0}={\cosh\Delta\tau
-L^2\over\sqrt{1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau}}.
\label{E109}\end{aligned}$$ By analytical continuation, Eqs. (\[E107\]-\[E109\]) hold in the whole region covered by the steady-state coordinates in de Sitter space. The Wightman function $G^+$ is equal to one half of $G^{(1)}$ with $\Delta\tau$ replaced by $\Delta\tau-i\epsilon$ \[Eq. (\[E26\])\]. The response function is ${\cal F}(\Delta E)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{\cal F}_n(\Delta E)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}_n(\Delta E)&=&{1\over4\pi^2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dT
\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\Delta\tau e^{-i\Delta Er_0\Delta\tau}\times
\nonumber\\
&&\left\{{\gamma\over2L\sinh{\Delta\tau\over2}\left[\gamma^2-
\left({t-t^\prime\over r_0}+n b\right)^2\right]}
\right\}_{\Delta\tau\rightarrow\Delta
\tau-i\epsilon}.
\label{E110}\end{aligned}$$ The poles of the integrand in the complex-$\Delta\tau$ plane are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{t-t^\prime\over r_0}+n b=\pm\gamma.
\label{E111}\end{aligned}$$ This together with Eq. (\[E108\]) and Eq. (\[E109\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
(\cosh\Delta\tau-L^2)\cosh n b+\sinh\Delta\tau\sinh n b
=1-L^2.
\label{E112}\end{aligned}$$ The roots of Eq. (\[E112\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau=\Delta\tau_n^\pm+i2m\pi\equiv\Delta\tau_{nm}^\pm,
\label{E113}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau_n^\pm=\ln\left(1+2\mu^2\pm2\mu\sqrt{1+\mu^2}\right)-n b,
\label{E114}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu\equiv\sinh(n b/2)$. By carefully checking $\Delta\tau_{nm}^\pm$ in Eq. (\[E113\]), as we did in case 2, we find that: (1) For $L<1$ (or $\rho e^T<r_0$, i.e., in region ${\cal R}$), only $\Delta
\tau_{n0}^\pm=\Delta\tau_n^\pm$ solve Eq. (\[E111\]); (2) for $L>1$ (or $\rho e^T>r_0$, i.e., in region ${\cal F}$), only $\Delta\tau_{nm}^+=\Delta\tau_n^++i2m\pi$ solve Eq. (\[E111\]). (Here it is assumed that $ b>\ln2$ and the self-consistent case with $b=2\pi$ obviously satisfies this condition.) All other $\Delta\tau$’s in Eq. (\[E113\]) are not roots of Eq. (\[E111\]), though they solve Eq. (\[E112\]). Therefore the poles are (where $i\epsilon$ is returned) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau=
\left\{\begin{array}{lr}
\Delta\tau_n^\pm+i\epsilon,&{\rm in}~~{\cal R};\\
\Delta\tau_n^++i2m\pi+i\epsilon,&{\rm in}~~{\cal F}.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{E115}\end{aligned}$$ Obviously in region ${\cal R}$ all poles are in the upper-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
{d{\cal F}\over dT}=0,
\label{E115a}\end{aligned}$$ when the particle detector is in region ${\cal R}$. So the particle detector sees nothing while it is in region ${\cal R}$.
In region ${\cal F}$, only the poles with $m<0$ are in the lower-half plane of complex $\Delta\tau$. The residues of the integrand at poles $\Delta^+_{nm}+i\epsilon$ are $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Res}(\Delta\tau=i2m\pi+i\epsilon,n=0)={ir_0\Delta E\over
4\pi^2}e^{2m\pi\Delta Er_0},
\label{E117}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\rm Res}(\Delta\tau=\Delta\tau_n^++i2m\pi+i\epsilon,n\not=0)
={1\over16\pi^2L\sinh{\Delta\tau_n^+\over2}}\times\nonumber\\
&&{\alpha_1(1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+)e^{2m\pi\Delta E
r_0-i\Delta E r_0\Delta\tau_n^+}\over
-\alpha_1L(L^2-1)\cosh{\Delta\tau_n^+\over2}
+(\alpha_2+n b)(L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+-1)},
\label{E118}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_1={\rm
Arccosh}{L^2-1\over\sqrt{1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+}}$ and $\alpha_2= {\rm Arccosh}{L^2-\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+\over
\sqrt{1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+}}$. By the residue theorem, we have that $d{\cal F}_0/dT$ has the same value as that in Eq. (\[E101\]), which represents Hawking radiation with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature; the contribution of all $n\not=0$ terms (note that $\Delta_n^+=-\Delta_{-n}^+$) is $$\begin{aligned}
&&{d\over dT}\sum_{n\not=0}{\cal F}_n={1\over4\pi^2(e^{2\pi
r_0\Delta E}-1)}\sum_{n=1}^\infty{\sin(\Delta
Er_0\Delta\tau_n^+)\over L\sinh
{\Delta\tau_n^+\over2}}\times\nonumber\\
&&{\alpha_1(1+L^4-2L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+)\over\alpha_1
L(L^2-1)\cosh{\Delta\tau_n^+\over2}
-(\alpha_2+nb)(L^2\cosh\Delta\tau_n^+-1)},
\label{E119}\end{aligned}$$ which represents a “grey-body” Hawking radiation. As $T\rightarrow\infty$ (or $L\rightarrow\infty$), ${d\over dT}\sum_{n\not=0}{\cal F}_n$ exponentially drops to zero; therefore, at events far from the Cauchy horizon in ${\cal F}$, the particle detector only perceives pure Hawking radiation (the same as that in case 2). As $L\rightarrow1$ (approaching the Cauchy horizon), we also have ${d\over dT}\sum_{n\not=0}{\cal F}_n\rightarrow0$. Thus as the Cauchy horizon is approached from the side of region ${\cal F}$, the particle detector comoving in the steady-state coordinate system perceives pure Hawking radiation with Gibbons-Hawking temperature.
From the above discussion, we find that in our multiply connected de Sitter space with the adapted Rindler vacuum, region ${\cal R}$ is cold (where the temperature is zero) but region ${\cal F}$ is hot (where the temperature is $T_{\rm G-H}$). Similarly, region ${\cal L}$ is cold but ${\cal P}$ is hot, the above results can be easily extended to these regions. This gives rise to an arrow of increasing entropy, from a cold region to a hot region (Fig. \[f5\]).
Classical Stability of the Cauchy Horizon and the Arrow of Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
In classical electromagnetic theory, it is well known that both the retarded potential $\phi_{\rm ret}$ and the advanced potential $\phi_{\rm adv}$ (and any part-retarded-and-part-advanced potential $a\phi_{\rm ret}+b\phi_{\rm adv}$ with $a+b=1$) are solutions of Maxwell’s equations. But from our experience, we know that all the electromagnetic perturbations we see are propagated only by the [*retarded*]{} potential. (For example, if at some time and some place, a light signal is emitted, it can only be received by a receiver at another place sometime [*later*]{}). This indicates that there is an [*arrow of time*]{} in the solutions of Maxwell’s equations, though Maxwell’s equations themselves are time-symmetric. This arrow of time is sometimes called the electromagnetic arrow of time, or the causal arrow of time. How this arrow of time arises is a mystery. Many people have tried to solve this problem by attributing it to a boundary condition of the Universe [@whe45; @gol62; @hog62; @hoy64] (for review of the arrows of time, see [@zeh92; @sch97]). In this subsection we argue that the principle of self-consistency [@nov83; @fri90a] naturally gives rise to an arrow of time in our multiply connected de Sitter space.
First let us consider the arrow of time in Misner space. Suppose at an event E in region F in Misner space \[by boost and translation, assume we have moved E to $(t=t_0,x=0,y=0,z=0)$\], a spherical pulse of electromagnetic wave is created. If the potential is retarded \[here “retarded” and “advanced” are defined relative to the direction of $(\partial/\partial t)^a$ ($t$ is the time coordinate in the global Cartesian coordinates of the covering space — Minkowski space)\], the pulse will propagate in the future direction as a light cone originating from E. At any point on the light cone, the energy-momentum tensor of the wave is $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}=\mu k^ak^b,
\label{E122}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu\equiv\mu(t)$ is a scalar function and $k^a=k^0(\partial/\partial
t)^a+k^1(\partial/\partial x)^a+k^2(\partial/\partial y)^a+
k^3(\partial/\partial z)^a$ is a null vector tangent to the light cone, and the energy density measured by an observer with four-velocity vector $(\partial/\partial t)^a$ (whose ordinary three-velocity is zero) is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=T_{ab}\left ({\partial\over\partial t}\right)^a\left({\partial\over\partial
t}\right)^b=\mu(k^0)^2.
\label{E124}\end{aligned}$$ (Thus $\mu$ measures the energy density of the electromagnetic wave.) By Einstein’s equations, the back-reaction of $T_{ab}$ on $R$ and $R_{ab}R^{ab}$ (where $R_{ab}$ is the Ricci tensor and $R=R_a^{~a}$ is the Ricci scalar curvature) is $\delta R\sim T_a^{~a}$, $\delta
(R_{ab}R^{ab})\sim T_{ab}T^{ab}$. The Riemann tensor can be decomposed as $R_{abcd}=C_{abcd}+Q_{abcd}$, where $C_{abcd}$ is the Weyl tensor and $Q_{abcd}$ is constructed entirely from the Ricci tensor $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{abcd}=g_{a[c}R_{d]b}-g_{b[c}R_{d]a}-{1\over3}Rg_{a[c}g_{d]b},
\label{wel}\end{aligned}$$ where square brackets denote antisymmetrization [@wal84]. The Weyl tensor describes the part of the curvature that is due to pure gravitational field, whereas the Ricci tensor describes the part that, according to Einstein’s equations, is directly due to the energy-momentum tensor of matter [@pen89]. Therefore, in some sense, the values of $T_a^{~a}$ and $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ determine the influence of matter fields on the stability of the background spacetime. An infinite $T_a^{~a}$ or $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ implies that the spacetime is unstable against this perturbation and a singularity may form; on the other hand, if $T_a^{~a}$ and $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ are finite, the spacetime may be stable against this perturbation. Self-consistent solutions should require that $T_a^{~a}$ and $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ do not blow up. If they did, the starting geometry — on the basis of which $T_a^{~a}$ and $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ were calculated — would be greatly perturbed and the $T_a^{~a}$ and $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ calculation itself would be invalid, and thus it would not be a self-consistent solution. For electromagnetic fields we always have $T_a^{~a}=0$, so we need only consider $T_{ab}T^{ab}$. For $T_{ab}$ in Eq. (\[E122\]), we also have $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}T_{ab}=0.
\label{E123}\end{aligned}$$ Thus significant perturbations (indicated by a non-vanishing $T_{ab}T^{ab}$) can only occur when the light cone “collides” with its images under the boost transformation. At any point $p$ on the intersection of the light cone $L$ and its $n$-th image $L_n$ (suppose $n>0$), the energy-momentum tensor is $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}=\mu k^ak^b+{\tilde \mu}{\tilde k}^a{\tilde k}^b,
\label{E125}\end{aligned}$$ where $k^a$ is the null vector tangent to the light cone $L$ at $p$, $\tilde{k}^a$ is the null vector tangent to the light cone $L_n$ at $p$; $\mu$ measures the energy density in light cone $L$, $\tilde{\mu}$ measures the energy density in light cone $L_n$. From Eq. (\[E125\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}T_{ab}=[2\mu\tilde{\mu}(k^a\tilde{k}_a)^2]_p,
\label{E126}\end{aligned}$$ the index $p$ denotes that the quantity is evaluated at the point $p$.
Since the point $p$ on $L_n$ is obtained from some point $p^\prime$ on $L$ by boost transformation, $p$ and $p^\prime$ must have the same timelike separation from the origin $(t=0,x=0,y=0,z=0)$ (remember that $p$ is on the intersection of $L$ and $L_n$, see Fig. \[f6\]a). If we take the $\tilde{k}^a$ at $p$ being transported from the ${k^\prime}^a$ at $p^\prime$, we have $\tilde{\mu}_{p\in L_n}=\mu_{p^\prime\in
L}$. Because the light cone $L$ is spherically symmetric, we have $t_p$=$t_{p^\prime}$. Therefore we have $\mu_{p^\prime\in
L} =\mu_{p\in L}$ and at $p$ we have $\tilde{\mu}=\mu$. Under the boost transformation $B$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{k}^a)_p&=&B[({k^\prime}^a)_{p^\prime}]={k^\prime}^0\left[\cosh
nb~\left({\partial\over\partial t}\right)^a+\sinh nb~\left(
{\partial\over\partial x}\right)^a\right]+
\nonumber\\
&&{k^\prime}^1\left[\cosh
nb~\left({\partial\over\partial x}\right)^a+\sinh
nb~\left({\partial\over\partial t}\right)^a\right]+
{k^\prime}^2\left({\partial\over\partial y}\right)^a+{k^\prime}^3\left({\partial
\over\partial z}\right)^a,
\label{E127}\end{aligned}$$ where $({k^\prime}^a)_{p^\prime}={k^\prime}^0(\partial/\partial
t)^a+{k^\prime}^1(\partial/\partial x)^a+{k^\prime}^2(\partial/\partial y)^a+
{k^\prime}^3(\partial/\partial z)^a$. Due to the spherical symmetry, we have ${k^\prime}^0=k^0$. Define $(r,\theta,\phi)$ by $x=r\cos\theta$, $y=r\sin\theta\cos\phi$, and $z=r\sin\theta\sin\phi$. Then we have $r^\prime=r$, $\theta^\prime=\pi-\theta$, $\phi^\prime=\phi$ (“$\prime$” means “at $p^\prime$”), and $$\begin{aligned}
k^1=k^0\cos\theta,~~~k^2=k^0\sin\theta\cos\phi,
~~~k^3=k^0\sin\theta\sin\phi,
\label{E128}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&{k^\prime}^1={k^\prime}^0\cos\theta^\prime=-k^0\cos\theta=-k^1,
~~~{k^\prime}^2={k^\prime}^0\sin\theta^\prime\cos\phi^\prime=
k^0\sin\theta\cos\phi=k^2, \nonumber\\
&&{k^\prime}^3={k^\prime}^0\sin\theta^\prime\sin\phi^\prime=
k^0\sin\theta\sin\phi=k^3.
\label{E129}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
(k^a\tilde{k}_a)_p=(k^0)^2[-(1+\cos^2\theta)\cosh nb+
2\cos\theta\sinh nb+\sin^2\theta],
\label{E130}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}T_{ab}=2\rho^2(t_p)[-(1+\cos^2\theta)\cosh nb+
2\cos\theta\sinh nb+\sin^2\theta]^2.
\label{E131}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to find that $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ reaches a maximum at $\theta=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}=8\rho^2(t_p)e^{-2nb},
\label{E132}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(t_p)$ is the energy density from $L$ as measured in a frame at event $p$ with ordinary velocity $v_x=v_y=v_z=0$. $(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}$ is always finite \[less than $8\rho^2(t_p)$\] since $n$ is positive. If $n<0$ we have $(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}=
8\rho^2(t_p)e^{2nb}<8\rho^2(t_p)$. So if we have a retarded potential in region F, even considering the infinite number of images, $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ is always finite.
If the potential is advanced however, the pulse wave will propagate backward in the past direction as a light cone originating from E. And, within a finite time, it will hit the Cauchy horizon. By an analysis similar to the above arguments, we find that in this case $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}T_{ab}=2\rho^2(t_p)[(1+\cos^2\theta)\cosh nb
+2\cos\theta\sinh nb-\sin^2\theta]^2,
\label{E133}\end{aligned}$$ which reaches a maximum at $\theta=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}=8\rho^2(t_p)e^{2\vert n\vert b}.
\label{E134}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho(t_p)$ is finite (the past light cone from E at $\theta=0$ hits the Cauchy horizon in a finite affine distance), thus $(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\pm\infty$. As $n\rightarrow\pm\infty$, $L$ and $L_n$ collide at the Cauchy horizon \[as $n\rightarrow\pm\infty$ the point $p(\theta=0)$ approaches the Cauchy horizon\] (see Fig. \[f6\]c). Thus $(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}$ diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached and the Cauchy horizon may be destroyed. Therefore the advanced potential is [*not*]{} self-consistent in region F of Misner space. It is easy to see that any part-retarded-and-part-advanced potential is also [*not*]{} self-consistent in F. The [*only*]{} self-consistent potential in region F is the [*retarded*]{} potential.
Similarly, in region P the only self-consistent potential is the [*advanced*]{} potential (see Fig. \[f6\]a). \[Note that here “advanced” and “retarded” are defined relative to the global time direction in Minkowski spacetime (the covering space). An observer in P will regard it as “retarded” relative to his own time direction.\]
In region R, by boost and translation, we can always move the event E (where a spherical pulse of electromagnetic waves is emitted) to $(t=0,x=x_0,y=0,z=0)$. Either pure retarded or pure advanced potentials are self-consistent in this region because the light cone never “collides” with the images of itself and thus we always have $T^{ab}T_{ab}=0$ (see Fig. \[f6\]b). But, for a part-retarded-and-part-advanced potential, the retarded light cone ($L^+$) propagates forward while the advanced light cone ($L^-$) propagates backward, both originating from E. The forward part of the light cone will collide with images of the backward part of the light cone and [*vice versa*]{} (see Fig. \[f6\]d). We find that at a point $p$ on the intersection of $L^+$ and $L^-_n$ (or $L^-$ and $L^+_n$) $$\begin{aligned}
T^{ab}T_{ab}=2\rho(t)\rho(-t)[(1+\cos^2\theta)\cosh nb-
2\cos\theta\sinh nb+\sin^2\theta]^2,
\label{E135}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(t)$ is the energy density from $L^+$ observed in a frame on $L^+$ with time coordinate $t$ and with ordinary velocity $v_x=v_y=v_z=0$ and $\rho(-t)$ is the energy density from $L^-$ seen in a frame on $L^-$ with time coordinate $-t$ and with ordinary velocity $v_x=v_y=v_z=0$. $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ reaches a maximum at $\theta=\pi$, and $$\begin{aligned}
(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}=8\rho(t)\rho(-t)e^{2\vert n\vert b},
\label{E136}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ is the global time coordinate in the covering Minkowski space. As $p$ approaches the Cauchy horizon, where $n\rightarrow\pm\infty$, $\rho(t)$ and $\rho(-t)$ are both finite, since in the $\theta=\pi$ direction the future and past light cones of E both hit the Cauchy horizon in a finite affine distance. Thus $(T^{ab}T_{ab})_{\max}\rightarrow\infty$ as $p$ approaches the Cauchy horizon (where $n\rightarrow\pm\infty$). Therefore in region R both the retarded and the advanced potential are self-consistent, but the part-retarded-and-part-advanced potential is [*not*]{} self-consistent. This conclusion also holds for region L. Furthermore, there must be a correlation between time arrows in region L and region R: if we choose the retarded potential in R, we must choose the advanced potential in L (see Fig. \[f6\]b); if we choose the advanced potential in R, we must choose the retarded potential in L. Otherwise the collision of light cones from R and light cones from L will destroy the Cauchy horizon.
As another treatment for perturbations in Misner space, consider that at an event E in region F two photons are created [@mis69] \[we choose E to be at $(t=t_0,x=0,y=0,z=0)$ as before\]. One photon runs to the right along the $+x$ direction, the other photon runs to the left along the $-x$ direction. They have the same frequency (thus the same energy). The tangent vector of the null geodesic of the right-moving photon is chosen to be $_rk^a={q\over v}
({\partial\over\partial u})^a\equiv({\partial\over\partial\lambda_r})^a$, where $\lambda_r$ is an affine parameter of the geodesic, $q$ is a constant and $u=t+x$, $v=t-x$. The tangent vector of the null geodesic of the left-moving photon is chosen to be $_lk^a={q\over u}
({\partial\over\partial v})^a\equiv({\partial\over\partial\lambda_l})^a$, where $\lambda_l$ is an affine parameter of that geodesic. The null vectors $_rk^a$ and $_lk^a$ are invariant under boost transformations. At any point where a photon with null wave-vector $k^a$ is passing by, the frequency of the photon measured in a frame of reference passing by the same point with the four-velocity $v^a$ is $\omega=-k^av_a$. If $v^a=(\partial/\partial t)^a$ (i.e., the frame of reference has ordinary three-velocity $v_x=v_y=v_z=0$) and $k^a=~_rk^a$ or $_lk^a$, we have $\omega_r=\omega_l=q/2t_0
\equiv\omega_0$ (thus $q$ measures the frequency of the photon). At any point where the $n$-th image of the right-moving (left-moving) photon is passing by, using the boost transformation we can always find a frame of reference in which the frequency of the photon is $\omega_0$. But at a point $p$ where the right-moving (left-moving) photon passes the $n$-th image of the left-moving (right-moving) photon, we cannot find a frame of reference such that the two “colliding” photons both have frequency $\omega_0$. In such a case we should analyze it in the center-of-momentum frame. The four-velocity of the center-of-momentum frame is $v^a=\gamma(_rk^a+~_lk^a)$ where $\gamma^2=-
[(_rk^a+~_lk^a)
(_rk_a+~_lk_a)]^{-1}=uv/q^2=\tilde{\eta}^2/q^2$ where $\tilde{\eta}=(t^2-x^2)^{1/2}$ is the proper time separation of $p$ from the origin $(t=0,x=0,y=0,z=0)$. Therefore the total energy of the two oppositely directed photons in the center-of-momentum frame is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}=\omega_1+\omega_2=-_rk^av_a-~_lk^av_a=
{1\over\gamma}={2t_0\over\tilde{\eta}}\omega_0.
\label{E137}\end{aligned}$$ (For all other frames the total energy would be greater.) If the potential is retarded, so photons move in the future direction, all points where photons and their images “collide” are in the future of the hypersurface $t^2-x^2=t_0^2$. Therefore we have $\tilde{\eta}\geq\tilde{\eta}_0=t_0$ and ${\cal E}\leq2\omega_0$, so the total energy in the center-of-momentum frame is always bounded. But, if the potential is advanced, photons move in the past direction; thus all points where photons and oppositely directed image photons “collide” are in the past of the hypersurface $t^2-x^2=t_0^2$. In particular, the right-moving (left-moving) photon collides with the $\infty$-th ($-\infty$-th) image of the left-moving (right-moving) photon at the Cauchy horizon, where $\tilde{\eta}=0$ and thus ${\cal E}\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, the Cauchy horizon may be destroyed by these photon pairs. Therefore in agreement with our earlier argument, the advanced potential is [*not*]{} self-consistent in region F. The [*retarded*]{} potential is self-consistent in region F. Similarly, the [*advanced*]{} potential is self-consistent in region P. In region R and region L, both the retarded potential and the advanced potential are self-consistent, because the photons and their images will not collide with each other and at any point a photon is passing by we can always find a frame for whom the frequency of this photon is $\omega_0$. And, the potentials in region R and region L must be correlated in the following way: If the potential in R is retarded, the potential in L must be advanced; if the potential in R is advanced, the potential in L must be retarded (we would call them “anti-correlated”). Otherwise the photons from L and photons from R passing in opposite directions would be measured to have infinite energy in center-of-momentum frames as the Cauchy horizon is approached and this may similarly destroy the Cauchy horizon. These conclusions are consistent with those obtained from the analysis of the perturbation of a pulse wave discussed above.
Our multiply connected de Sitter space is conformally related to Misner space via Eqs. (\[E58\]-\[E61\]). Because light cones and chronological relations are conformally invariant [@sac77] (thus regions ${\cal F}$, ${\cal P}$, ${\cal R}$, and ${\cal L}$ in multiply connected de Sitter space correspond respectively to regions F, P, R, and L in Misner space under the conformal map, as discussed in section \[IX.B\]), Maxwell’s equations are also conformally invariant [@wal84; @sac77], so it is easy to generalize the results from Misner space to our multiply connected de Sitter space. Under the conformal transformation $g_{ab}\rightarrow\Omega^2g_{ab}$, the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is transformed as $T_a^{~b}\rightarrow\Omega^{-4}
T_a^{~b}$ [@wal84]. Thus $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is transformed as $T^{ab}T_{ab}\rightarrow\Omega^{-8} T^{ab}T_{ab}$. From the above discussion of $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ in Misner space, we know that $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is zero everywhere except at the intersection of two light cones. Thus, in multiply connected de Sitters pace, $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is also zero everywhere except at the intersection of two light cones. At the intersection of two light cones in multiply connected de Sitter space, it is easy to show that the maximum value of $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is at the points with $\theta=0$ or $\theta=\pi$ on the intersection. From Eq. (\[E60\]) and Eq. (\[E60a\]) we find that for $\theta=0$ or $\theta=\pi$, $\Omega^2$ is non-zero except at the points with $\theta=0$ on the Cauchy horizon (where $r=r_0$ or $\tilde{t}=r_0$). Also because $\Omega^2$ is finite everywhere on the Cauchy horizon (i.e. it is never infinite), we have that: (1) if $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ diverges on the Cauchy horizon in Misner space, the corresponding $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ also diverges on the Cauchy horizon in our multiply connected de Sitter space; (2) if $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is finite in some region (except at the Cauchy horizon) in Misner space, the corresponding $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is also finite in the corresponding region (not at the Cauchy horizon) in the multiply connected de Sitter space; (3) if $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is zero in some region (not a single point) in Misner space, the corresponding $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is also zero in the corresponding region in the multiply connected de Sitter space. Under the conformal transformation $g_{ab}\rightarrow\Omega^2g_{ab}$, the affine parameter of a null geodesic is transformed as $\lambda\rightarrow\tilde{\lambda}:
d\tilde{\lambda}/d\lambda=C\Omega^2$ where $C$ is a constant [@wal84] and thus the null vector $k^a=(\partial/\partial\lambda)^a$ is transformed as $k^a\rightarrow C^{-1}\Omega^{-2}k^a$. Then $\gamma=[-
(_rk^a+~_lk^a)
(_rk_a+~_lk_a)]^{-1/2}$ is transformed as $\gamma\rightarrow
C\Omega\gamma$ and the total energy of the photon pairs in the center-of-momentum frame is transformed as ${\cal E}\rightarrow
C^{-1}\Omega^{-1}{\cal E}$ and the constant $C^{-1}$ can be absorbed into $\omega_0$. Therefore, we can transplant the above results for Misner space directly to our multiply connected de Sitter space: [*In region ${\cal F}$ the only self-consistent potential is the retarded potential; in region ${\cal P}$ the only self-consistent potential is the advanced potential; in regions ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal L}$ both the retarded potential and the advanced potential are self-consistent, but they must be anti-correlated*]{} (Fig. \[f6\]).
The Cauchy horizon [@haw73] separating a region with CTCs from that without closed causal curves is also called a chronology horizon [@tho93]. A chronology horizon is called a [*future*]{} chronology horizon if the region with CTCs lies to the future of the region without closed causal curves; a chronology horizon is called a [*past*]{} chronology horizon if the region with CTCs is in the past of the region without closed causal curves. It is generally believed that a future chronology horizon is classically unstable unless there is some diverging effect near the horizon [@tho93; @li97]. The argument says that a wave packet propagating in the future direction in this spacetime will pile up on the future chronology horizon and destroy the horizon due to the effect of the infinite blue-shift of the frequency (and thus the energy) seen by a timelike observer near a closed null geodesic on the horizon [@mis69; @tho93]. But if there is some diverging mechanism (like the diverging effect of a wormhole in a spacetime with CTCs constructed from a wormhole [@mor88]) near the horizon, the amplitude of the wave packet will decrease with time due to this mechanism, and this may cancel the effect of the blue-shift of the frequency, making the energy finite and thus rendering the future chronology horizon classically stable. Unfortunately, in our multiply connected de Sitter spacetime (as also in Misner space) there is no such diverging mechanism. A light ray propagating in de Sitter space will focus rather than diverge. This can be seen from the focusing equation [@mis73] $$\begin{aligned}
{d^2{\cal A}^{1/2}\over d\lambda^2}=-\left(\sigma^2+{1\over2}R_{ab}
k^ak^b\right){\cal A}^{1/2},
\label{E121}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal A}$ is the cross-sectional area of the bundle of rays, $\lambda$ is the affine parameter along the central ray, the null vector $k^a$ is $k^a=(\partial/\partial\lambda)^a$, and $\sigma$ is the magnitude of the shear of the rays. For de Sitter space we have $R_{ab}k^ak^b=\Lambda g_{ab}k^ak^b=0$ and thus we have ${d^2{\cal A}^{1/2}\over
d\lambda^2}\leq0$, so the ray will never diverge. (In fact this always holds if the spacetime satisfies either the weak energy condition or the strong energy condition and it is called the focusing theorem [@mis73].) Hawking [@haw92b] has given a general proof along the above lines that any [*future*]{} chronology horizon is classically unstable unless light rays are diverging when they propagate near the chronology horizon. You could cause this instability by shaking an electron in the vicinity of the future chronology horizon. The retarded wave would then propagate to the future causing the instability.
However, in Hawking’s proof [@haw92b], if we replace a future chronology horizon with a [*past*]{} chronology horizon, then the proof breaks down because, in such a case, a wave packet propagating toward the future near the past chronology horizon will suffer a red-shift instead of a blue-shift. Therefore a [*past*]{} chronology horizon, according to Hawking’s argument, is classically stable in a world with retarded potentials. If the universe started with a region of CTCs, but there are no CTCs now, that early region of CTCs would be bounded to the future by a past chronology horizon, and that horizon would be classically stable in a world with retarded potentials — which is what we want. In our multiply connected de Sitter space, this is realized, since the arrow of time in region ${\cal F}$ is in the future direction and the arrow of time in region ${\cal P}$ is in the past direction \[here “future” and “past” are defined globally by the direction of $(\partial/\partial\tau)^a$, where $\tau$ is the time coordinate in the global coordinate system $(\tau,\chi,\theta,\phi)$ of the de Sitter covering space\]. ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal R}$ can have retarded potentials, while ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal L}$ have advanced potentials, as we have noted. In this case the Cauchy horizons separating ${\cal
F}$ from ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal P}$ from ${\cal L}$ are classically stable, as indicated by our detailed study of $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ as these Cauchy horizons are approached. What about the Cauchy horizons separating ${\cal P}$ from ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal F}$ from ${\cal L}$? In region ${\cal P}$, the potentials are advanced, so Hawking’s instability does not arise as one approaches the Cauchy horizon separating it from ${\cal R}$. In region ${\cal R}$, the potentials are retarded, so by Hawking’s argument, one might think that there would be an instability as the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal R}$ from ${\cal P}$ is approached from the ${\cal R}$ side. But, as we have shown, with retarded potentials in ${\cal R}$, $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ does not diverge as the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal R}$ from ${\cal P}$ is approached from the ${\cal R}$ side, indicating no instability. Why? Because one can always find frames where the passing photon energies are bounded as the Cauchy horizon is approached. Hawking’s argument works only if one can pick a particular frame like the frame of a timelike observer crossing the Cauchy horizons and observe the blow up of the energy in that frame. (Thus Hawking’s approach is observer-dependent, while our approach with $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ is observer-independent.) Hawking’s timelike observer would be killed by these photons. But, as we have shown, ${\cal R}$ is in a pure vacuum state in our model, so there are no timelike observers in this region, and no preferred frame. If there were timelike particles of positive mass crossing from ${\cal P}$ to ${\cal R}$ through the Cauchy horizon, we have shown (Li and Gott [@li97]) that these would cause a classical instability; but there are none. There are, as we shall show in the next subsection, no real particles in regions ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal R}$ (because these are vacuum states) and no real particles in region ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal P}$ until the vacuum state there decays by forming bubbles at a timelike separation $|\tau|>\tau_0$ from the origin ($\tau_0$ will be given in the next subsection). Thus, there are no particles crossing the Cauchy horizons separating ${\cal P}$ from ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal F}$ form ${\cal L}$. Thus, there is no instability caused by particles crossing the Cauchy horizons; and since there are no timelike observers in region ${\cal R}$ to be hit by photons as the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal R}$ from ${\cal
P}$ is approached, there is no instability, as indicated by the fact $T^{ab}T_{ab}$ does not blow up as that Cauchy horizon is approached. As indicated in Fig. \[f4\]b, region ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ is one causally connected region which can be pictured as partially bounded to the future by the future light cone of an event E$^\prime$ and bounded to the past by the future light cone of an event E; but E and E$^\prime$ are identified by the action of the boost, so these two light cones are identified, creating a periodic boundary condition for region ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$. As our treatment using $T_{ab}T^{ab}$ with images indicates, retarded photons created in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ cause no instability. Particles with timelike worldlines crossing the Cauchy horizons separating ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ from ${\cal P}+{\cal
L}$ would cause instability by crossing an infinite number of times between the future light cones of E and E$^\prime$, thus making an infinite number of passages through the region ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ (also ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$) shown in Fig. \[f4\]b. However, as we have shown, there should be no such particles with timelike worldlines crossing the Cauchy horizons separating ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ from ${\cal P}+{\cal
L}$, and no photons crossing these horizons either, since the potentials in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ are retarded, while the potentials in ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ are advanced. Thus, we expect ${\cal F}+{\cal
R}$ and ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ to both be stable, and causally disconnected from each other. (See further discussion in the next subsection).
Thus, the principle of self-consistency [@nov83; @fri90a] produces classical stability of the Cauchy horizons and naturally gives rise to an arrow of time in our model of the Universe.
Bubble Formation in the Multiply Connected de Sitter Space
----------------------------------------------------------
From the above discussion we find that in the multiply connected de Sitter space region ${\cal F}$ and region ${\cal P}$ are causally independent in physics: the self-consistent potential in ${\cal F}$ is the retarded potential, while the self-consistent potential in ${\cal
P}$ is the advanced potential, thus an event in ${\cal F}$ can never influence an event in ${\cal P}$, and [*vice versa*]{}. ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal P}$ are physically disconnected though they are mathematically connected. If we choose the potential in ${\cal R}$ to be retarded, then the potential in ${\cal L}$ must be advanced. (Note that here “advanced” and “retarded” are defined relative to the global time direction in de Sitter space — the covering space of our multiply connected de Sitter space.) Then region ${\cal
F}+{\cal R}$ (including the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal F}$ from ${\cal R}$) forms a causal unit, and region ${\cal
P}+{\cal L}$ (including the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal P}$ from ${\cal L}$) forms another causal unit. (See Fig. 4b, where the two null surfaces partially bounding the grey ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ region to the past and future are identified. Similarly for the null surfaces partially bounding the ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ region.) An event in ${\cal
F}+{\cal R}$ and an event in ${\cal
P}+{\cal L}$ are always causally independent in physics: they can never physically influence each other though they may be mathematically connected by some causal curves (null curves or timelike curves). Though ${\cal
F}+{\cal R}$ and ${\cal
P}+{\cal L}$ are connected in mathematics, they are disconnected in physics. They are separated by a Cauchy horizon. When we consider physics in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$, we can completely forget region ${\cal
P}+{\cal L}$ (and [*vice versa*]{}). Though in such a case the Cauchy horizon separating ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ from ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ is a null spacetime boundary, we do not need any boundary condition on it because the topological multi-connectivity in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ has already given rise to a periodic boundary condition (which is a kind of self-consistent boundary condition). (In Fig. 4b this is shown by the fact that the null curves partially bounding ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ to the past and future are identified.) This periodic boundary condition (the self-consistent condition) is sufficient to fix the solutions of the universe. For example, in our multiply connected de Sitter space model, the stability of the Cauchy horizon requires that the regions with CTCs (${\cal R}$ and ${\cal L}$) must be confined in the past and in these regions all quantum fields must be in vacuum states (as we have already remarked, the appearance of any real particles there seems to destroy the Cauchy horizon [@li97]). This gives rise to an arrow of time and an arrow of entropy in this model.
${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ is a Hausdorff manifold with a null boundary, and thus ${\cal
F}+{\cal R}$ is geodesically incomplete to the past. But, the geodesic incompleteness of ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ may [*not*]{} be important in physics because in the inflationary scenario all real particles are created during the reheating process after inflation within bubbles created in region ${\cal F}$ and these particles emit only retarded photons which never run off the spacetime because here the geodesic incompleteness takes place only in the past direction. On the other hand, we can smoothly extend ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ to ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ so that the total multiply connected de Sitter space $dS/B$ is geodesically complete but at the price that it is not a manifold at a two-sphere (section \[IX.A\]). This model describes two physically disconnected but mathematically connected universes. \[The analogy between the causal structures in region ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ and region ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ might motivate us to identify antipodal points in our multiply connected de Sitter space, as we did for the simply connected de Sitter space (section \[VIII\]). The spacetime so obtained is a Hausdorff manifold everywhere. It is geodesically complete but not time orientable. For computing the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization, we must take into account the images of antipodal points in addition to the images produced by the boost transformation. Further research is needed to find a self-consistent vacuum for this spacetime.\]
Now we consider formation of bubbles in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ in multiply connected de Sitter space. \[The results (and the arguments for ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ in the previous paragraph) also apply to region ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$, except that while in ${\cal F}+{\cal R}$ bubbles expand in the future direction, in ${\cal P}+{\cal L}$ they expand in the past direction; here “future” and “past” are defined with respect to $(\partial/\partial\tau)^a$ where $\tau$ is the time coordinate in the global coordinates of de Sitter space.\] Region ${\cal R}$ (for its fundamental cell see Fig. \[f4\]) which is multiply connected has a finite four-volume $V_{\rm I}={4\over3}\pi br_0^4$ (here $b=\beta/r_0$, $\beta$ is the de Sitter boost parameter). If the probability of forming a bubble per volume $r_0^4$ in de Sitter space is $\epsilon$, then the total probability of forming a bubble in $V_{\rm I}$ is $P_{\rm I}={4\over3}\pi b\epsilon$.
Region ${\cal F}$ (its fundamental cell is shown in Fig. \[f4\]) has an infinite four-volume and thus there should be an infinite number of bubble universes formed [@got82; @got86]. The metric in region ${\cal F}$ is given by Eq. (\[E50\]) with $0<\tau<\infty$, $0\leq l<\beta$, $0<\theta<\pi$, and $0\leq\phi<2\pi$ (see Fig. 4a); it is multiply connected (periodic in $l$ with period $\beta$). In order that the inflation proceeds and the bubbles (which expand to the future — as expected with the retarded potential in region ${\cal F}$) do not percolate, it is required that $\epsilon<\epsilon_{\rm cr}$ where $5.8\times 10^{-9}<\epsilon_{\rm cr}<0.24$ [@gut83]. Gott and Statler [@got84] showed that in order that we on earth today should not have witnessed another bubble colliding with ours within our past light cone (with $95\%$ confidence) $\epsilon$ must be less than $7.60\times10^{-4}$ for $\Omega=0.1$ (for $\Omega=0.4$ Gott [@got97] found $\epsilon<0.01$). In our multiply connected de Sitter space, for inflation to proceed, there should be the additional requirement that bubbles do not collide with images of themselves (producing percolation). A necessary condition for a bubble formed in ${\cal F}$ not to collide with itself is that from time $\tau$ when the bubble forms to future infinity ($\tau\rightarrow\infty$) a light signal moving along the $l$ direction \[where $\tau$ and $l$ are defined in Eq. (\[E47\]) and Eq. (\[E49\])\] propagates a co-moving distance less than $\beta/2$, which leads to the condition that $\tau>\tau_0\equiv r_0\ln{e^{b/2}+1\over e^{b/2}-1}$. In fact this is also a sufficient condition, which can be shown by the conformal mapping between region ${\cal F}$ in the multiply connected de Sitter space and region F-O in Misner space defined by Eqs. (\[E59a\]-\[E61\]). If the collision of two light cones in F occurs beyond the hyperbola $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=1~(t>0)$ in Misner space (i.e., in the region O), the corresponding two light cones (and thus the bubbles formed inside these light cones) in ${\cal F}$ will never collide because $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=1$ in F corresponds to $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ in ${\cal F}$. It is easy to show that the condition for a light cone not to collide with its images within F-O is that $e^b(t^2-x^2)-y^2-z^2>1$, where $(t,x,y,z)$ is the event where the light cone originates. By Eq. (\[E59a\]) this condition corresponds to $e^b[({{\tilde t}\over r_0})^2-1]>1+({{\tilde t}\over
r_0})^2-2{{\tilde t}\over r_0}\cos\theta$. Since ${\tilde t}>r_0$ and $-1\leq\cos\theta\leq1$, a [*sufficient*]{} condition is $e^b[({{\tilde t}\over r_0})^2-1]>1+({{\tilde t}\over
r_0})^2+2{{\tilde t}\over r_0}$, i.e. $e^b({{\tilde t}\over r_0}-1)>
{{\tilde t}\over r_0}+1$ which is equivalent to $\tau>\tau_0=
r_0\ln{e^{b/2}+1\over e^{b/2}-1}$. Therefore all bubbles formed after the epoch $\tau_0$ in ${\cal F}$ in the multiply connected de Sitter space will never collide with themselves. The $0<\tau<\tau_0$ part of the fundamental cell in ${\cal F}$ has a finite four-volume $V_{\rm II}=V_{\rm I}(\cosh^3{\tau_0\over r_0}-1)$. The total probability of forming a bubble in $V_{\rm II}$ is $P_{\rm II}={4\over3}\pi b\epsilon(
\cosh^3{\tau_0\over r_0}-1)$. For $b=2\pi$ we have $\tau_0\simeq0.086r_0$, $V_{\rm II}\simeq0.011V_{\rm II}$, and thus $P_{\rm II}\simeq0.011P_{\rm I}$.
For the case of $b=2\pi$, in order that there be less than a $5\%$ chance that a bubble forms in $V_{\rm I}$ (and thus less than $0.05\%$ chance in $V_{\rm II}$), $\epsilon$ should be less than $2\times10^{-3}$. This should be no problem because we expect that this tunneling probability $\epsilon$ should be exponentially small. Thus it would not be surprising to find region ${\cal R}$ and region ${\cal F}$ for epochs $0<\tau<\tau_0=0.086r_0$ clear of bubble formation events (and clear of real particles), which is all we require.
Also note that there may be two epochs of inflation, one at the Planck scale caused by $\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm
ren}=-g_{ab}/960\pi^2r_0^4$ \[Eq. (\[E75\])\] which later decays in region ${\cal F}$ at $\tau\gg\tau_0$ into an inflationary metastable state at the GUT scale produced by a potential $V(\phi)$, which, still later, forms bubble universes.
Baby Universe Models
====================
Inflationary universes can lead to the formation of baby universes in several different scenarios. If one of these baby universes simply turns out to be the original universe that one started out with, we have a multiply connected solution in many ways similar to our multiply connected de Sitter space. There would be a multiply connected region of CTCs bounded by a past Cauchy horizon which would be stable because of the self-consistency requirement as in the previous section, and this would also engender pure retarded potentials. Thus, in a wide class of scenarios, the epoch of CTCs would be long over by now, as we would be one of the many later-formed bubble universes. Also, the model might either be geodesically complete to the past or not. This might not be a problem in physics since we would in any case have a periodic boundary condition; and because with its pure retarded potentials, no causal signals could be propagated to the past in any case. There are several different baby universe scenarios — any one of which could accommodate our type of model.
First, there is the Farhi, Guth, and Guven [@far90] method of creation of baby universes in the lab. At late times in an open universe, for example, an advanced civilization might implode a mass (interestingly, it does not have to be a large mass — a few kilograms will do) with enough energy to drive it up to the GUT energy scale, whereupon it might settle into a metastable vacuum, creating a small spherical bubble of false vacuum with a $V=\Lambda/8\pi$ metastable vacuum inside. This could be done either by just driving the region up over the potential barrier, or by going close to the barrier and tunneling through. The inside of this vacuum bubble would contain a positive cosmological constant with a positive energy density and a negative pressure. This bubble could be created with an initial kinetic energy of expansion with the bubble wall moving outward. But the negative pressure would pull it inward, and it would eventually reach a point of maximum expansion (a classical turning point), after which it would start to collapse and would form a black hole. But occasionally, (probability $P=10^{-10^{18}}$ for typical GUT scales [@far90]) when it reaches its point of maximum expansion it tunnels to a state of equal energy but a different geometry, like a doorknob, crossing the Einstein-Rosen bridge [@ein35]. The “knob” itself would be the the interior of the bubble, containing the positive cosmological constant, and sitting in the metastable vacuum state with $V=\Lambda/8\pi$. The “knob” consists of more than a hemisphere of an initially static $S^3$ closed de Sitter universe, where the bubble wall is a surface of constant “latitude” on this sphere. At the wall, the circumferential radius is thus decreasing as one moves outward toward the external spacetime. Just outside the wall is the Einstein-Rosen neck which reaches a minimum circumferential radius at $r=2M$, and then the circumference increases to join the open external solution. This “doorknob” solution then evolves classically. The knob inflates to form a de Sitter space of eventually infinite size. It is connected to the original spacetime by the narrow Einstein-Rosen bridge. But an observer sitting at $r=2M$ in the Einstein-Rosen bridge will shortly hit a singularity in the future, just as in the Schwarzschild solution. So the connection only lasts for a short time. The interior of the “knob” is hidden from an observer in the external spacetime by an event horizon at $r=2M$. Eventually the black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation [@haw75], leaving a flat external spacetime (actually part of an open Big Bang universe) with simply a coordinate singularity at $r=0$ as seen from outside. (See Fig. \[f7\].)
From the point of view of an observer sitting at the center of $V=\Lambda/8\pi$ bubble, he would see himself, just after the tunneling event, as sitting in a de Sitter space that was initially static but which starts to inflate. Centered on this observer’s antipodal point in de Sitter space, he would see a bubble of ordinary $V=0$ vacuum surrounding a black hole of mass $M$. The observer sees his side of the Einstein-Rosen bridge and an event horizon at $r=2M$ which hides the external spacetime at late times from him. From the point of view of the de Sitter observer, the black hole also evaporates by Hawking radiation, eventually leaving an empty $V=0$ bubble in an ever-expanding de Sitter space. This infinitely expanding de Sitter space, which begins expanding at the tunneling event, is a perfect starting point (just like Vilenkin’s tunneling universe) for making an infinite number of bubble universes, as this de Sitter space has a finite beginning and then expands forever. Now suppose [*one*]{} of these open bubble universes simply turns out to be the [*original*]{} open universe where that advanced civilization made the baby de Sitter universe in the first place (Fig. \[f7\]). Now the model is multiply connected, with no earliest event. There is a Cauchy horizon (${\cal CH}$, see Fig. \[f7\]) separating the region of CTCs from the later region that does not contain them. This Cauchy horizon is generated by ingoing closed null geodesics that represent signals that could be sent toward the black hole, which then tunnel across the Euclidean tunneling section jumping across the Einstein-Rosen bridge and then continuing as ingoing signals to enter the de Sitter space and reach the open single bubble in the de Sitter space (that turns out to be the original bubble in which the tunneling event occurs). A retarded photon traveling around one of those closed null geodesics will be red-shifted more and more on each cycle, thus not causing an instability. Another novel effect is that although these null generators are converging just before the tunneling event, they are diverging just after the tunneling event, having jumped to the other side of the Einstein-Rosen bridge. Thus, converging rays are turned into diverging rays (as in the wormhole solution) during the tunneling event without violating the weak energy condition. These closed null geodesics need not be infinitely extendible in affine distance toward the past. It would seem that it can be arranged that the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not blow up on this Cauchy horizon so that a self-consistent solution is possible. Using the method of images, note that the $N$-th image is from $N$ cycles around the multiply connected spacetime. The path connecting an observer to the $N$-th image will have to travel $N$ times through the hot Big Bang phase which occurs in the open bubble after the false vacuum with $V(\phi<\phi_0)=\Lambda/8\pi$ dumps its false vacuum energy into thermal radiation as it falls off the plateau and reaches the true vacuum $V(\phi=\phi_0)=0$. Thus, to reach the $N$-th image one has to pass through the hot optically thick thermal radiation of the hot Big Bang $N$ times. And this will cause the contribution of the $N$-th image to the renormalized energy-momentum tensor to be exponentially damped by a factor $e^{-N\tau}$ where $\tau\equiv nz\sigma_t\gg 1$ (where $n$ is the number density of target particles, $z$ is the thickness of hot material, $\sigma_t$ is the total cross-section). Li [@li96] has calculated the renormalized energy-momentum tensor of vacuum polarization with the effect of absorption. Li [@li96] has estimated the fluctuation of the metric of the background spacetime caused by vacuum polarization with absorption, which is a small number in most cases. If the absorption is caused by electron-positron pair production by a photon in a photon-electron collision, the maximum value of the metric fluctuation is $(\delta g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm max}\sim l_{\rm P}^2/(r_{\rm e}L)$, where $l_{\rm P}$ is the Planck length, $r_{\rm e}$ is the classical radius of electron, $L$ is the spatial distance between the identified points in the frame of rest relative to the absorber [@li96]. If we take $L$ to be the Hubble radius at the recombination epoch ($\sim10^{23}$cm), we have $(\delta g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm max}\sim10^{-76}$. Thus, we expect that the renormalized energy-momentum tensor will not blow up at the Cauchy horizon [@li96], so that a self-consistent solution is possible.
The tunneling event is shown as the epoch indicated by the dashed line in Fig. \[f7\]. During the tunneling event, the trajectory may be approximated as a classical space with four spacelike dimensions solving Einstein’s equations, with the potential inverted, so that this Euclidean section bridges the gap between the two classical turning points. (In such a case, the concepts of CTCs and closed null curves should be generalized to contain a spacelike interval. Thus, there are neither closed null geodesics nor closed timelike geodesics with the traditional definitions. According to Li [@li94], this kind of spacetime can be stable against vacuum polarization.)
As Farhi, Guth, and Guven [@far90] note, the probability for forming such a universe is exponentially small, so an exponentially large number of trials would be required before an intelligent civilization would achieve this feat. If the metastable vacuum is at the Planck density, the number of trials required is expected to be not too large; but if it is at the GUT density which turns out to be many orders of magnitude lower than the Planck density, then the number of trials becomes truly formidable ($P\sim10^{-10^{18}}$) [@far90]. Thus, Farhi, Guth, and Guven [@far90] guess that it is unlikely that the human race will ever succeed in making such a universe in the lab at the GUT scale. Gott [@got93], applying the Copernican principle to estimate our future prospects, would come to similar conclusions. However, if our universe is open, it has an infinite number of galaxies, and it would likely have some super-civilizations powerful enough to succeed at such a creation event, or at least have so many super-civilizations (an infinite number) that even if they each tried only a few times, then some of them (again an infinite number) would succeed. In fact, if the probability for a civilization to form on a habitable planet like the Earth and eventually succeed at creating a universe in the lab is some finite number greater than zero (even if it is very low), then our universe (if it is an open bubble universe) should spawn an infinite number of such baby universes.
This notion has caused Harrison [@har95] to speculate that our universe was created in this way in the lab by some super-civilization in a previous universe. He noted correctly that if super-civilizations in a universe can create many baby universes, then baby universes created in this way should greatly outnumber the parent universes, and that you (being not special) are simply likely to live in one of the many baby universes, because there are so many more of them. Here he is using implicitly the formulation of Gott [@got93] that according to the Copernican principle, out of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are, by definition, only a few special places and many non-special places, and you are simply more likely to be in one of the many non-special places. Thus, if there are many baby universes created by intelligent supercivilizations in an infinite open bubble universe, then you are likely to live in a baby universe created in this way. Harrison uses this idea to explain the strong anthropic principle. The strong anthropic principle as advanced by Carter [@car74] says that the laws of physics, in our universe at least, must be such as to allow the development of the intelligent life. Why? Because we are here. It is just a self-consistency argument. This might lead some to believe, particularly with inflationary cosmologies that are capable of producing an infinite number of bubble universes, that these different universes might develop with many different laws of physics, given a complicated, many-dimensional inflationary potential with many different minima, and many different low energy laws of physics. If some of these did not allow the development of intelligent life and some of these did, well, which type of universe would you expect to find yourself in? — one that allowed intelligent observers, of course. (By the same argument, you are not surprised to find yourself on a habitable planet — Earth — although such habitable planets may well be outnumbered by uninhabitable ones — Mercury, Venus, Pluto, etc.) Thus, there may be many more universes that have laws of physics that do not allow intelligent life — you just would not find yourself living there. It has been noticed that there are various coincidences in the physical constants — like the numerical value of the fine structure constant, or the ratio of the electron to proton mass, or the energy levels in the carbon nucleus — which, if they were very different, would make intelligent life either impossible, or much less likely. If we observe such a coincidence, according to Carter [@car74], it simply means that if it were otherwise, we would not be here. Harrison [@har95] has noted that if intelligent civilizations made baby universes they might well, by intelligent choice, make universes that purposely had such coincidences in them in order to foster the development of intelligent life in the baby universes they created. If that were the case, then the majority of universes would have laws of physics conducive to the formation of intelligent life. In this case, the reason that we observe such coincidences is that a previous intelligent civilization made them that way. One might even speculate in this scenario that if they were smart enough, they could have left us a message of sorts in these dimensionless numbers (a theme that resonates, by the way, with part of Carl Sagan’s thesis in [*Contact*]{}). However, it is unclear whether any super-civilization would be able to control the laws of physics in the universes they created. All, they might reasonably be able to do would be to drive the baby universe up into a particular metastable vacuum [@far90]. But then, such a metastable vacuum inflates in the knob, and an infinite number of bubble universes form later, with perhaps many different laws of physics depending on how they tunnel away from the metastable vacuum and which of the many potential minima they roll down into. Controlling these phase transitions would seem difficult. Thus, it would seem difficult for the super-civilization that made the metastable state that later gave rise to our universe to have been able to manipulate the physical constants in our universe. Harrison’s model could occur in many generations, making it likely that we were produced as great, great, ..., great grandchildren universes from a sequence of intelligent civilizations. Harrison [@har95] was able to explain all the universes by this mechanism except for the first one! For that, he had to rely on natural mechanisms. This seems to be an unfortunate gap. In our scenario, suppose that “first” universe simply turned out to be one of the infinite ones formed later by intelligent civilizations. Then the Universe — note capital U — would be multiply connected, and would have a region of CTCs; all of the individual universes would owe their birth to some intelligent civilization in particular in this picture.
All this may overestimate the importance of intelligent civilizations. It may be that bubbles of inflating metastable vacuum are simply produced at late times in any Big Bang cosmology by natural processes, and that baby universes produced by natural processes may vastly outnumber those produced by intelligent civilizations. Such a mechanism has been considered by Frolov, Markov, and Mukhanov [@fro90]. They considered the hypothesis that spacetime curvature is limited by quantum mechanics and that as this limit is approached, the curvature approaches that of de Sitter space. Then, as any black hole collapses, the curvature increases as the singularity is approached; but before getting there it will convert into a collapsing de Sitter solution. This can be done in detail in the following way. Inside the horizon, but outside the collapsing star the geometry becomes Schwarzschild which is a radially collapsing but stretching cylinder. This can be matched onto a radially collapsing and radially shrinking cylinder in de Sitter space as described by the metric in Eq. (\[E50\]) with the time $\tau$ being negative and the coordinate $l$ being unbounded rather than periodic. Both surfaces are cylinders with identical intrinsic curvature, but with different extrinsic curvature. This mismatch is cured by introducing a shell of matter which converts the stretching of the Schwarzschild cylinder to collapsing as well which then matches onto the collapsing de Sitter solution. This phase transition may occur in segments which then merge as noted by Barabes and Frolov [@bar96a; @bar96b]. The de Sitter solution then bounces and becomes an expanding de Sitter solution which can in turn spawn an infinite number of open bubble universes. This all happens behind the event horizon of the black hole. Within the de Sitter phase, one finds a Cauchy horizon like the interior Cauchy horizon of the Reisner-Nordstrom solution, but this inner Cauchy horizon is not unstable because the curvature is bounded by the de Sitter value so the curvature is not allowed to blow up on the inner horizon. (This is an argument that one could also rely on to produce self-consistent multiply connected de Sitter phases with CTCs — if needed.) This model thus produces, inside the black hole, to the future, and behind the event horizon, an expanding de Sitter phase that has a beginning, just like Vilenkin’s tunneling universe. If one of those bubble universes simply turns out to be the original one in which the black hole formed, then the solution is multiply connected with a region of CTCs. This would make every black hole produce an infinite number of universes. This would be the dominant mechanism for making new bubble universes, since the number of black holes in our universe would appear to greatly outnumber the number of baby universes ever produced by intelligent civilizations, since the tunneling probability for that process to succeed is exceedingly small.
Smolin [@smo92a; @smo97] has proposed that this type of mechanism works and furthermore that the laws of physics (in the bubble universes) are like those in our own but with small variations. Then, there would be a Darwinian evolution of universes. Universes that produced many black holes would have more children that would inherit their characteristics — with some small variations. Soon, most universes would have laws of physics that were fine-tuned to produce the maximum number of black holes. Smolin [@smo92a; @smo97] points out that this theory is testable, since we can calculate whether small changes in the physical constants would decrease the number of black holes formed. In this picture we should be near a global maximum in the black hole production rate. One problem is that the laws of physics that maximize the number of black holes and those that simply maximize the number of main sequence stars may be rather similar, and the laws that maximize the number of main sequence stars might well simply maximize the number of intelligent observers, and the anthropic principle alone would suggest a preference for us observing such laws, even if no baby universes were created in black holes. Another possible problem with this model, pointed out by Rothman and Ellis [@rot93], is that if the density fluctuations in the early universe had been higher in amplitude, this would form many tiny primordial black holes (presumably more black holes per comoving volume than in our universe), so, we well might wonder why the density fluctuations in our universe were so small. One way out might be that tiny black holes do not form any baby universes, but this seems a bit forced since the de Sitter neck formed can be as small as the Planck scale or GUT scale and it would seem that even primordial black holes could be large enough to produce an infinite number of open bubble universes.
Another possibility is the recycling universe of Garriga and Vilenkin [@gar97]. In this model there is a metastable vacuum with cosmological constant $\Lambda_1$, and a true lowest energy vacuum with a cosmological constant $\Lambda_2$. $\Lambda_1$ is at the GUT or Planck energy scale, while $\Lambda_2$ is taken to be the present value of $\Lambda$ (as might be the case in a flat-$\Lambda$ model). As long as $\Lambda_2>0$, then Garriga and Vilenkin assert that there is a finite (but small) probability per unit four volume that the $\Lambda_2$ state could tunnel to form a bubble of $\Lambda_1$ state, which could therefore inflate, decaying into bubbles of $\Lambda_2$ vacuum, which could recycle forming $\Lambda_1$ bubbles, and so forth. They point out that depending on the coordinate system, a bubble of $\Lambda_2$ forming inside a $\Lambda_1$ universe could also be seen as a $\Lambda_1$ bubble forming inside of a $\Lambda_2$ universe. Take two de Sitter spaces, one with $\Lambda_1$ and one with $\Lambda_2$, and cut each along a vertical slice ($W=W_0$) in the embedding space. They can then be joined along an appropriate hyperbola of one sheet representing a bubble wall, with the $\Lambda_2$ universe lying to the $W<W_0$ side and the $\Lambda_1$ universe lying to the $X>W_0$ side. Slicing along hyperplanes with $V+W={\rm
constant}$ gives a steady-state coordinate system for a $\Lambda_1$ universe in which a bubble of $\Lambda_2$ vacuum appears. Slicing along hyperplanes with $V-W={\rm constant}$, however, gives a steady-state coordinate system for a $\Lambda_2$ universe in which a bubble of $\Lambda_1$ appears. So, one can find a steady-state coordinate system in which there is a $\Lambda_1$ universe, with bubbles of $\Lambda_2$ inside it, and bubbles of $\Lambda_1$ inside these $\Lambda_2$ bubbles, and so forth. If the roll down is slow, within the $\Lambda_2$ bubble as it forms, as in Gott’s open bubble universe [@got82], then it will have at least 67 $e$-folds of inflation with $\Lambda\simeq\Lambda_1$ before it falls off the plateau into the absolute minimum at $\Lambda_2$, and this will be an acceptable Big Bang model which will have the usual Big Bang properties except that it will eventually be dominated by a lambda term $\Lambda_2$. Being bubble universes, they will all be open with negative curvature as in Gott’s model [@got82] but they will be asymptotically open de Sitter models at late times with $a(t)=r_0\sinh(t/r_0)$ and $\Lambda=\Lambda_2$. Garriga and Vilenkin [@gar97] wondered whether such a recycling model could be geodesically complete toward the past. Such a outcome, they pointed out, would violate no known theorems and should be investigated. They hoped to find such a geodesically-complete-to-the-past model so that it could be eternal without a need for a beginning. However, in the special case, where $\Lambda_1=\Lambda_2$, one can show that the recycling steady state solution becomes a simple single de Sitter space geometry with $\Lambda_1$ and the usual steady-state coordinate system in a single de Sitter space is not geodesically complete to the past.
Now take this recycling model where it turns out that one of the $\Lambda_1$ bubbles formed inside an $\Lambda_2$ bubble inside a $\Lambda_1$ region is, in fact, the $\Lambda_1$ region that one started out with. In this case, we would have a multiply connected model such as we are proposing which would include a region of CTCs (Fig. \[f8\]). (If $\Lambda_1=\Lambda_2$, this model is just the multiply connected de Sitter space we have considered.) If our multiply connected model was geodesically complete to the past, so would the covering space (a simply connected Garriga-Vilenkin model) be. If our multiply connected model was geodesically incomplete to the past, so would the covering space (a simply connected Garriga-Vilenkin model) be also. In our model, there would be a strong self-consistency reason for pure retarded potential, whereas in the Garriga-Vilenkin recycling model, there would be no such strong reason for it. With pure retarded potentials throughout, the issue of whether the spacetime was geodesically complete to the past is less compelling, as we have argued above, and our model, having a periodic boundary condition, would not need further boundary conditions, unlike a simply connected recycling model that was geodesically incomplete to the past.
Thus, there are a number of models in which baby universes are created which can be converted into models in which the Universe creates itself, if one of those created baby universes turns out to be the original universe that one started with. Since these models are all ones in which there are an infinite number of baby universes created, this multiply connected outcome must occur unless the probability for a particular multiple connectivity to exist is exactly zero. In other words, it should occur, unless it is forbidden by the laws of physics. Given quantum mechanics, it would seem that such multiple connectivities would not be absolutely forbidden, particularly in the Planck foam era.
We should note here that, in principle, there might even be solutions that are simply connected in which there was an early region of CTCs bounded to the future by a Cauchy horizon followed by an inflationary region giving rise to an infinite number of bubble universes. The models considered so far have all obeyed the weak energy condition, and these models have all been multiply connected; in other words, they have a genus of $1$, like a donut, since one of the later baby universes is connected with the original one. Consider an asymptotically flat spacetime with two connected wormhole mouths that are widely separated. The existence of the wormhole connection increases the genus by one. Instead of a flat plane, it becomes a flat plane with a handle. To do this, the wormhole solution must violate the weak energy condition [@mor88]. It must have some negative energy density material, for it is a diverging lens (converging light rays entering one wormhole mouth, diverge upon exiting the other mouth). For a compact two dimensional surface, the integrated Gaussian curvature over the surface divided by $4\pi$ is equal to $1$ minus the genus. Thus, the integrated Gaussian curvature over a sphere (genus=0) is $4\pi$, while the integrated Gaussian curvature over a donut (genus=1) is zero, and the integrated Gaussian curvature over a figure 8 pretzel (genus=2) is $-4\pi$. Negative curvature is added each time the genus is increased. Conversely, positive curvature can be added to reduce the genus by $1$. When a donut is cut, so that it resembles a letter “C”, the ends of the letter “C” are sealed with positive curvature (two spherical hemispherical caps would do the job, for example). Our solutions are already multiply connected, so they might in principle be made simply connected by the addition of some extra positive mass density, without violating the weak energy condition. An example of this is seen by comparing Grant space [@gra93] with Gott’s two-string spacetime [@got91a]. Grant space is multiply connected, has $T_{ab}=0$ everywhere, and includes CTCs. It can be pictured as a cylinder. Gott’s two-string spacetime is simply connected, but is identical to Grant space at large distances from the strings. It also contains CTCs. It can be pictured as a cardboard cylinder that has been stepped on and then stapled shut at one end, like an envelope. There are two corners at the closed end, representing the two strings, but the cylinder continues outward forever toward its open end (so it is like a test tube, a cylinder closed on one end). The two strings provide positive energy density (i.e. they do not violate the weak energy condition). CTCs that wrap around the two strings far out in the cylinder (which is identical to a part of Grant space; see Laurence [@lau94]) can be shrunken to points by slipping them through the strings — but they become spacelike curves during this process. Thus, Gott space represents how a multiply connected spacetime with CTCs (Grant space) can be converted into a simply connected spacetime with CTCs by adding to the solution material that obeys the weak energy condition. A similar thing might in principle be possible with these cosmological models. Since our multiply connected versions already obey the weak energy condition, so would the associated simply connected versions.
Conclusions
===========
The question of first-cause has been a troubling one for cosmology. Often, this has been solved by postulating a universe that has existed forever in the past. Big Bang models supposed that the first-cause was a singularity, but questions about its almost, but not quite, uniformity remained. Besides, the Big Bang singularity just indicated a breakdown of classical general relativity, and with a proper theory-of-everything, one could perhaps push through to earlier times. Inflation has solved some of these problems, but Borde and Vilenkin have shown that if the initial inflationary state is metastable, then it must have had a finite beginning also. Ultimately, the problem seems to be how to create something out of nothing.
So far, the best attempt at this has been Vilenkin’s tunneling from nothing model and the similar Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal. Unfortunately, tunneling is, as the name suggests, usually a process that involves tunneling from [*one*]{} classical state to [*another*]{}, thus, with the Wheeler-DeWitt potential and “energy” $E=0$ that Hartle and Hawking adopted, the Universe, we argue, should really start not as nothing but as an $S^3$ universe of radius zero — a point. A point is as close to nothing as one can get, but it is not nothing. Also, how could a point include the laws of physics? In quantum cosmology, the wave function of the Universe is treated as the solution of a Schrödinger-like equation (the Wheeler-DeWitt equation), where the three-sphere $S^3$ radius $a$ is the abscissa and there is a potential $U(a)$ with a metastable minimum at $U(a=0)=0$, and a barrier with $U(a)>0$ for $0<a<a_0$, and $U(a)<0$ for $a>a_0$. Thus, the evolution can be seen as a particle, representing the universe, starting as a point, $a=0$, at the bottom of the metastable potential well, with $E=0$. Then it tunnels through the barrier and emerges at $a=a_0$ with $E=0$, whereupon it becomes a classically inflating de Sitter solution. It can then decay via the formation of open single bubble universes [@got82; @got86]. The problem with this model is that it ignores the “zero-point-energy”. If there is a conformal scalar field $\phi$, then the “energy” levels should be $E_n=n+{1\over2}$. Even for $n=0$ there is a “zero-point-energy”. The potential makes the system behave like a harmonic oscillator in the potential well near $a=0$. A harmonic oscillator cannot sit at the bottom of the potential well — the uncertainty principle would not allow it. There must be some zero-point-energy and the particle must have some momentum, as it oscillates within the potential well when the field $\phi$ is included. Thus, when the “zero-point-energy” is considered, we see that the initial state is not a point but a tiny oscillating ($0\leq
a\leq a_1$) Big Bang universe, that oscillates between Big Bangs and Big Crunches (though the singularities at the Big Bangs and Big Crunches might be smeared by quantum effects). This is the initial classical state from which the tunneling occurs. It is metastable, so this oscillating universe could not have existed forever: after a finite half-life, it is likely to decay. It reaches maximum radius $a_1$, and then tunnels to a classical de Sitter state at minimum radius $a_2$ where $a_2<a_0$. The original oscillating universe could have formed by a similar tunneling process from a contracting de Sitter phase, but such a phase would have been much more likely to have simply classically bounced to an expanding de Sitter phase instead of tunneling into the oscillating metastable state at the origin. In this case, if one found oneself in an expanding de Sitter phase, it would be much more likely that it was the result of classical bounce from a contracting de Sitter phase, rather than the result of a contracting de Sitter phase that had tunneled to an oscillating phase and then back out to an expanding de Sitter phase. Besides, a contracting de Sitter phase would be destroyed by the formation of bubbles which would percolate before the minimum radius was ever reached.
In this paper, we consider instead the notion that the Universe did not arise out of nothing, but rather created itself. One of the remarkable properties of the theory of general relativity is that in principle it allows solutions with CTCs. Why not apply this to the problem of the first-cause? Usually the beginning of the Universe is viewed like the south pole. Asking what is before that is like asking what is south of the south pole, it is said. But as we have seen, there remain unresolved problems with this model. If instead there were a region of CTCs in the early universe, then asking what was the earliest point in the Universe would be like asking what is the easternmost point on the Earth. There is no easternmost point — you can continue going east around and around the Earth. Every point has points that are to the east of it. If the Universe contained an early region of CTCs, there would be no first-cause. Every event would have events to its past. And yet the Universe would not have existed eternally in the past (see Fig. \[f1\]). Thus, one of the most remarkable properties of general relativity — the ability in principle to allow CTCs — would be called upon to solve one of the most perplexing problems in cosmology. Such an early region of CTCs could well be over by now, being bounded to the future by a Cauchy horizon. We construct some examples to show that vacuum states can be found such that the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not blow up as one approaches the Cauchy horizon. For such a model to work the Universe has to reproduce at some later time the same conditions that obtained at an earlier time. Inflation is particularly useful in this regard, for starting with a tiny piece of inflating state, at later times a huge volume of inflating state is produced, little pieces of which look just like the one we started with. Many inflationary models allow creation of baby inflationary universes inside black holes, either by tunneling across the Einstein-Rosen bridge, or by formation as one approaches the singularity. If one of these baby universes simply turns out to be the universe we started with, then a multiply connected model with early CTCs bounded by a Cauchy horizon is produced. Since any closed null geodesics generating the Cauchy horizon must circulate through the optically thick region of the hot Big Bang phase of the universe after the inflation has stopped, the renormalized energy-momentum tensor should not blow up as the Cauchy horizon is approached.
As a particularly simple example we consider a multiply connected de Sitter solution where events E$_i$ are topologically identified with events E$^\prime_i$ that lie inside these future light cones via a boost transformation. If the boost $b=2\pi$, we show that we can find a Rindler-type vacuum where the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not blow up as the Cauchy horizon is approached but rather produces a cosmological constant throughout the spacetime which self-consistently solves Einstein’s equations for this geometry. Thus, it is possible to find self-consistent solutions. When analyzing classical fields in this model, the only self-consistent solution without a blow up as the Cauchy horizon is approached occurs when there is a pure retarded potential in the causally connected region of the model. Thus, the multiply connected nature of this model and the possibility of waves running into themselves, ensure the creation of an arrow of time in this model. This is a remarkable property of this model. Interestingly, this model, although having no earliest event and having some timelike geodesics that are infinitely extendible to the past, is nevertheless geodesically incomplete to the past. This is not a property we should have thought desirable, but since pure retarded potentials are established automatically in this model, there are no waves propagating to the past and so there may be no problem in physics with this, since there are never any waves that run off the edge of the spacetime. The region of CTCs has a finite four-volume equal to $4\pi br_0^4/3$ and should be in a pure vacuum state containing no real particles or Hawking radiation and no bubbles. After the Cauchy horizon for a certain amount of proper time (depending on the bubble formation probability per four volume $r_0^4$) no bubbles (or real particles) form, but eventually this model expands to infinite volume, creating an infinite number of open bubble universes, which do not percolate. At late times in the de Sitter phase a particle detector would find the usual Hawking radiation just as in the usual vacuum for de Sitter space.
There are a number of problems to be solved in this model. The chronology projection conjecture proposes that the laws of physics conspire so as to prevent the formation of CTCs. This conjecture was motivated by Hiscock and Konkowski’s result that the energy-momentum tensor of the adapted Minkowski vacuum in Misner space diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached. But as we have shown [@li97], the adapted Rindler vacuum for Misner space has $\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}=0$ throughout the space if $b=2\pi$; thus, this is a self-consistent vacuum for this spacetime since it solves Einstein’s equations for this geometry. It’s true that $\langle T_{ab}
\rangle_{\rm ren}$ remains formally ill-defined on the Cauchy horizon itself \[$\xi=0$ in Eq. (\[E69\]) with $b=2\pi$\], a set of measure zero. But it is not clear that this creates a problem for physics, since continuity might require that this formally ill-defined quantity be defined to be zero on this set of measure zero as well, since it is zero everywhere else. In fact, a treatment in the Euclidean section shows this is the case, for in the Euclidean section, if $b=2\pi$, $\langle T_{ab}\rangle_{\rm ren}=0$ everywhere, including at $\xi=0$. Other counter-examples to the chronology protection conjecture have also been found, as discussed in section V. Hawking himself has also admitted that the back-reaction of vacuum polarization does not enforce the chronology protection conjecture.
One of the remarkable properties of general relativity is that it allows, in principle, the formation of event horizons. This appears to be realized in the case of black holes. Just as black hole theory introduced singularities at the end, standard Big Bang cosmology introduced singularities at the beginning of the universe. Now, with inflation, we see that event horizons should exist in the early universe as well [@got82]. Inflationary ideas prompt the suggestion that baby universes may be born. If one of the baby universes simply turns out to be the one we started with, then we get a model with an epoch of CTCs that is over by now, bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon. We have argued that the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor as one approaches the Cauchy horizon does not necessarily occur, particularly when the Cauchy horizon crosses through a hot Big Bang phase where absorption occurs.
If the energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as the Cauchy horizon is approached, other problems must still be tackled. The classical instability of a Cauchy horizon to the future (a future chronology horizon) in a spacetime with CTCs is one. But this problem is solved in a world with retarded potentials for a Cauchy horizon that occurs to our past (a past chronology horizon) and which ends an epoch of CTCs. It thus seems easier to have a Cauchy horizon in the early universe. At the microscopic level, quantum mechanics appears to allow acausal behavior. Indeed the creation and annihilation of a virtual positron-electron pair can be viewed as creation of a small closed loop, where the electron traveling backward in time to complete the loop appears as a positron. So, why should the laws of physics forbid time travel globally? Indeed one of the most remarkable properties of the laws of physics is that although they are time (CPT) symmetric, the solutions we observe have an arrow of time and retarded potentials. Without this feature of the solutions, acausal behavior would be seen all the time. Interestingly, in our model, the multiply connected nature of the spacetime geometry forces an arrow of time and retarded potentials. Thus, it is the very presence of the initial region of CTCs that produces the strong causality that we observe later on. This is a very interesting and unexpected property. An entropy arrow of time is automatically produced as well, with the region of CTCs in the simplest models sitting automatically in a cold vacuum state, with the universe becoming heated after the Cauchy horizon. Recently, Cassidy and Hawking [@cas97b] have proposed yet another supposed difficulty for CTCs, in that the formally defined entropy appears to diverge to negative infinity as the Cauchy horizon is approached. Yet, in the early universe this may turn out to be an advantage, since to produce the ordinary entropy arrow of time we observe in the universe today, we must necessarily have some kind of natural low-entropy boundary condition in the early universe [@pen79; @pen89]. This could occur on the Cauchy horizon that ends the period of CTCs.
New objections to spacetimes with CTCs can continue to surface, as old problems are put to rest, so it might seem that disproving the chronology protection conjecture would be a tall order. But, proving that there are no exceptions to the chronology protection conjecture, ever, would seem an equally daunting task. This is particularly true since we currently do not have either a theory of quantum gravity or a theory-of-everything.
Perhaps the most obvious problem with the model we have proposed is that the simplest solutions we have obtained so far are not geodesically complete to the past. But we may need no boundary condition since we have a periodic boundary condition instead. This thus may not be a problem in physics if retarded potentials are the only ones allowed. Alternatively, as Garriga and Vilenkin have indicated, it would violate no known theorems for some type of recycling universe (making bubble universes within bubble universes [*ad infinitum*]{}) to exist that was geodesically complete to the past. If such solutions exist, it might be possible to find a solution in which there was an early epoch of CTCs that would be geodesically complete to the past as well by simply identifying an earlier bubble with a later one.
Thus, a number of important questions remain, and we would not minimize them. The models presented here, however, do have some interesting and attractive properties, suggesting that this [*type*]{} of model should be investigated further, and that we [*should*]{} ask the question:
[*Do the laws of physics prevent the Universe from being its own mother?*]{}
This research was supported by NSF grant AST95-29120 and NASA grant NAG5-2759.
A. Einstein, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 142 (1917). W. J. van Stockum, Proc. Roy, Soc. Edin. [**57**]{}, 135 (1937). K. Gödel, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 447 (1949). A. H. Taub, Ann. Math. [**53**]{}, 472 (1951). E. T. Newman, L. Tamburino, and T. J. Unti, J. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 915 (1963). C. W. Misner, in [*Relativity Theory and Astrophysics I: Relativity and Cosmology*]{}, edited by J. Ehlers, Lectures in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 8 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1967), p. 160. M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1446 (1988). J. R. Gott, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1126 (1991). K. S. Thorne, in [*General Relativity and Gravitation 1992: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, edited by R. J. Gleiser, C. N. Kozameh and O. M. Moreschi (IOP Publishing, Bristol, 1993), p. 295. M. Visser, [*Lorentzian Wormholes — from Einstein to Hawking*]{} (AIP Press, New York, 1995). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B [**117**]{}, 25 (1982). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 2960 (1983). S. W. Hawking, [*A Brief History of Time, From the Big Bang to Black Holes*]{} (Bantam Books, New York, 1988). W. A. Hiscock and D. A. Konkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 1225 (1982). V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3878 (1991). S. -W. Kim and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3929 (1991). G. Klinkhammer, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 3388 (1992). J. D. E. Grant, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 2388 (1993). S. W. Hawking, in [*Proceedings of the 6-th Marcel Grossmann Meeting*]{}, edited by H. Sato (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 3. S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 603 (1992). D. G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 4421 (1992). L. -X. Li, J. -M. Xu, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [ **48**]{}, 4735 (1993). L. -X. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, R6037 (1994). R. J. Low, Class. Quantum Grav. [**12**]{}, L37 (1995). T. Tanaka and W. A. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 4503 (1995). L. -X. Li, Class. Quantum Grav. [**13**]{}, 2563 (1996). S. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 7322 (1996). S. V. Sushkov, Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, 523 (1997). M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5212 (1997). L. -X. Li and J. R. Gott, “A Self-Consistent Vacuum for Misner Space and the Chronology Protection Conjecture”, preprint gr-qc/9711074 (1997). M. J. Cassidy, Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, 3031 (1997). E. Farhi, A. H. Guth, and J. Guven, Nucl. Phys. B [ **339**]{}, 417 (1990). E. R. Harrison, Q. J. R. Astr. Soc. [**36**]{}, 193 (1995). L. Smolin, Class. Quantum Grav. [**9**]{}, 173 (1992). L. Smolin, [*The Life of the Cosmos*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997). J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, “Recycling Universe”, preprint astro-ph/9707292 (1997). A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. [**10**]{}, 377 (1922). E. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**15**]{}, 168 (1929). S. W. Weinberg, [*Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972). S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, [*The Large Scale Structure of Space-time*]{} (Cambridge Universe Press, Cambridge, 1973). G. Gamow, Phys. Rev. [**74**]{}, 505 (1948). G. Gamow, Nature [**162**]{}, 680 (1948). R. A. Alpher and R. Herman, Nature [**162**]{}, 774 (1948). A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, Ap. J. [**142**]{}, 419 (1965). J. C. Mather et al, Ap. J. Lett. [**354**]{}, L37 (1990). J. C. Mather et al, Ap. J. [**420**]{}, 439 (1994). G. F. Smoot et al, Ap. J. Lett [**336**]{}, L1 (1992) S. W. Hawking, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**300**]{}, 187 (1967). S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**314**]{}, 529 (1970). G. Lemaitre, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A. [**53**]{}, 51 (1933). J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 2072 (1975). R. Durrer and J. Laukenmann, Class. Quantum Grav. [ **13**]{}, 1069 (1996). R. C. Tolman, [*Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology*]{} (Clerendon Press, Oxford, 1934). A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 347 (1981). V. P. Frolov, M. A. Markov, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 383 (1990). C. Barrabès and V. P. Frolov, Helv. Phys. Acta. [**69**]{}, 253 (1996). C. Barrabès and V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 3215 (1996). R. Penrose, in [*General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary Survey*]{}, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979), p. 581. R. Penrose, in [*Fourteenth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics*]{}, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 571, edited by E. J. Fenyves (The New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1989), p. 249. J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [ **17**]{}, 157 (1945). J. R. Gott, Ap. J. [**187**]{}, 1 (1974). B. Carter, in [*Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observations*]{}, edited by M. Longair (Dordrecht, Reidel, 1974), p. 291. J. R. Gott, Nature [**363**]{}, 315 (1993). A. Linde, [*Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology*]{} (Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, 1990). E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, [*The Early Universe*]{} (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Redwood City, 1990). Ya. B. Zeldovich, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**160**]{}, 1P (1972). P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, Ap. J. [**162**]{}, 815 (1970). E. R. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D [**1**]{}, 2726 (1970). J. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 679 (1983). A. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 1110 (1982). S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B [**115**]{}, 295 (1982). A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B [**117**]{}, 175 (1982). N. Bahcall and R. M. Soneira, Ap. J. [**270**]{}, 20 (1983). V. de Lapparent, M. Geller, and J. Huchra, Ap. J. [ **302**]{}, L1 (1986). J. R. Gott, A. Melott, and M. Dickinson, Ap. J. [ **306**]{}, 341 (1986). J. R. Gott, D. N. Weinberg, and A. Melott, Ap. J. [ **321**]{}, 2 (1987). M. Geller and J. Huchra, Science [**246**]{}, 897 (1989). C. Park, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**242**]{}, 59P (1990). C. Park, Ph. D. Thesis, Princeton University (1990). C. Park and J. R. Gott, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**249**]{}, 288 (1991). J. R. Gott, B. Gao, and C. Park, Ap. J. [**383**]{}, 90 (1991). C. Park, J. R. Gott, A. Melott, and I. D. Karachentsev, Ap. J. [**387**]{}, 1 (1992). S. J. Maddox, G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and J. Loveday, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**242**]{}, 43P (1990). W. Saunders et al, Nature [**349**]{}, 32 (1991). C. Park, J. R. Gott, and L. N. da Costa, Ap. J. [ **392**]{}, L51 (1992). S. A. Shectman et al, in [ *Wide Field Spectroscopy and the Distant Universe*]{}, the 35th Herstmonceux Conference, edited by S. J. Maddox and A. Aragon-Salamanca (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), p. 98. M. S. Vogeley, C. Park, M. J. Geller, J. P. Huchra, and J. R. Gott, Ap. J. [**420**]{}, 525 (1994). J. R. Gott, in [*Critical Dialogues in Cosmology*]{}, edited by N. Turok (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997), p. 519. J. R. Gott, Nature [**295**]{}, 304 (1982). E. Schrödinger, [*Expanding Universes*]{} (Cambridge University Press, London, 1956). E. A. Milne, Nature [**130**]{}, 9 (1932). S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2929 (1977). S. Coleman and F. de Luccia, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 3305 (1980). S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, J. M. Steward, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 2681 (1982). A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B [ **212**]{}, 321 (1983). A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**108**]{}, 389 (1982). A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1220 (1982). J. R. Gott, in [*Inner Space / Outer Space*]{}, edited by E. W. Kolb et al (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1986), p. 362. J. R. Gott and T. S. Statler, Phys. Lett. B [**136**]{}, 157 (1984). G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [ **15**]{}, 2738 (1977). D. N. Page, Phy. Rev. D [**25**]{}, 1499 (1982). B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Ap. J. [**432**]{}, L5 (1994). B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1837 (1995). M. Bucher, A. S. Goldhaber, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 3314 (1995). M. Bucher, A. S. Goldhaber, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 5538 (1995). K. Yamamoto, M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka, Ap. J. [**455**]{},412 (1995). A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**351**]{},99 (1995). A. D. Linde and A. Mezhlmian, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 6789 (1995). A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**129**]{}, 177 (1983). J. R. Gott and M. J. Rees, Astron. Astrophys. [**45**]{}, 365 (1975). A. G. Riess, W. H. Press, and R. P. Kirshner, Ap. J. [**438**]{}, L17 (1995). J. Mould and W. Freedman, Nature [**381**]{}, 555 (1996). A. Sandage et al, Nature [**381**]{}, 555 (1996). T. Kundic et al, Ap. J. [**482**]{}, 75 (1997). M. Bolte and C. J. Hogan, Nature [**376**]{}, 399 (1995). J. R. Gott and E. L. Turner, Ap. J. [**213**]{}, 309 (1977). R. Cen, J. R. Gott, J. P. Ostriker, and E. L. Turner, Ap. J. [**423**]{}, 1 (1994). J. P. Ostriker and P. J. Steinhardt, Nature [**377**]{}, 600 (1995). E. L. Turner, Ap. J. [**365**]{}, L43 (1990). M. Fukugita, T. Futamase, and M. Kasai, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [ **246**]{}, 24P (1990). C. S. Kochanek, CfA preprint \#4258 (1996). B. Ratra, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, and N. Sugiyama, preprint astro-ph/9512148 (1995). B. Ratra and N. Sugiyama, preprint astro-ph/9512157 (1995). C. Park, W. N. Colley, J. R. Gott, B. Ratra, D. N. Spergel, and N. Sugiyama, preprint astro-ph/9711057 (1997). S. Hawking and R. Penrose, [*The Nature of Space and Time*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996). A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, in [*Relativistic Astrophysics: The Proceedings of the Eighth Yukawa Symposium*]{}, edited by M. Sasaki (University of Academic Press, Japan, 1995); also preprint gr-qc/9403004 (1994). A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. D [**5**]{}, 813 (1996). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 2848 (1983). A. A. Starobinsky, in [*Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, and Strings*]{}, Lectures in Physics, edited M. J. de Vega and N. Sánchez (Spring Verlag, Berlin, 1986). A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**175**]{}, 395 (1986). A. S. Gonchanov, A. D. Linde, and V. F. Mukhanov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**2**]{}, 561 (1987). G. Gamow, Zeits. F. Phys. [**51**]{}, 204 (1928). G. Gamow, Zeits. F. Phys. [**52**]{}, 510 (1928). R. W. Gurney and E. U. Condon, Phy. Rev. [**33**]{}, 127 (1929). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 509 (1984). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 888 (1988). J. J. Halliwell, in [*Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes*]{}, edited by S. Coleman, J. B. Hartle, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 159. S. W. Hawking, Nucl. Phys. B [**239**]{}, 257 (1984). E. P. Tryon, Nature [**246**]{}, 396 (1973). R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. [**8**]{}, 782 (1967). J. J. Halliwell and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D [ **41**]{}, 1815 (1990). M. P. Headrick and J. R. Gott, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 7244 (1994). M. J. Cassidy and S. W. Hawking, “Models for Chronology Selection”, preprint hep-th/9709066 (1997). B. S. Kay, M. J. Radzikowski, and R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys. [**183**]{}, 533 (1997). S. W. Hawking, in [*Recent Developments in Gravitation*]{}, Cargese Lectures, edited by M. Levey and S. Deser (Plenum Press, New York, 1978), p. 145. S. W. Hawking, in [*General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey*]{}, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979), p. 746. S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 5681 (1995). M. Visser, preprint gr-qc/9702041 (1997). M. Visser, preprint gr-qc/9710020 (1997). C. R. Cramer and B. S. Kay, Class. Quantum Grav. [**13**]{}, L143 (1996). C. R. Cramer and B. S. Kay, preprint gr-qc/9708028 (1997). R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 1477 (1978). N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982). W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 870 (1976). J. S. Dowker, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 1856 (1978). S. A. Hayward, Class. Quan. Grav. [**9**]{}, 1851; erratum 2453 (1992). S. A. Hayward, “Junction Conditions for Signature Change”, preprint gr-qc/9303034 (1993). T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. R. Soc. London A [**360**]{}, 117 (1978). D. Bernard and A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 2286 (1986). B. S. DeWitt, [*Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields*]{} (Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York, 1965). E. Calabi and L. Marcus, Ann. Math. [**75**]{}, 63 (1962). J. L. Friedman and A. Higuchi, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 5687 (1995). J. L. Friedman, in [*The Sixth Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics*]{}, edited by S. P. Braham, J. D. Gegenberg, R. J. Mc Keller (American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1997), p. 43. R. Kantowski and R. K. Sachs, J. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, 443 (1966). P. Candelas and J. S. Dowker, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 2902 (1979). R. M. Wald, [*Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics*]{} (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994). C. Panagiotakopoulos and N. Tetrads, preprint hep-th/9710526 (1997). D. G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 1404 (1975). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**13**]{}, 2188 (1976). D. W. Sciama, P. Candelas, and D. Deutsch, Adv. Phys. [**30**]{}, 327 (1981). P. Candelas, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 2185 (1980). J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 775 (1985). T. Gold, Am. J. Phys. [**30**]{}, 403 (1962). J. E. Hogarth, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**267**]{}, 365 (1962). F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**227**]{}, 1 (1964). H. D. Zeh, [*The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992). L. S. Schulman, [*Time’s Arrows and Quantum Measurement*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997). I. D. Novikov, [*Evolution of the Universe*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983). J. Friedman, M. S. Morris, I. D. Novikov, F. Echeverria, G. Klinkhammer, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{} 1915 (1990). R. M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984). C. W. Misner and A. H. Taub, Soviet Phys. JETP [ **28**]{}, 122 (1969) \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz [**55**]{}, 233 (1968)\]. R. K. Sachs and H. Wu, [*General Relativity for Mathematicians*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977). C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [ *Gravitation*]{} (W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1973). A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. [**48**]{}, 73 (1935). S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 199 (1975). T. Rothman and G. F. R. Ellis, Q. J. R. Astr. Soc. [**34**]{}, 201 (1993). D. Laurence, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 4957 (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Despite significant strides made towards understanding accretion, outflow, and emission processes in the Galactic Center supermassive black hole Sagittarius A\*, the presence of jets has neither been rejected nor proven. We investigate here whether the combined spectral and morphological properties of the source at radio through near infrared wavelengths are consistent with the predictions for inhomogeneous jets. In particular, we construct images of jets at a wavelength of 7mm based on models that are consistent with the spectrum of Sgr A\*. We then compare these models through closure quantities with data obtained from the Very Long Baseline Array at 7mm. We find that the best-fit jet models give comparable or better fits than best-fit Gaussian models for the intrinsic source found in previous analyses. The best fitting jet models are bipolar, are highly inclined to the line of sight ($\theta \ga 75^\circ$), may favor a position angle on the sky of $105^\circ$, and have compact bases with sizes of a few gravitational radii.'
author:
- |
Sera Markoff$^{1}$[^1], Geoffrey C. Bower$^{2}$ and Heino Falcke$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098SJ Amsterdam, the Netherlands\
$^{2}$601 Campbell Hall, Astronomy Department & Radio Astronomy Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
$^{3}$ Department of Astrophysics, Radboud University, Postbus 9010, 6500GL Nijgmegen; ASTRON, Postbus 2, 7990AA Dwingeloo, the Netherlands
title: 'How to hide large scale outflows: size constraints on the jets of Sgr A\*'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: jets — galaxies: active — black hole physics — Galaxy: nucleus — radiation mechanisms: non-thermal
Introduction
============
Sgr A\* is the compact radio source in our Galactic center, originally discovered over 30 years ago by @BalickBrown1974. Years of dedicated observations of stellar orbits [e.g., @Ghezetal2000; @Schoedeletal2003] and precise, high-resolution radio astrometry [@BackerSramek1999; @Reidetal2003] have led to Sgr A\* being unambiguously associated with the central supermassive black hole. Most recently, the first measurements of the instrinsic size of Sgr A\* have been achieved [@Boweretal2004; @Shenetal2005; @Boweretal2006], giving information about spatial structures extremely close to the black hole.
For many years Sgr A\* was only known to emit in the radio bands, with a flat/inverted spectrum fairly typical of the compact cores of other nearby low-luminosity galaxies [e.g. @Ho1999; @Nagaretal2002]. However, the absence of infrared and higher energy emission was puzzling given that at least some nonthermal accretion activity would be expected for a source that is powered by weak accretion. The first positive identification of Sgr A\* in the X-ray band with the [*Chandra Observatory*]{} did not immediately settle the issue [@Baganoffetal2001; @Baganoffetal2003]. The dominant quiescent emission turned out to be extended and nonvariable, and thus likely associated with hot gas within the Bondi capture radius of the black hole [@Quataert2002]. In contrast, the approximately daily flares of nonthermal X-ray emission discovered later seem to originate within tens of $r_g=GM/c^2$ from the black hole itself. Since this discovery, Sgr A\* has also been identified in the near infrared (NIR), where it shows correlated variability with the X-ray band on similar timescales [@Genzeletal2003; @Ghezetal2004; @Eckartetal2004]. While this suggests a low-level of active galactic nuclei (AGN)-like behavior, the luminosity of Sgr A\* ($\sim 10^{-9}L_{\rm Edd}$) is weak enough to raise questions about comparisons with more luminous accreting black holes.
Several models have been developed over the years to explain the broadband emission of Sgr A\*, ranging from Bondi-Hoyle infall [@Melia1992], to various radiatively-inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs; @Narayanetal1998 [@YuanQuataertNarayan2003]), to jets [@FalckeBiermann1995; @FalckeMarkoff2000; @Markoffetal2001], and combinations thereof [@YuanMarkoffFalcke2002]. The persistence of such a wide range of models can be attributed to some extent to the lack of constraints on the nonthermal part of the X-ray spectrum. Fitting the most compact “submm bump” region of the spectrum results in fairly similar internal parameters for all current models, and this “theoretical degeneracy” cannot easily be broken without better morphological information from Very Large Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). Unfortunately with current sensitivity and resolution limits, most structure in the source is washed out by a strong scattering medium in the central Galactic regions [see, e.g. @Boweretal2006].
Recently, however, several new observational techniques have been developed which may help discern between various models. For instance, the stringent limits placed on the accretion rate ($\dot{M}\sim10^{-9}-10^{-7}M_\odot$/yr) by measurements of linear polarization [@Aitkenetal2000; @Boweretal2003; @Boweretal2005; @Marroneetal2006; @Macquartetal2006] have ruled out classical versions of the Bondi-Hoyle and Advection-Dominated Accretion Flow (ADAF) models. Similarly, better determinations of the frequency-dependence of the electron scattering law in the Galactic center (GC) [@Boweretal2004; @Shenetal2005; @Boweretal2006] have resulted in new constraints on models via their size-versus-frequency predictions. While the different groups have found the index of the size-versus-frequency relation to range from $\sim 1-1.6$, clearly any successful model must be stratified (optically thick and thus having a photosphere whose observable size varies with frequency) to achieve this. The determination of the scattering law to a high degree of accuracy has allowed, for the first time, a dependable measurement of the intrinsic size of Sgr A\* along one axis as a function of frequency. This breakthrough, along with the expectation of eventually determining the size in the other axis, means we are finally at a key point where differences between models can be empirically tested.
In this paper, we use both the spectral data in combination with the new VLBI measurements of the source photosphere at 43 GHz (from @Boweretal2004 plus one new observation, see below) in order to place new constraints on jet models. In Section \[sec2\], we expand on the motivations for this project, in Section \[sec3\] we introduce the model, in Section \[sec4\] we explain the methodology and summarize our results in Section \[sec5\], and discuss our conclusions in Section \[sec6\].
The Evidence for Jets in Sgr A\* {#sec2}
================================
Because no jet in Sgr A\* has yet been directly imaged, it is important to first discuss the evidence in favor of jets in Sgr A\*. The lack of a resolved core/jet structure is not surprising given the low luminosity of Sgr A\*, which suggests a small angular size for the jet, and the scattering screen in our line of sight towards Sgr A\*, which obscures small structures. Previous modeling of the structure of Sgr A\* has succeeded in separating the intrinsic and scatter-broadened images of Sgr A\* via a Gaussian parameterization of the intrinsic size. A primary goal of this paper is to go beyond this simple parameterization.
In fact, there are several strong arguments for jets in Sgr A\*. On a purely theoretical level, some form of jet production seems to go hand-in-hand with accretion around black holes, both at the galactic as well as stellar scales. In stellar black holes accreting from a binary companion, or X-ray binaries (XRBs), jet production is observed to be cyclic over outburst cycles. The strongest (relative to the system energetics) and steadiest jets occur during the low-luminosity state, called the Low/Hard State, while during the highest luminosity state, the jets appear quenched [@Fenderetal1999b]. The low-luminosity jets are compact and self-absorbed with a flat/inverted spectrum, and correlated radio/X-ray variability has demonstrated that the jets increasingly dominate the power output as the luminosity decreases [@FenderGalloJonker2003]. The weakest accreting black hole we can study with reasonable statistics besides Sgr A\* is the XRB A0620-00, in which radio emission has recently been detected [@Galloetal2006]. At an X-ray luminosity of $\la
5\times10^{-9}$ $L_{\rm Edd}$, very close to that of Sgr A\*, efficient jets are still produced in this black hole, with characteristics matching those at higher powers. If general relativity’s basic prediction of scaling black hole physics holds, this is a strong argument for jet production in Sgr A\*.
The radio spectrum, radio variability, and high-frequency linear polarization are all similar to other nearby low-luminosity AGN (LLAGN; @Ho1999 [@FalckeBiermann1999; @BowerFalckeMellon2002; @Nagaretal2002; @NagarFalckeWilson2005]). Most of the observed cores are accretion-powered, and have the signature flat/inverted, self-absorbed radio spectrum associated with compact jets [@BlandfordKoenigl1979]. While the jets can only generally be resolved in the brightest sources, when they are resolved they dominate the unresolved core by at least a factor of a few. The results of these surveys strengthen the arguments for a jet in Sgr A\* based on its radio spectrum and polarization.
One source that is particularly interesting because of its many parallels with Sgr A\* is the nucleus of the nearby LLAGN M81. M81\* is our nearest LLAGN besides Sgr A\*, and resides in the same kind of spiral galaxy as the Milky Way. Its mass has been derived from line spectroscopy (using [*HST*]{}; Devereux et al. 2003) to be $7\times10^7$ $M_\odot$, only $\sim 30$ times the mass of Sgr A\*. M81\* also possesses the typical compact flat/inverted core spectrum (@Falcke1996; Markoff et al., in prep.) and, more importantly, the same high levels of circular rather than linear polarization in the centimeter radio band as Sgr A\* [@Brunthaleretal2001; @BrunthalerBowerFalcke2006].
The M81\* jet is one-sided, very small (700-3600 AU depending on the frequency, with a roughly $\sim 1/\nu$ dependence), and exhibits occasional bends in its morphology [@BietenholzBartelRupen2000]. Scaling the size by mass alone would argue for a $\sim 20-120$ AU jet in Sgr A\*, but the observed size should also scale with luminosity, depending on the particulars of the jet model and frequency. In fact, the jet nature of M81\* was difficult to establish due to the high level of compactness. Taking into account Sgr A\*’s five orders of magnitude lower power, as well as the scattering screen, it is not surprising that no jet has yet been detected in our Galactic center.
Another argument in favor of jets comes from the recent detection of short time delays of about 0.5-1 hr between 43 and 22 GHz for waves of variability traveling from high to low frequencies [@Yusef-Zadehetal2006b]. This variability is fully consistent with outflowing, adiabatically expanding blobs of plasma, as would be expected for jets (in fact, the model the authors use to interpret their results was developed in this context).
Finally, the recent size-versus-frequency scaling detections support an optically thick, stratified model such as a self-absorbed jet. While the predictions of the jet model presented in [@FalckeMarkoff2000], as well as that of RIAFs [@YuanShenHuang2006], are consistent with a $1/\nu$ scaling, and thus with the results in [@Boweretal2004] and [@Shenetal2005], they disagree with the steeper index determined more recently by [@Boweretal2006]. If this latter result is indeed correct, it suggests that the current versions of all models, jets included, need to be modified to show a stronger dependence on observing frequency. Because this issue is still under debate, however, in this paper we are still using the original scaling relation.
Although the circumstantial evidence is significant, there are other complications which could argue against jets. For instance, XRBs in their steady-jet producing Low/Hard state display a correlation between their radio and X-ray luminosities that holds over at least seven orders of magnitude in luminosity [@Corbeletal2003; @GalloFenderPooley2003]. Among other things, this correlation can be used as a gauge for “typical” levels of activity. The recent radio detection of A0620-00 falls exactly on the correlation, extending it to even lower luminosities and indicating that the same mechanism is at work as in brighter sources where jets can be imaged. If the physics driving the correlation scales in a predictable way with mass, it should apply to LLAGN as well, where the mass enters mainly as a normalization factor for the same correlation slope. This relationship between radio and X-ray luminosities and mass is called “the fundamental plane of black hole accretion” and has been explored in several recent papers [@MerloniHeinzDiMatteo2003; @FalckeKoerdingMarkoff2004; @KoerdingFalckeCorbel2006; @Merlonietal2006]. When Sgr A\* in quiescence is placed on this plane, it falls well below the correlation in predicted X-rays, given its radio luminosity. One could interpret this as the complete dominance of the jet over inflow processes at the lowest of luminosities, but it could also mean that the emission mechanisms themselves have undergone a transition to a different mode of emission entirely.
In order to try to cast new light on these long-standing ambiguities and place more stringent constraints on the possible presence of jets in Sgr A\*, we have developed a new method to combine spectral and morphological data. Our results will set the stage for future tests with upcoming VLBI observations at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths, where the morphology is less affected by scattering and resolution is comparable to a few $r_g$.
Model {#sec3}
=====
Like most models involving optically thick, collimated outflows, we build on the initial work of @BlandfordKoenigl1979. These authors demonstrated the “conspiracy” of how a perfectly flat spectrum ($\alpha\sim0,\;F_\nu\propto\nu^{-\alpha}$) can result from a superposition of self-absorbed contributions along a conical, idealized jet. When more realistic physics such as bulk acceleration, full particle distributions and cooling are included, compact jets show a slight spectral inversion in the radio wavebands, with $\alpha\sim
0.0-0.2$. The model used here is based on a model developed for Sgr A\* [@FalckeMarkoff2000], which has been significantly modified to extend to XRBs and LLAGN in general. For a detailed description see the appendix in @MarkoffNowakWilms2005; we provide only a brief summary below.
The model is based upon four assumptions: 1) the total power in the jets scales with the total accretion power at the innermost part of the accretion disk, $\dot{M}c^2$, 2) the jets are freely expanding and only weakly accelerated via their own internal pressure gradients, 3) the jets contain cold protons which carry most of the kinetic energy while leptons dominate the radiation and 4) particles have the opportunity to be accelerated into power-law tails. In sources accreting at higher levels this latter point would be more important, but as we will show later, there is not much capacity in the Sgr A\* spectrum for significant particle acceleration.
The base of the jets consist of a small nozzle of constant radius where no bulk acceleration occurs. The nozzle absorbs our uncertainties about the exact nature of the relationship between the accretion flow and the jets, and fixes the initial value of most parameters. Beyond the nozzle the jet expands laterally with its initial proper sound speed for a relativistic electron/proton plasma, $\gamma_{\rm s}\beta_{\rm s}c\sim0.4c$. The plasma is weakly accelerated by the resulting longitudinal pressure gradient force, allowing an exact solution for the velocity profile via the Euler equation [see, e.g., @Falcke1996]. This results in a roughly logarithmic dependence of velocity upon distance from the nozzle, $z$. The velocity eventually saturates at large distances at Lorentz factors of $\Gamma_{\rm j}\ga$2-3. The size of the base of the jet, $r_0$, is a free parameter (but expected to fall within several $r_g$) and once fixed determines the radius as a function of distance along the jet, $r(z)$. There is no radial dependence in this model.
The model is most sensitive to the fitted parameter $N_{\rm j}$, which acts as a normalization. It dictates the power initially divided between the particles and magnetic field at the base of the jet, and is expressed in terms of a fraction of the Eddington luminosity $L_{\rm Edd}=1.25\times10^{38} M_{\rm bh,\odot}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Once $N_{\rm j}$ and $r_0$ are specified and conservation is assumed, the macroscopic physical parameters along the jet are determined. We assume that the jet power is roughly shared between the internal and external pressures. The radiating particles enter the base of the jet where the bulk velocities are lowest, with a quasi-thermal distribution. In higher power jets, a significant fraction of the particles are accelerated into a power-law tail, however in Sgr A\* this seems to be less of an effect. The particles in the jet radiatively cool via adiabatic expansion, the synchrotron process, and inverse Compton upscattering; however, adiabatic expansion is assumed to dominate the observed effects of cooling. Because Sgr A\* has no “standard thin accretion disk” [e.g. @ShakuraSunyaev1973], nor even a fossil disk, which would be apparent in the infrared [@FalckeMelia1997], the photon field for inverse Compton upscattering is entirely dominated by locally produced synchrotron photons. Fig. \[fig:sgraquiet\] shows an example of the resulting broadband spectrum plotted against the data for Sgr A\*.
Besides those mentioned above, the other main fitted parameters are the ratio of length of the nozzle to its radius $h_0$, the electron temperature $T_e$, the inclination angle between the jet axis and line of sight $\theta_i$ and the equipartition parameter between the magnetic field and the radiating (lepton) particle energy densities, $k$.
Aside from Sgr A\*, this class of model has been successfully applied to several LHS XRBs (@MarkoffFalckeFender2001 [@Markoffetal2003; @MarkoffNowakWilms2005; @Migliarietal2007]; Gallo et al., in prep.) and other LLAGN (@Yuanetal2002; Filho et al., in prep., Markoff et al., in prep.). As would be expected from the existence of the fundamental plane, all significantly sub-Eddington accreting black holes do seem to share some basic underlying physics across the mass scale. However, as mentioned above, Sgr A\* does not participate in the radio/X-ray correlation and can only be reconciled into this picture if significant particle acceleration is lacking. This is a very interesting point, because the appearance (or non-appearance) of a jet is strongly dependent on its internal particle distributions. A power-law tail of accelerated particles results in more optically thin synchrotron emission over a broader frequency range from each jet increment. Thus when observing at a single frequency, a larger range of increments are able to contribute to the profile, resulting in a larger jet image, as we show in Fig. \[fig:model3comp\].
Methodology {#sec4}
===========
Modeling the spectral data of Sgr A\*
-------------------------------------
![The broadband data set for Sgr A\* used to constrain our models, taken from the average spectrum up until the submillimeter [@MeliaFalcke2001], with additional low frequency points from @Nordetal2004 and @RoyRao2004 and infrared data from @Genzeletal2003 and @Ghezetal2004. The X-ray “bow-ties” represent the quiescent (lowest), average daily [*Chandra*]{} flare (middle) and brightest [*Chandra*]{} (top) power-laws with errors indicated [@Baganoffetal2001; @Baganoff2003]. The “V” shape indicates the two [*XMM-Newton*]{} flares presented in @Belangeretal2005. The solid curve shows a representative quiescent model with synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton peaks. The dotted lines illustrate the contribution of the quasi-thermal particles from each increment along the jet, which superimpose to give the characteristic flat/inverted synchrotron spectrum. []{data-label="fig:sgraquiet"}](fig1_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Illustration of the effect of particle acceleration on the observed jet profile. Panel a) shows the quiescent model 3, which provides the best statistical description of the radio data. Panel b) shows a model with the exact same parameters except for the addition of significant particle acceleration, where 75% of the particles in the quasi-thermal distribution are accelerated into a power-law with energy index 2.2, and a cutoff 50 times higher than the minimum energy (which is fixed to the peak of the thermal distribution). Panels c) and d) show the profile this model produces on the sky, prior to convolution with the scattering Gaussian. The scale of the images is 1 mas. The images are saturated to emphasize the brightest (darkest) parts of the jets. A tail of accelerated particles serves to significantly lengthen the jets profile at a given frequency.[]{data-label="fig:model3comp"}](fig2_color.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In order to break the current degeneracy based on modeling the spectral data alone, we are for the first time calculating the predicted size and morphology of jet models which give a good description of the broadband data. After convolving these “maps” with the scattering screen, we then compare the results to closure quantities from VLBI, which provide information about the structure. The model predictions are analyzed in the same way as the observations.
The 41 models presented here were chosen to represent a range which samples the full parameter space within the constraints of a reasonably good ($\chi^2 < 1$) description of the radio through IR. For quiescent models, they are further constrained to fall within a factor of a few under the X-ray quiescent limits from [*Chandra*]{}. Flaring models are those which can account for either the average daily flaring flux or the highest detected with [*Chandra*]{} in the X-ray band, via some form of heating, accelerating or increased power compared to the quiescent state. We initially conducted a very rough search of a large region of parameter space for the first 20 models, then focused on a smaller region to explore properties nearest the best-fitting models, as well as for flares. A systematic exploration of the parameter space would be at least a 6 dimensional parameter cube, which we deemed too computationally intensive for this initial test study.
Because there is still significant uncertainty about what to consider the “quiescent” versus “flared” IR flux amplitude and slope, we did not include the IR in the $\chi^2$ calculation but rather required the model to fall reasonably within range of the errors. The inability to constrain the exact IR and X-ray quiescent flux accounts for almost all of the allowed range in the fitted parameters for the quiescent state, otherwise the parameters would be fairly tightly determined. In this way the addition of morphological fitting can constrain the quiescent contribution above the submm band. We also compared our models to the simultaneous radio through IR data set presented in @Anetal2005, and found the level agreement between the two data sets so good that we did not feel it provided an additional constraint. One of our secondary goals was to explore observable differences in the photosphere during flaring states.
Table \[tab:modpars\] lists the models and their parameters, along with relevant comments.
[rccccccccccc]{} 1 & Q & $3.6$ & 5 & 2.5 & 51 & $2.2$ & 10 & y & 2 & & 5.77/9\
2 & Q & $6.2$ & 5 & 1.5 & 67 & $1.9$ & 10 & y & 2 & & 8.48/9\
3 & Q & $7.2$ & 5 & 1.1 & 75 & $1.8$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 4.73/9\
4 & Q & $5.8$ & 3 & 1.3 & 55 & $1.8$ & 10 & y & 2 & & 7.05/9\
5 & Q & $6.6$ & 3 & 1.2 & 52 & $1.7$ & 10 & y & 2 & $\beta(z)$ stretched & 4.98/9\
6 & Q & $6.0$ & 3.5 & 1.2 & 45 & $1.7$ & 10 & y & 2 & $\beta(z)$ stretched & 4.74/9\
7 & Q & $10$ & 5 & 1.2 & 65 & $2.4$ & 2 & y & 2 & & 6.38/9\
8 & Q & $7.2$ & 3.5 & 1.7 & 57 & $1.6$ & 10 & y & 1 & & 4.88/9\
9 & Q & $2.6$ & 3.5 & 2.2 & 50 & $2.0$ & 10 & n & 2 & & 5.76/9\
10 & Q & $1.8$ & 3.5 & 1.9 & 50 & $2.1$ & 4 & n & 2 & & 5.27/9\
11 & Q & $3.0$ & 3.5 & 2.4 & 50 & $1.7$ & 10 & n & 1 & & 6.69/9\
12 & Q & $6.6$ & 5 & 1.1 & 69 & $2.0$ & 10 & y & 2 & & 5.54/9\
13 & Q & $3.4$ & 8 & 1.4 & 63 & $2.0$ & 30 & y & 2 & & 9.44/9\
14 & Q & $2.4$ & 5 & 1.8 & 55 & $2.1$ & 6 & n & 2 & & 5.67/9\
15 & F & $16$ & 5 & 1.3 & 67 & $7.0$ & 0.1 & y & 2 & & 13.22/9\
16 & F & $16$ & 5 & 1.1 & 75 & $7.2$ & 0.1 & y & 2 & Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC & 10.06/9\
17 & F & $18$ & 5 & 1.1 & 75 & $7.9$ & 0.05 & y & 2 & Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC & 14.31/9\
18 & Q & $7.2$ & 5 & 1.1 & 85 & $1.9$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 5.68/9\
19 & F & $18.4$ & 5 & 1.1 & 85 & $6.5$ & 0.09 & y & 2 & Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC & 10.15/9\
20 & Q & $11$ & 3.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.4$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 6.44/9\
21 & Q & $7.6$ & 3.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.4$ & 15 & n & 2 & & 5.69/9\
22 & Q & $14$ & 5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.5$ & 15 & y & 1 & & 9.15/9\
23 & Q & $10$ & 3 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.5$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 8.69/9\
24 & Q & $19$ & 2.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.0$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 12.19/9\
25 & Q & $20$ & 2 & 1.0 & 70 & $0.8$ & 20 & y & 2 & & 12.66/9\
26 & Q & $19$ & 2 & 1.0 & 80 & $1.0$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 11.67/9\
27 & Q & $13$ & 3 & 0.6 & 87 & $1.3$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 5.46/9\
28 & Q & $13$ & 3 & 0.6 & 87 & $1.3$ & 15 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=50$,$p=3$,$u/f=7\times10^{-3}$,plf$=0.1$ & 4.51/5\
29 & Q & $13$ & 3 & 0.6 & 87 & $1.3$ & 15 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=50$,$p=3$,$u/f=3\times10^{-4}$,plf$=0.1$ & 4.52/5\
30 & Q & $140$ & 5 & 0.6 & 85 & $0.3$ & 15 & y & 2 & PL:$p=3.4$, $\gamma_{\rm e,max}=2\times10^3$ & 7.10/7\
31 & Q & $38$ & 3 & 0.6 & 85 & $0.7$ & 15 & y & 2 & PL:$p=3.4$, $\gamma_{\rm e,max}=3\times10^3$ & 8.23/7\
32 & Q & $60$ & 3 & 0.4 & 85 & $0.6$ & 15 & y & 2 & PL:$p=3.8$, $\gamma_{\rm e,max}=2.5\times10^3$ & 3.83/7\
33 & Q & $23$ & 2 & 0.7 & 85 & $0.95$ & 15 & y & 2 & & 5.99/9\
34 & F & $19$ & 2.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.0$ & 15 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=10$, $p=1.7$, $u/f=0.014$, plf$=1\times10^{-4}$ & 10.35/5\
&&&&&&&&&& Biggest [*Chandra*]{} flare, synch. &\
35 & F & $11.5$ & 2.5 & 0.95 & 85 & $1.0$ & 50 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=10$, $p=1.6$, $u/f=0.014$, plf$=6\times10^{-6}$ & 5.90/5\
&&&&&&&&&& Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, synch. &\
36 & F & $50$ & 2.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $5.0$ & 0.01 & y & 2 & PL:$p=2.3$, $\gamma_{\rm e,max}=500$ & 4.512/7\
&&&&&&&&&& Biggest [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC &\
37 & Q & $50$ & 2.5 & 1.0 & 85 & $1.3$ & 1 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=5$, $p=1.2$, $u/f=3\times10^{-7}$,plf$=3\times10^{-3}$ & 14.65/5\
38 & F & $16$ & 3 & 1.0 & 85 & $0.6$ & 2 & y & 2 & PL:$p=1.01$,$\gamma_{\rm e,max}=220$ & 4.45/4\
&&&&&&&&&& $z_{\rm acc}=5$, $p=1.01$, $u/f=3\times10^{-7}$, plf$=5\times10^{-4}$ &\
&&&&&&&&&& Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC &\
39 & F & $16$ & 3 & 1.0 & 85 & $0.6$ & 2 & y & 2 & PL: $p=1.01$,$\gamma_{\rm e,max}=220$ & 4.04/7\
&&&&&&&&&& Av. [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC &\
40 & F & $80$ & 3 & 1.01 & 85 & $0.6$ & 0.1 & y & 2 & PL: $p=1.5$, $\gamma_{\rm e,max}=500$ & 112/7\
&&&&&&&&&& Biggest [*Chandra*]{} flare, SSC &\
41 & F & $25$ & 2.5 & 1.01 & 85 & $2.0$ & 1 & y & 2 & $z_{\rm acc}=5$, $p=2.7$, $u/f=3\times10^{-3}$, plf$=0.04$ & 4.193/5\
&&&&&&&&&& Steep XMM flare, synch. &
Analysis Technique
------------------
The jet emission is calculated along its length in increments. In order to determine the appearance of the jet on the sky, we calculate the contribution to the synchrotron spectrum at 43 GHz from each increment, assumed to be evenly distributed over the radius and increment width. Relativistic angle aberration [e.g. @LindBlandford1985] for the increments’ bulk Lorentz factors is taken into account. This “profile” is then fed into an IDL routine which creates a FITS image of the jet. Each model was then rotated by position angles in steps of 15 degrees covering the full range of angle. Furthermore, once the jet was placed with the specified rotation on the image, we convolved it with a Gaussian ellipse of the scattering as determined below.
Jet models were imaged on a $2001 \times 2001$ grid with a pixel resolution of 14 $\mu$arcsec. Fig. \[fig:modeldemo\] shows the underlying jet model and the resulting scatter-broadened model in linear and logarithmic scales. The large-scale differences seen in the logarithmic representation do not make a significant contribution to our ability to differentiate between these models, since the total flux density in the outer regions is very small.
We directly compare the jet models with high resolution data obtained at a wavelength of 43 GHz (7 mm). The data are obtained primarily with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and in some cases include a single Very Large Array (VLA) antenna. Eight epochs of observations are described in @Boweretal2004. In addition, we include new observations obtained with the VLBA and the 100m Green Bank Telescope on 18 May 2004 (experiment code BB183). These observations were reduced in the same method as the earlier epochs with calibration for single-band delay and multi-band delay and rate.
We construct closure amplitude and closure phase from the visibility data. The closure phase is the sum of interferometric phases for a triangle of baselines. The closure amplitude is a product of interferometric amplitudes for baseline quadrilaterals. Analysis of the closure quantities is less sensitive than the analysis of calibrated visibilities because of the reduced number of degrees of freedom. The closure quantities are independent of amplitude and phase calibration, however. This property which makes them valuable estimators of source structure that are unbiased by systematic errors in calibration.
In @Boweretal2004 elliptical Gaussian models were fitted to the closure amplitudes for data sets at wavelengths from 7 mm to 6 cm. This fitting produced a best-fit elliptical Gaussian as a function of wavelength. Combining the VLBI measurements with new measurements of the size at wavelengths between 17 and 24 cm based on VLA observations, a size-wavelength relation was determined [@Boweretal2006]. The scattering ellipse from the long wavelength observations was computed to be $1.31 \times 0.64$ mas cm$^{-2}$ in position angle 78$^\circ$. The size of the ellipse scales as the wavelength-squared. Deviations from the wavelength-squared law at short wavelengths are indicative of the intrinsic size becoming comparable to the scattering size. The magnitude of the scattering ellipse is determined by the spectrum of turbulent electron density fluctuations. The orientation and axial ratio of the scattering ellipse are determined by the magnetic field properties of the plasma in which the scattering originates.
![Images of models 6, 30, 34, and 41. In the left column, we show the jet model with a linear stretch. In the middle column, we show the jet model after it has been convolved with the elliptical Gaussian representing scattering, also with a linear stretch. In the right column, we show the convolved jet model in a logarithmic stretch. The scale bars in the top row indicate 1 milli-arcsecond.[]{data-label="fig:modeldemo"}](fig3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Each model was directly compared with closure quantities from the data. First, we added a noise bias to each model image equal to the best-fit value determined from elliptical Gaussian fitting for the data set. We also experimented with using a range of noise biases that went from 0 to 2 times the best-fit value. We found that the minimum $\chi^2$ from this procedure was comparable to the $\chi^2$ for the best-fit noise bias. Second, we constructed the image two-dimensional FFT, which is the visibility plane representation of the data. Third, closure quantities were computed for each model for the time and antenna sampling of the data set. Finally, reduced $\chi^2$ was computed for closure amplitudes and closure phases for each model and each data set.
In addition to jet models, we also created a model image for an elliptical Gaussian that represents the best-fit Gaussian from @Boweretal2004. The reduced $\chi^2_\nu=1.9$ from this fit is the baseline result that jet models must meet or surpass in order to remain viable.
To demonstrate the ability of our method to discriminate between models, we substituted the closure quantities from the data with closure quantities derived from model 41 in three different position angles (90, 120, and 180 degrees). We then compared the substituted closure quantities with closure quantities from all models and position angles (Figure \[fig:model41\]). We computed the results for three different values of the noise bias. These results show that we can differentiate between position angles and models in the case of high signal-to-noise ratios (SNR).
![Total $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for models 6, 30, 34, and 41 for the case where the data is replaced with closure quantities calculated from model 41 in position angle 90 deg (left column), 120 deg (middle column), and 180 deg (right column). Model closure quantities were computed for three different estimates of the noise, with the solid line representing the least noise, the dot-dashed line the middle case, and the dashed line the most noise.[]{data-label="fig:model41"}](fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We also considered whether there are systematic differences in the model $\chi^2$ between different data sets (Figure \[fig:alldata\]). Seven of nine data sets are essentially consistent with each other. Data set BB130C shows a flat $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle. This is consistent with larger than average noise (Figure \[fig:model41\]), which was also seen in poor limits from the Gaussian fitting (Bower et al. 2004). Data set BS055C shows a similar profile in $\chi^2_\nu$ versus position angle but significantly larger values than average. This suggests that we may have underestimated the noise for this experiment. We have therefore dropped these two outlier experiments from all further modeling results.
![Total $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for model 41 showing each radio data set individually.[]{data-label="fig:alldata"}](fig5.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Results {#sec5}
=======
In Figure \[fig:models\] we show all of the model images used in the analysis. In Figure \[fig:chi2p\], \[fig:chi2a\], and \[fig:chi2\] we show the closure phase, closure amplitude, and total $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for each of the models. In order to see details for the best-fitting models, we plot $\chi^2_\nu$ only on a scale of 0 to 5. For several models, $\chi^2_\nu > 5$; thus where no curve is present, the model is already strongly rejected.
For a number of models, the minimum $\chi^2_\nu$ is less than or comparable to the best-fit Gaussian model. For all cases presented here, $\chi^2_\nu$ never achieves a significantly smaller value than the best-fit Gaussian model, which would allow unequivocal rejection of that model in favor of a jet model. Instead, these results demonstrate that we can adequately but not uniquely model the data as a bipolar, relativistic jet. This result alone shows that jets in Sgr A\* cannot be ruled out on the basis of their being unresolved.
![Images of all models prior to convolution with the scattering ellipse, with a linear stretch. The scale for each image is 1 milliarcsecond. []{data-label="fig:models"}](fig6.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Closure phase $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for all models. The dotted line represents the reduced $\chi^2$ for the best-fit Gaussian model. []{data-label="fig:chi2p"}](fig7.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Closure amplitude $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for all models. The dotted line represents the reduced $\chi^2$ for the best-fit Gaussian model. []{data-label="fig:chi2a"}](fig8.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Total $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle for all models. The dotted line represents the reduced $\chi^2$ for the best-fit Gaussian model. []{data-label="fig:chi2"}](fig9.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We see that most of the deviations in $\chi^2_\nu$ as a function of position angle are visible in the closure amplitude. For many models, the closure phase $\chi^2_\nu$ is independent of position angle and is comparable to the value from Gaussian fitting. The closure phase results indicate that any deviations from axisymmetry in the source image are very small. The dominant role of the closure amplitude in variations with position angle is indicative of sensitivity to the size of the source in a given direction.
In the East-West direction (90/270$^\circ$), we have the best size determination because of the better resolution of the telescope in this direction. One can think of this as the data having smaller “error bars” around these angles. On the other hand, the scattering angle is largest, so asymmetries and extended components may be more obscured. In the North-South directions, the resolution is worse by a factor of $\sim 3$. Thus, minima in $\chi^2$ at 0, 180 and 360 in several models are not significant. In these cases the overall fit is very bad (as can be seen in the regions of better resolution around 90/270$^\circ$) and the dips represent instead regions where our data are the least constraining. However in several models we see minima which are clearly offset from 90/270$^\circ$, such as model 41 where the minimum occurs at $\sim 105^\circ$ (this can be most easily seen in Fig. \[fig:PAchi2\]). The peaks seen at 0/180/360$^\circ$ suggest that even with the poorest resolution, the asymmetry is too great to be consistent with those directions. The fact that the model is minimized at an angle where our ability to constrain the asymmetry is greater is suggestive, and its total $\chi2$ is in fact slightly lower than the best-fit Gaussian value. However, it is far too preliminary to claim a detection of a preferred position angle. These results do suggest, however, that with better resolution, especially in the N-S direction, the position angle of a jet may be constrained, particularly during flaring states. Furthermore, many position angles are clearly ruled out, never achieving close to minimum $\chi^2$ for any spectrally consistent model.
In Figs. \[fig:scat1\]–\[fig:scat4\], we show “scatter plots” of the minimum $\chi^2$ from Fig. \[fig:chi2\] associated with some model parameters, for the 30 quiescent models only. The size and darkness of the circle/ellipse are inversely proportional to the $\chi^2$, i.e, large and black circles/ellipses are the best fits while lighter, smaller regions are not. The two data sets which are clearly discrepant from the others as discussed above, BB130C and BS055C, are not included.
Fig. \[fig:scat1\] demonstrates the clear selection of compact jets (whose smallest scale is the nozzle radius $r_0$) and high inclination angles. A much more stringent constraint than the spectrum alone is the combined effect of these two parameters on the jet profile. While any compact nozzle less than several $r_g$, or inclination above $\sim
75^\circ$, is acceptable spectrally, the high level of symmetry required by the VLBI data strongly favors the most compact jets which are the most beamed out of the line of sight. Because the jets are mildly accelerating, the beaming-induced “dimming” increases along the jet axes, thus emphasizing the less elongated nozzle regions. These results are also a reassuring confirmation because it would be surprising and somewhat alarming if the jets were so misaligned as to be pointing significantly towards the Galactic plane in which we roughly sit. Fig \[fig:scat2\] also compares two geometrical parameters, this time the position angle on the sky versus the inclination angle. The best fit jet is therefore almost perpendicular to us, with a position angle on the sky of $\sim 105^\circ$. Fig. \[fig:PAchi2\] shows the clear peak in $1/\chi^2$ at this angle.
Fig. \[fig:scat3\] gives an example of how the additional morphology comparisons can also help constrain internal jet parameters such as the equipartition of energy and electron temperature. While the overall range of spectrally-allowed temperatures spans a decade in temperature, the upper range clearly does not provide a compact enough jet profile. The equipartition parameter however is best constrained by the spectral fitting, which has already selected a rather narrow range. Values $>1$ are magnetically dominated.
Finally in Fig. \[fig:scat4\] we show that some parameter degeneracies clearly remain despite our new approach. Here we plot the electron temperature against the jet normalization parameter $N_j$. A clear range of acceptable values exists in both parameters, demonstrating for instance how a higher temperature electron distribution can compensate for lower power because of its more energetic emission. This can be understood from the critical synchrotron frequency relationship $\nu_s\propto B \gamma_e^2$, where $B^2 \propto
N_j$ and $\gamma_e \propto T_e$.
![For each of the 30 quiescent models, we plot the minimum $\chi^2$ in PA from Fig. \[fig:chi2\] for the indicated nozzle radius $r_0$ and inclination angle. The radius and greyscale (from white to black) are linear in $1/\chi^2$, and smaller $\chi^2$ (larger circle) fits are plotted last. The largest, darkest circles have $\chi^2_{\min}\sim1.5$.[]{data-label="fig:scat1"}](fig10_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Color scale the same as Fig. \[fig:scat1\], with symbols now ellipses (axes scaled linearly in $1/\chi^2$) to better illustrate the parameter space, showing $\chi^2$ as a function of model PA and inclination angle.[]{data-label="fig:scat2"}](fig11_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![For all models, $1/\chi^2$ as a function of jet PA. The best fit occurs for 105/285$^\circ$. []{data-label="fig:PAchi2"}](fig12_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Same symbol definitions as Fig. \[fig:scat1\], showing $\chi^2$ as a function of electron temperature and equipartition parameter (between magnetic and radiating particle energy densities, with $>1$ meaning magnetically dominated). These are the two most important internal rather than geometrical parameters. []{data-label="fig:scat3"}](fig13_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Same symbol definitions as Fig. \[fig:scat1\], showing $\chi^2$ as a function of electron temperature and jet normalizing power (related to, but slightly less than, the total power; see Appendix in @MarkoffNowakWilms2005). There is a clear relationship between these two parameters. []{data-label="fig:scat4"}](fig14_sm.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec6}
==========================
The most important conclusion of this paper is that a jet model, with reasonable physical assumptions about its geometry and internal physics, is capable of explaining the radio through IR (and higher, during flares) spectrum of Sgr A\* and [*not be visible at all to us as an object with jet-like morphology!*]{} Aside from the overall low jet power, the lack of significant particle acceleration implied by Sgr A\*’s IR spectrum would predict extremely compact jet profiles. Our results demonstrate that the lack of an imaged jet in Sgr A\* is not necessarily due to any absence, but rather stems from a very compact, weak source combined with the rather extreme scatter broadening by Galactic electrons, and limits on our spatial resolution, especially in the N-S direction.
However, even without being able to detect a fully elongated structure, the combination of spectral fitting with constraints from comparison with VLBI morphology can significantly limit the acceptable range of parameter space for jet models of Sgr A\*. Figures \[fig:scat1\]–\[fig:scat4\] visually demonstrate these new limits, which are successful despite the preliminary exploration of all parameter space.
Not altogether surprisingly, the additional inclusion of size constraints from VLBI places tighter limits on the model geometry. For instance, while fitting the quiescent spectrum can only limit the inclination angle to $\ga 45^\circ$, the addition of VLBI data in indicates a very clear preference for $\theta_i \sim 90^\circ$. Similarly, the size constraints from VLBI also narrow the range in jet nozzle size from $\la 8r_g$ to $\la 5r_g$ with the best fits at the smaller end. In the context of jet models, this would require jet launching to occur very close to the black hole, within the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) for a Schwarzschild black hole.
Size constraints also indicate that VLBI data can already begin to constrain the orientation of jets on the sky. The best fit is found over a narrow range $90-120^\circ$ centered at $\sim105^\circ$, in a region where the resolution of the VLBI is good enough to begin discerning the asymmetry. The preferred PA is interesting, in that it could be related to the average position angle of the electromagnetic fields and thus give further clues about jet geometry. Recent observations of variable linear polarization by @Boweretal2005 and @Marroneetal2006b observed PA changes of $30^\circ-60^\circ$ over timescales of days to months. Infrared measurements of the polarization during flares also show significant variability [@Trippeetal2007]. The variability is most likely intrinsic, although there may be a favored or mean intrinsic polarization PA in the various wavelengths, though currently they do not seem to agree with each other. Confirming both angles may ultimately provide important information about the helicity of the magnetic field threading the jets, or near the black hole.
In addition, Figs. \[fig:chi2p\]-\[fig:chi2\] clearly indicate a dramatic difference in the goodness-of-fit between quiescent and flaring models for Sgr A\*. This is because the mechanisms involved in creating the flares [@Markoffetal2001; @LiuMelia2002; @YuanQuataertNarayan2003] are either heating or accelerating the radiating particles, which alters the optical depth and changes the jet profile on the sky. Our results strongly argue for further simultaneous X-ray and VLBI (eventually preferentially in the millimeter regime) monitoring of Sgr A\*, where these methods can strongly limit the contributions of acceleration and heating, respectively.
In conclusion, we find that the combination of broadband spectral and morphological constraints gives encouraging and interesting limits on jet models (or any model) which cannot be obtained by spectral fitting alone. In particular, the current difficulty in constraining the high-energy contribution of the jets because of the dominant quiescent thermal X-ray emission highlights the need for new approaches. Including constraints from VLBI images offers a powerful method to break the current degeneracy in theoretical models for Sgr A\*’s emission, as well as better constraint individual models themselves.
At 43 GHz and below, the key outstanding problem is to measure the two dimensional structure of Sgr A\*. This requires a careful selection of North-South baselines that are sensitive to structure on the scale of a few hundred micro-arcseconds. However, it is important to note that electron scattering still acts to symmetrize the data at 43 GHz, thus mm/submm VLBI could be even more revealing for these types of studies. The advantage may, however, be offset by the fact that higher frequencies probe even smaller scales in the jets, which would be predicted to be as symmetric as an accretion flow. On the other hand, mm/submm VLBI will bring us to scales comparable to those probed by the IR/X-ray flares. While this will allow us to better observe simultaneous flares in all three frequency bands, it also raises the question of how to distinguish the base region of a jet from an accretion flow. By identifying structural changes in morphology with spectral changes in a flare, the approach presented in this paper will be able to constrain the geometry, particle distributions and emission mechanisms contributing to the flares.
Finally we emphasize that the results presented here do not include modifications due to general relativistic effects near the black hole. For the current resolutions this may not be critical, but as we probe closer to the innermost regions with higher frequencies, this clearly needs to be taken into account [e.g. @FalckeMeliaAgol2000; @BroderickLoeb2005].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Michael Wise for help with the scripts for producing FITs images from the calculations. H.F. would like to thank the Miller Institute for hosting his Visiting Miller Professorship at the Astronomy Department of UC Berkeley, during which significant progress on this paper was made.
D. K., [Greaves]{} J., [Chrysostomou]{} A., [Jenness]{} T., [Holland]{} W., [Hough]{} J. H., [Pierce-Price]{} D., [Richer]{} J., 2000, , 534, L173
An T., Goss W. M., Zhao J.-H., Hong X. Y., Roy S., Rao A. P., Shen Z.-Q., 2005, , [in press, (astro-ph/0503527)]{}
D. C., [Sramek]{} R. A., 1999, , 524, 805
F. K., 2003, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 7,
Baganoff F. K., Bautz M. W., Brandt W. N., Chartas G., Feigelson E. D., Garmire G. P., Maeda Y., Morris M., Ricker G. R., Townsley L. K., Walter F., 2001, Nature, 413, 45
Baganoff F. K., Maeda Y., Morris M., Bautz M. W., Brandt W. N., Burrows D. N., 2003, , 591, 891
B., [Brown]{} R. L., 1974, , 194, 265
G., [Goldwurm]{} A., [Melia]{} F., [Ferrando]{} P., [Grosso]{} N., [Porquet]{} D., [Warwick]{} R., [Yusef-Zadeh]{} F., 2005, , 635, 1095
M. F., [Bartel]{} N., [Rupen]{} M. P., 2000, , 532, 895
R. D., [Königl]{} A., 1979, , 232, 34
G. C., [Falcke]{} H., [Herrnstein]{} R. M., [Zhao]{} J., [Goss]{} W. M., [Backer]{} D. C., 2004, Science, 304, 704
G. C., [Falcke]{} H., [Mellon]{} R. R., 2002, , 578, L103
G. C., [Falcke]{} H., [Wright]{} M. C., [Backer]{} D. C., 2005, , 618, L29
G. C., [Goss]{} W. M., [Falcke]{} H., [Backer]{} D. C., [Lithwick]{} Y., 2006, , 648, L127
G. C., [Wright]{} M. C. H., [Falcke]{} H., [Backer]{} D. C., 2003, , 588, 331
A. E., [Loeb]{} A., 2005, , 363, 353
A., [Bower]{} G. C., [Falcke]{} H., 2006, , 451, 845
A., [Bower]{} G. C., [Falcke]{} H., [Mellon]{} R. R., 2001, , 560, L123
S., [Nowak]{} M., [Fender]{} R. P., [Tzioumis]{} A. K., Markoff S., 2003, , [400]{}, 1007
Eckart A., Baganoff F., Morris M., Bautz M. W., Brandt W., Garmire G., Genzel R., Ott T., Ricker G., Straubmeier C., Viehmann T., Schödel R., 2004,
H., 1996, , 464, L67
H., [Biermann]{} P. L., 1995, , 293, 665
H., [Biermann]{} P. L., 1999, , 342, 49
Falcke H., Körding E., Markoff S., 2004, , 414, 895
H., [Markoff]{} S., 2000, , 362, 113
H., [Melia]{} F., 1997, , 479, 740
H., [Melia]{} F., [Agol]{} E., 2000, , 528, L13
R., [Corbel]{} S. ., [Tzioumis]{} T., [McIntyre]{} V., [Campbell-Wilson]{} D., [Nowak]{} M., [Sood]{} R., [Hunstead]{} R., [Harmon]{} A., [Durouchoux]{} P., [Heindl]{} W., 1999, , 519, L165
R. P., [Gallo]{} E., [Jonker]{} P. G., 2003, , 343, L99
E., [Fender]{} R. P., [Miller-Jones]{} J. C. A., [Merloni]{} A., [Jonker]{} P. G., [Heinz]{} S., [Maccarone]{} T. J., [van der Klis]{} M., 2006, , 370, 1351
E., [Fender]{} R. P., [Pooley]{} G. G., 2003, , 344, 60
R., [Sch[" o]{}del]{} R., [Ott]{} T., [Eckart]{} A., [Alexander]{} T., [Lacombe]{} F., [Rouan]{} D., [Aschenbach]{} B., 2003, , 425, 934
A. M., [Morris]{} M., [Becklin]{} E. E., [Tanner]{} A., [Kremenek]{} T., 2000, , 407, 349
A. M., [Wright]{} S. A., [Matthews]{} K., [Thompson]{} D., [Le Mignant]{} D., [Tanner]{} A., [Hornstein]{} S. D., [Morris]{} M., [Becklin]{} E. E., [Soifer]{} B. T., 2004, , 601, L159
L. C., 1999, , 516, 672
E., [Falcke]{} H., [Corbel]{} S., 2006, , 456, 439
K. R., [Blandford]{} R. D., 1985, , 295, 358
S., [Melia]{} F., 2002, , 566, L77
J.-P., [Bower]{} G. C., [Wright]{} M. C. H., [Backer]{} D. C., [Falcke]{} H., 2006, , 646, L111
S., [Falcke]{} H., [Fender]{} R., 2001, , 372, L25
S., [Falcke]{} H., [Yuan]{} F., [Biermann]{} P. L., 2001, , 379, L13
S., [Nowak]{} M., [Corbel]{} S., Fender R., Falcke H., 2003, , 397, 645
Markoff S., Nowak M. A., Wilms J., 2005,
D. P., [Moran]{} J. M., [Zhao]{} J. ., [Rao]{} R., 2006a,
D. P., [Moran]{} J. M., [Zhao]{} J.-H., [Rao]{} R., 2006b, , 640, 308
F., 1992, , 387, L25
F., [Falcke]{} H., 2001, , 39, 309
A., [Heinz]{} S., [di Matteo]{} T., 2003, , 345, 1057
A., [K[ö]{}rding]{} E., [Heinz]{} S., [Markoff]{} S., [Di Matteo]{} T., [Falcke]{} H., 2006, New Astronomy, 11, 567
Migliari S., Tomsick J. A., Markoff S., Kalemci E., Bailyn C., Buxton M., Corbel S., Fender R. P., Kaaret P., 2007,
N. M., [Falcke]{} H., [Wilson]{} A. S., 2005, , 435, 521
N. M., [Falcke]{} H., [Wilson]{} A. S., [Ulvestad]{} J. S., 2002, , 392, 53
R., [Mahadevan]{} R., [Grindlay]{} J. E., [Popham]{} R. G., [Gammie]{} C., 1998, , 492, 554
M. E., [Lazio]{} T. J. W., [Kassim]{} N. E., [Goss]{} W. M., [Duric]{} N., 2004, , 601, L51
E., 2002, , 575, 855
M. J., [Menten]{} K. M., [Genzel]{} R., [Ott]{} T., [Sch[" o]{}del]{} R., [Eckart]{} A., 2003, , 587, 208
S., [Pramesh Rao]{} A., 2004, , 349, L25
R., [Ott]{} T., [Genzel]{} R., [Eckart]{} A., [Mouawad]{} N., [Alexander]{} T., 2003, , 596, 1015
N. I., [Sunyaev]{} R. A., 1973, , 24, 337
Z.-Q., [Lo]{} K. Y., [Liang]{} M.-C., [Ho]{} P. T. P., [Zhao]{} J.-H., 2005, , 438, 62
S., [Paumard]{} T., [Ott]{} T., [Gillessen]{} S., [Eisenhauer]{} F., [Martins]{} F., [Genzel]{} R., 2007, , 375, 764
F., [Markoff]{} S., [Falcke]{} H., 2002, , 383, 854
F., [Markoff]{} S., [Falcke]{} H., [Biermann]{} P. L., 2002, , 391, 139
F., [Quataert]{} E., [Narayan]{} R., 2003, , 598, 301
F., [Shen]{} Z.-Q., [Huang]{} L., 2006, , 642, L45
F., [Roberts]{} D., [Wardle]{} M., [Heinke]{} C. O., [Bower]{} G. C., 2006, , 650, 189
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Ilka Agricola and Thomas Friedrich\'
title: 'Upper bounds for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on surfaces. [^1]'
---
amssym.def 0em -3cm -2cm 0em
\
[**Abstract**]{}\
In this paper we will prove new extrinsic upper bounds for the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator on an isometrically immersed surface $M^2 \hookrightarrow {\Bbb R}^3$ as well as intrinsic bounds for 2-dimensional compact manifolds of genus zero and genus one. Moreover, we compare the different estimates of the eigenvalue of the Dirac operator for special families of metrics.\
[*Subj. Class.:*]{} Differential geometry.\
[*1991 MSC:*]{} 58G25, 53A05.\
[*Keywords:*]{} Dirac operator, spectrum, surfaces.\
\
Introduction
============
The Dirac operator $D$ acting on spinor fields defined over a 2-dimensional, compact, oriented Riemannian manifold $(M^2,g)$ with a fixed spin structure has a non-trivial kernel in general. Therefore, lower bounds for the eigenvalues of $D$ are not known in case the genus of $M^2$ is positive. The genus zero case is an exceptional one: using the uniformization theorem for simply-connected Riemann surfaces, we conclude that any metric $g$ on $S^2$ is conformally equivalent to the standard metric $g_o$ of $S^2$. Since the dimension of the space of all harmonic spinors depends on the conformal structure only, it turns out that, for any metric $g$ on $S^2$, there are no harmonic spinors. This observation yields a lower bound for the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2$ of $D^2$ proved by J. Lott (1986) and Chr. Bär (1992): the inequality
$$\frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} \, (S^2, g)} \le \lambda_1^2$$
holds for any Riemannian metric on $S^2$ (see \[1\], \[11\]).\
On the other hand, several upper bounds for $\lambda_1^2$ depending on different geometric data are known. Intrinsic upper bounds involving the injectivity radius and the Gaussian curvature have been obtained by H. Baum (see \[5\]) and Chr. Bär (see \[2\]). In case the Riemannian surface $(M^2,g)$ is isometrically immersed into the 3-dimensional Euclidean space ${\Bbb R}^3$, one has extrinsic upper bounds depending on the ${\cal C}^0$-norm of the principal curvatures $\kappa_1, \kappa_2$ of the surface (see \[5\]). Denote by $H= (\kappa_1 + \kappa_2)/{2}$ the mean curvature. Then the following estimate for $ \lambda_1^2$ depending on the $L^2$-norm of the mean curvature $H$ is well-known (see \[6\], \[3\]):
$$\lambda^2_1 \le \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} H^2 dM^2}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} .$$
In the present paper we will prove stronger extrinsic upper bounds for $\lambda_1^2$ in case of an isometrically immersed surface $M^2 \hookrightarrow {\Bbb R}^3$ of arbritrary genus as well as an intrinsic upper bound for genus zero and genus one. Moreover, we will compare the different estimates of the eigenvalue of the Dirac operator for special families of metrics.\
The extrinsic upper bound in case of a surface isometrically immersed into ${\Bbb R}^3$ depends on two smooth functions $f: M^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ and $G: {\Bbb R} \to {\Bbb R}$.\
[**Theorem 1:**]{} [*The first eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2$ of the square of the Dirac operator on a surface $M^2 \hookrightarrow {\Bbb R}^3$ is bounded by*]{}
$$\lambda_1^2 \le \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} H^2 (f^2 + G^2 (f)) dM^2 + \int_{M^2} | \mbox{grad} \, f|^2 (1+ [G' (f)]^2 )dM^2}{ {\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} ( f^2 + G^2 (f) ) dM^2} ,$$
[*where $f: M^2 \to {\Bbb R}$, $G: {\Bbb R} \to {\Bbb R}$ are smooth functions and $G'$ denotes the derivative of $G$.*]{}\
Suppose now that $(M^2,g)$ is a two-dimensional Riemannian manifold diffeomorphic to $S^2$. Denote by $g_o$ the standard metric of $S^2$. Then there exists a uniformization map, conformal diffeomorphism $\Phi : S^2 \to M^2$. Let us introduce the function $h_{\Phi} : S^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ by the formula
$$\Phi^* (g) = h_{\Phi}^4 g_o .$$
The set ${\cal U} (S^2, M^2)$ of all uniformization maps preserving the orientation can be parametrised by the elements of the connected component of the group of all conformal diffeomorphisms of $S^2$, i.e., ${\cal U} (S^2, M^2) \approx SL (2, {\Bbb C})$. We introduce a new invariant ${\delta^{\mbox{\tiny Dir}}_c}(M^2,g)$ defined in a similar way as the conformal volume of a Riemann surface (see \[10\]):
$${\delta^{\mbox{\tiny Dir}}_c}(M^2,g) = \inf \left\{ \int\limits_{S^2} \frac{| \mbox{grad} (h_{\Phi})|^2}{h_{\Phi}^2} d S^2 : \Phi \in {\cal U} (S^2, M^2) \right\} .$$
The vector field $\mbox{grad} (h_{\Phi})$ is the gradient of the function $h_{\Phi} :S^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ with respect to the standard metric of $S^2$.\
[**Theorem 2:**]{} [*Let $(M^2,g)$ be a two-dimensional Riemannian manifold diffeomorphic to the sphere $S^2$. Then*]{}
$$0 \le \, \, \lambda_1^2 - \frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} \, \, \le \, \, \frac{{\delta^{\mbox{\tiny Dir}}_c}(M^2,g)}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)}$$
[*holds.*]{}\
The same method applies to Riemannian metrics on the two-dimensional torus $T^2$. The spin structures of $T^2$ are described by pairs $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)$ of numbers $\varepsilon_i =0,1$, the trivial spin structure corresponding to the pair $(\varepsilon_1 , \varepsilon_2) = (0,0)$. Let $\Gamma$ be a lattice in ${\Bbb R}^2$ with basis $v_1, v_2$ and denote by $v_1^*, v_2^*$ the dual basis of the dual lattice $\Gamma^*$. We will compare the flat metric $g_o$ on the torus $T^2 = {\Bbb R}^2/ \Gamma$ with a conformally equivalent metric $g = h^4 g_o$.\
[**Theorem 3:**]{} [*Let $(M^2,g)$ be a two-dimensional Riemannian manifold conformally equivalent to the flat torus $T^2$ and equipped with the trivial spin structure. Then the Dirac operator on $(M^2,g)$ has a two-dimensional kernel. Moreover, the first positive eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2 (g)$ of $D^2$ on $(M^2,g)$ is bounded by* ]{}
$$\lambda_1^2 (g) \le \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {\phantom{q}}} \left\{ \lambda_1^2 (g_o) + \frac{4}{h^2} | \mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2 \right\} \frac{1}{h^6} dT^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} \frac{1}{h^2} dT^2} .$$
[**Theorem 4:**]{}
*Let $(M^2,g)$ be a two-dimensional Riemannian manifold conformally equivalent to the flat torus $T^2$. In case the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1 , \varepsilon_2) \not= (0,0)$ is non-trivial, the Dirac operator has a trivial kernel and $\lambda_1^2 (D)$ is bounded by*
$$\lambda_1^2 (D) \le \pi^2 \, | \varepsilon_1 v^*_1 + \varepsilon_2 v_2^* |^2 \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {{\phantom{q}}}} \frac{1}{h^2} dT^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} h^2 dT^2} \, \, .$$
Moreover, the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (D) \mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g) \le \lambda_1^2 (g_o) \mbox{vol} \, (T^2,g_o) + \int_{T^2} \frac{|\mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2}{h^2} dT^2$$
[*with*]{}
$$\lambda_1^2 (g_o) \mbox{vol} \, (T^2, g_o) = \pi^2 \frac{| \varepsilon_1 v_1^* + \varepsilon_2 v_2^* |^2}{\sqrt{|v_1^*|^2 |v_2^*|^2 - \langle v_1^*, v_2^* \rangle}}$$
[*holds.*]{}\
We shall apply the previous results to two families of surfaces of special interest. Let us first consider the ellipsoid
$$E(a) = \left\{ (x,y,z) \in {\Bbb R}^3: x^2 +y^2 + \frac{z^2}{a^2} =1 \right\} \, .$$
A calculation of the volume yields that the lower bound ${4 \pi}/{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))}$ for $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ is a monotone decreasing function of the parameter $a$:
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} = 2 \quad , \quad \lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} = 0 .$$
Using the upper bounds for $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ already known, we cannot control the behaviour of $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ for small or large values of the parameter $a$. For example, the $L^2$-bound given by the mean curvature $H$ has the following limits:
$$\lim_{a \to 0} \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a) {\phantom{q}}} H^2 dE(a)}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} = \infty \quad , \quad \lim_{a \to 0} \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a) } H^2 dE(a)}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} = \frac{1}{2} .$$
Now, a combination of our stronger extrinsic and intrinsic upper bounds for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator yields the following improvement for the ellipsoid:\
[**Theorem 5:**]{}
*The first eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2$ of $D^2$ on the ellipsoid $E(a)$ satisfies*
- $2 \le \overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \, \lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{3}{2} + \ln 2 \approx 2,2$;
- $\lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \lambda_1^2 (a) =0$;
- $\lambda_1^2 (a) \stackrel{<}{\sim} \frac{2 \ln (2) + 3}{\pi} \frac{1}{a} $ for $a \to \infty.$
In the last part of this paper we apply our estimates to a tube of radius $r$ around a circle of curvature $\kappa$, i.e., a ”round” torus. Parametrizing the spin structure as before, the inequalities for $\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r)$ allow us to prove, in particular,
$$\lim\limits_{r \to 0} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) \mbox{vol} \, (\kappa,r) = \lim\limits_{\kappa \to 0} \lambda_1^2 ( \kappa,r) \mbox{vol} \, (\kappa,r)=0$$
for the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)=(1,0)$ and
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{r \kappa \to 1}} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) \mbox{vol} \, (\kappa, r) \le \pi^2$$
for the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)=(0,1)$ (for these two spin structures, no upper bounds were available before). However, they turn out to yield no improvement for the induced spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)=(1,1)$; thus, in this case, the classical bound involving the integral over $H^2$ divided by the volume is still the best one available.\
Extrinsic upper bounds
======================
Let $M^2$ be a compact, oriented surface isometrically immersed into the Euclidean space ${\Bbb R}^3$ and denote by $\vec{N} (m)$ the unit normal vector of $M^2$ at the point $m \in M^2$. The restriction $\Phi_{|M^2}$ of a spinor field $\Phi$ defined on ${\Bbb R}^3$ is a spinor field on the surface $M^2$. Let $\Phi$ be a parallel spinor on ${\Bbb R}^3$. Then the spinor field
$$\varphi^* = \frac{1}{2} (1-i) \Phi_{|M^2} + \frac{1}{2} (-1+i) \vec{N} \cdot \Phi_{|M^2}$$
is of constant length on $M^2$ and satisfies the two-dimensional Dirac equation
$$D( \varphi^*)= H \varphi^* ,$$
where $H$ denotes the mean curvature of the surface (see \[9\]). Thus, starting with two parallel spinors $\Phi_1, \Phi_2$ with
$$| \Phi_1 |= | \Phi_2 |=1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \langle \Phi_1 , \Phi_2 \rangle =0 \, ,$$
we obtain two solutions $\varphi_1^*, \varphi^*_2$ of the Dirac equation
$$D(\varphi_{\alpha}^*)= H \varphi_{\alpha}^* \quad , \quad \alpha =1,2$$
such that $| \varphi_1^* (m)| = | \varphi_2^* (m)| =1$ and $\langle \varphi_1^* (m) , \varphi_2^* (m) \rangle =0$ holds at any point $m \in M^2$. Given two real-valued functions $f,g : M^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ we consider the spinor field
$$\psi = f \varphi_1^* + g \varphi_2^* .$$
After applying the Dirac operator to $\psi$
$$D( \psi)= H \psi + \mbox{grad} \, (f) \cdot \varphi_1^* + \mbox{grad} \, (g) \cdot \varphi_2^* ,$$
a direct calculation yields the formula
$$|D(\psi)|^2 = H^2 (f^2 + g^2 ) + | \mbox{grad} \, (f)|^2 + |\mbox{grad} \, (g)|^2 - 2 \, \mbox{Re} \, (\mbox{grad} \, (f) \cdot \mbox{grad} \, (g) \cdot \varphi_2^* , \varphi_1^*) .$$
In case the vector fields $\mbox{grad} \, (g)$ and $\mbox{grad} \, (f)$ are parallel, the last term in this formula vanishes since $\varphi_1^*$ and $\varphi_2^*$ are orthogonal. In this case the Rayleigh quotient coincides with
$$\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} |D(\psi)|^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} |\psi|^2} = \frac{ {\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} H^2 (f^2 + g^2) dM^2 + {{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}} \left( |\mbox{grad} \, (f)|^2 + |\mbox{grad} \, (g)|^2 \right) dM^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} (f^2 + g^2) dM^2} .$$
The condition for the gradients of the functions $f$ and $g$ is satisfied for example if $g$ is a function depending on $f$, i.e., $g=G(f)$. Finally, we have proved Theorem 1.\
Intrinsic upper bounds for a surface diffeomorphic to $ S^2 \, \mbox{or} \, T^2$
==================================================================================
Let $(M^2, g_o)$ be a compact, oriented 2-dimensional Riemannian spin manifold and denote by $D_o$ its Dirac operator. Moreover, consider a conformally equivalent metric
$${g} = h^4 g_o .$$
The corresponding Dirac operator ${D}$ is related with $D_o$ by the formula (see \[4\])
$${D} = \frac{1}{h^2} D_o + \frac{\mbox{grad} \, (h)}{h^3} .$$
Consequently, the equation ${D} (\psi) = {\lambda} \psi$ is equivalent to
$$D_o(\psi)= {\lambda} h^2 \psi - \frac{1}{h} \mbox{grad} (h) \cdot \psi .$$
For any spinor field $\psi$ we compute the $L^2$-norm of ${D} (\psi)$:
$$\int\limits_{M^2} | {D} (\psi) |^2 d {M}^2 = \int\limits_{M^2} \left\{ |D_o(\psi) |^2 + \frac{| \mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2}{h^2} |\psi|^2 + \frac{2}{h} \mbox{Re} \, (\mbox{grad} \, (h) \cdot \psi, D_o( \psi)) \right\} dM_o^2 .$$
Suppose now that $\psi$ is an eigenspinor of the Dirac operator $D_o$ with eigenvalue $\lambda_i$. Then $\mbox{Re} \, (\mbox{grad} \, (h) \cdot \psi, D_o(\psi))=0$ and we obtain the formula
$$\int\limits_{M^2} | {D} (\psi) |^2 d {M}^2 = \int\limits_{M^2} \left\{ \lambda_i^2 + \frac{|\mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2}{h^2} \right\} |\psi|^2 dM_o^2 .$$
Hence, the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2 ({D})$ of the Dirac operator is bounded by
$$\lambda_1^2 ({D}) \le \inf\limits_{\lambda_i} \, \, \, \inf\limits_{D_o (\psi)= \lambda_i \psi} \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2} {\phantom{q}}\left\{ \lambda_i^2 + \frac{|\mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2}{h^2} \right\} |\psi|^2 dM^2_o}{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} |\psi|^2 h^4 dM^2_o} .$$
Let us now discuss the special case that $(M^2,g_o)$ is the two-dimensional sphere with its standard metric and ${g}$ a conformally equivalent metric. The first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on $S^2$ is $\lambda_1 =1$. Moreover, the corresponding eigenspinor $\psi$ is a real Killing spinor satisfying the differential equation
$$\nabla_X (\psi) = - \frac{1}{2} X \cdot \psi \quad , \quad X \in T(S^2) .$$
In particular, the length of $\psi$ is constant and we obtain the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 ({D}) \le \frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} \, (S^2,g)} + \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{S^2 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{| \mbox{grad} \, (h)|^2}{h^2} dS^2}{\mbox{vol} \, (S^2,g)} .$$
Starting with a surface $(M^2,g)$ diffeomorphic to $S^2$, the latter inequality holds for any uniformization, i.e., for any conformal diffeomorphism $\Phi : S^2 \to M^2$ such that $\Phi^* (g) = h_{\Phi}^4 g_o$. In particular, we have proved Theorem 2.\
[**Remark:**]{} For any conformal diffeomorphism $\psi \in SL (2, {\Bbb C})$ of the two-dimensional sphere $S^2$ we denote by $h_{\psi} : S^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ the function defined by the equation
$$\psi^* (g_o)= h_{\psi}^4 g_o .$$
Let $f:S^2 \to {\Bbb R}$ be a smooth function. Then we define the number
$$\delta_c^{\tiny \mbox{Dir}} (f) = \inf \left\{ \int_{S^2} | \mbox{grad} (f \circ \psi) + \mbox{grad} (\log (h_{\psi}))|^2 dS^2: \psi \in SL (2, {\Bbb C}) \right\} \, \, .$$
In case of a uniformization $\Phi: S^2 \to M^2$ such that $\Phi^* (g) = h^4_{\Phi} g_o$, we have
$$\int_{S^2} \frac{| \mbox{grad} (h_{\Phi})|^2}{h_{\Phi}^2} dS^2 = \int_{S^2} |€\mbox{grad} (\log (h_{\Phi}))|^2 dS^2$$
and, consequently, for the quantity $\delta^{\tiny \mbox{Dir}}_c (M^2,g)$ defined in the introduction, the relation
$$\delta^{\tiny \mbox{Dir}}_c (M^2,g) = \delta^{\tiny \mbox{Dir}}_c (\log (h_{\Phi})) .$$
We consider the case that $(M^2,g)$ is the flat torus $T^2 =({\Bbb R}^2 /\Gamma, g_o)$ given by a lattice $\Gamma$ in ${\Bbb R}^2$ with trivial spin structure. In this case there are two parallel spinor fields $\varphi^+$ and $\varphi^-$ of constant length and the first non-trivial eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2 (g_o)$ of the square of the Dirac $D_o$ operator on $T^2$ is
$$\lambda_1^2 (g_o) = 4 \pi^2 \min \left\{ |v^*|^2: \, \, \, 0 \not= v^* \in \Gamma \right\} ,$$
where $\Gamma^*$ denotes the dual lattice (see \[7\]). Suppose now that $g$ is a metric on $M^2$ conformally equivalent to $g_o$, $g=h^4 g_o$. Then the kernel of the corresponding Dirac operator is again two-dimensional and spanned by the spinor fields $\frac{1}{h} \varphi^+, \frac{1}{h} \varphi^-$. Fix a spinor field $\psi$ such that $D_o (\psi)= \lambda_1 (g_o) \psi$. Then the length of $\psi$ is constant, i.e., $|\psi| \equiv 1$. The spinor field $\psi^* = \psi / h^3$ is orthogonal to the kernel of the Dirac operator $D$ with respect to the $L^2$-norm of the metric $g$. Indeed, we have
$$\int_{M^2} \left( \psi^*, \frac{1}{h} \varphi^{\pm} \right) dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \left( \frac{1}{h^3} \psi, \frac{1}{h} \varphi^{\pm} \right) h^4 dT^2 =$$
$$= \frac{1}{\lambda_1 (g_o)} \int_{T^2} \left( D_o (\psi), \varphi^{\pm} \right) dT^2 = \frac{1}{\lambda_1 (g_o)} \int_{T^2} \left( \psi, D_o (\varphi^{\pm}) \right) dT^2 = 0 .$$
This observation yields the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (g) \le \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} |D(\psi^*)|^2 dM^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} |\psi^*|^2 dM^2}$$
for the first non-trivial eigenvalue of $D^2$ on $(M^2,g)$. Moreover, we have
$$\int_{M^2} |\psi^*|^2 dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^6} h^4 dT^2 = \int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^2} dT^2$$
and
$$\int_{M^2} |D(\psi^*)|^2 dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \left\{ |D_o (\psi^*)|^2 + \frac{\mbox{grad} \, (h)}{h^2} |\psi^*|^2+ \frac{2}{h} \mbox{Re} \, \left( \mbox{grad} \, (h) \psi^*, D_o(\psi^*) \right) \right\} dT^2 .$$
Since the equation
$$D_o (h^3 \psi^*)= D_o (\psi) = \lambda_1 (g_o) \psi = \lambda_1 (g_o) h^3 \psi^*$$
can be rewritten in the form
$$D_o (\psi^*)= \lambda_1 (g_o) \psi^* - \frac{3}{h} \, \, \mbox{grad} \, (h) \psi^* ,$$
we obtain the formulas
$$\frac{2}{h} \mbox{Re} \, (\mbox{grad} \, (h) \psi^*, D_o (\psi^*))= - \frac{6}{h^2} \, \, |\mbox{grad} \, (h) |^2 |\psi^*|$$
and
$$|D_o (\psi^*)|^2 = \left\{ \lambda_1^2 (g_o) + \frac{9}{h^2} \, \, |\mbox{grad} \, |^2 \right\} |\psi^*|^2 .$$
Altogether, this implies
$$\int_{M^2} |D(\psi^*)|^2 dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \left\{ \lambda_1^2 (g_o) + \frac{4}{h^2} \, \, |\mbox{grad} (h)|^2 \right\} \frac{1}{h^6} dT^2$$
and it proves Theorem 3, in particular.\
Let us now consider the case that the spin structure on $(M^2,g) \approx T^2$ is non-trivial. Then the Dirac operator has no kernel and the eigenspinors of the Dirac operator $D_o$ on $T^2$ are again of constant length (see \[7\]). Then our method provides the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (g) \le \frac{\lambda_1^2 (g_o) \mbox{vol} \, (T^2, g_o)}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} + \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{|\mbox{grad} (h)|^2}{h^2} \, \, dT^2}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} .$$
The Gaussian curvature $G$ of the metric $g$ is given by
$$h^4 G = - 2 \Delta (\log (h)) ,$$
where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian with respect to the flat metric. We integrate this latter equation:
$$\int_{M^2} G \cdot \log (h) dM^2 = \int_{T^2} h^4 G \cdot \log (h) dT^2 = - 2 \int_{T^2} \frac{|\mbox{grad} (h)|^2}{h^2} \, \, dT^2$$
thus obtaining
$$\lambda_1^2 (g) \le \frac{\lambda_1^2 (g_o) \mbox{vol} \, (T^2, g_o)}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} - \frac{1}{2} \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} G \cdot \log (h) dM^2}{\mbox{vol} \, (M^2,g)} ,$$
where $G$ denotes the Gaussian curvature of $(M^2,g)$.\
However, we can use a more delicate comparison for the Dirac operator depending on the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)$. Consider the dual lattice $\Gamma^*$ with basis $v_1^*, v_2^*$ as well as the 1-form
$$\omega = \pi i (dx, dy) \cdot (\varepsilon_1 v_1^* + \varepsilon_2 v_2^*) .$$
The Dirac operator $D^{(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)}$ corresponding to the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)$ on $(M^2,g)$ is related to the Dirac operator $D$ for the trivial spin structure by
$$D^{(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)} = D+it ,$$
where the vector field $t$ is dual with respect to the metric $g$ to the $1$-form $\omega$ (see \[7\]). Let $\varphi^+$ be the parallel spinor field with respect to the flat metric. Then $\psi = \frac{1}{h} \varphi^+$ is a harmonic spinor on $(M^2,g)$, i.e., $D(\psi) = 0.$ Therefore, we obtain
$$|D^{(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)} (\psi)|^2 = |t|^2_g |\psi|^2 = |\omega|^2_g |\psi|^2 .$$
In dimension $n=2$ the $L^2$-length of a 1-form depends only the conformal structure, i.e., if the metrics $g=h^4 g_o$ and $g_o$ are conformally equivalent, then for any 1-form $\omega$ the formula
$$|\omega|^2_g dM^2_g =|\omega|^2_{g_o} dM^2_{g_o}$$
holds. Now we integrate:
$$\int_{M^2} |D^{(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)} (\psi) |^2 dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^2} |\omega|^2_{g_o} dT^2 = \pi^2 |\varepsilon_1 v_1^* + \varepsilon_2 v_2^* |^2 \, \, \int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^2} \, d T^2 .$$
On the other hand, we have
$$\int_{M^2} |\psi|^2 dM^2 = \int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^2} h^4 dT^2 = \int_{T^2} h^2 dT^2 ;$$
finally, we obtain
$$\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2 {\phantom{q}}} |D^{(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)} (\psi) |^2 dM^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{M^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} |\psi|^2 dM^2} = \pi^2 |\varepsilon_1 v_1^* + \varepsilon_2 v_2^*|^2 \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{1}{h^2} dT^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} h^2 dT^2} .$$
This equality finishes the proof of Theorem 4.\
The first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on the ellipsoid with $S^1$-symmetry
===============================================================================
We now discuss the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on the ellipsoid $E(a) \subset {\Bbb R}^3$ with $S^1$-symmetry defined by the equation
$$x^2 + y^2 + \frac{z^2}{a^2} = 1 .$$
For the calculations we will use the following convenient parametrization of $E(a)$:
$$x = \sqrt{1- w^2} \cos \varphi \quad , \quad y = \sqrt{1-w^2} \sin \varphi \quad , \quad z= a \cdot w \quad ,$$
where the parameters $(w, \varphi)$ are restricted to the intervals $-1 \le w \le1, \, \, 0 \le \varphi \le 2 \pi$. For brevity we introduce the function
$$\Delta_a (w) = (1-a^2) w^2 + a^2 .$$
Then the Riemannian metric $ds^2_a$, the Gaussian curvature $G$, the mean curvature $H$ and the volume form $dE(a)$ are given by the formulas:
- $ds_a^2 = \frac{\Delta_a (w)}{1-w^2} dw^2 + (1-w^2)d \varphi^2$;
- $H^2 = \frac{a^2}{4} \Delta^{-3}_a (w) \{ \Delta_a (w) +1 \}^2$;
- $G= a^2 \Delta_a^{-2} (w)$;
- $dE(a) = \Delta_a^{1/2} (w) dw \wedge d \varphi$.
Evaluation of the extrinsic upper bounds
----------------------------------------
We shall use the extrinsic upper bound for the eigenvalue of the Dirac operator for the family of functions $f_{\beta}$ defined by
$$f_{\beta} = \Delta_a^{\beta} (w) \quad , \quad \beta > \frac{1}{2} .$$
Notice that $f_{\beta}$ is just the $\beta$-th power of (a multiple of) $1/\sqrt{G}$. The length of the gradient of the function $f_{\beta}$ on the ellipsoid is given by
- $|€\mbox{grad} \, (f_{\beta})|^2 = 4 \beta^2 (1- a^2)^2 \Delta^{2 \beta - 3}_a (w) w^2 (1-w^2)$.
Let us first discuss the case that the parameter $a <1$ is small. Then $a^2 \le \Delta_a (w) \le 1$ holds and we can estimate the first integral appearing in Theorem 1
$$0 \le \int_{E(a)} H^2 f_{\beta}^2 dE(a) \le 4 \pi a^2 \int\limits^1_0 \Delta_a^{2 \beta - 5/2} (w) dw .$$
The latter integral may be rewritten using the transformation $\sqrt{1-a^2} \, \, w= ax$, thus yielding
$$0 \le \int_{E(a)} H^2 f_{\beta}^2 dE(a) \le 4 \pi \frac{a^{4 \beta -2}}{\sqrt{1-a^2}} \int\limits^{\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{1-a^2}}_0 (1+x^2)^{2 \beta - 5/2} dx .$$
We shall prove that for all $\beta > \frac{1}{2}$
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \int_{E(a)} H^2 f_{\beta}^2 dE(a)=0 .$$
Indeed, in case $\beta \ge \frac{5}{4}$, we have $\Delta_a^{2 \beta - 5/2} (w) \le 1$ and the result follows immediately. If $\frac{3}{4} < \beta \le \frac{5}{4}$, we use the inequality $a^2 \le \Delta_a (w)$, i.e., $\Delta^{2 \beta - 5/2}_a (w) \le a^{4 \beta - 5}$. Finally, consider the case that $\frac{1}{2} < \beta \le \frac{3}{4}$. Then one has $1 \le \frac{5}{2} - 2 \beta < \frac{3}{2}$ and, hence, $(1+x^2) \le (1+x^2)^{5/2 - 2 \beta}$, which implies
$$\int\limits^{\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{1-a^2}}_0 (1+x^2)^{2 \beta - 5/2} dx \le \int\limits^{\infty}_0 \frac{dx}{1+x^2} < \infty$$
and finishes the argument. In a similar way we show
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \int_{E(a)} f^2_{\beta} dE(a) = \lim\limits_{a \to 0} 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \Delta_a^{2 \beta + 1/2} (w) dw = 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 w^{4 \beta +1} dw = \frac{2 \pi}{2 \beta +1} .$$
Finally, we investigate the integrals
$$\int_{E(a)} |\mbox{grad} (f_{\beta})|^2 dE(a)= 16 \pi (1-a^2)^2 \beta^2 \int\limits^1_0 \Delta_a^{2 \beta - 5/2} (w) w^2 (1-w^2) dw .$$
Using the Lebesgue theorem $(\beta > \frac{1}{2})$ we conclude
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \int_{E(a)} |\mbox{grad} (f_{\beta})|^2 dE(a) = 16 \pi \beta^2 \int\limits^1_0 w^{4 \beta - 3} (1-w^2) dw = 4 \pi \frac{\beta}{2 \beta - 1} .$$
Since the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ of the square of the Dirac operator on $E(a)$ is bounded by the expression
$$\lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)} {\phantom{q}}H^2 f^2_{\beta} dE(a) + \int_{E(a)} |\mbox{grad} (f_{\beta})|^2 dE(a)}{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)}^{{\phantom{l}}} f^2_{\beta} \, dE(a)} ,$$
we obtain
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \lambda^2_1 (a) \le \frac{4 \pi \beta \cdot (2 \beta +1)}{(2 \beta - 1) 2 \pi} = 2 \frac{\beta (2 \beta +1)}{2 \beta - 1}$$
in the limit $a \to 0$. The latter inequality holds for any $\beta > \frac{1}{2}$. For $\beta =1$ we obtain, for example, the inequality
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \lambda_1^2 (a) \le 6$$
and the optimal parameter $\beta = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ yields the estimate
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \lambda_1^2 (a) \le 3 + 2 \sqrt{2} \approx 5,8 .$$
Later, this result will be sharpened with the aid of the intrinsic bounds; however, we already get as a partial result that $\lambda^2_1$ remains bounded.\
We now discuss the case of a large parameter $a$ $(a >1)$. It is convenient to write $\Delta_a (w)$ in the form $\Delta_a (w) =(a^2-1) \left[ \frac{a^2}{a^2-1} - w^2 \right]$. The formulas 1.) - 5.) used before imply
$$\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)} {\phantom{q}}|\mbox{grad} (f_{\beta})|^2 dE(a)}{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)}^{{\phantom{l}}} f^2_{\beta} dE(a)} = 4 \beta^2 \frac{1}{a^2 - 1} \cdot \frac{ {\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 \left[\frac{a^2}{a^2-1} - w^2 \right]^{2 \beta - 5/2} w^2 (1-w^2)dw}{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 \left[\frac{a^2}{a^2-1} - w^2 \right]^{2 \beta + 1/2} dw} .$$
We compute again its limit for $a \to \infty$:
$$\lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)} {\phantom{q}}|\mbox{grad} (f_{\beta})|^2 dE(a)}{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)}^{{\phantom{l}}} f^2_{\beta} dE(a)} =0 .$$
Thus, the asymptotic behaviour is dominated by the second term of the estimate:
$$\lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)} {\phantom{q}}H^2 f^2_{\beta} dE(a)}{{\displaystyle}\int_{E(a)}^{{\phantom{l}}} f^2_{\beta} dE(a)} = \frac{1}{4} \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 [1-w^2]^{2 \beta - 1/2} dw}{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 [1-w^2]^{2 \beta + 1/2} dw} .$$
This yields the inequality
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to \infty}} \, \, \lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{1}{4} \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 [1-w^2]^{2 \beta - 1/2} dw}{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^1_0 [1-w^2]^{2 \beta + 1/2} dw}$$
for any $\beta > \frac{1}{2}$. The special value in case of the parameter $\beta =1$ can easily be calculated to be
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to \infty}} \lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{3}{10} .$$
However, the inequality holds for any $\beta > \frac{1}{2}$; for $\beta \to \infty$ we obtain the optimal result
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to \infty}} \lambda^2_1 (a) \le \frac{1}{4} .$$
[**Remark:**]{} Let us point out that, for $\beta=1$, the integral approximation of $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ is, on both sides $a \to 0, \infty$, not the best one among the extrinsic upper bounds considered, but we may come very close to the optimal value using the family of functions $f_{\beta}$. The exact formula holding for all parameters $0 <a< \infty$ is in this case:
$$\lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{\left( 2 + \frac{13}{8} a^2 + \frac{3}{16} a^4 \right) + \left( \frac{7}{2} a^2 - \frac{3}{2} a^4 - \frac{3}{16} a^6 \right) f(a)}{\left( \frac{1}{3} + \frac{5}{12} a^2 + \frac{5}{8} a^4 \right) - \frac{5}{8} a^6 f(a)}$$
where the function $f(a)$ is given by
$$f(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-a^2}} \ln \left( \frac{1 - \sqrt{1-a^2}}{a} \right) & a < 1\\ \mbox{}\\ - \frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2 - 1}} \arcsin \left( \frac{\sqrt{a^2-1}}{a} \right) & a > 1 \end{array} \right. .$$
Figure 1 $(a \in [0,1[)$ and figure 2 $(a \in ]1, \infty [)$ give an overview of the different extrinsic bounds. The lower solid line is the only known lower bound proportional to the inverse of the volume due to Lott and Bär; the upper solid line is the well known upper bound involving the integral over $H^2$ divided by the volume. The short dashed curve corresponds to $\beta = 1/2$ in our family of functions; as seen before, this is the maximal value for $\beta$ for which the curve does not remain bounded as $a \to 0$. Its limit for $a \to \infty$ is $1/3$. Finally, the long dashed curve is the upper bound for $\beta =1$ as discussed previously.\
epsfig.sty
$$\begin{rotate}[r]{\epsfig{figure=dirac-paper-01.eps,width=10cm}}
\end{rotate}$$
Figure 1 ($0 \le a \le 1$)
$$\begin{rotate}[r]{\epsfig{figure=dirac-paper-02.eps,width=10cm}}
\end{rotate}$$
Figure 2 ($1 \le a \le \infty$)
Evaluation of the intrinsic upper bound
---------------------------------------
We now apply Theorem 2 to the ellipsoid $E(a)$. We can find a uniformization map $\Phi : S^2 \to E(a)$ of the form $ \Phi (x, \varphi)= (w (x), \varphi)$. By formula 1.) for $ds_a^2$ we obtain
$$\Phi^* (ds^2_a)= \frac{\Delta_a (w(x))}{1-w^2(x)} [w' (x)]^2 dx^2 + (1-w^2 (x)) d \varphi^2$$
and the condition
$$\Phi^* (ds^2_a)= h_a^4 (x) \frac{4}{(1+x^2)^2} \{ dx^2 + x^2d \varphi^2 \}$$
implies the differential equation\
$\displaystyle{\frac{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w(x))}{1-w^2} w' = - \frac{1}{x}}$ $(*)$\
as well as the boundary conditions $w(0) =1 $ and $ w(\infty)= - 1$. The function $h_a^4 (x)$ is then given by
$$h_a^4 (x) = (1- w_a^2 (x)) \frac{(1+x^2)^2}{4x^2} ,$$
where $w_a (x)$ is the unique solution of the differential equation $(*)$ depending on the parameter $a$. We calculate the gradient of $h_a (x)$ with respect to the standard metric
$$g_o = \frac{4}{(1+x^2)^2} \{ dx^2 + x^2 d \varphi^2 \}$$
of the sphere $S^2$ and finally obtain
$$I_1 {(a)} := \int\limits_{S^2} \frac{|\mbox{grad} (h_a)|^2}{h_a^2} dS^2 = \frac{\pi}{2} \int\limits^{\infty}_0 \frac{1}{x} \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a(x))} + \frac{x^2 -1}{x^2 +1} \right)^2 dx .$$
Theorem 2 then provides the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{4 \pi}{\mbox{vol} (E(a))} + \frac{I_1 (a)}{\mbox{vol} (E(a))} .$$
The solution of the differential equation $(*)$ has the symmetry $w_a (x) = - w_a \left( \frac{1}{x} \right)$. Indeed, suppose that $w_a (x)$ is a solution and consider $w^* (x) = - w_a \left( \frac{1}{x} \right)$. Then $w^*$ solves again the differential equation $(*)$ and $w^* (0) = - w_a (\infty)=1$, $w^* (\infty) = - w_a (0) = -1$. This implies that, for any parameter $0 < a < \infty$, the solution $w_a (x)$ of the equation $(*)$ vanishes at $x=1$. Consequently $w_a (x)$ is a decreasing function and we have
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lll} w_a (x) \ge 0 & \mbox{for} \quad 0 \le x \le 1, & 0 < a < \infty , \\
\mbox{}\\
w_a (x) \le 0 & \mbox{for} \quad 1 \le x \le \infty, & 0 < a < \infty . \end{array} \right.$$
In particular, $I_1 (a)$ may be reduced to an integral over the interval $[0,1]$:
$$I_1 (a) = \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{1}{x} \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} + \frac{x^2-1}{x^2+1} \right)^2 dx .$$
We study again the limits for $a \to 0, \infty$. First we consider the case that $a \le 1$. Then, for all points $0 \le x \le 1$, we have
$$\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x)) = \sqrt{(1-a^2) w_a^2 (x) + a^2} \ge \sqrt{1-a^2} \, \, w_a (x)$$
and, consequently,
$$\frac{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))}{1-w_a^2 (x)} \, \, w'_a (x) \le \sqrt{1-a^2} \, \, \frac{w_a (x) w'_a (x)}{1-w_a^2} .$$
We integrate this inequality on the interval $[y,1]$. Using the fact that $w_a (1)=0$, we obtain the estimate
$$w_a^2 (y) \le 1 - y^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{1-a^2}}} \quad , \quad 0 \le y \le 1 .$$
On the other hand, we have $\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x)) \le 1$. This inequality implies
$$\frac{w'_a (x)}{1-w^2_a (x)} \le \frac{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x)) w'_a (x)}{1-w^2_a (x)} = - \frac{1}{x}$$
and, finally,
$$w_a (y) \ge \frac{1-y^2}{1+y^2} \quad , \quad 0 \le y \le 1 .$$
Altogether, for any $x \in [0,1]$, we obtain the inequalities
$$\frac{1-x^2}{1+x^2} \le \lim\limits_{\overline{a \to 0}} \, \, w_a (x) \le \overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \, \, w_a (x) \le 1 -x^2 .$$
Now we apply the following observation: Let $w_a$ be a sequence of numbers such that
- $ 0 < w_a < 1$;
- $ \lim\limits_{\overline{a \to 0}} \, w_a >0$ .
Then the sequence ${w_a}/{\Delta_a^{1/2}}$ with $\Delta_a =( 1-a^2) w_a^2 + a^2$ converges to 1, i.e.,
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \frac{w_a}{\Delta_a^{1/2}} =1 .$$
In our situation we can conclude that
$$\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} = 1$$
and finally we are able to calculate the limit:
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{a \to 0} I_1 (a) &=& \lim\limits_{a \to 0} \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{1}{x} \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta^{1/2}_a (w_a (x))} + \frac{x^2-1}{x^2+1} \right)^2 dx = \\
&=& \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{1}{x} \left( 1+ \frac{x^2-1}{x^2+1} \right)^2 dx = 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{x^3}{(1+x^2)^2} dx . \end{aligned}$$
Using $\lim\limits_{a \to 0} \mbox{vol} \, (E(a))= 2 \pi$ we obtain
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{a \to 0}} \lambda_1^2 (a) \le 2+2 \int\limits^1_0 \frac{x^3}{(1+x^2)^2} dx = \frac{3}{2} + \ln 2 \approx 2,2 .$$
In a similar way we handle the case that $a \ge 1$. The inequalities $(0 \le x \le 1)$
$$1 \le \Delta_a (w_a (x)) \le a^2$$
allow us to prove the estimate
$$\frac{1-x^{2/a}}{1+x^{2/a}} \le w_a (x) \le \frac{1-x^2}{1+x^2} ,$$
which is valid for all $0 \le x \le 1$ and $a \ge 1$. However, the function ${w}/{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w)}$ is a monotone decreasing function for $w >0$. Consequently, we have
$${\displaystyle}\frac{\frac{1-x^{2/a}}{1+x^{2/a}}}{\Delta_a^{1/2} \left( \frac{1-x^{2/a}}{1+x^{2/a}} \right)} \le \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} \le 1$$
and from this inequality we can deduce
$$\left( 1 - \frac{w_a(x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} \right)^2 \le \frac{4a^2 x^{2/a}}{(1-a^2)(1-x^{2/a})^2 + a^2 (1+x^{2/a})^2} .$$
We split the integral $I_1 (a)$ into three parts:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_1 (a) &=& \pi \int\limits_0^1 \left( \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} - 1 \right) + \frac{2x^2}{1+x^2} \right)^2 dx =\\
&=& 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{x^3}{(1+x^2)^2}dx + 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} - 1 \right) x dx \\
&& + \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{1}{x} \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} - 1 \right)^2 dx . \end{aligned}$$
We estimate the last term using the inequality for $\left( 1 - \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta_a^{1/2} (w_a (x))} \right)^2$ and obtain as the value of the integral
$$I_1 (a) \le 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \frac{x^3}{(1+x^2)^2} dx + 4 \pi \int\limits^1_0 \left( \frac{w_a (x)}{\Delta^{1/2}_a (w_a (x))} -1 \right) xdx +$$ $$+ \frac{\pi}{2} a \cdot \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2 - 1}} \ln \left( \frac{8a^3 - 6a^2 + 2a \sqrt{a^2 - 1}}{8a^3 - 6a^2 - 2a \sqrt{a^2 - 1}} \right) .$$
The volume $\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))$ of the ellipsoid behaves like $\pi^2a$, i.e.,
$$\lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \frac{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))}{a} = \pi^2 .$$
Therefore, we can control the asymptotic behaviour of $\lambda_1^2 (a)$ for $a \to \infty$:
$$\lambda_1^2 (a) \le \frac{4 \pi}{a} \frac{a}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} + \frac{I_1 (a)}{a} \frac{a}{\mbox{vol} \, (E(a))} \stackrel{\le}{\sim} \frac{4}{\pi a} + \frac{4}{\pi a} \int\limits^1_0 \frac{x^3}{(1+x^2)^2} dx = \frac{1}{\pi a} [ 2 \ln (2) + 3 ] .$$
In particular, we have shown
$$\lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \lambda_1^2 (a) = 0 .$$
The first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on the tube around a circle
======================================================================
We consider a circle in a plane with curvature $\kappa$ and length $L = 2 \pi / \kappa$. Let $r$ be a fixed radius and denote by $M^2 (r)$ its tube in ${\Bbb R}^3$ of radius $r$, $r \kappa <1$. The induced metric on the surface $M^2 (r)$ is given by the formula
$$g = (1-r \kappa \cos \varphi)^2 ds^2 + r^2 d \varphi^2 ,$$
where we use the length parameter $0 \le s \le L$ for the circle and $0 \le \varphi \le 2 \pi$ parametrizes the angle of the tube. First of all we calculate a uniformization
$$\Phi : [0,L] \times [0,A] \to [0,L] \times [0, 2 \pi]$$
of this metric on $T^2$. Suppose $\Phi$ is given by the condition $\Phi (s, \psi) =(s, \varphi (\psi))$. Then the equation $\Phi^* (g)= h^4 (ds^2 + d \psi^2)$ yields the differential equation
$$\frac{\varphi' (\psi)}{1-r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi))} = \frac{1}{r}$$
and the function $h = h(s, \psi)$ is given by
$$h^2 = r \varphi' (\psi) = 1- r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi)) .$$
Using the integral $(a<1)$
$$\int \frac{dx}{1-a \cos (x)} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{1-a^2}} \, \, \mbox{arc} \, \mbox{tg} \, \left( \frac{ (1+a) \mbox{tg} \, \left( \frac{x}{2} \right)}{\sqrt{1-a^2}} \right)$$
we obtain the solution $\varphi (\psi)$
$$\mbox{tg} \, \left( \frac{\varphi (\psi)}{2} \right) = \sqrt{ \frac{1-r \kappa}{1+ r \kappa}} \, \, \mbox{tg} \, \left( \frac{1}{2r} \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2} \, \psi \right) .$$
Since $\varphi (\psi)$ maps the interval $[0,A]$ bijectively onto $[0,2 \pi]$, we conclude $A= 2\pi r / \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}$. Moreover, the function $h^2$ is determined by
$$\begin{aligned}
h^2 &=& 1-r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi)) = 1 - r \kappa \, \, \frac{1- \mbox{tg}^2 \, \left( \frac{\varphi (\psi)}{2} \right)}{1+ \mbox{tg}^2 \, \left( \frac{\varphi (\psi)}{2} \right)} =\\
\mbox{}\\
&=& (1-r^2 \kappa^2) \, \, \frac{1 + \mbox{tg}^2 \, \left(\frac{1}{2r} \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2} \, \psi \right)}{1+r \kappa + (1-r \kappa) \mbox{tg}^2 \, \left(\frac{1}{2r} \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}\, \psi \right)} . \end{aligned}$$
Hence, we obtain a uniformization of the metric of the tube $M^2 (r)$ parametrized on $[0,L] \times \left[0, \frac{2 \pi r}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} \right]$. The basis of the lattice is
$$v_1 = \left( L , 0 \right) \quad , \quad v_2 = \left( 0 , \frac{2 \pi r}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} \right) ,$$
and thus the dual lattice has the basis
$$v_1^* = \left( \frac{1}{L} , 0 \right) \quad , \quad v_2^* = \left( 0 , {\displaystyle}\frac{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}}{2 \pi r} \right) .$$
By Theorem 4 we obtain the estimate
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) \le \frac{1}{4} \left( \kappa^2 \varepsilon_1 + \frac{1-r^2 \kappa^2}{r^2} \varepsilon_2 \right) \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{1}{h^2} dT^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} h^2 dT^2}$$
for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on the tube $M^2(r)$ with respect to the spin structure $(\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2)$. We compute these two integrals:
$$\int_{T^2} h^2 dT^2 = \int\limits^L_0 \int\limits^A_0 h^2 (s, \psi) ds d \psi = L \cdot \int\limits^A_0 r \varphi' (\psi) d \psi = L r \int\limits^{2 \pi}_0 d \varphi = 2 \pi r L ,$$
and
$$\int_{T^2} \frac{1}{h^2} d T^2 = \frac{L}{r} \int\limits^A_0 \frac{1}{\varphi' (\psi)} d \psi = \frac{L}{r} \int\limits^A_0 \frac{r^2}{(1-r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi)))^2} \varphi' (\psi) d \psi = Lr \int\limits^{2 \pi}_0 \frac{d \varphi}{(1-r \kappa \cos (\varphi))^2} \quad .$$
Consequently, this ratio is equal to
$$\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{1}{h^2} \, \, dT^2}{{\displaystyle}\int_{T^2}^{{\phantom{l}}} h^2 dT^2} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int\limits^{2 \pi}_0 \frac{d \varphi}{(1- r \kappa \cos (\varphi))^2} = \frac{1}{(1 - r^2 \kappa^2)^{3/2}} \, \, ,$$
i.e.,
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) \le \frac{1}{4} \left( \kappa^2 \varepsilon_1 + \frac{1-r^2 \kappa^2}{r^2} \varepsilon_2 \right) \frac{1}{(1-r^2 \kappa^2)^{3/2} } \, \, .$$
The volume ${\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa, r)$ of the tube equals
$${\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa, r) = 4 \pi^2 \frac{r}{\kappa}$$
and we obtain the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le \pi^2 \left( r \kappa \varepsilon_1 + \frac{1-r^2 \kappa^2}{r \kappa} \varepsilon_2 \right) \frac{1}{(1-r^2 \kappa^2)^{3/2}} \, \, . \quad \quad (*)$$
Now we apply the inequality
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le \lambda_1^2 (g_o) {\mbox{vol} \, }(T^2, g_o) + \int_{T^2} \frac{|{\mbox{grad} \, }(h)|^2}{h^2} dT^2$$
to our situation. Since $h^2 = r \varphi' (\psi) = 1- r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi))$, we can calculate the gradient of $h$:
$$\frac{|{\mbox{grad} \, }(h)|^2}{h^2} = \frac{r \kappa^2}{4} \, \, \frac{\sin^2 (\varphi (\psi)) \varphi' (\psi)}{1-r \kappa \cos (\varphi (\psi))}$$
and, therefore, we obtain
$$\int_{T^2} \frac{|{\mbox{grad} \, }(h)|^2}{h^2} = \frac{\pi}{2} r \kappa \int\limits^{2 \pi}_0 \frac{\sin^2 (\varphi)}{1 - r \kappa \cos (\varphi)} d \varphi = \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \left( 1 - \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2} \right) .$$
Then we have proved the estimate
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le \pi^2 \left( r \kappa \varepsilon_1 + \frac{1-r^2 \kappa^2}{r \kappa} \varepsilon_2 \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa}} + \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} (1 - \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2} ) \, \, . \quad (**)$$
We discuss the inequalities $(*)$ and $(**)$ for the three non-trivial spin structures on the tube. For all cases, we provide a picture in which the long dashed line represents the estimate$(*)$, and the short dashed line the estimate $(**)$. The $x$-axis uses the variable $a=r \kappa$, the $y$-axis is to be understood in multiples of $\pi^2$. For comparison matters only, we have also drawn the line for constant value 2.\
[**Case 1:**]{} $\varepsilon_1 =1 , \, \, \varepsilon_2 =0$. In this case we obtain
$$\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r ) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r ) \le \pi^2 r \kappa {\displaystyle}\frac{1}{(1-r^2 \kappa)^{3/2}} & & (*) \\
\mbox{}\\
\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa, r) \le {\displaystyle}\frac{\pi^2 r \kappa}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} + \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \left(1- \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}\right) & & (**) \end{array}$$
In particular, we conclude
$$\lim\limits_{r \to 0} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) = \lim\limits_{\kappa \to 0} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r)=0 .$$
$$\begin{rotate}[r]{\epsfig{figure=dirac-paper-torus-2.eps,width=10cm}}
\end{rotate}$$
Figure 3 ($\varepsilon_1 =1, \varepsilon_2 =0$)
[**Case 2:**]{} $\varepsilon_1 =0 , \, \, \varepsilon_2 =1$. In this case the inequalities are
$$\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le {\displaystyle}\frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} & & (*) \\
\mbox{}\\
\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le {\displaystyle}\frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} & & (**) \end{array}$$
and, in particular, we conclude
$$\overline{\lim\limits_{r \kappa \to 1}} \, \, \lambda_1^2 (\kappa , r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa, r) \le \pi^2 .$$
$$\begin{rotate}[r]{\epsfig{figure=dirac-paper-torus-1.eps,width=10cm}}
\end{rotate}$$
Figure 4 ($\varepsilon_1=0 , \varepsilon_2 =1$)
[**Case 3:**]{} $\varepsilon_1 = 1 = \varepsilon_2$. In this case we obtain the estimates
$$\mbox{} \hspace{1.7cm} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \frac{1}{(1-r^2 \kappa^2)^{3/2}} \hspace{2.6cm} (*)$$
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa, r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa, r) \le \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} + \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \left(1 - \sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2} \right) . \quad \quad (**)$$
Let us compare these estimates obtained via the uniformization of the tube with the estimate using the embedding $M^2 (r) \subset {\Bbb R}^3$. Notice that the embedding induces the spin structure $\varepsilon_1 = 1 = \varepsilon_2$ on the tube. Then we obtain
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r) \le \int_{M^2(r)} H^2 d M^2 (r) \le \frac{\pi^2}{r \kappa} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2 \kappa^2}} \, , \quad \quad (***)$$
i.e., the extrinsic bound (drawn as a solid line in figure 5) for $\lambda_1^2$ is better than the intrinsic estimates.\
$$\begin{rotate}[r]{\epsfig{figure=dirac-paper-torus-3.eps,width=10cm}}
\end{rotate}$$
Picture 5 ($\varepsilon_1 = 1 = \varepsilon_2$)
[**Case 4:**]{} $\varepsilon_1 = 0 = \varepsilon_2$ In this case $\lambda_0 (D)=0$ is an eigenvalue of the Dirac operator and Theorem 3 yields the following estimate for the first non-trivial eigenvalue $\lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r)$:
$$\lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) \le \min \left\{ 2 \kappa^2 , \frac{1}{r^2} \right\} \, \, \frac{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^{2 \pi}_{0 {\phantom{q}}} \frac{d \varphi}{(1-r \kappa \cos \varphi)^4}}{{\displaystyle}\int\limits^{2 \pi^{{\phantom{l}}} }_0 \frac{d \varphi}{(1-r \kappa \cos \varphi)^2}} .$$
In particular, we obtain
$$\lim\limits_{\kappa \to 0} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r)=0 \quad , \quad \overline{\lim\limits_{r \to 0}} \, \, \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) \le 2 \kappa^2$$
and
$$\lim\limits_{r \cdot \kappa \to 0} \lambda_1^2 (\kappa,r) {\mbox{vol} \, }(\kappa,r)=0 .$$
[xx]{} Chr. Bär. Lower eigenvalue estimates for Dirac operators, Math. Ann. 293 (1992), 39-46. Chr. Bär. Upper eigenvalue estimates for Dirac operators, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. 10 (1992), 171-177. Chr. Bär. Extrinsic bounds for eigenvalues of the Dirac operator, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. 16 (1998). H. Baum. Spin-Strukturen und Dirac-Operatoren über pseudo-Riemannschen Mannigfaltigkeiten, Teubner-Verlag Leipzig 1981. H. Baum. An upper bound for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on compact spin manifolds, Math. Zeitschrift 206 (1991), 409-422. M. Bordoni. Spectral estimates for Schrödinger- and Dirac-type operators on Riemannian manifolds, Math. Ann. 298 (1994), 693-718. Th. Friedrich. Zur Abhängigkeit des Dirac-Operators von der Spin-Struktur, Coll. Math. vol. XLVIII (1984), 57-62. Th. Friedrich. Dirac-Operatoren in der Riemannschen Geometrie, Vieweg-Verlag Braunschweig/ Wiesbaden 1997. Th. Friedrich. On the spinor representation of surfaces in Euclidean 3-space, to appear in ”Journ. Geom. Phys.”, dg-ga/9712021, SFB 288 Preprint No. 295. P. Li and S.T. Yau. A new conformal invariant and its application to the Willmore conjecture and the first eigenvalue of compact surfaces, Invent. Math. 69 (1982), 269-291. J. Lott. Eigenvalue bounds for the Dirac operator, Pac. Journ. Math. 125 (1986), 117-128. T.J. Willmore. Riemannian Geometry, Clarendon Press Oxford 1996.
[^1]: Supported by the SFB 288 of the DFG.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe the influence of electron-impact multiple ionization (EIMI) on the ionization balance of collisionally ionized plasmas. We are unaware of any previous ionization balance calculations that have included EIMI, which is usually assumed to be unimportant. Here, we incorporate EIMI cross-section data into calculations of both equilibrium and non-equilibrium charge-state distributions (CSDs). For equilibrium CSDs, we find that EIMI has only a small effect and can usually be ignored. However, for non-equilibrium plasmas the influence of EIMI can be important. In particular, we find that for plasmas in which the temperature oscillates there are significant differences in the CSD when including versus neglecting EIMI. These results have implications for modeling and spectroscopy of impulsively heated plasmas, such as nanoflare heating of the solar corona.'
author:
- 'M. Hahn and D. W. Savin'
bibliography:
- 'MEII.bib'
title: 'Influence of Electron-Impact Multiple Ionization on Equilibrium and Dynamic Charge State Distributions: A Case Study Using Iron'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Collisionally ionized plasmas are formed in numerous astrophysical sources, such as the Sun and other stars, supernova remnants, galaxies, and the intracluster medium of galaxy clusters. Interpreting observations and modeling astrophysical processes in these objects requires knowledge of the underlying charge state distribution (CSD) of the plasma. The CSD is determined by the rates of ionization and recombination. In collisionally ionized plasmas, the ions are ionized by electron-impact ionization (EII). The electron-ion recombination is dominated by dielectronic recombination (DR) and radiative recombination (RR). These various processes have been reviewed by @Muller:Book:2008.
An electron-ion collision can also cause electron-impact multiple ionization (EIMI) — the ejection of multiple electrons due to a single collision. This process has generally been ignored in ionization balance calculations because, for a given charge state, multiple ionization usually becomes significant only at temperatures so high that the fractional abundance of that charge state is small [@Tendler:PhysLett:1984]. However, it has been argued that multiple ionization may become important in dynamic systems where the ions are suddenly exposed to higher electron temperatures [@Muller:PhysLett:1986]. Such non-equilibrium could occur, for example, in solar flares [@Reale:ApJ:2008; @Bradshaw:ApJS:2011], supernova remnants [@Patnaude:ApJ:2009], or merging galaxy clusters [@Akahori:PASJ:2010]. Nevertheless, calculations of these dynamic events have ignored multiple-ionization processes.
One reason for not considering multiple ionization, is that very little EIMI data exist. To theoretically calculate even double-ionization cross sections is very difficult. This is because the problem requires considering at least four charged particles in the outgoing channel: the ion, the colliding electron, and at least two ejected electrons. The interactions among all these particles via the Coulomb potential must be accounted for [@Berakdar:PhysLett:1996; @Gotz:JPhysB:2006]. Thus, most multiple-ionization cross sections are from experimental measurements or semiempirical formulae derived from fits to experimental data. To calculate the CSD necessary for astrophysics, data are needed for essentially all the charge states of all the elements from H–Zn. Given practical limitations, experimental studies cannot generate all these required data.
For a few systems, however, there now exist sufficient empirical data to incorporate multiple ionization into CSD calculations. Here we focus on iron, which is a cosmically abundant element that forms many emission lines commonly used in astrophysical spectroscopy. We have used semiempirical formulae calibrated to experimental data to derive multiple-ionization cross sections for the various charge states of iron. These cross sections were then incorporated into CSD calculations for both equilibrium and dynamic plasmas. Our results confirm that for equilibrium plasmas, multiple ionization has little effect on the charge balance, modifying the ion abundances by at most about 5%. Conversely, in evolving plasmas, the effects can be significant.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:cross\] we discuss the experimental data sources and semiempirical fitting formulae used for our EIMI cross sections. Section \[sec:csd\] briefly reviews the relation between the cross sections and the CSD. In Section \[sec:equilib\] we present our ionization-equilibrium calculations and compare them to calculations that consider only electron-impact single ionization (EISI). Section \[sec:dynamic\] explores the influence of EIMI on the CSD in situations where the temperature varies rapidly. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Electron-Impact Multiple-Ionization Cross Sections {#sec:cross}
==================================================
EIMI involves the ejection of two or more electrons from an ion following a single collision. There are a number of specific processes leading to multiple ionization, many of which are analogous to those for EISI [@Muller:Book:2008]. A collision can result in direct ionization of two or more electrons starting at the multiple-ionization threshold, which depends on the number of electrons to be removed. Excitation-multiple-autoionization (EMA) occurs when an electron excites an electron in the target to a level that decays by ejecting two or more electrons. For highly charged ions, the dominant multiple-ionization process is often ionization-autoionization (IA), in which a collision directly ionizes a core electron and additional electrons are released when system relaxes to fill the resulting hole [e.g., @Muller:PRL:1980; @Cherkani:PhysScr:2001; @Hahn:ApJ:2011].
Fitting Formulae {#subsec:form}
----------------
Because quantum-mechanical calculations for multiple-ionization cross sections are challenging, EIMI cross sections are generally estimated using semiempirical formulae. Here, we review several semiempirical formulae that have been proposed to model EIMI cross sections. Later we apply these formulae to EIMI cross sections for iron ions.
@Shevelko:PhysScr:1995 [@Shevelko:JPhysB:1995] presented a semiempirical formula that describes cross sections for direct multiple ionization of at least three electrons, i.e., triple ionization, from neutral and ionic targets. @Belenger:JPhysB:1997 extended their formulae to double ionization. The cross sections are approximated by: $$\sigma_{\mathrm{D}}=\frac{p_{0} p_{1}^{p_{2}}}{\left(E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{Ryd}}\right)^2}\left(\frac{u+1}{u}\right)^{p_{3}}\frac{\ln{(u)}}{u}
\times 10^{-18} \,\mathrm{cm^{2}},
\label{eq:shevtar}$$ where $u=E/E_{\mathrm{th}}$ is the incident electron energy $E$ normalized by the multiple-ionization threshold $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ for the process being considered and $E_{\mathrm{Ryd}}=13.606$ eV. Here $p_{0}$ and $p_{2}$ are parameters that depend on the number of electrons being removed and have been tabulated by @Shevelko:JPhysB:1995 and @Belenger:JPhysB:1997. The parameter $p_{1}$ is the number of electrons in the target ion and $p_{3}=1.0$ for neutral targets or $0.75$ for ionic targets. The fits were performed to experimental measurements of ionization from neutral and relatively low charged ions, for which the dominant EIMI process is direct ionization. Thus, this formula is reasonable for describing direct multiple ionization, but other contributions must be added in for systems in which IA becomes important.
@Shevelko:JPhysB:2005 presented a semiempirical double ionization formula that accounts for both direct ionization and IA for initially He-like to Ne-like ions. The total cross section is a sum of a direct and an IA cross section. The direct cross section is given by $$\sigma_{\mathrm{D}}=1-\mathrm{e}^{-3\left(u-1\right)}\left\{ \frac{p_0}{E_{\mathrm{th}}^3}\left[\frac{u-1}{\left(u+0.5\right)^2}\right] \right\}
\times10^{-13} \, \mathrm{cm^{2}}.
\label{eq:shev5a}$$ Here $p_0$ is a tabulated fitting parameter that varies depending on the initial isoelectronic sequence of the ion. $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ is again the threshold for the ionization process being considered, i.e., here direct EIMI. The indirect cross section, due to IA, is given by $$\sigma_{\mathrm{IA}}=f \frac{p_{0}}{E_{\mathrm{th}}^2}\frac{u-1}{u \left(u+p_{1}\right)}
\times10^{-13} \, \mathrm{cm^{2}},
\label{eq:shev5b}$$ where $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ is the relevant threshold for the process, i.e., the threshold for single ionization of a core electron. The parameters $p_{0}$ and $p_{1}$ depend on the isoelectronic sequence of the initial ion configuration. The quantity $f$ is the branching ratio for autoionization of the intermediate state that is missing an inner-shell electron. @Shevelko:JPhysB:2005 have calculated these branching ratios for K-shell vacancies having configurations $1s 2s^2$ through $1s 2s^2 2p^6 3s$ for nuclear charges $Z=3$–$26$.
For certain ions where experimental data exist, @Shevelko:JPhysB:2006 presented a more accurate formula for double-ionization cross sections. . Here, the cross section is the sum of a direct ionization cross section and several possible indirect ionization channels. In this scheme the direct cross section is given by $$\sigma_{\mathrm{D}}=1-\mathrm{e}^{-3\left(u-1\right)} \frac{p_0}{E_{\mathrm{th}}^3}\left[\frac{u-1}{\left(u+0.5\right)^2}\right]\left[1+0.1\ln{(4u+1)}\right]
\times10^{-13} \, \mathrm{cm^{2}},
\label{eq:shev6a}$$ where $p_0$ is a fit parameter. The individual indirect ionization cross sections sections, due to IA, are given by $$\sigma_{\mathrm{IA}}=\frac{p_0}{E_{\mathrm{th}}^2}\frac{u-1}{u \left(u+5.0 \right)} \left[1+\frac{0.3}{p_{1}}\ln{(4u+1)}\right]
\times10^{-13} \, \mathrm{cm^{2}},
\label{eq:shev6b}$$ where $p_0$ is a fit parameter and $p_1$ is the principal quantum number of the core electron that is directly ionized. Unlike Equations (\[eq:shev5a\]) and (\[eq:shev5b\]), for Equations (\[eq:shev6a\]) and (\[eq:shev6b\]) the parameters do not have a tabulated dependence on an isoelectronic sequence, but rather are determined by fits to experimental measurements. Thus, the formulae should be accurate, but it is not possible to extrapolate them to systems that have not been measured.
For highly charged ions, the indirect IA process is the dominant contribution to the EIMI cross section. In such cases, the cross section is often well described by multiplying the @Lotz:ZPhys:1969 formula for single ionization of the core electron by the branching ratio $f$ for autoionization of the intermediate state, giving $$\sigma_{\mathrm{IA}}=4.5 f p_{0}\frac{\ln{(u)}}{E_{\mathrm{th}}^{2}u}
\times10^{-14} \, \mathrm{cm^{2}}.
\label{eq:lotz}$$ Here $p_0$ is the initial number of electrons in the level where the ionization takes place. The branching ratios for many ions of astrophysical interest have been given by @Kaastra:AAS:1993 and updated calculations for some systems have been given by @Bautista:AA:2003, @Gorczyca:ApJ:2003 [@Gorczyca:ApJ:2006], @Palmeri:AA:2003, @Mendoza:AA:2004, and @Shevelko:JPhysB:2005.
Application of Fitting Formulae to Iron Ions {#subsec:appfe}
--------------------------------------------
In order to determine the EIMI cross sections for our CSD calculations, we have selected the semiempirical formulae for each system that seem to best reproduce the experimental measurements. Experimental data are not available for every system, so in some cases we have had to estimate the cross section based on the results for nearby charge states. Table \[table:cross\] lists the parameters used for each cross section and also indicates for which data there are experimental results. We denote the initial charge state as $q_{i}$ and the final charge state as $q_{f}$. The total cross section is the sum of the individual cross sections for each ionization channel. That is, $$\sigma_{\mathrm{total}}=\sigma_{\mathrm{D}}+\sum_{N}{\sigma_{\mathrm{IA},i}},
\label{eq:sigtot}$$ where $\sigma_{\mathrm{D}}$ is the direct ionization cross section and the $\sigma_{\mathrm{IA},i}$ represent the IA sections arising from $N$ different IA channels, such as due to holes in different shells. Other indirect ionization channels, such as EMA, have been neglected. We note, though that in many cases these other indirect contributions are, fortuitously, roughly accounted for in the semiempirical formulae. This is because the fitting parameters used in the formulae were usually estimated without attempting to distinguish direct and indirect channels, except for IA. Below, we discuss in more detail the experimental measurements and formulae used for each EIMI cross section in our calculations.
In the following, the direct EIMI thresholds are generally from @NIST:2013, while the thresholds for ionization of core electrons come from @Kaastra:AAS:1993 unless otherwise noted. The ionization thresholds for $K$-shell ionization of a core electron are an order of magnitude greater than any other relevant thresholds, being $\gtrsim7000$ eV. Thus $K$-shell IA contributes significantly to the EIMI rate coefficient at temperatures $\gtrsim10^{8}$ K. In most cases, these contributions are included using the Lotz-formula scaled by the branching ratios, i.e., Equation (\[eq:lotz\]). However, it is worth noting that this approximation ignores relativistic effects, which may become important at such high energies. In particular, at high energies the Lotz formula cross section falls off like $\ln(u)/u$ as predicted by the Bethe approximation, but in the relativistic limit the Bethe-approximation cross section becomes a constant [@Sampson:PhysRep:2009]. Experimental measurements of EIMI starting from Fe$^{0+}$, including double ($q_f=2$), triple ($q_f=3$), and quadruple ($q_f=4$) ionization, were measured by @Shah:JPhysB:1993. Double ionization of Fe$^{0+}$ was also measured earlier by @Freund:PRA:1990. However, those measurements seem to be affected by metastable levels in the atom beam. So, we base our cross sections on the data from @Shah:JPhysB:1993. For double ionization, the parameters given in Table \[table:cross\] were derived by @Shevelko:JPhysB:2006 by performing a least squares fit to the experimental data using Equations (\[eq:shev6a\]) and (\[eq:shev6b\]). Figure \[fig:fe02\] illustrates this cross section compared to the experimental data. We found that the triple-ionization data were well fit by scaling Equation (\[eq:shevtar\]), which describes the direct ionization, and then accounting for the indirect ionization channels by adding to that the Lotz cross sections for the $3p$ and $3s$ ionization multiplied by the appropriate branching ratios from @Kaastra:AAS:1993. The quadruple-ionization cross section was well described by the fit to Equation (\[eq:shevtar\]) given by @Shevelko:JPhysB:1995. As there are no experimental data for higher order ionization processes ($q_f \geq 5$), we estimate those cross sections by assuming only indirect contributions described by the Lotz formula scaled by the branching ratios from @Kaastra:AAS:1993. Similarly, there are no experimental data at the energies relevant for $K$-shell IA, so we also estimate those cross sections in the same way.
Double-ionization cross sections for Fe$^{1+}$ and Fe$^{3+}$–Fe$^{6+}$ were measured by @Stenke:JPhysB:1999. Fits to these data were given by @Shevelko:JPhysB:2006 using Equations (\[eq:shev6a\]) and (\[eq:shev6b\]). We use their fits here. The existing experimental measurements do not extend high enough to benchmark $K$-shell IA, so here we have used the Lotz formula and the branching ratios given by @Kaastra:AAS:1993 to incorporate those processes. Similarly, for higher order EIMI of these systems we assume that the dominant process is IA and estimate the cross section using the Lotz formula and the branching ratios.
There are no experimental data for double ionization of Fe$^{2+}$. However, Ni$^{4+}$ is isoelectronic and double ionization of this ion was measured by @Stenke:NIMB:1995 and was the basis for a semiempirical fit reported in @Shevelko:JPhysB:2006. We find that the Ni$^{4+}$ double-ionization cross section can be reproduced well using Equation (\[eq:shevtar\]) for the direct ionization contribution plus scaled Lotz cross sections for the indirect contributions. Thus, we have applied the same formulae to the Fe$^{2+}$ double-ionization cross section, with appropriate modifications for the different energy thresholds and branching ratios.
Double-ionization measurements for $q_i=9, 11, 12$, and $13$ have been measured by @Hahn:ApJ:2011 [@Hahn:ApJ:2011a; @Hahn:ApJ:2012; @Hahn:ApJ:2013]. These data show that there is a small contribution due to direct ionization, starting at the direct-double-ionization threshold. However, the dominant double-ionization process for highly charged Fe ions is initially single ionization of an $L$-shell ($n=2$) electron, followed by autoionization, resulting in a net double ionization. The relative importance of direct ionization compared to IA decreases as the charge state increases. We have found that a reasonable approximation to these experimental data is obtained by using Equation (\[eq:shevtar\]) to represent the direct contribution and including indirect ionization using the Lotz cross section for the $L$-shell ionization scaled by the branching ratios from @Kaastra:AAS:1993. An example of this semiempirical prediction compared to the experiment for the case of Fe$^{11+}$ forming Fe$^{13+}$ is shown in Figure \[fig:fe1113\]. We have extended this scheme beyond the several measured charge states to represent double ionization for Fe$^{7+}$–Fe$^{15+}$. For higher order EIMI, no experimental data exist so we use the Lotz formula scaled by the branching ratios.
For Fe$^{16+}$ and higher charge states, we are not aware of any experimental data for EIMI. For these ions, we estimate the double-ionization cross section using the semiempirical formulae of @Shevelko:JPhysB:2005, i.e., Equation (\[eq:shev5a\]) for direct ionization and Equation (\[eq:shev5b\]) for the $K$-shell IA. For these charge states, the branching ratios indicate the EIMI of higher order than double ionization is negligible.
Charge State Distribution {#sec:csd}
=========================
The ion abundance $y_{i}$ of charge state $i$ as a function of time is described by $$\frac{\mathrm{d}y_{i}}{\mathrm{d}t}=n_{\mathrm{e}}
\left[I^{j}_{i-j}y_{i-j}+\ldots+I^{1}_{i-1}y_{i-1}-\left(I^{1}_{i}+\ldots+I^{k}_{i}+R_{i}\right)y_{i}+R_{i+1}y_{i}\right],
\label{eq:dydt}$$ where $I^{j}_{i}$ is the rate coefficient for $j$-times ionization from charge state $i$ to $i+j$ and $R_{i}$ is the recombination rate coefficient from $i$ to $i-1$. The terms on the right represent, from left to right, ionization from lower charge states into $i$, ionization and recombination out of $i$ to other charge states, and recombination from $i+1$ into $i$. For most astrophysical plasmas, the density is low so that multiple recombination is extremely unlikely. Note also that in this expression, the rate coefficients $I$ and $R$ are functions of temperature. In a dynamic plasma, the temperature and density vary in time.
The rate coefficients for Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) were derived from several sources. The EISI rate coefficients come from the recommended data of @Dere:AA:2007. We have found these data to be in reasonable agreement with experiment for single ionization from Fe$^{7+}$ and Fe$^{9+}$–Fe$^{17+}$ [@Hahn:JPCS:2014 and references therein]. The radiative and dielectronic recombination rate coefficients are the ones compiled in the CHIANTI atomic database [@Dere:AAS:1997; @Landi:ApJ:2013]. For iron, many of these recombination rate coefficients are based on the calculations of @Badnell:AA:2003 and @Badnell:ApJ:2006[^1]. The dielectronic recombination data have been experimentally benchmarked by ion storage ring experiments [@Schippers:IRAMP:2010 and references therein].
The EIMI rate coefficients have been derived from the formulae given in Section \[sec:cross\] by numerically convolving the cross sections with a Maxwellian electron energy distribution. In dynamic or tenuous plasmas it is possible that the electron energy distribution is non-Maxwellian. Equilibrium-ionization-balance calculations for non-Maxwellian distributions have been given by @Dzifcakova:ApJS:2013, albeit without considering EIMI. Here, all of our calculations are based on Maxwellian distributions.
Equilibrium Ionization Balance {#sec:equilib}
==============================
Collisional ionization equilibrium (CIE) occurs when the left hand side of Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) is zero. In this case the density is a constant factor and plays no role in the solution. For a given temperature, we have a system of algebraic equations. It is easy to see that Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) can be written as a matrix: $$\mathbf{A}\vec{y}=0,
\label{eq:ay0}$$ where $\mathbf{A}$ is the matrix of the rate coefficients and $\vec{y}$ is the vector of abundances with elements $y_{i}$. In order to obtain a unique solution, an additional equation is needed. For this, we require that abundances be normalized so that $$\sum_{i}{y_{i}}=1.
\label{eq:norm}$$ This condition is implemented by replacing one of the rows of Equation (\[eq:ay0\]) with Equation (\[eq:norm\]), see for example @Bryans:ApJS:2006.
Figure \[fig:equilib\] shows the equilibrium ionization balance as a function of temperature, $y_{i}(T)$, for all the iron charge states. The solid lines in the figure show the results of the present calculation, which includes EIMI processes. The figure also includes a set of dashed curves, which show the results when only single ionization is considered, however the differences are smaller than the width of the lines in the figure. Here, our CIE calculations for single ionization are identical to the results given in the CHIANTI database, which are an updating of the CIE calculations of @Bryans:ApJ:2009. This agreement between our results and those of CHIANTI is expected since we used the same single ionization and recombination rate coefficients.
The lower panel of Figure \[fig:equilib\] highlights the differences between CIE calculations including and excluding EIMI. The figure shows the ratio of the abundances calculated with EIMI divided by the abundances considering only EISI. The largest changes occur in the vicinity of Fe$^{16+}$, which is formed over a very broad temperature range. The effect of including EIMI versus EISI is to decrease the temperature at which Fe$^{16+}$ and the surrounding charge states are formed. The CSD for low charge states is not greatly affected by EIMI, because for these ions the ionization thresholds are spaced out such that multiple ionization becomes significant at temperatures where the abundance of that charge state has already become small due to EISI. Similarly, EIMI is less important for higher charge states because for those ions the direct ionization cross section is very small and they are open $L$-shell ions so that IA occurs mainly through the formation of $K$-shell holes, which requires ever higher energies relative to the EISI threshold. We find that the CIE calculations, including or excluding EIMI, agree to within 5% for all the charge states. This demonstrates that, as expected, EIMI can be safely ignored in CIE calculations unless extremely high precision is required.
Dynamic Ionization Balance {#sec:dynamic}
==========================
EIMI is expected to be more important in plasmas in which the electron temperature changes rapidly. As EIMI processes increase the ionization rate they can increase the rate at which the charge balance adjusts to sudden changes in the electron temperature.
Equilibration Timescales {#subsec:timescales}
------------------------
One way to quantify the effect of EIMI processes on a dynamic plasma is to calculate the timescale for the charge balance to reach equilibrium following a sudden change in $T$. These timescales have been used, for example, in the analysis of spectra from supernova remnants [@Masai:ASS:1984; @Hughes:ApJ:1985; @Smith:ApJ:2010].
The method for calculating the ionization timescales has been described by @Masai:ASS:1984. Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) can be written in the form $$\frac{d\vec{y}}{dt}=n_{\mathrm{e}}\mathbf{A}(T)\vec{y}.
\label{eq:eqtime1}$$ For constant $T$ and $n_{\mathrm{e}}$, the solution to this equation is $\vec{y}(t) = \vec{y}_{0}\exp{\left[n_{\mathrm{e}}t \mathbf{A}(T)\right]}$. The exponential of a matrix is defined in terms of a Taylor expansion, which involves powers of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$. This is simplified by diagonalizing the matrix by finding its eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Doing so, one finds that the solution to Equation (\[eq:eqtime1\]) can be written as $$\vec{y}(t)=\mathbf{S} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\exp{\left(\lambda_{1}n_{\mathrm{e}}t\right)} & 0 & \cdots \\
0 & \exp{\left(\lambda_{j}n_{\mathrm{e}}t\right)} & 0 \cdots \\
\vdots & 0 & \ddots
\end{array}\right]\mathbf{S}^{-1}\vec{y}_{0},
\label{eq:eqtime2}$$ where $\mathbf{S}$ is the matrix in which each $j$th column is the eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda_{j}$ of the diagonal matrix. Thus, the density-weighted timescales for equilibration are given by $1/\lambda_{j}$ in units of $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$. Note that the eigenvectors do not generally correspond to individual elements of $\vec{y}$ (i.e., charge states), but are instead linear combinations of those elements.
Figure \[fig:mintime\] presents the results for the minimum $1/\lambda_{j}$ as a function of temperature. This represents the scale $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ for any significant changes in the ion population to occur. The bottom panel of Figure \[fig:mintime\] presents the ratio of the scale when EIMI is included versus when it is ignored. These results show that EIMI causes the plasma to evolve faster at high temperatures. For example, for $T=10^{7}$ K the CSD begins to change about 10% faster if EIMI is included in the calculation than when it is ignored. In contrast, the maximum $1/\lambda$ at a given temperature are nearly identical whether or not EIMI is considered in the calculation. Thus, EIMI causes changes to begin sooner, but the total time it takes for the system to asymptote to equilibrium is not significantly different when considering EIMI.
The reason the minimum $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ is more sensitive to including EIMI channels compared to the maximum can be seen by looking at the eigenvectors. For a given $T$, the eigenvector corresponding to the minimum $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ eigenvalue is a linear combination of the abundances from the lowest charge states. The eigenvector corresponding to the maximum $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ is mainly made up of components from the charge states that are abundant in CIE at that temperature. Thus, EIMI influences the ion balance by significantly increasing the ionization rate from the lowest charge states. However, for charge states that are already close to equilibrium, the EISI cross sections are larger and so EIMI has little additional influence.
Figure \[fig:mintime\] can be compared to Figure 2 of @Smith:ApJ:2010, where a similar calculation was carried out that included only single-ionization rates. There is a clear resemblance between the shape of the dependence of the scale on temperature. However, there are differences in magnitude. At low temperatures these differences are almost an order of magnitude, while at high temperatures the two calculations are nearly the same. These differences are probably due to the different ionization rate coefficients used in the calculations. @Smith:ApJ:2010 used the ionization and recombination rate coefficients from @Mazzotta:AAS:1998, whereas we have used those from CHIANTI [@Dere:AA:2007; @Landi:ApJ:2013]. @Bryans:ApJ:2009 performed CIE calculations using the same single ionization rate coefficients that we use and compared the results to the CIE results derived from the @Mazzotta:AAS:1998 rate coefficients. They also found order of magnitude differences at low temperatures when comparing these different data sources. This discrepancy demonstrates the importance of having reliable ionization and recombination rate coefficients.
Direct Calculations {#subsec:numerical}
-------------------
For systems in which $T$ or $n_{\mathrm{e}}$ evolve in time, it is necessary to numerically solve Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) to find the CSD at each time step. One challenge in doing this is that Equation (\[eq:dydt\]) represents a “stiff” system of ordinary differential equations. That is, the coefficients on the right hand side of the equation can vary by orders of magnitude. Standard numerical methods have been developed for dealing with such stiff equations [e.g., @Press:Book]. In order to ensure accuracy, we have used an adaptive time step for the integration. Conditions for adapting the timestep have been given by @MacNeice:SolPhys:1984 and used more recently by @Bradshaw:AA:2009. These conditions define values $\epsilon_d$ and $\epsilon_{r}$ and require that the time step be small enough that, for all $i$ $$|y_{i}(t+\Delta t)-y_{i}| \leq \epsilon_{d},
\label{eq:cond_epsilond}$$ and $$|\log [y_{i}(t+\Delta t)] - \log [y_{i}(t)]| \leq \epsilon_{r}.
\label{eq:cond_epsilonr}$$ @MacNeice:SolPhys:1984 and @Bradshaw:AA:2009 have found that setting $\epsilon_r = 0.6$ and $\epsilon_d=0.1$ are good control parameters. One check on the accuracy of the numerical solution is that $\sum_{i} y_{i} = 1$. We find in our results that the total abundance differs from unity by less than one part in $10^{11}$, where we have not imposed any additional normalization at each time step.
Figure \[fig:jump\] shows the time evolution of the abundances of selected charge states following a sudden jump in $T$ from $10^{5}$ K to $10^{7}$ K at a density of $n_{\mathrm{e}}=10^{9}$ $\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. This is essentially the same scenario as was described above in Section \[subsec:timescales\], but using a direct calculation clarifies the relation between the timescales and charge state abundances. These results show that EIMI allows the CSD to evolve more rapidly than if only EISI is considered. Nevertheless, this change is relatively small, being faster in this case by only a few percent. At large $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$, the abundances asymptote to their CIE values.
Application to Nanoflares {#subsec:nanoflares}
-------------------------
A much different situation can arise when the temperature is oscillating. In this case, the system can be prevented from reaching an equilibrium and the effects of EIMI are more important. To illustrate these effects for a particular case in astrophysics, we consider some parameters that are relevant for nanoflare heating of the solar corona.
One theory for the heating of the solar corona is that it is caused by numerous relatively small impulsive heating events known as nanoflares. These are usually thought to be caused by magnetic reconnection, although other processes could have a similar impulsive character, such as resonant wave absorption [@Klimchuk:SolPhys:2006]. Recently, there has been significant work on predicting the spectroscopic signatures of nanoflares [e.g., @Bradshaw:AA:2003; @Cargill:ApJ:2004; @Reale:ApJ:2008; @Bradshaw:ApJS:2011]. Nanoflares are predicted to heat the plasma to $\sim10^{7}$ K [@Schmelz:ApJ:2009; @Brosius:ApJ:2014]. However, simulations predict such hot plasma difficult to detect because the ionization balance needs time to adjust to the high temperature [@Bradshaw:ApJS:2011]. More detailed models have attempted to predict the temperature distribution of nanoflare heated plasma [@Bradshaw:ApJ:2012; @Reep:ApJ:2013]. All of these computations have so far neglected EIMI.
In order to estimate the possible effects of including EIMI in nanoflare models, we have performed dynamic ionization balance calculations with an oscillating temperature. Figure \[fig:sine\] shows one example of our results. Here the temperature is oscillating so that $\log T[\mathrm{K}] = 6.0 \sin(2\pi t/\tau)$, where $\tau=20$ s is the period of the oscillation. This period is comparable to that used in other nanoflare calculations. For example, @Reep:ApJ:2013 consider a series of nanoflares with heating timescales of 60 s. @Klimchuk:ApJ:2014 have considered even faster timescales, with 10 s duration heating events. The temperature in our calculation varies between 10$^{5}$ and 10$^{7}$ K, which are reasonable values for the solar transition region and corona. For this calculation we have set $n_{\mathrm{e}}=5 \times 10^{8}$ cm$^{-3}$, which is a typical density for the low solar corona. It is worth noting, however, that we have ignored essentially all of the hydrodynamics involved in simulating nanoflares. In reality, the heating will drive corresponding changes in the plasma density that will in turn modify the temperature. Our objective here is only to determine whether or not the neglect of EIMI can be justified.
Figure \[fig:sine\] shows that the oscillating temperature prevents the CSD from asymptoting to the CIE values. Instead, after a short transient at the beginning of the simulation, the CSD settles down into a stable oscillation around an average abundance value.
These average abundances can be significantly different depending on whether EIMI is included or neglected. Figure \[fig:sineabund\] shows the average abundances of the iron charge states for times $t > 1000$ s, when the oscillation is stable. This reveals that neglecting EIMI overestimates the abundances of charge states below Fe$^{15+}$ and underestimates the abundance of Fe$^{15+}$ and higher charge states. These differences are up to 40%, for those ions having significant relative abundances ($y_{i}>0.01$). The size of the discrepancy depends on the timescale of the oscillation. With a shorter period of about $\tau=10$ s, the discrepancy is about 50%, while for a longer period of $\tau=60$ s, the difference is about 20%.
There are clear implications for spectroscopic diagnostics searching for nanoflares. Models that neglect EIMI will systematically underestimate the abundances of charge states Fe$^{15+}$ and above. This means that observations will see more high temperature plasma than is currently predicted. Additionally, differential emission measure spectroscopic analyses will have a higher ratio of hot to warm plasma than is predicted by current models. Thus, our results suggests that EIMI should be considered in nanoflare model calculations in order to accurately predict observed spectra.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
It has been thought that EIMI would be unimportant in many astrophysical contexts, especially in situations close to CIE. Combined with the lack of EIMI cross section data, multiple-ionization processes have been generally ignored. In order to determine whether EIMI can or cannot be neglected, we have studied iron charge-state abundances by incorporating EIMI cross sections into calculations for CIE, equilibration timescales, and time-dependent ionization.
We find that for CIE it is justified to ignore EIMI, as the influence is less than 5% for iron. EIMI has a more significant influence on the CSD of ionizing plasmas and can decrease the timescale at which changes in the CSD begin to occur by $\sim 10\%$ at temperatures around 10$^{7}$ K. However, currently the uncertainties in EISI cross sections are likely to be more important than whether EIMI is included or neglected.
The greatest change we found when including EIMI is for an oscillation in the temperature. In this scenario we found cases where the ion abundances may differ by up to 50% from what is predicted when EIMI is neglected. One context in which such temperature oscillations occur is nanoflare heating of the solar corona. Based on our results, nanoflare models should incorporate EIMI in order to accurately predict the spectrosopic signatures of nanoflares.
A challenge for incorporating EIMI into plasma models is the lack of any reliable EIMI theory and the dearth of experimental measurements. Here we have focused on iron, for which at least double-ionization measurements exist for enough ions to reasonably interpolate the cross sections using semiempirical formulae. For most other ions the situation is worse. Nevertheless, we can speculate about the influence of EIMI on the CSD for other elements. We find significant EIMI is due mainly to direct ionization or $L$-shell IA, while $K$-shell IA occurs at such high energies that it has little effect. This suggests that the CSD of elements below Na, which have open $L$-shells, will be less sensitive to EIMI. In contrast, EIMI may become more important for elements heavier than iron as additional EIMI channels become possible.
This work was supported in part by the NASA Solar Heliospheric Physics program grant NNX09AB25G and the NSF Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences SHINE program grant AGS-1060194.
[l c c c c c c c c c c]{} 0 & 2 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 24.10 & 1.0 & 11.0119 & & & & @Shah:JPhysB:1993\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 59.0 & 1.0 & 3.20615 & 3.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.1005 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 3 & D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 54.75 & 0.0860 & 6.30 & 26.0 & 1.20 & 1.0 & @Shah:JPhysB:1993\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 98.0 & 0.9359 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 713.0 & 0.3086 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 726.0 & 0.3096 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 851.0 & 0.0893 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.0984 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 4 & D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 109.66& 1.0 & 0.5 & 26.0 & 1.73 & 1.0 & @Shah:JPhysB:1993\
0 & 5 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 713.0 & 0.0966 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 726.0 & 0.0802 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 851.0 & 0.3317 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.0970 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 6 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 713.0 & 0.0047 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 726.0 & 0.0039 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 851.0 & 0.2495 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.1598 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 7 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 851.0 & 0.1122 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.2007 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.1729 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.0205 & 2.0 & & & &\
0 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7117.0& 0.0022 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 3 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 43.54 & 1.0 & 17.0 & & & & @Stenke:JPhysB:1999\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 69.58 & 1.0 & 3.72 & 3.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 112.85& 1.0 & 3.31 & 3.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 727.64& 1.0 & 1.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 868.24& 1.0 & 1.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.1007 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 4 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 119.0 & 0.9563 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 744.0 & 0.3061 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 757.0 & 0.3076 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 882.0 & 0.0953 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.0976 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 5 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 744.0 & 0.4256 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 757.0 & 0.3542 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 882.0 & 0.2581 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.1564 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 6 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 744.0 & 0.0759 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 757.0 & 0.0617 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 882.0 & 0.4829 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.3242 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 7 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 744.0 & 0.0001 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 757.0 & 0.0001 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 882.0 & 0.1409 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.0.3242& 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 882.0 & 0.0058 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.1154 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.0143 & 2.0 & & & &\
1 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7164.0& 0.0007 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 4 & D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 85.56 & 1.0 & 14.0 & 24.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 141.0 & 0.0217 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 775.0 & 0.1773 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 787.9 & 0.2612 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 913.0 & 0.0194 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.1009 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 5 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 775.0 & 0.7056 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 787.9 & 0.5912 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 913.0 & 0.3687 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.2220 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 6 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 775.0 & 0.1018 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 787.9 & 0.1317 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 913.0 & 0.4976 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.2139 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 7 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 913.0 & 0.1139 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.3601 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 913.0 & 0.0004 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.0858 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.0123 & 2.0 & & & &\
2 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7210.0& 0.0003 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 5 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 129.8 & 1.0 & 359.0 & & & & @Stenke:JPhysB:1999\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 142.1 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 3.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 760.7 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 900.5 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.3058 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 6 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 807.0 & 0.1333 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 819.9 & 0.1045 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 943.0 & 0.8295 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.1243 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 7 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 807.0 & 0.0067 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 819.9 & 0.0054 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 943.0 & 0.1426 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.3313 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 943.0 & 0.0004 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.1850 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.0398 & 2.0 & & & &\
3 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7256.0& 0.0097 & 2.0 & & & &\
4 & 6 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 174.1 & 1.0 & 303.0 & & & & @Stenke:JPhysB:1999\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 786.2 & 1.0 & 0.1 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 927.1 & 1.0 & 0.01 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7301.0& 0.0415 & 2.0 & & & &\
4 & 7 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 839.0 & 0.1633 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 851.9 & 0.1230 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 973.0 & 0.9741 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7301.0& 0.1625 & 2.0 & & & &\
4 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7301.0& 0.3961 & 2.0 & & & &\
4 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7301.0& 0.1180 & 2.0 & & & &\
4 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7301.0& 0.0195 & 2.0 & & & &\
5 & 7 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 222.3 & 1.0 & 281.5 & & & & @Stenke:JPhysB:1999\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 815.9 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 956.4 & 1.0 & 11.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7348.0& 0.3117 & 2.0 & & & &\
5 & 8 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1003.0& 0.8690 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7348.0& 0.1167 & 2.0 & & & &\
5 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7348.0& 0.4220 & 2.0 & & & &\
5 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7348.0& 0.1085 & 2.0 & & & &\
6 & 8 & D & \[eq:shev6a\] & 286.0 & 1.0 & 261.3 & & & & @Stenke:JPhysB:1999\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 847.2 & 1.0 & 8.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev6b\] & 988.6 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 2.0 & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7394.0& 0.3143 & 2.0 & & & &\
6 & 9 & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1033.0& 0.7790 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7394.0& 0.1492 & 2.0 & & & &\
6 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7394.0& 0.4956 & 2.0 & & & &\
7 & 9 & D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 384.66& 1.0 & 14.0 & 19.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 933.0 & 0.9967 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 945.8 & 0.9901 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1094.0& 0.9187 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7440.0& 0.3153 & 2.0 & & & &\
7 & 10& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7440.0& 0.1487 & 2.0 & & & &\
7 & 11& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7440.0& 0.4959 & 2.0 & & & &\
8 & 10& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 495.70& 1.0 & 14.0 & 18.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 965.0 & 0.9983 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 977.8 & 0.9983 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1094.0& 0.9105 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7486.0& 0.3165 & 2.0 & & & &\
8 & 11& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7486.0& 0.1471 & 2.0 & & & &\
8 & 12& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7486.0& 0.4975 & 2.0 & & & &\
9 & 11& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 553.00& 1.0 & 14.0 & 17.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 & @Hahn:ApJ:2012\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1000.0& 0.9973 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1013.0& 0.9980 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1129.0& 0.9214 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7535.0& 0.3222 & 2.0 & & & &\
9 & 12& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7535.0& 0.1357 & 2.0 & & & &\
9 & 13& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7535.0& 0.5085 & 2.0 & & & &\
10& 12& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 621.70& 1.0 & 14.0 & 16.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1036.0& 0.9952 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1049.0& 0.9975 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1164.0& 0.9154 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7585.0& 0.3283 & 2.0 & & & &\
10& 13& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7585.0& 0.1267 & 2.0 & & & &\
10& 14& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7585.0& 0.5168 & 2.0 & & & &\
11& 13& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 691.80& 1.0 & 14.0 & 15.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 & @Hahn:ApJ:2011\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1073.0& 0.9888 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1086.0& 0.9967 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1199.0& 0.9202 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7636.0& 0.3345 & 2.0 & & & &\
11& 14& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7636.0& 0.1299 & 2.0 & & & &\
11& 15& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7636.0& 0.5120 & 2.0 & & & &\
12& 14& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 753.20& 1.0 & 14.0 & 14.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 & @Hahn:ApJ:2011a\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1110.0& 0.9338 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1123.0& 0.9954 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1234.0& 0.9286 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7686.0& 0.3336 & 2.0 & & & &\
12& 15& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7686.0& 0.1792 & 2.0 & & & &\
12& 16& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7686.0& 0.4575 & 2.0 & & & &\
13& 15& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 848.40& 1.0 & 14.0 & 13.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 & @Hahn:ApJ:2013\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1147.0& 0.9046 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1160.0& 0.9843 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1270.0& 0.9452 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7737.0& 0.3390 & 2.0 & & & &\
13& 16& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7737.0& 0.6297 & 2.0 & & & &\
14& 16& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 945.51& 1.0 & 14.0 & 12.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1185.0& 0.8737 & 4.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1198.0& 0.8737 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 1307.0& 0.9981 & 2.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7788.0& 0.3985 & 2.0 & & & &\
14& 17& IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7788.0& 0.5562 & 2.0 & & & &\
15& 17& D & \[eq:shevtar\] & 1752.0& 1.0 & 14.0 & 11.0 & 1.08 & 0.75 &\
& & IA & \[eq:lotz\] & 7838.0& 0.6362 & 2.0 & & & &\
16& 18& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 2620.5& 1.0 & 183.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 7891.0& 0.613 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
17& 19& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 2818.1& 1.0 & 133.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 7989.0& 0.592 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
18& 20& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 3035.9& 1.0 & 76.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 8088.0& 0.565 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
19& 21& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 3262.6& 1.0 & 43.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 8187.0& 0.572 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
20& 22& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 3485.4& 1.0 & 23.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 8286.0& 0.568 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
21& 23& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 3748.8& 1.0 & 10.0 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 8384.0& 0.729 & 3.6 & 5.0 & & &\
22& 24& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 3996.2& 1.0 & 1.8 & & & &\
& & IA & \[eq:shev5b\] & 8482.0& 0.877 & 3.6 & 4.5 & & &\
23& 25& D & \[eq:shev5a\] & 10847 & 1.0 & 12.0 & & & &\
24& 26& IA & \[eq:shev5a\] & 18106 & 1.0 & 5.0 & & & &
![\[fig:fe02\] Double ionization of Fe$^{0+}$ forming Fe$^{2+}$. The data points show the experimental results of @Shah:JPhysB:1993 and the solid curve illustrates the fit from @Shevelko:JPhysB:2006, which we use here. ](Fe_02.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:fe1113\] Double ionization of Fe$^{11+}$ forming Fe$^{13+}$. The data points show the experimental results of @Hahn:ApJ:2011. The solid curve is the cross section used here, which is described in Table \[table:cross\]. ](Fe_1113.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:equilib\] The top panel shows the CIE charge balance for iron when multiple ionization is included (solid curves) and when it is ignored (dashed curves). The two cases are not distinguishable in this figure because the differences are very small. The bottom panel plots the ratio of the ion abundances from the new calculation, which includes EIMI, divided by the old calculations with only single ionization. EIMI changes the equilibrium abundances by 5% at most. ](Fe_equilib.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:mintime\] The top panel shows the minimum scale $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ for the ion balance to equilibrate following rapid heating to a given temperature $T$. The solid line represents the new calculations with EIMI included, while the dashed line indicates the results with only EISI. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the scales including (New) versus excluding (Old) EIMI. ](Fe_taumin.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:jump\] Ion abundances of Fe$^{15+}$ to Fe$^{18+}$ versus scale $n_{\mathrm{e}}t$ following a sudden jump in temperature from $10^{5}$ K to $10^{7}$ K. The solid curves indicate the results with EIMI and the dashed curves are the calculations including only EISI. It is clear that EIMI causes the charge states to evolve faster than if it is ignored. ](MEII_case8-2.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:sine\] Ion abundances of Fe$^{12+}$ and Fe$^{16+}$ for a temperature oscillating between $10^{5}$ and $10^{7}$ K with a period of 20 s at $n_{\mathrm{e}}=5 \times 10^{8}$ cm$^{-3}$. The black curve indicates the results that include EIMI, while the blue curve includes only EISI. ](meii_case62.eps){width="90.00000%"}
![\[fig:sineabund\] The average CSD for time $t > 1000$ s, for the same oscillating temperatures as for Figure \[fig:sine\]. The black curve shows the results with EIMI while the blue curve includes only EISI. The average abundances differ by up to 40%. ](case62_avgabund.eps){width="90.00000%"}
[^1]: http://amdpp.phys.strath.ac.uk/tamoc/DR/ and http://amdpp.phys.strath.ac.uk/tamoc/RR/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generate an explicit four-fold infinity of physically acceptable exact perfect fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations by way of conformal transformations of physically unacceptable solutions (one way to view the use of isotropic coordinates). Special cases include the Schwarzschild interior solution and the Einstein static universe. The process we consider involves solving two equations of the Riccati type coupled by a single generating function rather than a specification of one of the two metric functions.'
author:
- 'Jonathan Loranger and Kayll Lake [@email]'
title: Generating Static Fluid Spheres by Conformal Transformations
---
Introduction
============
Perhaps the simplest of all procedures that one can think of for generating new exact solutions of Einstein’s equations is the use of conformal transformations. Unfortunately, when applied to vacuum, no new solutions emerge via this procedure [@exact]. However, when considering static fluid spheres in isotropic coordinates, the seed metric is not vacuum, but an unphysical fluid with pressure but zero energy density and viable new solutions do indeed emerge. We now have a rather vast array of methods for generating static fluid spheres [@visser], with many of the successful procedures relying on what amounts to the development of a linear equation of first order, for example [@es1] and [@es2]. In isotropic coordinates linear equations do not emerge directly [@lvisser]. Rather, specifying one of the two metric functions leads to a differential equation of the Riccati type. Here we do not specify either metric function but rather solve two equations of the Riccati type coupled by a single generating function. Whereas we are able to solve this system for a variety of generating functions, we have found only one class of generating functions that gives rise to tractable and physically interesting solutions of Einstein’s equations.
Generating Technique
====================
Consider spacetimes $\mathcal{O}$ that are static conformal transformations of seed metrics $\mathcal{S}$ where [@metric] $$\label{conformal}
ds_{\mathcal{O}}^2=F(r)ds_{\mathcal{S}}^2$$ with $$\label{seed}
ds_{\mathcal{S}}^2=dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2-e^{2\Phi(r)}dt^2$$ where $d\Omega^2$ is the metric of a unit sphere ($d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\phi^2$) and $F$ is a freely specifiable function $>0$. We suppose that the mathematical fluid associated with $\mathcal{O}$ is generated by streamlines of constant $r,\; \theta$ and $\phi$. Since this flow is shear free, the necessary and sufficient condition for (\[conformal\]) to represent a static perfect fluid is given by the Walker pressure isotropy condition [@walker] $$G_{r}^{r}=G_{\theta}^{\theta}\label{condition}$$ where $G_{\alpha}^{\beta}$ is the Einstein tensor. The energy density is defined by $8 \pi \rho(r)=-G_{t}^{t}$ and the pressure by $8 \pi p(r)=G_{r}^{r}$ and for (\[condition\]) we assume that $\rho+p \neq 0$ [@il]. Condition (\[condition\]), along with the definitions for $\rho$ and $p$, is equivalent to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation. The spacetimes $\mathcal{S}$ (for any constant $F$) do not represent physically acceptable static fluid spheres since they all have zero energy density. What we are interested in are spacetimes $\mathcal{O}$ that represent physically acceptable exact perfect fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations.
From condition (\[condition\]) we find $$\label{phipart}
r\Phi^{''}+r\Phi^{'^{2}}-\Phi^{'}+J(r)=0$$ where $$\label{fpart}
J(r)\equiv(\frac{F^{'}}{F})^{'}r-(\frac{F{'}}{F})^2\frac{r}{2}-\frac{F^{'}}{F},$$ and $\;^{'} \equiv d/dr$. The energy density is given by $$\label{density}
8 \pi \rho=-\frac{F^{''}}{F^2}+\frac{3F^{'^{2}}}{4F^3}-\frac{2F^{'}}{F^2r},$$ independent of $\Phi$, and the pressure is given by $$\label{pressure}
8 \pi p=\frac{2F^{'}}{F^{2}r}+\frac{3F^{'^{2}}}{4F^3}+\Phi^{'}(\frac{F^{'}}{F^2}+\frac{2}{Fr})$$ where $\Phi$ and $F$ are linked by (\[phipart\]). It is clear from (\[density\]) that $F$ must have a local maximum at $r=0$ and so from (\[fpart\]) we must have $J(0)=0$.
Let us specify $F$ and solve for $\Phi$ from (\[phipart\]). The formal solution is given by $$\label{methoda}
\Phi=\int b(r) dr +C$$ where $$\label{j}
b^{'}+b^2-\frac{b}{r}+\frac{J}{r}=0$$ and $C$ is a constant. Since equation (\[j\]) may be solved analytically only for certain $J$, we can ask what $F$ gives rise to this particular $J$? The answer follows from (\[fpart\]) and is given by $$\label{f}
F=exp\left(\int \tilde{b}(r)dr+\tilde{C}\right)$$ where $$\label{btilda}
\tilde{b}^{'}-\frac{\tilde{b}^2}{2}-\frac{\tilde{b}}{r}-\frac{J}{r}=0$$ and $\tilde{C}$ is a constant. Alternatively, we can specify $\Phi$ and solve for $F$. This is equivalent to (\[f\]) with (\[btilda\]) where we consider $J$ generated from (\[phipart\]). Again, we can ask what $\Phi$ generated a particular $J$. The solution is given by (\[methoda\]) with (\[j\]). In either case our ability to proceed revolves around our ability to solve Riccati equations of the type (\[j\]) and (\[btilda\]).
In the usual way, equations (\[j\]) and (\[btilda\]) can be written in linear form as $$\label{psi}
\psi^{''}-\frac{\psi^{'}}{r}+\frac{J \psi}{r}=0$$ and $$\label{psit}
\tilde{\psi}^{''}-\frac{\tilde{\psi}^{'}}{r}+\frac{J \tilde{\psi}}{2 r}=0$$ where, up to a scale factor in $t$ and a constant conformal factor, $\psi=e^{\Phi}$ and $\tilde{\psi}=1/\sqrt{F}$. Rather than specify $F$ or $\Phi$, here equations (\[psi\]) and (\[psit\]) are solved simultaneously, coupled by the generating function $J$. The solutions for $\psi$ and $\tilde{\psi}$ are, of course, quite different in general and, as explained below, distinct even for $J=0$.
Solutions to the Riccati System
===============================
Given a particular solution to a Riccati type equation, standard procedures [@poly] allow the construction of more general solutions. However, this procedure for generating solutions usually starts from very simple particular solutions, and we have found no non-trivial known solutions applicable to the system (\[psi\]) and (\[psit\]). Rather, what we have done is to use the computer algebra system Maple [@maple] to generate solutions to this system.
To motivate our choice for $J$, first consider $$\label{firstf}
F=\frac{A}{(1+Br^2)^n}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are constants and $n$ is a ratio of integers. This gives $$\label{specialj}
J=\frac{2(2-n)nB^2r^3}{(1+Br^2)^2}$$ which distinguishes two special cases for which $J=0$: $n=0$ and $n=2$. It is important to note that (\[firstf\]) is but a special case that leads to (\[specialj\]). With $J=0$, $e^{\Phi}=C+Dr^2$ where $C$ and $D$ are constants. The cases $n=0$ are physically unacceptable, since, as explained above, the associated energy density vanishes. All cases with $n=2$ are conformally flat and so represent the well-known Schwarzschild interior solution [@buch]. A special case is given by $C=1$ and $D=B$ which is the Einstein static universe. (A cosmological constant $\Lambda=4B/A$ can be introduced to give zero pressure.)
Motivated by the foregoing, we have considered the generating functions $$\label{generalj}
J=\frac{2(2-n)nB^2r^b}{(1+Br^2)^a}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers, and have been able to solve the Riccati system (\[psi\]) and (\[psit\]) analytically for the integers shown in Table \[Solutions\].
[a]{} [b]{}
------- ------------
1 1, 3, 5
2 1, 3, 5, 7
3 1, 3, 5
4 1, 3, 5,7
5 3, 5
6 3, 5, 7
: \[Solutions\]Analytic Solutions
However, solving the differential equations does not mean that we can find a physically acceptable, or even tractable, solution to the Einstein equations. In some cases (e.g. $a=2, b=5$) we have been unable to construct the associated energy density and pressure simply due to the complexity of the background spacetime. In other cases (e.g. $a=1, b=3$) the most elementary physical requirements cannot be met (finite positive $\rho$ and $p$ at the origin $r=0$ with monotone decreasing values outward). Of the solutions represented in Table \[Solutions\] we have found only one case of physical interest: ($a=2, b=3$), that is, (\[specialj\]).
Physically Acceptable Solutions
===============================
Now starting with (\[specialj\]) from (\[psi\]) and (\[psit\]) we find $$\label{generalphi}
e^{\Phi}=\mathcal{C}_{1}(1+Br^2)^{(1+\sqrt{N})/2}+\mathcal{C}_{2}(1+Br^2)^{(1-\sqrt{N})/2}$$ where $$\label{N}
N \equiv 2n^2-4n+1,$$ and $$\label{generalf}
F=\frac{1}{(\mathcal{C}_{3}(1+Br^2)^{n/2}+\mathcal{C}_{4}(1+Br^2)^{1-n/2})^2}$$ where the $\mathcal{C}_{x}$ are constants. From (\[N\]) we have $n \geq 1+\sqrt{2}/2$ and $n \leq 1-\sqrt{2}/2$. Whereas the metric is remarkably simple, the resultant expressions for the energy density and isotropic pressure are very long and not reproduced here. We resort to graphical demonstrations.
The fact that the energy density is unaffected by $\Phi$ is demonstrated in Figure \[c1c2var\] where we have varied $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$. Two sets of curves shown coincide. This degeneracy arises due to the fact that we have not set a scale for $t$.
In Figure \[c3var\] we have varied $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{4}$. Again, two sets of curves shown coincide. This degeneracy arises due to the fact that the essential physics does not change under a constant conformal transformation.
Discussion
==========
An explicit four-fold infinity of new physically acceptable exact perfect fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations have been generated by solving two equations of the Riccati type coupled by a single generating function rather than specifying one of the metric functions. Special cases of these solutions include the Schwarzschild interior solution and the Einstein static universe. The solutions are qualitatively similar to the Tolman IV solution (see for example [@es2]) and so should be of interest for the study of internal properties of neutron stars [@lat].
KL is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Portions of this work were made possible by use of *GRTensorII* [@grt].
\[sec:TeXbooks\] H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt, *Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equations*, (Cambridge University Press, 2003). For a review of these developments see P. Boonserm and M. Visser, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **17**, 135 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.0146v1\]. K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D **77**, 127502 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.3092v2\]. C. Grenon, P. Elahi and K. Lake , Phys. Rev. D **78**, 044028 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3329v2\]. For relevant previous work in isotropic coordinates see S. Rahman and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. **19**, 935 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0103065\] and K. Lake Phys. Rev. D **67** 104015 (2003), \[arXiv:gr-qc/0209104\]. We use geometrical units and usually designate functional dependence only on the first appearance of a function. A. G. Walker, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, **6**, 81 (1935). M. Ishak and K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D **68**, 104031 (2003) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0304065\]. See, for example, A. Polyanin and V. Zaitsev, “Handbook of exact solutions for ordinary differential equations", Second Edition, (Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2003). Maple is copyright Waterloo Maple Inc. H. Buchdahl, Am. J. Phys., **39**, 158 (1971). See, for example, J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 111101 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0411280v1\]. This is a package which runs within Maple. It is entirely distinct from packages distributed with Maple and must be obtained independently. The GRTensorII software and documentation is distributed freely on the World-Wide-Web from the address *http://grtensor.org*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Comparison theorems are established for the Dirac and Klein–Gordon equations. We suppose that $V^{(1)}(r)$ and $V^{(2)}(r)$ are two real attractive central potentials in $d$ dimensions that support discrete Dirac eigenvalues $E^{(1)}_{k_d\nu}$ and $E^{(2)}_{k_d\nu}$. We prove that if $V^{(1)}(r) \leq V^{(2)}(r)$, then each of the corresponding discrete eigenvalue pairs is ordered $E^{(1)}_{k_d\nu} \leq E^{(2)}_{k_d\nu}$. This result generalizes an earlier more restrictive theorem that required the wave functions to be node free. For the the Klein–Gordon equation, similar reasoning also leads to a comparison theorem provided in this case that the potentials are negative and the eigenvalues are positive.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8'
author:
- 'Richard L. Hall'
title: Relativistic comparison theorems
---
\#1\#2[$#1$-2pt-\#2]{} \#1\#2[\#1--2pt$#2$]{} \#1 \#1[[**\#1**]{} ]{}
CUQM-134
0.2in
Introduction
============
The comparison theorem of quantum mechanics states that if two real potentials are ordered, $V^{(1)}(r) \leq V^{(2)}(r),$ then each corresponding pair of eigenvalues is ordered $E^{(1)}_{\ell n} \leq E^{(2)}_{\ell n}.$ For non-relativistic problems whose Hamiltonians are bounded below, this theorem is an immediate consequence of the variational characterization of the discrete spectrum. By contrast, since the energy operators for relativistic problems are not bounded below, a simple comparison theorem is unexpected since the usual variational arguments are not applicable [@franklin; @goldman; @grant]. However, by using reasoning developed originally for Schrödinger problems in which the graphs of the comparison potentials cross each other in a controlled way [@hallrcom], and consequently variational inequalities are no longer available, it was possible to derive a limited comparison theorem [@halld] valid for node-free Dirac eigenstates; this was subsequently extended to Dirac problems in $d$ dimension [@chen]. In a more recent development [@hallds], it was shown for the Dirac problem that if an attractive potential $V(r,a)$ is monotone in a potential parameter $a$, then each corresponding Dirac eigenvalue $E(a)$ is monotone in this parameter. Both types of result have also been proved for potentials in the Klein–Gordon equation [@hallkg], with the added restriction in this case that the eigenvalues considered are positive. We shall see in this paper that the monotonic spectral behavior induced by attractive central potentials $V(r,a)$ that are monotonic in a parameter $a$ leads to a general comparison theorem for the Dirac problem, and to a comparison theorem restricted to negative potentials and positive eigenvalues for the Klein–Gordon equation. These results are established below in sections II and III respectively. In section IV we consider an example of comparison approximations to the Dirac spectrum of a screened-Coulomb potential: in particular this establishes a general energy-bound conjecture posed 25 years ago in Ref. [@halldsc] and later proved to be true for node-free states in Ref. [@halld].
The potential $V(r)$ discussed in this paper is sometimes called a ‘vector potential’ since it enters the problem as the time component of a $4$-vector: it is this potential that for Hydrogen-like atomic models is taken to be $V(r) = -Z\alpha/r.$ A ‘scalar potential’ $S(r)$ may also be considered, as a variable term added to the mass [@greiner]. However, throughout the present paper, for both Dirac and Klein–Gordon problems, we shall assume that $S = 0$ and that the mass $m$ is constant.
The Dirac equation
==================
For a central potential $V(r)$ in $d$ dimensions the Dirac equation can be written [@jiang] in natural units $\hbar=c=1$ as $$\label{eq3}
i{{\partial \Psi}\over{\partial t}} =H\Psi,\quad {\rm where}\quad H=\sum_{s=1}^{d}{\alpha_{s}p_{s}} + m\beta+V,$$ where $m$ is the mass of the particle, and $\{\alpha_{s}\}$ and $\beta$ are Dirac matrices, which satisfy anti-commutation relations; the identity matrix is implied after the potential $V$. For stationary states, algebraic calculations in a suitable basis [@jiang] lead to a pair of first-order linear differential equations in two radial functions $\{\psi_1(r), \psi_2(r)\}$, where $r = |\mathbf{r}|.$ For $d > 1,$ these functions vanish at $r = 0$, and, for bound states, they may be normalized by the relation $$\label{eq4}
(\psi_1,\psi_1) + (\psi_2,\psi_2) = \int\limits_0^{\infty}(\psi_1^2(r) + \psi_2^2(r))dr = 1.$$ We use inner products [*without*]{} the radial measure factor $r^{(d-1)}$ because the factor $r^{\frac{(d-1)}{2}}$ is already built in to each radial function. Thus the radial functions vanish at $r = 0$ and satisfy the coupled equations $$\begin{aligned}
E\psi_1 &=& (V+m)\psi_1 + (-\partial + k_{d}/r)\psi_2\label{eq5}\\
E\psi_2 &=& (\partial + k_{d}/r)\psi_1 + (V-m)\psi_2\label{eq6},\end{aligned}$$ where $k_1 = 0,$ $k_{d}=\tau(j+{{d-2}\over{2}}),~d >1$, $\tau = \pm 1,$ and $E = E_{k_d\nu}$ is the eigenvalue corresponding to the state with $\nu = 0,1,2,\dots$ nodes in the upper radial function $\psi_1(r).$ We note that the variable $\tau$ is sometimes written $\omega$, as, for example in the book by Messiah [@messiah], and the radial functions are often written $\psi_1 = G$ and $\psi_2 = F,$ as in the book by Greiner [@greiner]. We shall assume that for each attractive central potential $V$considered, there is a discrete eigenvalue $E = E_{k_d\nu}$ and that Eqs.(\[eq5\], \[eq6\]) are the eigenequations for the corresponding radial eigenstates. In this paper we shall present the problem explicitly for the cases $d > 1.$ Similar arguments go through for the case $d=1$: in this case $k_1 = 0,$ the states can be classified as even or odd, and the normalization (\[eq4\]) becomes instead $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\psi_1^2(x) + \psi_2^2(x)\right)dx = 1.$ We first suppose that the potential $V=V(r,a)$ depends smoothly on a parameter $a$, and we re-state a theorem from Ref. [@hallds]:
[**Theorem 1**]{} [*The real attractive central potential $V(r,a)$ depends smoothly on the parameter $a$, and $E(a)= E_{k_d\nu}(a)$ is a corresponding discrete Dirac eigenvalue. Then:*]{} $$\label{eq1}
\partial V/\partial a \geq 0~~\Rightarrow~~E'(a) \geq 0~~~{\it and}~~~\partial V/\partial a \leq 0~~\Rightarrow~~E'(a) \leq 0.$$ The principle result of this section of the present paper is the proof of the following general comparison theorem.
[**Theorem 2**]{} [*Suppose that $E^{(1)}_{k_d\nu}$ and $E^{(2)}_{k_d\nu}$ are Dirac eigenvalues corresponding to two distinct attractive central potentials $V^{(1)}(r)$ and $V^{(2)}(r)$. Then:* ]{} $$\label{eq2}
V^{(1)}(r) \leq V^{(2)}(r) ~~~ \Rightarrow ~~~E^{(1)}_{k_d\nu} \leq E^{(2)}_{k_d\nu}.$$
[**Proof of Theorem 2:**]{} The theorem may be proved by keeping the given real comparison potentials $V^{(1)}(r)$ and $V^{(2)}(r)$ fixed and defining the one-parameter family of potentials $V(r,a)$ by $$\label{eq7}
V(r,a) = V^{(1)}(r) + a\left(V^{(2)}(r) - V^{(1)}(r)\right),\quad a \in[0,1].$$ We now consider one of the discrete eigenvalues, $E_{k_d\nu}(a) = E(a),$ of the Dirac equation with potential $V(r,a).$ In terms of this energy function, the comparison eigenvalues of the theorem are given by $E^{(1)}_{k_d\nu} = E(0)$ and $E^{(2)}_{k_d\nu} = E(1).$ Clearly, since $V^{(2)}(r) - V^{(1)}(r) \ge 0,$ we have $\partial V(r,a)/\partial a = V^{(2)}(r) - V^{(1)}(r) \ge 0.$ Thus, by Theorem 1 we have $E'(a) \ge 0.$ The fact that $E(a)$ is increasing in turn implies that $E(0) \le E(1),$ which result establishes the theorem.
The Klein–Gordon equation
=========================
The Klein–Gordon equation for an attractive central potential $V(r,a)$ depending on a parameter $a$ is given by $$\label{eqkg}
(-\Delta + m^2)\psi = (E -V)^2\psi.$$ The generalization to arbitrary dimension $d >1$ is conveniently allowed for [@hallkg] by replacing the orbital-angular momentum quantum number $\ell$ of the three-dimensional problem by $\ell_d$, where $$\ell_d = \ell + (d-3)/2.$$ The eigenvalues of the problem in $d$ dimensions are labelled by $\ell_d$ and the number $\nu = 0,1,2,\dots$ of nodes in the radial eigenfunction $\psi(r).$ The radial equation becomes from (\[eqkg\]) $$\label{eqkgr}
-\psi''(r) + \frac{Q}{r^2}\psi(r) = \left(\left(E_{\ell_d\nu}-V(r)\right)^2 -m^2\right)\psi(r),$$ where $$\label{eqkgq}
Q=\frac{1}{4}(2\ell+d-1)(2\ell+d-3) = \ell_d(\ell_d+1),\quad \ell = 0,1,2,\dots,\ d = 2,3,\dots$$ In Ref.[@hallkg] the following theorem was proved:
[**Theorem 3**]{} [*The real attractive central potential $V(r,a) \le 0$ depends smoothly on a parameter $a$, and $E(a)= E_{\ell_d\nu}(a)\ge 0$ is a corresponding discrete Klein-Gordon eigenvalue. Then:*]{} $$\label{eqth3}
\partial V/\partial a \ge 0 \Rightarrow E'(a) \ge 0,\quad {\it and}\quad \partial V/\partial a \le 0 \Rightarrow E'(a) \le 0.$$
By similar reasoning to that used for the Dirac case, we shall now prove the Klein–Gordon comparison theorem:
[**Theorem 4**]{} [*Suppose that $E^{(1)}_{\ell_d\nu}$ and $E^{(2)}_{\ell_d\nu}$ are Klein–Gordon eigenvalues corresponding to two distinct attractive central potentials $V^{(1)}(r)$ and $V^{(2)}(r)$. Then:* ]{} $$\label{eqth4}
V^{(1)}(r) \leq V^{(2)}(r) \le 0~~{\it and}~~E^{(1)}_{\ell_d\nu} > 0~~~ \Rightarrow ~~~E^{(1)}_{\ell_d\nu} \leq E^{(2)}_{\ell_d\nu}.$$
[**Proof of Theorem 4:**]{} We suppose that $V^{(1)}(r) \leq V^{(2)}(r) \le 0$ and we define a one-parameter family of negative potentials $V(r,a)$ by $$\label{eqkgpot}
V(r,a) = V^{(1)}(r) + a\left(V^{(2)}(r) - V^{(1)}(r)\right),\quad a \in[0,1].$$ Clearly, $V(r,a) \leq 0$. Meanwhile, $\partial V(r,a)/\partial a = V^{(2)}(r) - V^{(1)}(r)\ge 0.$ We also suppose that $E^{(1)}_{\ell_d\nu} = E(0)$ is positive. By Theorem 3 we deduce that $E'(a) \ge 0$ for $a \in [0,1].$ Thus we conclude that $$E^{(2)}_{\ell_d\nu} = E(1) \ge E(0) = E^{(1)}_{\ell_d\nu},$$ which inequality establishes the theorem.
Energy bounds for a screened–Coulomb potential
==============================================
We revisit an example discussed in Refs. [@halld; @halldsc], but now we consider the problem in general spatial dimension $d >1$, and we are able to construct energy bounds valid for every discrete eigenvalue. We first consider the Dirac equation for the pure Coulomb problem with potential $V(r) = -u/r,$ where the coupling parameter $u=\alpha Z$ is not too large. We write the exact discrete eigenvalues as $D_{k_d\nu}(u) = D(u)$ and they are given [@jiang; @dong] exactly by $$\label{eqdirach}
D(u) = \left\{1 + u^{2}\left[\nu + (k_d^{2} - u ^{2})^{\half}\right]^{-2}\right\}^{-\half},$$ where $$\label{eqtau}
k_d^2 = \left(j + \frac{d-2}{2}\right)^2$$ and $\nu = 0,1,2, \dots$ counts the nodes in the upper radial function $\psi_1(r)$. The principal quantum number $n$ is defined in general as $$\label{eqpqn}
n = \nu +|k_d| - \frac{d-3}{2}$$ and the spectroscopic designation $$\{s,p,d,\dots\}\leftrightarrow \ell = \{0,1,2,\dots\}$$ is provided by the formula $$\label{ell}
\ell = |k_d| - \left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right).$$ With these conventions, the eigenvalue formula (\[eqdirach\]) becomes formally similar to the expression for the three-dimensional case: $$\label{eqDu}
D(u) = \left\{1 + u^{2}\left[n-\ell-1 + (k_d^{2} - u ^{2})^{\half}\right]^{-2}\right\}^{-\half}.$$
The comparison theorem established in this paper allows us to use the exact eigenvalues of the Coulomb problem, for example, to approximate those of a related problem that is nearby in a different sense from what is normally used in perturbation theory. Specifically, we consider the Mehta–Patil screened-Coulomb potential $V(r)$ given [@mp78] by $$\label{eqmppot}
V(r) = -\left(\frac{v}{r}\right)\left[1-(1-1/Z)\frac{\lambda r}{1+\lambda r}\right],$$ where, for example, the appropriate potential parameters for an atomic model in three dimensions are $$\label{eqmpparams}
v = \alpha Z\quad{\rm and}\quad \lambda =0.98\,\alpha Z^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$ The comparison theorem may now be invoked because we can show that, for each value of the parameter $t >0$, $V(r)$ is bounded above by a shifted-Coulomb potential $V^{(t)}(r)$ of the form $$\label{eqVt}
V(r) \le V^{(t)}(r) = -\frac{a(t)}{r} + b(t).$$ This follows by the following argument from envelope theory [@hallenv; @hallsc; @hallpow]. If we write $V(r)$ as a transformation $V(r) = g(h(r))$ of the hydrogenic potential $h(r) = -1/r,$ then the transformation function $g(h)$ becomes $$\label{eqgh}
g(h) = v\left[h + \lambda(1-1/Z)\left(1+\frac{\lambda}{h-\lambda}\right)\right].$$ It follows immediately that the function $g(h)$ is monotone, $g'(h) > 0$, and concave, $g''(h) < 0.$ This means that $g(h)$ lies above its tangents, all of which are of the form $a(t)h(r) + b(t)$, with $a(t)>0,$ that is to say, shifted attractive Coulomb potentials. The coefficients are given by $$\label{eqabt}
a(t) = g'(h(t)),\quad b(t) = g(h(t)) - h(t)g'(h(t)),$$ where $r = t$ is the point of contact between $V^{(t)}(r)$ and $V(r).$ For each of these upper tangential potentials, the spectrum is given exactly (with the aid of Eq. (\[eqDu\])) by the right-hand side of the equation $$\label{eqEt}
E \le D(a(t)) + b(t).$$ This inequality is a consequence of the potential inequality $V(r) \le V^{(t)}(r)$ and Theorem 2. If we optimize over $t >0,$ and effect the change of variable $t\rightarrow u = g'(h(t))$, then the critical point is found to be the same as that of the energy function ${\mathcal E}(u)$ given by
$${\mathcal E}(u) = D(u)- uD'(u) + V(-1/D'(u)).$$
Thus we obtain the following best upper-bound formula, valid for each discrete Dirac eigenvalue, and expressed in terms of the pure hydrogenic spectral function $D(u)= D_{k_d\nu}(u)$ of Eq. (\[eqDu\]) by
$$\label{eqEu}
E \le \min_{u > 0}\left[D(u)- uD'(u) + V(-1/D'(u))\right].$$
This same formula yields an upper energy bound for [*any*]{} potential $V(r)$ that is a monotone increasing and concave function of $h(r) = -1/r$. For potentials that are [*convex*]{} functions of $h(r)$, the same expression provides a [*lower*]{} energy bound. Some numerical values for node-free states in dimension $d=3$ are given in Ref. [@halld], and a more extensive table of results is given in Ref. [@halldsc]: at that time, the data in the latter table could only be considered as [*ad hoc*]{} approximations, although the inequality Eq. (\[eqEu\]) was proposed then as a conjecture. Since it follows from Theorem 2 that Eq. (\[eqEu\]) is valid for all the discrete eigenvalues and for arbitrary spatial dimension $d > 1$, we may now state, in particular, that the values given in Table 1 of Ref. [@halldsc] are [*a priori*]{} all upper bounds. We make weaker general claims for the Klein–Gordon equation: for the screened-Coulomb example (where $g$ is concave), $D(u)$ would be set to the exact Klein–Gordon Coulomb energy, and the energy bound (\[eqEu\]) is then known, by Theorem 4, to be valid provided that the potential is negative and the eigenvalues considered are positive.
Conclusion
==========
If we examine exact relativistic eigenvalue formulas given, for example, in the book by Greiner [@greiner], we see that, whenever a potential depends monotonically on a parameter, the eigenvalues are monotonic in this parameter in the same direction. Since the corresponding non-relativistic problems usually behave this way, we are not surprised. However, the question immediately arises as to how general such spectral features are in relativistic quantum mechanics. In this paper, comparison theorems are proved for Dirac and Klein–Gordon problems in which a single particle is bound by a central potential. These results are established without the use of any variational arguments. The Klein–Gordon result which we have been able to obtain is limited to negative potentials and positive eigenvalues. In the Dirac case, there is no limitation save that the comparison potentials each yield discrete eigenvalues in the same angular-momentum sector and with the same number of radial nodes. The illustration, involving shifted-Coulomb potential that are upper bounds to a screened-Coulomb potential, shows how the existence of a comparison theorem immediately leads to spectral approximations. For many relativistic problems, this allows the type of spectral reasoning and estimates that are commonly employed in non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Partial financial support of his research under Grant No. GP3438 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{} J. Franklin and R. L. Intemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 2068 (1985). S. P. Goldman, Phys. Rev. A [**31**]{}, 3541 (1985). I. P. Grant and H. M. Quiney, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 022508 (2000). R. L. Hall, J. Phys. A [**25**]{} 4495 (1992). R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 468 (1999). G. Chen, Phys. Rev A [**72**]{}, 044102 (2005). R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 090401 (2008). R. L. Hall and M. D. Aliyu, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 052115 (2008). R. L. Hall, J. Phys. A [**19**]{}, 2079 (1986). W. Greiner [*Relativistic Quantum Mechanics*]{}, (Springer, Heidelberg, 1990). The Dirac equation for central potentials is discussed on page 169. Y. Jiang, J. Phys. A [**38**]{} 1157 (2005). A. Messiah, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1962). The Dirac equation for central fields is discussed on page 928. S. H. Dong, J. Phys. A [**36**]{}, 4977 (2003). C. H. Mehta and S. H. Patil, Phys. Rev. A[**17**]{}, 34 (1978). R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. D [**22**]{}, 2062 (1980). R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A [**32**]{}, 14 (1985). R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A [**39**]{}, 5500 (1989).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[**Joseph I. Kapusta**]{}\
[*School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455*]{}\
[**Ajit M. Srivastava**]{}\
[*Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106*]{}
title: |
[NSF-ITP-94-28\
NUC-MINN-94/3-T\
April 1994\
]{}
**THE PROXIMAL CHIRAL\
PHASE TRANSITION**
---
Abstract\
We consider the form of the chiral symmetry breaking piece of the effective potential in the linear sigma model. Surprisingly, it allows for a second local minimum at both zero and finite temperature. Even though chiral symmetry is not exact, and therefore is not restored in a true phase transition at finite temperature, this second minimum can nevertheless mimic many of the effects of a first order phase transition. We derive a lower limit on the height of the second minimum relative to the global minimum based on cosmological considerations; this limit is so weak as to be practically nonexistent. In high energy nuclear collisions, it may lead to observable effects in Bose-Einstein interferometry due to domain walls and to coherent pion emission.
Introduction
============
The possibility of producing quark-gluon plasma in relativistic heavy ion collisions is an exciting one, especially from the point of view of observing the chiral/confinement phase transition/crossover as the plasma expands and cools. Formation of domains in a chiral phase transition where the chiral field may not be oriented along the true vacuum has been a subject of many investigations recently. Formation of a large domain with a [*Disoriented Chiral Condensate*]{} (DCC) has been proposed by Bjorken, Kowalski and Taylor [@bkt] in the context of high multiplicity hadronic collisions. It was argued in [@bkt] that, as the chiral field relaxes to the true vacuum in such a domain, it may lead to coherent emission of pions [@bd]. A motivation for this proposal comes from Centauro events in cosmic ray collisions [@cntr]. In the context of quark-gluon plasma, Rajagopal and Wilczek proposed [@rw] that the nonequilibrium dynamics during the phase transition may produce DCC domains. They argued that long wavelength pion modes may get amplified leading to emission of coherent pions.
One difficulty in these scenarios is that one typically expects domains which are not much bigger than the pion size [@ggp]. Several studies have focussed on the possibility of getting a larger domain. Gavin, Gocksch and Pisarski have argued [@ggp] that large domains of DCC can arise if the effective masses of mesons are small, while Gavin and Müller propose [@lrg] the annealing of smaller domains to give a large region of DCC.
In this paper we consider the structure of the effective potential in the chiral model and note that more general possibilities exist for the symmetry breaking term than considered in these previous investigations. [*This allows for the existence of a second local minimum of the potential, in addition to the true global minimum, leading to the formation of domain walls which interpolate between the two minima.*]{} These walls are unstable unless the two minima are exactly degenerate. We consider constraints coming from cosmology on the parameters responsible for the existence of such walls. We find that such constraints are extremely weak. We then consider phenomenological consequences of the richer structure of the effective potential of the model, especially from the point of view of the formation of DCC. We show that in these more general models large domain walls naturally form but eventually disappear, leading to emission of pions from shell-like structures. Bose-Einstein interferometry should be able to reveal any such shells [@pratt]. We further argue that large regions of DCC may arise naturally in these models, and may be able to account for phenomena like Centauro events.
There is some analogy to the physics of spin glasses [@glass]. A spin glass is characterized by a phase space which has a complicated landscape of valleys. As the temperature is reduced, barriers between valleys become significant, and the relaxation times become very long. The system may even get trapped in a single metastable state for the duration of the experiment. One may observe hysteresis in strong magnetic fields that varies with the experimental conditions. Real spin glasses have an anisotropy. In hydrodynamic models of Heisenberg spin glasses one is naturally led to consider a coarse-grained free energy which has similarities to the effective potential given in eq. (20) below.
The paper is organized as follows. In sect. 2 we consider the details of the effective potential, both at zero temperature and at finite temperature, and discuss various possibilities for the symmetry breaking term. In sect. 3 we consider constraints on the parameters of the model arising from the formation of domain walls in the early Universe. In sect. 4 we consider potentially observable effects in high energy collisions, namely, pion production from domain walls. In sect. 5 we present some conclusions.
The Effective Potential
=======================
The sigma model [@gml] is thought to represent the long wavelength limit of QCD [@weinb; @gasl]. Much has been written about the model, both at zero temperature [@lee; @donob] and at finite temperature [@wil]. Despite this, the shape of the effective potential at both zero and finite temperature may have a nontrivial structure when the pion mass is nonzero, which feature seems to have escaped attention; at least it goes against the conventional considerations. In this section we explore the effective potential, and in the following sections we shall explore its phenomenological consequences.
The vacuum
----------
We use the sigma model in its linear representation. The Lagrangian is expressed in terms of a scalar field $\sigma$ and the pion field . $${\cal L} \,=\, \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu}\sigma\right)^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\mu} \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}\right)^2
-\frac{\lambda}{4} \left(\sigma^2 + \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}^2 -
c^2/\lambda\right)^2 - V_{SB} \, .$$ The piece of the Lagrangian which explicitly breaks chiral symmetry is $V_{SB}$. In the absence of this term, the potential has the shape of the bottom of a wine bottle. Chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken in the vacuum, the pion is the massless Goldstone boson, and the $\sigma$ meson gets a mass on the order of 1-2 GeV. The axial vector current, defined by $${\bf A}_{\mu} \,=\, \left(\partial_{\mu}\sigma\right)
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}
- \left(\partial_{\mu} \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} \right)\sigma \, ,$$ is conserved. It is believed that chiral symmetry is restored by a phase transition, which is perhaps of second order, at a critical temperature $T_c \approx 160$ MeV; we come back to this point later.
Any quantitative description of Nature at finite momentum and energy must include the vector mesons [@vector]. Since we are proposing here a qualitatively new phenomenon we shall neglect them, as well as strangeness.
The up and down quarks, while very light, are not massless; therefore, neither is the pion. Historically, there have been three ways to add a symmetry breaking term to the linear sigma model [@camp]:
[**1:**]{} $V_{SB} = -f_{\pi}m_{\pi}^2 \sigma$, which is linear in the $\sigma$ field. The PCAC relation $$\partial_{\mu}{\bf A}^{\mu} \,=\, f_{\pi}m_{\pi}^2
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}$$ is realized as an operator equation.
[**2:**]{} $V_{SB} = \frac{1}{2} m_\pi^2 \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}^2$, which is quadratic in the pion field. The PCAC relation is realized only in the weak field limit.
[**3:**]{} $V_{SB} = {\rm constant}\times{\bar N}N$, which is quadratic in the nucleon field. The divergence of the axial vector current is proportional to the axial vector nucleon current.
In principle one could imagine that low energy pion scattering measurements could distinguish between (1) and (2). However, by its very nature that occurs in the weak field limit, so the measurements would have to be very precise. Also, low energy pion scattering is influenced by the tails of resonances, such as the $\rho$ meson [@dono], which would tend to mask the effects of the nonlinear symmetry breaking terms. We are not aware of any experimental evidence which prefers one symmetry breaking term over the other. In this paper we shall not consider the possibility [**3**]{}.
If one insists on an effective Lagrangian which is rotationally invariant and renormalizable, then the most general symmetry breaking potential can be written as $$V_{SB} \,=\, - \sum_{n=1}^4 \frac{\epsilon_n}{n!}\sigma^n
\,+\, (\delta_1\sigma + \delta_2 \sigma^2)
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}^2 \,.$$ Other symmetry breaking terms one might think of adding simply amount to a redefinition of the 8 parameters $\lambda, c, \epsilon_n, \delta_n$. Relaxation of the renormalizability condition would allow further terms but, as we shall see, there is already sufficient freedom to generate interesting physics. In what follows we will set $\delta_1 = \delta_2 = 0$, mainly for simplicity of presentation.
With the symmetry breaking potential as given above, the divergence of the axial vector current is $$\partial_{\mu}{\bf A}^{\mu} \,=\, -V_{SB}'(\sigma)
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} \, ,$$ where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $\sigma$. It is clear that PCAC is an operator identity only if $V_{SB}$ is linear in $\sigma$. The ground state of this theory ought to occur at $\sigma(x) = \sigma_{\rm gs} > 0$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x) = \bf 0$. We must immediately impose three conditions; that the minimum of the full potential occur at $\sigma_{\rm gs}$, that PCAC hold for small fluctuations about $\sigma_{\rm gs}$, and that the pion has its physical mass there. Therefore, $$V_{SB}'(\sigma_{\rm gs}) \,=\, -f_{\pi}m_{\pi}^2 \, ,$$ $$\sigma_{\rm gs}(\lambda \sigma_{\rm gs}^2 - c^2) + V_{SB}'
(\sigma_{\rm gs}) \,=\, 0 \, ,$$ $$\lambda \sigma_{\rm gs}^2 - c^2 \,=\, m_{\pi}^2 \, ,$$ and so $\sigma_{\rm gs} = f_{\pi}$.
One must still ensure that the global minimum is really obtained when $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x) = \bf 0$. To investigate this problem, let us expand the fields about an arbitrary point as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x) &=& v\,\cos\theta + \sigma'(x) \, ,\\
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x) &=& {\bf v}\,\sin\theta +
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}'(x) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The primes denote fluctuations about the given point. The full potential is $$V(v,\theta) \,=\, \frac{\lambda}{4} \left(v^2 -c^2/\lambda\right)^2
+ V_{SB}(v\,\cos\theta) \, .$$ We now consider several limits for the symmetry breaking piece of the potential.
Suppose that $\epsilon_1 = f_{\pi}m_{\pi}^2$ and all other $\epsilon$’s are zero. Minimizing the potential with respect to $v$ at fixed $\theta$ gives $$v(\theta) \, \approx \, f_{\pi}(1 + \Delta) \, ,$$ where $\Delta = - 2(m_{\pi}/m_{\sigma})^2 \sin^2(\theta/2)$, $m_{\sigma}^2 = 2\lambda f_{\pi}^2 + m_{\pi}^2$, and $$V_{\rm min}(\theta) - V_{\rm min}(0) \, \approx \,
2 f_{\pi}^2 m_{\pi}^2 \sin^2(\theta/2) \, .$$ Corrections to the approximate equalities are of relative order $\Delta << 1$. This is a tilted wine bottle bottom with only one minimum.
Now suppose that $\epsilon_2 = m_{\pi}^2$ and all other $\epsilon$’s are zero. Then $$v^2(\theta) \,=\, f_{\pi}^2 [1 - 2 m_{\pi}^2
\sin^2\theta/m_{\sigma}^2] \, ,$$ where $m_{\sigma}^2 = 2\lambda f_{\pi}^2$, and $$V_{\rm min}(\theta) - V_{\rm min}(0) \, \approx \,
\frac{1}{2} f_{\pi}^2 m_{\pi}^2 \sin^2\theta \, .$$ We neglect a correction of relative order $(m_{\pi}/m_{\sigma})^2$. This potential has two degenerate minima located at $\theta = 0$ and $\pi$!
In general, one may expect that $V_{SB}$ allows for two minima, one at $\theta = 0$ and one at $\theta = \pi$. If they are not degenerate then by a simple redefinition of the fields we may, by convention, choose $\theta = 0$ to be the global minimum. We shall investigate what limits cosmology may place on the existence and depth of the second minimum in the next section; we shall find that the constraint is extremely weak. It is quite surprising to us that [*neither terrestrial experiments nor pure theoretical computations in QCD so far tell us anything about a possible second minimum.*]{}
Our statement certainly goes against the conventional point of view as expounded in ref. [@Pagels], for example, which says that the symmetry breaking potential should be linear in the fields, and for [*three*]{} quark flavors should follow the $(3,3^*)+(3^*,3)$ symmetry breaking scheme of Gell-Mann, Oakes and Renner [@GOM]. The main argument seems to be that this is the simplest description which gives reasonable low energy phenomenology. There was some interest in this issue in the 1970’s in regard to three flavor physics. It was found that the addition of symmetry breaking terms bilinear in the scalar fields resulted in low energy phenomenology as good as, or better than, linear terms alone [@bi]. These bilinear terms could have the structure $(3,3^*)+(3^*,3)$ or they could have components of some other group structure. A more recent study [@Schecht] has found a nonzero coefficient of a bilinear term in the three flavor [*nonlinear*]{} sigma model. We will not pursue the three flavor world in this paper, but it is certainly worth doing.
One might at first think that $\epsilon_n \propto m_q^n$ (where $m_q$ is the up or down quark mass) so that $\epsilon_1$ is much greater than $\epsilon_2$ and so on. We think it is quite possible that all $\epsilon_n \propto m_q$ and therefore of comparable magnitude (when scaled appropriately with $f_{\pi}$). The argument is that the sigma model is only a low energy effective model of QCD and all possible terms which are allowed should be included. Indeed, even if one started originally with only a linear symmetry breaking term $\epsilon_1'$, loop corrections would generate nonlinear terms. These nonlinear terms would have coefficients equal to $\epsilon_1'$ times some function of $\lambda$ and $c$. Since $\lambda$ and $c$ are big we expect that all $\epsilon_n \,
f_{\pi}^n$ would turn out to be comparable in magnitude.
For clarity of exposition we shall hereafter restrict our attention to the possibility that only $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are nonzero. This is sufficient to parametrize the effective potential with the freedom to adjust the tilt of the bottom of the wine bottle as well as the depth of the second minimum. We have then at our disposal four parameters in the effective Lagrangian: $\lambda, c, \epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$. These parameters must be restricted so as to give the proper pion mass, pion decay constant, a reasonable value for the $\sigma$ mass, PCAC in the weak field limit, and the condition that the ground state of the theory occur at $\sigma = f_{\pi}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} = {\bf 0}$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\pi}^2 &=& \lambda f_{\pi}^2 - c^2 \, ,\\
m_{\sigma}^2 &=& 2 \lambda f_{\pi}^2 + m_{\pi}^2 - \epsilon_2 \, ,\\
f_{\pi} m_{\pi}^2 &=& \epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 f_{\pi} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The numerical values chosen in this paper are $m_{\pi} = 140$ MeV and $f_{\pi} = 94.5$ MeV. Lin and Serot [@lin] have emphasized that the $\sigma$ meson in this model is [*not*]{} to be identified with the exchange of two correlated pions in the isoscalar - scalar channel in the nucleon - nucleon interaction. That exchange is rather broadly distributed in mass with a peak around 600 MeV. Good phenomenology for low energy pion and nucleon dynamics is obtained if the $\sigma$ meson has a mass greater than about 1 GeV. For definiteness, we choose $m_{\sigma} = 1$ GeV. We shall vary $\epsilon_1$ between 0 and $f_{\pi} m_{\pi}^2$. There is no further freedom given the above constraints.
Finite temperature
------------------
To estimate what may happen at finite temperature we will calculate thermal fluctuations to one loop order and furthermore take the high temperature limit. Quantitatively this cannot be very accurate. The relevant coupling constant is large: $\lambda \approx (m_{\sigma}
/f_{\pi})^2/2 \approx 50$. Qualitatively the result should be alright; however, see [@rw; @rob].
To proceed, we expand the fields about an arbitrary point, as in eqs. (9-10), and determine the masses of the fluctuations. If $\bf v$ points in the third direction in isospin space then the eigenvalues of the mass-squared matrix are $$\begin{aligned}
m_1^2 &=& \lambda v^2 - c^2 \, , \nonumber \\
m_2^2 &=& \lambda v^2 - c^2 \, , \nonumber \\
m_3^2 &=& 2 \lambda v^2 - c^2 - \frac{\epsilon_2}{2}
- \sqrt{\lambda^2v^4 - \epsilon_2 \lambda v^2 \cos(2\theta)
+\frac{\epsilon_2^2}{4}} \, , \nonumber \\
m_0^2 &=& 2 \lambda v^2 - c^2 - \frac{\epsilon_2}{2}
+ \sqrt{\lambda^2v^4 - \epsilon_2 \lambda v^2 \cos(2\theta)
+\frac{\epsilon_2^2}{4}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In the high temperature limit of the one loop approximation one keeps only the terms of order $T^4$ and $m^2T^2$. Ignoring terms which are independent of $v$ and $\theta$ we get the simple expression $$V(v, \theta; T) \,=\, \frac{\lambda}{4}v^4 - \frac{1}{2}
\left( c^2 + \epsilon_2 \cos^2\theta - \frac{\lambda T^2}{2}
\right) v^2 - \epsilon_1 v \cos\theta \, .$$
In the chiral limit one finds, as is well-known, a second order phase transition at the critical temperature $T_c = \sqrt{2c^2/\lambda} = \sqrt{2} f_{\pi}$. An analysis by Karsch [@karsch] of all available lattice simulations of two-flavor QCD extrapolated to zero quark mass is consistent with a second order transition with critical indices the same as the O(4) model. So at least qualitatively the model and approximations made here make sense. However, as emphasized by Shuryak [@ed], the sigma model is supposed to represent only the long wavelength modes, and certainly does not include the contribution from short wavelength modes. For example, as one approaches $T_c$ from below, the model does not include the $\eta, \rho, \omega$, and the whole tower of mesons above them. As one approaches $T_c$ from above, the model does not include all the degrees of freedom represented by quarks and gluons. The energy density of the long wavelength modes represented by the pion and sigma degrees of freedom should be thought of as sitting on top of a much larger energy density represented by all these other degrees of freedom.
When the up and down quark masses are nonzero chiral symmetry is not exact. It cannot be restored at high temperature. If $V_{SB}$ is an even function of $\sigma$ the Lagrangian still possesses a discrete symmetry which is restored at some critical temperature. For example, when only $\epsilon_2 \neq 0$, this temperature is $\sqrt{2(c^2 + m_{\pi}^2)/\lambda}$.
It is straightforward to show that the zero temperature effective potential has a second, local, minimum at $\theta = \pi$ which is separated from the global minimum at $\theta = 0$ by a barrier when the inequality $\epsilon_2 \sqrt{c^2/\lambda} > \epsilon_1 > 0$ is satisfied. \[$\sqrt{c^2/\lambda}$ is just $f_{\pi}$ up to corrections of order $m_\pi^2/m_\sigma^2$.\] As the temperature is increased, this minimum develops into a saddle at temperature $T_1$ where the curvature in the azimuthal direction changes from positive to negative. The saddle eventually disappears at the higher temperature $T_2$. Here $$T_1 \,=\, \sqrt{2\left[ \frac{c^2}{\lambda}-\left(\frac{\epsilon_1}
{\epsilon_2}\right)^2 \right]} \, ,$$ and $$T_2 \, = \, \sqrt{\frac{2(c^2+\epsilon_2)}{\lambda}
-6\left( \frac{\epsilon_1}{2\lambda} \right) ^{2/3} } \, .$$
In figures 1 through 4 we show the evolution of the effective potential with increasing temperature for four sets of $\epsilon$. All of these represent a slice through the $V - \sigma$ plane, and are normalized such that $V_{min} = 0$ at each temperature. One can imagine that a system cooling through $T_1$ could get trapped in the metastable minimum. We shall consider such possibilities in the following sections. We call this the [*proximal*]{} chiral phase transition, since it is a consequence of the proximity of exact chiral symmetry in parameter (quark mass) space, but it is not a true phase transition in the thermodynamic sense.
Cosmological Constraints
========================
Considerations of phase transitions in the early Universe have been very useful in restricting particle theory models. We now ask whether cosmology places any constraints on the parameters characterizing the effective potential in eq. (1). As mentioned earlier, we will be considering only $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ to be non-zero as this is sufficient to capture the qualitative aspects of the effective potential. It is well-known that when the effective potential has more than one disconnected minima then domain walls are produced in a phase transition. For the potential term in eq. (4) this happens if $\epsilon_1 = 0$ and $\epsilon_2 \neq 0$. Two regions of space which correspond to the two degenerate vacua $\sigma = f_\pi$ and $\sigma = - f_\pi$, respectively, (see eq. (14)), will be separated by a domain wall where the chiral field smoothly interpolates between the two vacua. In the context of the early Universe, stable domain walls are almost always disastrous unless the phase transition happens at extremely late times. This already suggests that the parameter $\epsilon_1$ cannot be identically zero.
By expanding $\sigma$ and , as in eqs. (9-10), we can determine the effective Lagrangian for $\theta$ from eqs. (1) and (20) to be $${\cal L}_\theta = {v^2 \over 2} (\partial_\mu \theta)^2 + \epsilon_1 v
\cos\theta + {\epsilon_2 \over 2} v^2 \cos^2\theta \, .$$ Here $v$ minimizes the effective potential at fixed $\theta$ and $T$; that is, it traces the bottom of the valley of the potential. Since this valley has an almost constant radius at fixed $T$, we can neglect its very weak dependence on $\theta$. Hence $v = v(T)$.
As we will show in the following, cosmology places a lower limit on $\epsilon_1$ which is very small. Thus, as far as cosmological considerations are concerned, we can determine the structure of the domain wall by taking $\epsilon_1 = 0$. With this, and defining $\theta^\prime \equiv 2 \theta$, we get the following equation of motion for $\theta^\prime$, $$\Box \theta^\prime + \epsilon_2 \sin \theta^\prime = 0 \, .$$ This is the familiar sine-Gordan equation which is known to have the domain-wall solutions [@avae] $$\theta^\prime(z) \,=\, 4 \tan^{-1} \left[ \exp\left({\sqrt
\epsilon_2} z \right)\right] \, ,$$ where the $z$ axis is normal to the wall. The thickness of the wall is $\delta \simeq \epsilon_2^{-1/2}$. Thus the surface energy density $\rho_S$ of the wall is of the order $$\rho_S \simeq \epsilon_2 v^2 \delta = v^2 {\sqrt \epsilon_2} \, .$$
When $\epsilon_1$ is nonzero then, even though domain walls still form, they are not stable any more. \[It is simple to check that domain walls always form as long as $\epsilon_1 <
f_{\pi} \epsilon_2$, which is just the condition that there be a local minimum at $\theta = \pi$.\] Instability of the wall arises because now one minimum ($\theta = 0$) is energetically preferred over the other ($\theta = \pi$) so the region corresponding to $\theta = \pi$ shrinks while the region corresponding to $\theta = 0$ expands. These unstable domain walls then disappear in the course of time as the true minimum spreads throughout space. Of course, in the context of the early Universe, there is an upper bound on the life-time of such walls if they are not to dominate the energy density of the Universe. As the standard theory of nucleosynthesis is in very good agreement with observations, one would also like that any such unstable domain walls do not influence it.
A restriction on the life-time of the unstable walls implies restriction on the parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$, which we now consider. \[Other parameters in eq. (1) are not constrained by such considerations from cosmology; the only other topological objects in the model are Skyrmions, which are supposed to be nucleons.\] Let us refer to the difference in the energy densities at $\theta = \pi$ and $\theta = 0$ as $\Delta \rho_V$. From eq. (23) we have $\Delta \rho_V = 2\epsilon_1 v$. One expects that the instability of domain walls becomes significant when the age of the Universe $t^*$ is such that the energy excess at the scale $t^*$ becomes comparable to the energy of the domain wall on the same scale [@av].
A good way to understand this is to realize that when $\epsilon_1 \neq 0$ one is actually considering a situation similar to a first order phase transition. As domain walls keep intersecting each other and pinching off, one can consider closed domain walls at any given time. The whole region then looks like bubbles of one phase embedded in the other other. The bubbles which have $\theta = \pi$ inside will always shrink, while the bubbles which have $\theta = 0$ inside should expand, but only if the size of such bubbles is larger than a critical size $R_c$. This critical size can be determined by considering the total energy $E_R$ of a bubble of radius $R$, $$E_R = - {4\pi \over 3} R^3 \Delta \rho_V + 4\pi R^2 \rho_S \, .$$ The critical size $R_c$ is determined by requiring that $E_R$ be stationary with respect to small variations in $R$. Bubbles larger than $R_c$, which have $\theta = 0$ inside, will expand while those smaller than $R_c$ will collapse. We find that $$R_c = {2\rho_S \over \Delta \rho_V} \,=\,
v {{\sqrt \epsilon_2} \over \epsilon_1} \, .$$
So far we have neglected the fact that the Universe is expanding. If $R_c$, at a given time, comes out larger than the horizon size, at that time, then all the bubbles with sizes smaller than the horizon will shrink. Bubbles with sizes equal to or greater than the horizon always stretch along with the horizon due to the expansion of the Universe, irrespective of which phase is enclosed. Therefore, in order that the difference between the global minimum and the metastable minimum becomes important, $R_c$ must be smaller than the horizon size $H$ (corresponding to the age of the Universe at time $t^*$). Using the above equation, this implies that $$H \,\geq\, v {{\sqrt \epsilon_2} \over \epsilon_1} \, .$$ Using the constraint given by eq. (18) we can write this as $$H \,\geq\, {v{\sqrt \epsilon_2} \over f_\pi (m_\pi^2 - \epsilon_2)}
\,=\, \frac{v\sqrt{m_{\pi}^2-\epsilon_1/f_{\pi}}}{\epsilon_1} \, .$$
The horizon size at the time the Universe passed through the chiral/confinement phase transition/crossover is about $10^6$ cm, which is [*very*]{} large compared to QCD scale of $10^{-13}$ cm. Unless $\epsilon_2$ is [*extremely*]{} close to $m_\pi^2$ the above inequality will be trivially satisfied. \[Note that the domain walls do not really have to disappear much before the time of nucleosynthesis. Therefore the real constraint is somewhat weaker than this.\] Since $v \leq f_{\pi}$ we find the lower bound to be $$\epsilon_1 > 3 \times 10^{-13} \;\; {\rm MeV}^3 \, .$$ As long as $\epsilon_1$ is larger than this the domain walls will disappear very quickly and will not affect the Universe in any significant way. Because the horizon is very small at that time, any density fluctuations generated by collapsing domain walls will also get wiped out quickly.
Clearly, the constraint on $\epsilon_1$ given by eq. (31) (and the corresponding constraint on $\epsilon_2$) is extremely weak. Since eq. (1) describes an effective theory anyway, it is safe to say that cosmology imposes no practical constraints on the parameters of this model.
High Energy Nuclear Collisions
==============================
We now consider chiral symmetry breaking in the context of quark-gluon plasma formation in a heavy ion collision and the influence of misaligned chiral condensate on pion production. As we mentioned in the introduction, the possibility of coherent pion emission from extended domains is very interesting and has been a subject of many investigations recently [@bkt; @bd; @rw; @ggp; @lrg]. One of the problems in getting a clean signature is that such domains are expected to be very small [@ggp]. However, these investigations have been restricted to the case when only $\epsilon_1$ is non-zero. As we have discussed earlier, there does not seem any reason to exclude other symmetry breaking terms in the potential. The structure of the system drastically changes when we consider $\epsilon_2$ also non-zero, as exemplified by the presence of domain walls. In this section we will consider what sorts of signatures one can expect for these more general possibilities for the symmetry breaking terms in the effective potential.
Let us first consider pion production due to different regions of misaligned condensate. Since previous studies have considered only $\epsilon_1$ non-zero, we first briefly comment on this case. It has a uniformly tilted potential with unique minimum at $\sigma > 0$. It has been suggested earlier [@rw] that, in a rapid phase change, the chiral field could roll down to different minima in different regions. In a given region, a pion condensate could form if the chiral field points in a direction different from the true minimum. As this pion field relaxes to the true minimum it will lead to coherent emission of pions.
One difficulty with getting a clean signal in this scenario is that the typical domain one expects is very small, of order 1 fm [@ggp]. However, we would like to point out that this does not exclude the possibility of the formation of pion condensate in a large region. For example, consider two adjacent domains where the chiral field points in two different directions, say $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. As the chiral field relaxes, one may expect that both $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ will approach zero. However, this really depends on the values of these angles. For example, assume that $\theta_1 = \pi
+ \alpha_1$ and $\theta_2 = \pi - \alpha_2$, where both $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are small. Then in the region where the two domains are in contact, the chiral field will have to smoothly interpolate between the two angles, and hence somewhere in that region it will point in the direction $\pi$. As the outer regions of the domains relax to $\theta$ = 0, the chiral field may start to cover a larger region of the order parameter space ${\cal M}$. \[We use ${\cal M}$ to denote the manifold defined by the bottom of the valley traced by the minimum of the effective potential.\] This means that the evolution of the chiral fields in a collection of domains are not totally uncorrelated. Essentially, the chiral field defines a smooth map from the region covered by the domains into the manifold ${\cal M}$. The image of this map is actually a smooth and connected patch in the manifold ${\cal M}$. Smoothness of this patch is enforced by the condition that the chiral field must smoothly interpolate in-between any two adjacent domains. When the chiral field relaxes, this patch deforms as its portions slide down to the global minimum. It is quite conceivable that this type of evolution of the chiral field leads to a pion condensate pointing in a direction which is in some way the average direction defined by the patch. It is thus not clear that small individual domains imply no pion condensate in large regions.
We will not, however, pursue this line of argument since $\epsilon_2 = 0$ is unnecessarily restrictive. Rather, we will show that a non-zero value of $\epsilon_2$ leads to the existence of large domains in a very natural manner.
As discussed in sect. 2, non-zero values of $\epsilon_2$ lead to the existence of domain walls if the inequality $\epsilon_1
< f_\pi \epsilon_2$ is satisfied. \[If not then there is no qualitative difference between this case and the case with $\epsilon_2 = 0$.\] These walls are unstable for all non-zero values of $\epsilon_1$. Consider the chiral phase change in a region of the quark-gluon plasma. As now there are two minima, a local minimum at $\sigma = v(\pi)$ and the global minimum at $\sigma = v(0)$, the chiral field can relax to either of these two values. One therefore expects a domain pattern as shown in figure 5a. For pion production, the initial size of these domains is not crucial to our model; this clearly distinguishes our case from previous considerations, where the size of the initial domain was crucial. In figure 5a we have denoted different domains by the angle to which the chiral field relaxes in that region.
Initially, when the temperature is high, the global minimum is only very slightly preferred over the local minimum. At those early times, small walls may collapse but large ones may simply be stretched by the expansion of the plasma. This is very similar to the situation in the early Universe. As the plasma cools, the energy density decreases, eventually reaching a point when the walls become unstable in the sense that the $\theta = 0$ minimum becomes favorable over the $\theta = \pi$ minimum. If the expansion is slow then all the walls with sizes smaller than the critical size \[as given by eq. (28)\] will shrink and disappear. In any case, one is led to a hierarchy of sizes of collapsing walls (see figure 5b) which will lead to emission of pions. As the walls collapse, the average domain size will increase. Once the typical domain size becomes larger than about $R_c$, the instability of walls will become significant. After this the regions with $\theta = 0$ will expand and the regions with $\theta = \pi$ will contract.
The simplest prediction is the formation of walls with size of order $R_c$ carrying excess energy density. It is important to note that these large walls will form irrespective of the size of the initial domains. These walls may expand, converting the false minimum into the true one, or they may collapse if they enclose the false minimum. One would expect generally that a large wall (comparable to the size of the system) may be left enclosing the true minimum as shown in figure 6. Between this wall and the outer boundary of the plasma region the chiral field is in the metastable phase. As the $\theta = 0$ phase expands both from the outside and from the inside the two walls will meet. This will lead to a shell of the size of the system containing high surface energy density. All the energy contained in the two walls will be converted to pions.
[*The most important feature of these pions is that they ought to be emitted from a shell-like region; studies of Bose-Einstein correlations of pions should be able to reveal such a shell structure.*]{} Investigations in [@pratt] could be useful in this context. A second feature is the possibility that the pions emitted from such a shell, or from the collapsing walls, may be coherent. We now address this possibility.
Consider a closed wall which bounds a region of the false minimum embedded in the true minimum. This wall will collapse and all the energy contained in the wall will be converted into pions. The initial structure of the wall is determined by the details of the variation of the chiral field from the $\theta = 0$ region to the $\theta = \pi$ region. We remind ourselves that we are actually dealing with the minimum of the effective potential which is topologically a three-sphere $S^3$. Different portions of the wall correspond to different trajectories which the chiral field traces from the north pole of this $S^3$ to its south pole. Clearly there is no reason to expect that different portions of the wall will all correspond to the same curve on $S^3$ initially. One can then think of the initial distribution of the chiral field in the entire wall as a thick strip joining the north and the south poles of $S^3$.
As the wall collapses, one will also expect the thickness of this strip to decrease because a thick strip costs gradient energy. Since the pion is very light, the shrinking of a strip on $S^3$ may proceed faster than the wall shrinks, especially for the walls which do not shrink initially, either due to the expansion of the plasma, or due to being least unstable. If this strip on $S^3$ shrinks significantly before the wall completely collapses, then the entire collapsing shell will correspond to a chiral field which, though still interpolating between $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$, goes through a unique plane. For example, this curve may lie entirely in the $\pi_1 - \pi_2$ plane. This [*might*]{} lead to a pion condensate, culminating in all of the wall energy being emitted in coherent pions. \[Of course, the process of shrinking of the strip on $S^3$ also will produce pions but they will not be coherent.\] The same consideration can be applied to the type of situation in figure 6 where coherent pions may be emitted from a shell-like structure.
Let us make a rough estimate of the energy contained in the walls. As an example, take $\epsilon_2 = 0.8 \, m_\pi^2$. Then with eqs. (18) and (28) we get the size of the critical bubble to be $R_c \simeq 4.5 \, m_\pi^{-1}$. With the surface energy density of the wall as given in eq. (26) the net energy contained in the wall is about 14 GeV. This is a very large energy which can lead to a high multiplicity of pions. In this estimate we have only considered the energy of the wall, neglecting the difference in energy of the two minima. During the collapse (or expansion) of the wall, false minimum energy will be converted into the kinetic energy of the wall which should be included to get the net energy emitted in pions.
We briefly discuss the possibility that our model can also account for Centauro-like events [@cntr]. A highly energetic cosmic ray collision may produce a tiny bubble of false vacuum such that the bubble wall propogates initially outwards due to the initial momentum (or may be due to the initial expansion of the partons). Eventually this wall will collapse back. As this wall first expands and then collapses, there may be enough time to develop a pion condensate on the wall (due to shrinking of the strip on $S^3$ in the sense described above), and hence lead to the emission of coherent pions. This is especially likely as the initial size of the bubble may be very small so the pion field configuration in its wall may be pretty much uniform any way. Another possibility is that as the bubble of false vacuum expands due to initial wall momentum, a true vacuum bubble of critical size nucleates inside it. This then may lead to a large spherical shell containing high surface enrgy density (similar to that in figure 6). All this energy may then be emitted in coherent pions.
If we assume that all of the coherent pions come from a $\theta = \pi$ bubble, which eventually collapses, then the energy emitted in pions $E_\pi$ can be related to the radius $R_F$ of this bubble using eq. (27) as $$E_\pi = 4 \pi f_\pi [f_\pi \sqrt{\epsilon_2} R_F^2 + {2 \over 3}
\epsilon_1 R_F^3] \, .$$ $R_F$ here represents the radius of the bubble at its largest size. The entire event will include any hadrons produced when the bubble was nucleated as well as the hadrons emitted at the end when the bubble completely collapses. Presumably coherent pions will be emitted at the end of the event. If we assume a relation between $R_F$ and the duration of the event $\tau$, say $R_F \sim \tau^a$, where $a$ is some parameter, then our model predicts a very specific dependence of $E_\pi$ on $\tau$ (given by eq. (32)). If the information of $E_\pi$ and $\tau$ is experimentally available, then this equation can be fitted with data to check our model and hopefully get the parameters $a$, $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$.
Conclusion
==========
Our main idea is that the effective potential, or free energy, resulting from chiral Lagrangian models of QCD [*may*]{} have a second metastable minimum at a chiral angle of $\pi$. We illustrated this in the linear sigma model with two quark flavors. Our numerical examples were restricted to a symmetry breaking potential which had terms linear and quadratic in sigma but, in general, there is no reason to think that the other possible terms are ignorable. There does not seem to be any fundamental reason why one should not take this situation seriously. Indeed, three flavor models with linear plus bilinear terms were investigated briefly in the 1970’s. The motivation then was to investigate the pattern of symmetry breaking, the analytic behavior of observables as the symmetry breaking parameters were sent to zero, and to obtain improved phenomenology. It should be kept in mind that the parameters in a two flavor model can be renormalized by the presence of a heavier, third flavor. Generalizations of our study to three flavors should be done.
Cosmology places a constraint on the height of a possible second minimum relative to the true minimum. This constraint arises from the requirement that the energy in domain walls not upset standard calculations of nucleosynthesis. The constraint is so weak that it has no practical consequences for high energy particle or nuclear experiments.
High energy nuclear collisions seem to present a remarkable opportunity to study the topography of the effective chiral potential at finite temperature. Nonzero up and down quark masses spoil the ideal chiral symmetry and smear out the probable second order phase transition. This may be a cloud with a silver lining if a second metastable minimum exists as it could mimic the effects of a [*first*]{} order phase transition. We have argued that formation and evolution of domains, with their attendent domain walls, can plausibly lead to observable consequences. These include coherent pion emission and Bose-Einstein interferometry of shell structures. Detailed predictions with a specific effective potential require numerical simulations as well as the inclusion of vector mesons.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was begun during the program [*Strong Interactions at Finite Temperature*]{} at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the fall of 1993. It was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DOE/DE-FG02-87ER40328 and by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant number PHY89-04035. We thank J. D. Bjorken, D. K. Campbell, B. Holstein, R. D. Pisarski, J. Polchinski, J. Schechter and K. Rajagopal for discussions.
[39]{}
J.D. Bjorken, K.L. Kowalski and C.C. Taylor, preprint SLAC-PUB-6109, presented at the 7th Les Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d’Aoste: Results and Perspectives in Particle Physics, La Thuile, Italy, 7-13 March 1993.
J. P. Blaizot and D. Diakonov, Phys. Lett. [**B315**]{}, 226 (1993).
C. M. G. Lattes, Y. Fujimoto and S. Hasegawa, Phys. Rep. [**65**]{}, 151 (1980); L. T. Baradzei et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B370**]{}, 365 (1992), and references therein.
K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. [**B399**]{}, 395 (1993); Nucl. Phys. [**B404**]{}, 577 (1993).
S. Gavin, A. Gocksch and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2143 (1994). See also, D. Boyanovsky, H. J de Vega and R. Holman, preprint, University of Pittsburgh, PITT-94-01.
S. Gavin and B. Müller, preprint BNL-GM-1, Dec. 1993.
S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 1219 (1984).
A standard review of spin glasses is: K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 801 (1986).
M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, Nuovo Cimento [**16**]{}, 705 (1960).
S. Weinberg, Physica [**96A**]{}, 327 (1979).
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**158**]{}, 142 (1984).
B. W. Lee, [*Chiral Dynamics*]{} (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1972).
J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein, [*Dynamics of the Standard Model*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
R. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. [**D29**]{}, 338 (1984); F. Wilczek, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A7**]{}, 3911 (1992).
U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rep. [**161**]{}, 213 (1988).
D. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. [**C19**]{}, 1965 (1979).
J. F. Donoghue, C. Ramirez and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 1947 (1989); J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. [**D40**]{}, 2378 (1989).
H. Pagels, Phys. Rep. [**16**]{}, 219 (1975).
M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes and B. Renner, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{}, 2195 (1968).
See, for example: D. W. McKay, W. F. Palmer and R. F. Sarraga, Phys. Rev. [**D8**]{}, 2532 (1973); A. A. Khelashvili, Nucl. Phys. [**B90**]{}, 336 (1975); H. B. Geddes and R. H. Graham, Phys. Rev. [**D13**]{}, 56 (1976); A. K. Bhargava, Phys. Rev. [**D18**]{}, 1737 (1978).
J. Schechter, A. Subbaraman and H. Weigel, Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{}, 339 (1993).
W. Lin and B. D. Serot, Phys. Lett. [**B233**]{}, 23 (1989); Nucl. Phys. [**A512**]{}, 637 (1990).
S. Gavin, A. Gocksch and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{}, R3079 (1994).
F. Karsch, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{}, 3791 (1994) .
E. Shuryak, preprint NSF-ITP-93-123 (1993).
A. Vilenkin and A. E. Everett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1867 (1982).
A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{}, 852 (1981).
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Figure 1: Temperature dependence of the effective potential for the choice of parameters $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0$. The curve shown represents a slice through the $V - \sigma$ plane. The potential is rotationally symmetric. There is a second order phase transition at $T_c = \sqrt{2} f_{\pi} = 133.6$ MeV.
Figure 2: Temperature dependence of the effective potential for the choice of parameters $\epsilon_1 = f_{\pi} m_{\pi}^2$ and $\epsilon_2 = 0$. The curve shown represents a slice through the $V - \sigma$ plane. The bottom of the potential is tilted. There is a saddle point at $\theta = \pi$ for $T < 114.9$ MeV.
Figure 3: Temperature dependence of the effective potential for the choice of parameters $\epsilon_1 = 0$ and $\epsilon_2 = m_{\pi}^2$. The curve shown represents a slice through the $V - \sigma$ plane. There is a second order phase transition restoring the discrete symmetry $\sigma \rightarrow -\sigma$ at $T_c = \sqrt{2} f_{\pi} = 133.6$ MeV.
Figure 4: Temperature dependence of the effective potential for the choice of parameters $\epsilon_1 = 0.25 \, f_{\pi} m_{\pi}^2$ and $\epsilon_2 = 0.75 \, m_{\pi}^2$. The curve shown represents a slice through the $V - \sigma$ plane. The direction $\theta = \pi$ has a local minimum when $T < T_1 = 123.2$ MeV, a saddle point when $T_1 < T < T_2 = 127.0$ MeV, and no critical point at all when $T > T_2$.
Figure 5: (a) Formation of domains after the phase transition. Domains denoted by 0 and $\pi$ here represent regions where the chiral field has settled to the true and the false minimum, respectively. Solid lines separating different domains show the initial structure of domain walls. Outermost solid line denotes the boundary of the system. (b) As domain walls join and collapse a hierarchy of domain sizes is generated. The solid lines again represent domain walls separating different minima.
Figure 6: Eventually one may be left with a large shell-like domain of metastable matter. As this domain shrinks, one will be left with a large shell (of the size of the system) containing large surface density.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the left-right asymmetry of pion production in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) process of unpolarized charged lepton on transversely polarized nucleon target. Unlike available treatments, in which some specific weighting functions are multiplied to separate theoretically motivated quantities, we do not introduce any weighting function following the analyzing method by the E704 experiment. The advantage is that this basic observable is free of any theoretical bias, although we can perform the calculation under the current theoretical framework. We present numerical calculations at both HERMES kinematics for the proton target and JLab kinematics for the neutron target. We find that with the current theoretical understanding, Sivers effect plays a key role in our analysis.'
address: 'School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China'
author:
- Jun She
- Yajun Mao
- 'Bo-Qiang Ma'
title: 'Left-right asymmetry in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering process'
---
,
,
left-right asymmetry, pion production, spin, semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering
13.60.Le, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh, 13.88.+e\
Introduction
============
Single spin asymmetries (SSAs) on a transversely polarized target provide us with rich information on the spin structure of the nucleon, especially on the transverse spin. However, there has been a prejudice that all transverse spin effect should be suppressed at high energies in the past. It was not until in the 1990s, when the E704 Collaboration reported their observation of a left-right asymmetry in $p^\uparrow p\rightarrow\pi X$ process [@E704], that people began to show enthusiasms on transverse spin effects. In order to account for the asymmetry, Sivers [@Sivers] suggested a possible mechanism, which is now called “Sivers effect”, originating from the asymmetry of the distribution function. But this idea was criticized by Collins [@Collins] on the ground of violating the time reversal invariance of QCD. In Ref. [@Collins; @Collins2], another possible explanation, that asymmetry arises from a fragmentation which is now known as “Collins effect”, was proposed. However, in Ref. [@ssa1], it was argued that Sivers asymmetry might be allowed, and a good description of E704 experiment was obtained by a parametrization. In Ref. [@ssa2], another good description of E704 data was obtained, but based on the Collins effect this time with a surprising large contribution from unfavored fragmentation. Remember that in Ref. [@Ma], the calculation is not so good to reproduce the data based on Collins effect with the naive assumption of favored fragmentation dominance. Later, the suppression of Collins mechanism is also reproduced in Ref. [@Ans22] by incorporating the intrinsic partonic motion together with correct azimuthal angular dependence. Now we have learnt [@Alesio; @Anselmino] that there are three possible mechanisms contributing to the $p^\uparrow
p\rightarrow\pi X$ process: the Sivers effect, the Collins effect and the Boer-Mulders effect [@Boer-Mulders]. In Ref. [@Anselmino], it was pointed that the Sivers effect is important and other effects might be suppressed. We should also aware that there is an alternative attempt to explain the left-right asymmetry by the valence quark orbital angular moment effect [@Liang], in distinct from the introduction of new distribution and fragmentation functions.
Due to the complexity of the hadron-hadron process, we might as well turn our point to a simpler process, the semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) process, which has attracted many interests in recent years. Meanwhile, many progresses have been made by experiments, e.g., non-vanishing SSAs have been observed by HERMES [@hermes] and COMPASS [@compass] collaborations. On the theoretical side, we have known that both Sivers and Collins effects may contribute to the asymmetry. By multiplying different weighting functions, the two effects can be separated, which is now the conventional way of analyzing the data. Nevertheless, the selection of the weighting functions strongly shows our bias on the current theory. So in this paper, we will analyze the basic quantity of left-right asymmetry in SIDIS process, following the analyzing method by the E704 experiment, in which no weighting functions were multiplied, to see whether a non-zero asymmetry can be obtained. With the current theoretical knowledge, we find that the Sivers effect plays a key role is our numerical calculation and indeed produces a sizable left-right asymmetry in $\pi^{\pm}$ production process. Therefore we suggest to measure the left-right asymmetries in SIDIS process, for the purpose to provide a basic observable for theoretical studies.
Definition of the asymmetry
===========================
In the E704 experiment [@E704], the left-right asymmetry is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
A=-\frac{1}{P_B
\langle\cos\phi\rangle}\frac{N_\uparrow(\phi)-N_\downarrow(\phi)}{N_\uparrow(\phi)+N_\downarrow(\phi)}.\end{aligned}$$ $P_B$ is the beam polarization and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between the beam polarization direction and the normal to the $\pi^\pm$ production plane. $N_{\uparrow(\downarrow)}$ is the number of pions produced for beam spin tagged as positive (negative) normalized to the beam flux.
Following the similar method, we define our asymmetry for the SIDIS process as: $$\begin{aligned}
A(\psi_s)=\frac{1}{S_T}\frac{N(\psi_s)-N(\psi_s+\pi)}
{N(\psi_s)+N(\psi_s+\pi)}=\frac{1}{S_T}\frac{d\sigma^\uparrow-d\sigma^\downarrow}
{d\sigma^\uparrow+d\sigma^\downarrow}.\end{aligned}$$ $S_T$ is the transverse polarization of the target; $\psi_s$ is the azimuthal angle between the transverse spin vector plane (defined by spin vector and the incident beam) and a definite plane. The definite plane can be chosen arbitrarily, e.g., we can choose the horizontal plane in the laboratory frame for convenience. If integrating the cross sections in the numerator and denominator separately, we can investigate the asymmetry depending on various kinematical variables.
Here we emphasize our difference with the conventional treatment. When we perform the integration, no weighting functions are multiplied, so we cannot integrate the azimuthal angles for the produced hadrons from 0 to $2\pi$, which must lead to a vanishing result. Instead, we will limit the azimuthal angles in a certain range, e.g., $-\frac{\pi}{4}$ to $\frac{\pi}{4}$ (or $\frac{3\pi}{4}$ to $\frac{5\pi}{4}$), i.e., only the hadrons produced in a range to the left (right) of the spin plane will be selected, which is the way E704 experiment dealt with the data. This detected region changes from left (right) to right (left) as the target spin changes from up to down, thus a left-right asymmetry is obtained. However, we have two choices to define the spin plane. In E704 experiment, this plane was defined by the incident beam and the spin vector, but in our paper, this plane is defined by the virtual photon and the spin vector. We believe this is reasonable and acceptable, for the DIS process can be considered as a virtual Compton scattering process. So for the convenience of theoretical description, the direction of the virtual photon is chosen as the $z$-axis, which is denoted as the $\gamma^*p$ frame. Correspondingly, $\ell p$ frame denotes the frame where the lepton beam is defined as the $z$-axis. We can transform from one coordinate system to another via a rotation by the angle $\theta$ between the exchanged photon and the incident beam. We have [@Diehl]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sin\theta=\gamma\sqrt{\frac{1-y-\frac{1}{4}y^2\gamma^2}{1+\gamma^2}},~~~~~
\gamma=2xM_p/Q .\end{aligned}$$ If $x$ is small, this angle is also small, which means that the incident beam and the virtue photon almost lay in the same direction. We make a rough estimation for HERMES experiment [@hermes]: $\langle x \rangle=0.09,~\langle y
\rangle=0.54,~\langle z \rangle=0.36,~\langle Q^2
\rangle=2.41\textmd{GeV}^2$, thus we have $\langle\sin(\theta)\rangle\approx0.073$, which is indeed very small. But we should be careful that as $x$ increases, this angle might not be ignored.
Expressions of the cross sections
=================================
Due to the existence of the angle $\theta$, the component of a vector can be different in different frames. For a transversely polarized target, the polarization direction is perpendicular to the incident beam, so the spin vector does not have the parallel component in the $\ell p$ frame. But in the $\gamma^*p$ frame, a parallel component of the spin vector is projected along the $z$-axis, which means that we have longitudinal effect here although the target is transversely polarized. By taking into account this factor, the cross section up to leading twist is given as follows [@Diehl; @Bacchetta]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{dx dy d\phi^\ell_S dz d\phi^\ell_h dP_{h\perp}^2}
&=&\frac{\alpha^2}{2sx(1-\epsilon)}\frac{\cos\theta}{1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi_s^\ell}\times\bigg\{
\mathcal{F}[f_1D_1]\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{S_T\cos\theta}{\sqrt{1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi_s^\ell}}
\sin(\phi_h^\ell-\phi_s^\ell)\mathcal{F}\bigg[\frac{\hat{\textit{\textbf{h}}}
\cdot\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp}{M_p}f_{1T}^\perp D_1\bigg]\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{S_T\cos\theta}{\sqrt{1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi_s^\ell}}
\sin(\phi_h^\ell+\phi_s^\ell)\mathcal{F}\bigg[\frac{\hat{\textit{\textbf{h}}}
\cdot\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp}{M_h}h_1H_1^\perp\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&d\sigma_{UU}+d\sigma_{Siv}+d\sigma_{Col},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon=\frac{1-y-\frac{1}{4}y^2\gamma^2}{1-y+\frac{1}{2}y^2+\frac{1}{4}y^2\gamma^2},~~~~~
\hat{\textit{\textbf{h}}}\equiv\textit{\textbf{P}}_{h\perp}/|\textit{\textbf{P}}_{h\perp}|.\end{aligned}$$ The angles $\phi_h^\ell$ and $\phi_s^\ell$ are defined as: $\phi_h^\ell=\phi_h-\phi^\ell,~~\phi_s^\ell=\phi_s-\phi^\ell$, where $\phi^\ell$ denotes the orientation angle of the lepton plane. Notice here that all the angles appearing in the cross section are defined in the $\gamma^*p$ frame. In the above formula, we use a compact notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}[\omega fD]=\sum_a e_a^2\int d^2\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp
d^2\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp
\delta^2(\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp-\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp-\textit{\textbf{P}}_{h\perp}/z)
\omega(\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp,\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp)
f^a(x,p^2_\perp)D^a(z,z^2k^2_\perp),~~~\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega(\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp,\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp)$ is an arbitrary function. The factors depending on $\theta$ before relevant terms are due to the transformation from $\gamma^*p$ to $\ell p$ frames.
First, we may change the integration variables from $d\phi^\ell_S
d\phi^\ell_h$ to $d\phi^\ell d\phi_h$, and we can perform the integration over $\phi^\ell$. We notice that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sin(\phi_h^\ell-\phi_s^\ell)=\sin(\phi_h-\phi_s),\nonumber\\
&&\hat{\textit{\textbf{h}}}\cdot\textit{\textbf{p}}_\perp=p_\perp\cos(\phi_h-\phi_{p_\perp}),\nonumber\\
&&\hat{\textit{\textbf{h}}}\cdot\textit{\textbf{k}}_\perp=k_\perp\cos(\phi_h-\phi_{k_\perp}),\end{aligned}$$ all of which are independent of $\phi^\ell$, but $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sin(\phi_h^\ell+\phi_s^\ell)=\sin(\phi_h+\phi_s-2\phi^\ell),\nonumber\\
&&\sin\phi^\ell_S=\sin(\phi_S-\phi^\ell),\end{aligned}$$ both of which depend on $\phi^\ell$. If we ignore the difference between the $\gamma^*p$ and $\ell p$ frame, we have $\sin\theta=0,~\cos\theta=1$. After integration over $\phi^\ell$, only the Sivers effect survives, and all the other terms including the Collins term vanish. With a more strict management, we will not ignore $\theta$, but expand the factors in $\sin^2\theta$, then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_0 d\phi^\ell
\frac{1}{1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi^\ell_S} =1+\frac{1}{2}\sin^2\theta+o(\sin^4\theta),\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_0 d\phi^\ell
\frac{\sin(\phi^\ell_h-\phi^\ell_S)}{(1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi^\ell_S)^{3/2}}
=\sin(\phi_h-\phi_S)(1+\frac{3}{4}\sin^2\theta+o(\sin^4\theta)),\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_0 d\phi^\ell
\frac{\sin(\phi^\ell_h+\phi^\ell_S)}{(1-\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi^\ell_S)^{3/2}}
=-\sin(\phi_h-\phi_S)(\frac{3}{8}\sin^2\theta+o(\sin^4\theta)).\end{aligned}$$ We find that the Sivers effect is $o(1)$, but the Collins effect is $o(\sin^2\theta)$, which means that it is suppressed by $1/Q^2$. Generally, only the terms independent of $\phi^\ell$ are $o(1)$, and all the other effects are suppressed by $1/Q^2$, so Sivers effect is dominant in our analysis, which is coincident with the analysis in Ref. [@Anselmino].
In our calculation, we select the produced hadrons within the range $\frac{3}{4}\pi\leqslant\phi_h\leqslant\frac{5}{4}\pi$, the right side of the spin plane. Also we can choose the left side, and it is clearly the same as we can see from the expression of the cross section. Finally, we write the asymmetry for our numerical calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{UT}(x,y,z)=\frac{\int d\phi^\ell_S dP^2_{h\perp} d\phi^\ell_h
~(d\sigma_{Siv}+d\sigma_{Col})}{\int d\phi^\ell_S dP^2_{h\perp}
d\phi^\ell_h ~d\sigma_{UU}}.\end{aligned}$$
Numerical calculations
======================
To perform the calculation, we first need an input of Sivers functions. However, there could be non-universality of transverse momentum dependent distributions in different processes [@Bom08], e.g., the Sivers asymmetry may enter in hadron process with specific factors rather than simply a sign change from SIDIS process. Therefore we should be cautious to apply the parametrization extracted from one process to other kind of processes [@Bog99]. Fortunately, what we will calculate is for the SIDIS process, and the parametrization of Sivers functions is also from SIDIS data in Ref. [@Anselmino_siv1; @Anselmino_siv2], in which the Sivers function is parameterized in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
&&f^{\perp q}_{1T}(x,p^2_\perp)=-\frac{M_p}{p_\perp}\mathcal{N}_q(x)
f_q(x)g(p^2_\perp)h(p^2_\perp),\\
&&\mathcal{N}_q(x)=N_q x^a_q (1-x)^b_q
\frac{(a_q+b_q)^{(a_q+b_q)}}{a_q^{a_q} b_q^{b_q}},\\
&&g(p^2_\perp)=\frac{e^{-p^2_\perp/\langle p^2_\perp \rangle}}{\pi
\langle p^2_\perp
\rangle},~~~h(p^2_\perp)=\sqrt{2e}\frac{p_\perp}{M'}e^{-p^2_\perp/\langle
M'^2 \rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ $f_1(x)$ is the unpolarized parton distribution functions, and we adopt the CTEQ6L parametrization [@CTEQ6] as an input. We plot $f^{\perp(1) q}_{1T}(x)$, the one-moment of the Sivers function in Fig. \[siv1\].
![$xf^{\perp(1) q}_{1T}(x)$ for $u$ and $d$ quarks in a proton. The solid and dashed curves correspond to $u$ and $d$ quarks respectively.[]{data-label="siv1"}](siv1.eps)
This parametrization seems to indicate that $|f^{\perp(1)
d}_{1T}(x)| > |f^{\perp(1) u}_{1T}(x)|$, so we expect a larger asymmetry in a neutron target than that in a proton target.
The fragmentation functions are [@Kretzer]: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mathrm{fav}}(z)&=&0.689z^{-1.039}(1-z)^{1.241},\nonumber\\
D_{\mathrm{unf}}(z)&=&0.217z^{-1.805}(1-z)^{2.037}. \label{frag}\end{aligned}$$
In our calculation, we will consider the Collins effect, but as we argued before that Collins effect is suppressed in our analysis, so we will not care about the details on transversity and the Collins functions, which are not known clearly yet. We will use the SU(6) quark-diquark model [@diquark] by including the Melosh-Wigner rotation effect [@ma] to describe transversity and adopt the parametrization of Collins functions given by Ref. [@Anselmino_col].
The kinematical cuts used in the calculation are shown in Table \[kin\].
HERMES JLab
----------------------------- -----------------------------
$s=51.7$GeV$^2$ $s=23.4$GeV$^2$
$Q^2>1$GeV$^2$ $Q^2>1$GeV$^2$
$W^2>10$GeV$^2$ $W^2>4$GeV$^2$
$0.023<x<0.4$ $0.05<x<0.55$
$0.1<y<0.85$ $0.34<y<0.9$
$0.2<z<0.7$ $0.3<z<0.7~~~~~~$
: kinematics[]{data-label="kin"}
For the HERMES experiment, a proton target is assumed, while for the Jefferson Lab (JLab) experiment, a neutron target is assumed. We will investigate the $x$ and $z$ dependence[^1] of the asymmetries for both $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$ and $\pi^0$ productions.
![The same as Fig. \[hermes\], but a neutron target is assumed here.[]{data-label="jlab"}](hermes.eps)
![The same as Fig. \[hermes\], but a neutron target is assumed here.[]{data-label="jlab"}](jlab.eps)
Fig. \[hermes\] shows the results for $\pi$ production on a transversely polarized proton target at HERMES kinematics, and Fig. \[jlab\] shows the same results, but on a transversely polarized neutron target at JLab kinematics. From these figures, we clearly show non-vanishing asymmetries depending on $x$ and $z$. Firstly, we notice that the asymmetries for $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$ and $\pi^0$ productions are different, especially for the $z$-dependence of the asymmetry, which is quite similar to that in the E704 experiment. This can be accounted for by different fragmentation functions for different meson production. Secondly, the result for a neutron target behaves completely different, almost opposite to that for a proton target. If we notice that the Sivers functions for $u$ and $d$ quarks are of different signs, this can be deduced directly from the isospin symmetry between the proton and the neutron. The parametrization we used indicates that the Sivers distribution for $d$ quarks is a little larger than that for $u$ quarks, thus a larger asymmetry is obtained in a neutron target as the figures have shown. However, we should be careful about it, and the correctness of the parametrization needs a further check.
Conclusion
==========
Single spin asymmetry (SSA) is a powerful instrument to explore the internal structure of the nucleon. A lot of theoretical works have tried to obtain the asymmetries, and under the guidance, recent experiments reported their discovery of the asymmetries. According to the conventional treatment, various weighting functions should be multiplied to project out the corresponding asymmetries. However, the choice of a weighting function strongly shows a bias on a certain theory, e.g., the current parton model based on operator product expansion (OPE) and factorization. We do not consider it a natural way dealing with the data, and it may not work if the theory changes. In fact, there exist other theories such as the recombination model [@QRC1; @QRC2] which can explain the spin structure of the nucleon and the SSA phenomena. We expect a “universal” observable independent of any theory, and fortunately, E704 experiment provided us an example.
In this paper, we analyzed the SIDIS process, following the method by the E704 experiment. Our result clearly showed a left-right asymmetry, with no weighting functions multiplied. Under the current theoretical framework, we found that Sivers effect plays the key role in our analysis, which might be helpful to understand the E704 experiment. We should emphasize that although our calculation depends on the current theory, the basic observable of left-right asymmetry is free of bias on any theories or models. We give the predictions at both HERMES and JLab kinematics, and we suggest that relevant experimental collaborations deal with their data in this way to provide more information for theoretical studies.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge the valuable discussions with Erkang Cheng and Bo Sun. This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 10721063, 10575003, 10528510), by the Key Grant Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (No. 305001), by the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (China).
[99]{} D. L. Adams, [*et al.*]{}, (FNAL E704 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 261 (1991) 201; Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 462.
D. W. Sivers, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 83; D. W. Sivers, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 261.
J. C. Collins, Nucl. Phys. B 396 (1993)161.
J. C. Collins, S. F. Heppelmann, and G. A. Ladinsky, Nucl. Phys. B 420 (1994) 565.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, and F. Murgia, Phys. Lett. B 362 (1995) 164 .
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, and F. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 054027 .
B.-Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, and J.-J. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 40 (2005) 63.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, E. Leader, F. Murgia, Phys. Rev. [**D 71**]{} (2005) 014002.
U. D’Alesio, F. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 074009.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D¡¯Alesio, E. Leader, S. Melis, and F. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 014020.
P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 197; D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5780; D. Boer, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 014012.
C. Boros, Z.T. Liang, T.C. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1751.
A. Airapetian, [*et al.*]{}, (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4047; Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 097101; Phys. Lett. B 562 (2003) 182; Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 012002.
V.Y. Alexakhin, [*et al.*]{}, \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 202002; E.S. Ageev, *et al*., \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B 765 (2007) 31; Anna Martin (On behalf of the COMPASS Collaboration), Czech. J. Phys. 56 (2006) F33, hep-ex/0702002.
M. Diehl and S. Sapeta, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 515. For earlier discussions, see, e.g., K.A. Oganessyan, P.J. Mulders, E. De Sanctis, L.S. Asilyan, Nucl. Phys. A 711 (2002) 89; K.A. Oganessyan, P.J. Mulders, E. De Sanctis, Phys. Lett. B 532 (2002) 87.
A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders, and M. Schlegel, JHEP 0702 (2007) 093.
C.J. Bomhof, P.J. Mulders, Nucl. Phys. B795 (2008) 409.
M. Boglione, P.J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 054007.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F, Murgia, and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094007.
M. Anselmino [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0511017.
J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, and W.K. Tung, JHEP 0207 (2002) 012.
S. Kretzer, E. Leader, and E. Christova, Eur. Phys. J. C 22 (2001) 269.
B.-Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, and J. Soffer, Phys. Lett. B 441 (1998) 461; B.-Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, and J.-J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 037501.
B.-Q. Ma, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 17 (1991) L53, arXiv:0711.2335; B.-Q. Ma and Q.-R. Zhang, Z. Phys. [**C 58**]{} (1993) 479; B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. [**B 375**]{} (1996) 320; I. Schmidt and J. Soffer, Phys. Lett. [**B 407**]{} (1997) 331.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F, Murgia, A. Prokudin, and C. Türk, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 054032.
R. Ali, P. Hoodbhoy, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 715.
Y. Yamamoto, K. Kubo and H. Toki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 98 (1997) 95.
[^1]: The E704 experiment only showed the dependence on $x_F$, i.e. approximate $z$ here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show how to construct a topological Markov map of the interval whose invariant probability measure is the stationary law of a given stochastic chain of infinite order. In particular we caracterize the maps corresponding to stochastic chains with memory of variable length. The problem treated here is the converse of the classical construction of the Gibbs formalism for Markov expanding maps of the interval.'
address:
- ' Centre de Physique Théorique, CNRS UMR 7644, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France'
- ' Instituto de Matemática e Estatística, Universidade de São Paulo, BP 66281, 05315-970 São Paulo, Brasil'
author:
- Pierre Collet
- Antonio Galves
bibliography:
- 'biblio-07-06-2012.bib'
date: 'July 29, 2012'
nocite:
- '[@bowen]'
- '[@ruelle]'
- '[@sinai]'
- '[@fernandez_maillard_2004]'
- '[@rissanen]'
- '[@onimih35]'
- '[@doefor37]'
- '[@har55]'
- '[@comets2002]'
- '[@buzzi]'
- '[@liverani]'
- '[@breiman]'
- '[@rissanen]'
title: 'Chains of infinite order, chains with memory of variable length, and maps of the interval.'
---
Introduction. {#introduction}
=============
The founding papers by Bowen (2008), Ruelle (1978) and Sina[ĭ]{} (1972) explained how to use the Gibbs formalism for Markov expanding maps of the interval. In this formalism to each such map of the interval is associated a Gibbs measure which corresponds through the dynamical coding to an absolutely continuous invariant measure. Recalling that Gibbs measures with Hölder continuous interactions are stochastic chains of infinite order (cf. Fernández and Mailard 2004 and references therein), this means that expanding maps of the interval are naturally associated to stochastic chains. In particular, piecewise affine topological Markov maps correspond to Markov chains on a finite alphabet.
In this paper we address the converse problem, namely, given a stochastic chain of infinite order, taking values on a finite alphabet, can we construct a topological Markov map of the interval whose invariant measure is the invariant probability measure of the chain?
A particular case of this question has to do with the class of stochastic chains with memory of variable length, introduced by Rissanen (1983). Recently Cénac et al. [@cenac] have shown how to represent two interesting examples of stochastic chains with memory of variable (unbounded) length by maps of the interval. Inspired by this paper, we discuss at a more general level some of the relations between chains of infinite order, chains with memory of variable length models and expanding Markov maps of the interval.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[recall\] we briefly present the notions of expanding maps of the interval and stochastic chains of infinite order and for the convenience of the reader we recall some classical results. In Section \[map\_to\_chain\] we recall the classical construction of a stochastic chain of infinite order given an expanding map of the interval. For more details about this construction we refer the reader to the articles of [@walters1978a], [@walters1978b] and [@hofkel] and references therein. In Section \[chain\_to\_map\] we explain how to construct an expanding map of the interval given a stochastic chain of infinite order. Finally in Section \[vl\] we study the particular case of stochastic chains with memory of variable (unbounded) length.
Notation, chains and maps. {#recall}
==========================
In order to make this paper self contained as much as possible, we gather in this section some basic definitions and results about stochastic chains and maps of the interval.
Let $A$ denote a finite alphabet $A=\{1,\ldots, \mathcal{K}\}$. Given two integers $m\leq n$ we denote by $w_m^n$ the sequence $(w_m, \ldots,
w_n)$ of symbols in $A$, and $A_m^n$ denotes the set of such sequences. Any sequence $w_m^n$ with $m > n$ represents the empty string. The same notation is extended to the cases $m=\pm \, \infty$.
Given two finite sequences $w$ and $v$ we will denote by $vw$ the sequence obtained by concatenating the two strings. For example, $z_{-\infty}^{-1}a$ denotes the sequence having the symbol $a$ at the zero position and the symbols $z_i$ at the positions $i\le -1$.
For a finite string $a_{m}^{n} \in A_m^n$, we denote by $C(a_{m}^{n})$ the cylinder given by $$C(a_{m}^{n})=\big\{x_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\in A_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\;:\; x_{m}^{n}=a_{m}^{n}\big\}\;.$$
Stochastic chains of infinite order.
------------------------------------
A family $p$ of numbers $p(a|x_{-\infty}^{-1})\in[0,1]$, with $a\in A$ and $x_{-\infty}^{-1}\in A_{-\infty}^{-1}$, is called a family of transition probabilities if it satisfies the two conditions
- For each fixed sequence $x_{-\infty}^{-1}$ $$\sum_{a}p(a|x_{-\infty}^{-1})=1\;.$$
- For each symbol $a\in A$, the map $$x_{-\infty}^{-1}\longrightarrow p(a|x_{-\infty}^{-1})$$ is measurable with the product sigma-algebra on $A_{-\infty}^{-1}$.
\[nonnull\] A family $p$ of transition probabilities satisfies the condition of non-nullness if $$\inf\{ p(a|x_{-\infty}^{-1})\;\colon\; a\in A,
x_{-\infty}^{-1}\in A_{-\infty}^{-1}\} > 0\;.$$
\[betak\] The continuity rate of a family $p$ of transition probabilities is the sequence $(\beta_{k})_{k\ge1}$ defined by $$\beta_k \, = \,\sup \Bigl\{ \,|
p(a | x_{-\infty}^{-1})-p(a | y_{-\infty}^{-1})
|\;\colon\; a\in A, x_{-\infty}^{-1}, y_{-\infty}^{-1}
\in A_{-\infty}^{-1}\mbox{ with } \, x_{-k}^{-1}=y_{-k}^{-1}
x_{-\infty}^{-1} \overset{k}{=} y_{-\infty}^{-1}\,\Bigr\}.$$
\[continuity\] The family $p$ of transition probabilities with continuity rate $(\beta_{k})$ is said to be continuous if $$\lim_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\beta_k=0\, .$$
We will say that a probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ on $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is translation invariant (or stationary) if for any $m\ge 0$ and for any $a_{0}^{m}\in A_{0}^{m}$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\big\{X_n^{n+m}=a_{0}^{m}\big\}={\mathbb{P}}\big\{X_0^{m}=a_{0}^{m}\big\}$$ for any $n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
The notion of translation invariance says that the probability measure ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}$ is invariant with respect to the shift ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}: A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}
\rightarrow A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$, defined as follows. For every sequence $\underline{z}=z_{-\infty}^{+\infty}$, we have $${\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(\underline{z})_i=\underline{z}_{i-1}\, .$$
v
We will say that a probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ on $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is invariant with respect to $p$, if for any continuous function $f:A_{-\infty}^0\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ we have $$\label{invariant}
\int f(z_{-\infty}^0) d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z_{-\infty}^0)=
\int
\sum_{a \in A} p(a\,|\,(z_{-\infty}^{-1}) f(z_{-\infty}^{-1}a) d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z_{-\infty}^{-1})$$
From stationarity and invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}$ with respect to $p$ it follows immediately that for any pair $m\le n$ of integers and for any $a_{m}^{n}\in A_{m}^{n}$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\big(C(a_{m}^{n})\big)=\int_{A_{-\infty}^{m-1}}
\prod_{j=m}^{n}\;p\big(a_{j}\big|a_{m}^{j-1}x_{-\infty}^{m-1}\big)\;
d{\mathbb{P}}\big(x_{-\infty}^{m-1}\big) \;.$$
For later references, it is convenient to collect in the following theorem some well know results about families of transition probabilities.
\[existinv\] If the family of transition probabilities satisfies the non-nullness condition \[nonnull\] and the sequence of continuity rates is summable, then there exists a unique ergodic stationary probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ on $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$, invariant with respect to $p$. This invariant probability measure has no atom, and for any finite sequence $a_{m}^{n}$, ${\mathbb{P}}(C(a_{m}^{n}))>0$.
This type of result has been proved by many authors starting with Onicescu and Mihoc (1935), Doeblin and Fortet (1937) and Harris (1955) and Comets [*et al.*]{} (2002) .
Let us now consider the probability space having $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ as sample space, equipped with its product $\sigma$-algebra, and having ${\mathbb{P}}$, whose existence is granted by Theorem \[existinv\], as probability measure. We can define a stochastic chain $(X_n)_{n\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ on this probability space, by taking, for each $n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ $$X_n: A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}} \longrightarrow A$$ as the projection on the $n^{th}$ coordinate. In other words, for any $m \le n$ and any choice of the sequence $a_m^n$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\big(C(a_{m}^{n})\big)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\big\{X_{m}^{n}=a_{m}^{n}\big\}\;.$$ The stochastic chain $(X_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is said to be associated to the family of transition probabilities $p$.
Piecewise expanding maps of the interval.
-----------------------------------------
From now on let $\Omega=[0,1]$. We first recall the definition of a piecewise expanding map of the interval $\Omega$. Let $0=\eta_{0}<\eta_{1}<\ldots<\eta_{{\mathcal{K}}}=1$ be a finite sequence and for each interval $I_j=]\eta_{j-1},\eta_{ j}[$, with ($1\le j\le
{\mathcal{K}}$), let $T_{j}$ be a monotone map from $I_j$ to $\Omega$ which extends to a $C^{2}$ map on $\bar{I_j}=[\eta_{j-1},\eta_{j}]$. The map $T$ is defined as follows. For each $\omega \in \Omega\backslash \{\eta_0,
\eta_1,\ldots, \eta_{{\mathcal{K}}}\}$ $$T(\omega)=T_{j}(\omega)\, , \quad\mathrm{if}\quad \omega\in I_j\;.$$ We denote by ${\mathcal{P}}$, the collection of open intervals $I_j$, with $j=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}$, and observe that it defines a partition of the $\Omega\backslash\mathscr{N}_0$, where $\mathscr{N}_0=\{\eta_0,
\eta_1,\ldots, \eta_{{\mathcal{K}}}\}$. From now on let us call $A=\{1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}\}$ the set of indexes of the partition ${\mathcal{P}}$.
The map $T$ of the interval has the (uniform) expanding property if there is an integer $m>0$ and a constant $c>1$ such that at any point where $T^{m}$ is differentiable we have $$\big|{T^{m}}'\big|\ge c\;.$$
The piecewise expanding map $T$ of the interval is said to be topological Markov if for any $i=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}$, the closure of $T(I_{i})$ is a union of closures of intervals $I_{j}$, $j\in\{1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}\}$. The map $T$ is called full topologicall Markov if for any $T_i(I_i)=\Omega$ for any $i=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}$.
Note that the topological Markov property notion is not to be mistaken with the Markov property of stochastic processes.
Recall that the map $T$ is not defined on the finite set $\mathscr{N}_0$. Call $\mathscr{N}$ the set of pre-images of $\mathscr{N}_0$, namely
$$\mathscr{N}=\mathscr{N}_0\cup \bigcup_{k\ge 1} \left\{\omega \in
\Omega\, \big| \, \,
T^k(\omega) \in \mathscr{N}_0\right\}$$
Given an [[full topological Markov expanding map of the interval ]{}]{}$T$, we define a coding of $\Omega\backslash \mathscr{N}$ with alphabet $A=\{1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}\}$. This coding is a map ${W}$ from $\Omega\backslash \mathscr{N}$ to $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ $$\omega\longrightarrow {W}(\omega)=\big( {W}_{n}(\omega)\big)_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$$ given by $${W}_{n}(\omega)=j\, , \quad\mathrm{if}\quad T^{n}(\omega)\in I_j\;.$$
Given a [[full topological Markov expanding map of the interval ]{}]{}$T$, we have just associated a code to a point in $\Omega\backslash
\mathscr{N}$. We can also go in the opposite direction and this is the content of the next proposition. To simplify the presentation we will restrict ourselves to the case of full Markov maps. The extension to the case of general Markov maps is straightforward.
Assume $T$ is a [[full topological Markov expanding map of the interval ]{}]{}and $A$ is the set of indexes of the partition ${\mathcal{P}}$. Then given a code $x_{0}^{+\infty} \in A_{0}^{+\infty}$, there exists at most one point in the interval $\Omega$ which is coded by this sequence.
Both directions are well known, see for instance [@walters1978a] and [@walters1978b].
Constructing a chain from a map {#map_to_chain}
===============================
Let $\mu$ be a $T$-invariant measure defined on $\Omega=[0, 1]$. We now have the three ingredients of a probability space, namely the sample space $\Omega=[0,1]$, with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra and the $T$-invariant probability $\mu$. Furthermore, the coding associated to the map $T$ defines a sequence of random variables $({W}_{n})_{n
\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ with values in the alphabet $A$.
Let us denote by $q(x_{m}^{n})$ (with $m\le n$ belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$) the cylinder probabilities on $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ defined by $$q\big(x_{m}^{n}\big)=
\mu\big\{\omega\in\Omega\,,
\,{W}_{0}(\omega)=x_{n},\, {W}_{1}(\omega)=x_{n-1},\,\ldots,
{W}_{n-m}(\omega)=x_{m}
\big\}\;.$$ The time was reversed in the definition of $q$ to follow the usual convention for stochastic processes.
Kolmogorov’s Existence Theorem implies that there exists a unique stationary probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ on $A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ such that for any integers $m\le n$, and any sequence $x_{m}^{n}\in A^{n}_{m}$ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\big\{ X_{m}^{n}=x_{m}^{n}\big\}=q\big(x_{m}^{n}\big)\;,$$ where $X_{n}\,:\, A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\rightarrow A$ is the projection on the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate. The $(X_{n})_{n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is in general a chain of infinite order. The next theorem will give an explicit expression for its family of transition probabilities $$p\big(b\,\big|\,a_{-\infty}^{-1}\big)=
{\mathbb{P}}\big(X_{0}=b\,\big|\,X_{-\infty}^{-1}=a_{-\infty}^{-1}\big)\;.$$
We denote by $\lambda$ the Lebesgue measure of the interval $\Omega=[0,1]$.
\[maptochain\] Let $\Omega=[0,1]$ and let $T$ be a [[full topological Markov expanding map of the interval ]{}]{}. Assume that the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ is invariant and ergodic with respect to $T$. Then the family of transition probabilities of the associated chain of infinite order is given by $$p\big(b\,\big|\,a_{-\infty}^{-1}\big)=\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{1}{\big|T'(\omega_{n})\big|}$$ where $\omega_{n} $ is any point in $\Omega$, such that $${W}_{0}^{n}(\omega_{n})=\big(b,a_{-1},\ldots,a_{-n}\big)\;.$$
For the proof of Theorem 3.1 we ferer the reader to [@walters1978a], [@walters1978b] and [@ledrappier1974].
In the general case, where the invariant abosutely continuous invariant measure $\mu$ is not the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$, we have the folowing result.
Let $T$ be a topological Markov piecewise expanding map on $\Omega$. Assume that the probability measure $\mu$ which is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ is invariant and ergodic with respect to $T$. Then the family of transition probabilities of the associated chain of infinite order is given by $$p\big(b\,\big|\,a_{-\infty}^{-1}\big)
=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{g(\omega_{n})}{g(T(\omega_{n}))\big|T'(\omega_{n})\big|}$$ where $g=d\mu/d\lambda$, and $\omega_{n}$ is any point such that $${W}_{0}^{n}(\omega_{n})=\big(b,a_{-1},\ldots,a_{-n}\big)\;.$$
Let $G$ be the distribution of $\mu$ defined in the usual way by $$G(t)=\mu\big([0,t])\;.$$ Obviously $G$ is a non decreasing function which is also continuous since $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$. By a theorem of Buzzi (1997) (see also Liverani (1995)), $\mu$ is equivalent to the $\lambda$, and $g=d\mu/d\lambda=G'$ is a continuous non-vanishing function. In other words $G$ is a $C^{1}$ diffeomorphism.
Consider $G^{-1}$ as a random variable defined on the probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{P}}_{\infty}, \lambda)$. This fact together with the invertibility of $G$ implies that the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ is invariant and ergodic with respect to the map $T_{0}$ defined by $$T_{0}=G\circ T\circ G^{-1}\;.$$ Theorem \[maptochain\] applies to $T_{0}$, and the corollary follows by the chain rule.
Constructing a map from a chain. {#chain_to_map}
================================
Let $(X_{n})$ be a stationary ergodic stochastic chain taking values in the finite alphabet $A=\{1,\ldots, {\mathcal{K}}\}$, and defined on a probability space $\big(A^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}},\mathscr{F},{\mathbb{P}}\big)$. Let us assume that the law ${\mathbb{P}}$ of the chain has no atom. Our goal is to define a map $T: \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$, where $\Omega =[0,1]$, such that the construction of Section \[map\_to\_chain\] recovers the chain $(X_{n})$. The map $T$ will be defined by a conjugation to the shift ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}$ through a map $h:A_{-\infty}^0 \rightarrow \Omega$ defined below.
We define a distance on $A_{-\infty}^{0}$ as follows.
\[dist\] First of all, for two sequences $x_{-\infty}^{0}$ and $y_{-\infty}^{0}$, denote by $\delta\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}, y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)$ the nearest position to the origin where these two sequences differ, namely $$\delta\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}, y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)=\min\left\{n \ge 0 :\,x_{-n}\not=
y_{-n}\right\}\;.$$ For a fixed number $0<\zeta<1$, we define the distance $d$ on $A_{-\infty}^{0}$ by $$d\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}, y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)=\zeta^{\delta\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}, y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)}\;.$$
We denote by $<$ the lexicographic order on $A_{-\infty}^0$. Namely $x_{-\infty}^{0} <y_{-\infty}^{0}$, if for some $m\ge 0$, we have $x_{-(m-1)}^0=y_{-(m-1)}^0$ and $x_{-m}<y_{-m}$. For a point $x_{-\infty}^0\in A_{-\infty}^0$, we denote by $J(x_{-\infty}^{0 })$ the set of points $$J(x_{-\infty}^{0 })=\big\{y_{-\infty}^{0}\;\big |\; y_{-\infty}^{0}
\le x_{-\infty}^{0} \big\}\;.$$ We define the map $h$ from $A_{-\infty}^0$ to $\Omega$ by $$h\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}\big)={\mathbb{P}}\big(J(x_{-\infty}^{0})\big)\;.$$
Before stating the properties of the map $h$, we need to define a countable set $\mathscr{Q}$ of exceptional codes, given by $$\mathscr{Q}=\bigcup_{j=1}^{{\mathcal{K}}-1}
\big\{{\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1}j,1_{-\infty}^{-1}(j+1)\big\}
\bigcup_{k=0}^{\infty}\bigcup_{x_{-k}^{0}\in A_{-k}^{0}}
\bigcup_{j=1}^{{\mathcal{K}}-1}\big\{{\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1}jx_{-k}^{0},
1_{-\infty}^{-1}(j+1)x_{-k}^{0}\big\}\;,$$ where ${\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1}$ and $1_{-\infty}^{-1}$ denote the sequences identically equal to ${\mathcal{K}}$ and $1$, respectively.
\[hcontinu\] Let $p$ be a family of transition probabilities satisfying the non-nullness condition \[nonnull\]. The map $h$ defined above has the following properties
i) $h$ is non decreasing on $\Omega$ and strictly increasing outside ${\mathscr{Q}}$;
ii) $h$ is continuous;
iii) $h$ is invertible except on the countable set $h({\mathscr{Q}})$, and the set of preimages of any point in $h({\mathscr{Q}})$ has cardinality at most two;
iv) the inverse function $h^{-1}$ is continuous outside $h({\mathscr{Q}})$;
v) the image of ${\mathbb{P}}$ by $h$ is the Lebegue measure on $\Omega$;
vi) finally $h$ is sujective.
We first prove that the map $h$ is injective except on the countable set ${\mathscr{Q}}$. Let $x_{-\infty}^{0}<y_{-\infty}^{0}$. This means that $x_{0}<y_{0}$, or there exists an integer $k\ge0$ such that $x_{-k}^{0}=y_{-k}^{0}$, and $x_{-(k+1)}<y_{-(k+1)}$. Assume $x_{-\infty}^{0}\notin {\mathscr{Q}}$. This implies that for infinitely many indices $n$, we have $x_{-n}\le {\mathcal{K}}-1$. Let $m>k$ be such an index. For any $z_{-\infty}^{0}$ in the cylinder $C({\mathcal{K}}x_{-(m-1)}^{0})$ we have $$x_{-m}^{0}<z_{-m}^{0}<y_{-m}^{0}\;.$$ Therefore $$J(x_{-m}^{0})\cap C({\mathcal{K}}x_{-(m-1)}^{0})=\emptyset\;,\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad
C({\mathcal{K}}x_{-(m-1)}^{0})\subset J(y_{-m}^{0})\;.$$ From Theorem \[existinv\] we have ${\mathbb{P}}(C({\mathcal{K}}x_{-(m-1)}^{0}))>0$, hence $$h\big(x_{-m}^{0}\big)={\mathbb{P}}\big(J(x_{-m}^{0})\big)<
{\mathbb{P}}\big(J(y_{-m}^{0})\big)=h\big(y_{-m}^{0}\big)\;.$$ The case where $y_{-\infty}^{0}\notin {\mathscr{Q}}$ can be treated similarly.
If $x_{-\infty}^{0} \in {\mathscr{Q}}$ and $y_{-\infty}^{0}\in {\mathscr{Q}}$ but $$\big(x_{-\infty}^{0},y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)\neq
\big({\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1}x_{0},1_{-\infty}^{-1}(x_{0}+1\big)$$ and for any $k\ge 0$, $$y_{-\infty}^{0}\neq 1_{-\infty}^{-k-1}(x_{-k-1}+1)x_{-k}^{0}$$ then there exists $\tilde x_{-\infty}^{0}\notin {\mathscr{Q}}$ and such that $x_{-\infty}^{0}<\tilde x_{-\infty}^{0}< y_{-\infty}^{0}$. From above it follows that $$h\big(x_{-\infty}^{0}\big)<h\big(\tilde x_{-\infty}^{0}\big)
< h\big(y_{-\infty}^{0}\big)\;.$$
Finally, if for some $a\in \{1,\ldots, {\mathcal{K}}-1\}$ we have either $$x_{-\infty}^0={\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1)}a\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad y_{-\infty}^0=1_{-\infty}^{-1}(a+1)\, ,$$ or $$x_{-\infty}^0={\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}ax_{-k}^0 \qquad \mbox{and}
\qquad y_{-\infty}^0=1_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}(a+1)x_{-k}^0\, ,$$ for some $k\ge 1$, then $h(x_{-\infty}^0)=h(y_{-\infty}^0)$. This concudes the proof of (i).
Now let us prove that the map $h$ is continuous. Take $x_{-\infty}^{0}\in A_{-\infty}^{0}$, and let $(y_{-\infty}^{0}(n))$ be a sequence in $A_{-\infty}^{0}$ converging to $x_{-\infty}^{0}$ in the metric defined in \[dist\]. This implies that for any $k$ there exists $\bar n(k)$ such that for any $n\ge\bar n(k) $, $y_{-k}^{0}(n)= x_{-k}^{0}$. This implies $$J(y_{-\infty}^{0}(n))\Delta J(x_{-\infty}^{0})\subset C(x_{-k}^{0})\;,$$ and therefore $$\big|h(y_{-\infty}^{0}(n))-h(x_{-\infty}^{0})\big|\le {\mathbb{P}}\big(C(x_{-k}^{0})\big)\, .$$ By Theorem \[existinv\] the probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ has no atoms, hence ${\mathbb{P}}\big(C(x_{-k}^{0})\big)$ tends to $0$, when $k$ tends to $\infty$, proving that $h$ is continuous. This concludes the proof of (ii).
Assertion (iii) and (iv) follow immediately from (i) and (ii).
Finally to prove (v), take $z\in \Omega\backslash h({\mathscr{Q}})$. The inverse value $h^{-1}(z)$ is uniquely defined, and therefore $$\lambda\big([0,z]\big)=z=h\big(h^{-1}(z)\big)=
{\mathbb{P}}\big(J(h^{-1}(z))\big)={\mathbb{P}}\big(h^{-1}([0,z])\big)\;.$$ Since the measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ and the Lebesgue measure have no atoms, the same result holds for the countable set of points in $h({\mathscr{Q}})$. This implies by standard measure theoretic arguments (see for example Breiman 1992) that $\lambda$ is the image of ${\mathbb{P}})$ by $h$. This concludes the proof of (v).
Finally (vi) follows from the fact that the measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ has no atom by Theorem \[existinv\] the map $h$ is continuous and hence surjective.
We define the map $T$ on $\Omega\backslash{\mathscr{Q}}$ by $$T=h\circ {\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}\circ h^{-1}\;.$$ More explicitly, for $z\in \Omega\backslash {\mathscr{Q}}$ we have $$\label{Tegal}
T(z) ={\mathbb{P}}\big(J({\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}h^{-1}(z))\big) ={\mathbb{P}}\big({\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}J(h^{-1}(z))\big)\, .$$
\[existe\] Let $p$ be a family of transition probabilities satisfying the non-nullness and the continuity conditions \[nonnull\] and \[continuity\]. Then
1. The map $T$ defined above can be continously extended to a monotone increasing map on each inteval $I_j=]\eta_{j-1},\eta_{
j}[$, with $j=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}$, with end points $0=\eta_{0}<\eta_{1}<\ldots<\eta_{{\mathcal{K}}}=1$ defined by $$\eta_{k}=h({\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-1}k)=h(1_{-\infty}^{-1}(k+1))\,
\mbox{, for}\, k=1,\dots, {\mathcal{K}}-1\,.$$
2. The extended map (also denoted by $T$) is a topological Markov map and the Lebesgue measure is invariant by $T$ and ergodic. Moreover the regular versions of the conditional probabilities associated to the sequence of dynamical partitions are given by $p$.
3. The map $T$ is differentiable outside $h({\mathscr{Q}})$ and for each $\omega\in \Omega\backslash h({\mathscr{Q}})$ we have $$T'(\omega)=\frac{1}{p(h^{-1}(\omega)_0\, |\, h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-1})}\, .$$ In this formula we denote the successive elements of the sequence $h^{-1}(\omega) \in A_{-\infty}^0$ by $h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{0}$.
4. For $\omega \in h({\mathscr{Q}})$, wih $$\omega=h\big({\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}az_{-k}^0\big)
=h\big(1_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}(a+1)z_{-k}^0)\big)\, ,$$ for some $
a \in \{1,\ldots, {\mathcal{K}}-1\}
$ and some integer $k\ge -1$, then the left and right derivatives of $T$ at $\omega$ exist and are given by $$\frac{1}{p\big(z_0\,\big|\, z_{-k}^{-1}a{\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}\big)} \quad
\mbox{and} \quad \frac{1}{p\big(z_0\,\big|\,
z_{-k}^{-1}(a+1)1_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}\big)}\,,$$ respectively.
5. In particular, if $p$ is such that for any $a \in \{1,\ldots,
{\mathcal{K}}-1\}$ and any integer $k\ge 0$ and any $z^0_{-k}$, we have $$\label{equal}
p\big(z_0\,\big|\, z_{-k}^{-1}a{\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}\big)=
p\big(z_0\,\big|\, z_{-k}^{-1}(a+1)1_{-\infty}^{-(k+2)}\big)\,,$$ then the map $T$ is piecewise $C^1$.
6. If the continuity rate $\beta_k$, defined in \[betak\], decays exponentially fast, and conditions are satisfied, then the map $T$ is piecewise $C^{1+\alpha}$, where $\alpha >0$ depends on the exponential rate of decay of $\beta_k$.
The proof of Theorem \[existe\] will use several times the following lemma
\[integrale\] For any pair of points $u <v$ in $\Omega\backslash h({\mathscr{Q}})$ and belonging to the same monotonicity interval $I_j=]\eta_{j-1},\eta_{
j}[$ of $T$, for any $j=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}-1$, we have $$T(v)-T(u)=\int_u^v\frac{\lambda(d\omega)}{p(h^{-1}(\omega)_0\,
|\, h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-1})}\, .$$
By definition $$\int_u^v\frac{d\lambda(\omega)}{p(h^{-1}(\omega)_0\, |\,
h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-1})}=
\int_{h^{-1}([u,v])}\frac{d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z^0_{-\infty})}{p(z_0\, |\,
z^{-1}_{-\infty})}$$
$$\label{integre2}
= \int \frac{{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash J(h^{-1}(u))}(z^0_{-\infty})}
{p(z_0 |\, z^{-1}_{-\infty})} d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z^0_{-\infty})\, .$$
In the above formula, ${\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash J(h^{-1}(u))}$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash
J(h^{-1}(u))$. Since $u$ and $v$ by hypothesis belong to the same monotonicity interval, we have that $$h^{-1}(u)_0=h^{-1}(v)_0\, .$$
Let $f:A_{-\infty}^{0}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be the function $$f(z_{-\infty}^0)=\frac{{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash J(h^{-1}(u))}(z^0_{-\infty})}
{p(z_0 |\, z^{-1}_{-\infty})}=
\frac{{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{\{z_0=h^{-1}(v)_0\}}\;{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash J(h^{-1}(u)))}(z^{-1}_{-\infty})}
{p(z_0 |\, z^{-1}_{-\infty})}\, .$$ Using the invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}$ (see ) with the function $f$, we can rewrite the integral as $$\int \frac{{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash J(h^{-1}(u))}(z^0_{-\infty})}
{p(z_0 |\, z^{-1}_{-\infty})} d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z^0_{-\infty})=
\int{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash
J(h^{-1}(u)))}(z^{-1}_{-\infty}) d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z^{-1}_{-\infty})\, .$$ Now we observe that $${\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(u))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(v))$$ and therefore $$\int{\hbox{\labbfont \char49}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(v))\backslash
J(h^{-1}(u)))}(z^{-1}_{-\infty})d{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(z^{-1}_{-\infty})=
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\left\{{\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(v))\right\}-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\left\{{\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}(J(h^{-1}(u))\right\}\, .$$ Now it is enough to use equality to conclude the proof.
We can now prove Theorem \[existe\].
Assertion 1 of the theorem follows directly from Lemma \[Tegal\].
For Assertion 2, we start by observing that for $i=1,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}$ we have $$\lim_{\omega\nearrow \eta_i}T(\omega)=1$$ and for $i=0,\ldots,{\mathcal{K}}-1$ $$\lim_{\omega\searrow \eta_i}T(\omega)=0\;.$$
The topological Markov property follows from the piecewise monotonicity of $T$.
The invariance and ergodicity of the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ follows from the fact that $T$ and the shift ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{S}}}$ are conjugated by $h$.
To prove that $p$ is the regular version of the conditional probability we start with equality $$\lambda\big(I_{x_{-k}^{0}}\big)={\mathbb{P}}\big(C(x_{-k}^{0})\big)$$ where $$I_{x_{-k}^{0}}=\big\{\omega\,\big|\, T^{j}(\omega)\in I_{x_{-j}}\,, j=0\ldots k\big\}
\;.$$ Therefore, for any $x_{-\infty}^{0}\in A_{-\infty}^{0}$ $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\lambda(I_{x_{-k}^{0}})}{\lambda(I_{x_{-k}^{-1}})}
= \lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\lambda(I_{x_{-k}^{0}})}{\lambda(T(I_{x_{-k}^{0}}))}
=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{P}}\big(C(x_{-k}^{0})\big)}
{{\mathbb{P}}\big(C(x_{-k}^{-1})\big)}=p(x_{0}\,|\,x_{-\infty}^{-1})\;,$$ where the last equality follows from the continuity of the family of transition probabilities $p$.
Assertions 3, 4 and 5 follow directly from Lemma \[integrale\], and the finiteness of the derivative follows from the non-nullness assumption.
To prove Assertion 6, we first observe that the exponential decay of the continuity rate $\beta_{k}$ implies that there exists two constants $C>0$ and $0<\rho<1$ such that for any $k\ge 1$ $$\label{crho}
\beta_{k}\le C\; \rho^{k}\;.$$ Let $$\gamma=
\frac{1}{\sup_{x_{-\infty}^{0}\in A_{-\infty}^{0} }p(x_{0}\,|\,x_{-\infty}^{-1})}\;,$$ and $$\Gamma=
\frac{1}{\inf_{x_{-\infty}^{0}\in A_{-\infty}^{0} }p(x_{0}\,|\,x_{-\infty}^{-1})}\;.$$
From the non-nullness assumption it follows immediately that $\gamma>1$, and $\Gamma<\infty$. For $\omega$ and $\omega'$ in the same interval of monotonicity $I_{j}$, let $$m=\delta\big(h^{-1}(\omega),h^{-1}(\omega')\big)\;,$$ where $\delta$ was defined in \[dist\]. Let $$M=\left[-\frac{\log|\omega-\omega'|}
{\log\gamma}\right]\;,$$ where $[\;]$ denotes the integer part.
We first consider the case $
m >M
$ Then from we have $$\big|p(h^{-1}(\omega)_{0}|h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-1})
-p(h^{-1}(\omega')_{0}|h^{-1}(\omega')_{-\infty}^{-1})\big|
\le C\;\rho^{\delta\big(h^{-1}(\omega),h^{-1}(\omega')\big)}$$ $$\le C\;\rho^{-1}\;\rho^{-\log|\omega-\omega'|/\log\gamma}
=C\;\rho^{-1}\;|\omega-\omega'|^{-\log\rho/\log\gamma}\;.$$ This implies that $$\big|T'(\omega)-T'(\omega')\big|=\left|
\frac{1}{p(h^{-1}(\omega)_{0}|h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-1})}
-\frac{1}{p(h^{-1}(\omega')_{0}|h^{-1}(\omega')_{-\infty}^{-1})}
\right|$$ $$\le \Gamma^{2}\,C\;\rho^{-1}\;|\omega-\omega'|^{-\log\rho/\log\gamma}\;.$$ We now consider the case $m\le M$. If $$|\omega-\omega'|^{1/2}\,\Gamma^{m}>
\min\big\{\lambda(I_{1}),\lambda(I_{{\mathcal{K}}})\big\}\;,$$ we have $$m\ge -\frac{1}{2\log\Gamma}\log|\omega-\omega'|
+\frac{\log \min\big\{\lambda(I_{1}),\lambda(I_{{\mathcal{K}}})\big\}}{\log\Gamma}\;.$$ The same estimate as before implies $$\big|T'(\omega)-T'(\omega')\big|\le
\Gamma^{2}\,C\;\rho^{-1}\;
\rho^{\log \min\big\{\lambda(I_{1}),\lambda(I_{{\mathcal{K}}})\big\}/\log\Gamma}
|\omega-\omega'|^{-\log\rho/(2\log\gamma)}\;.$$ Finally if $$|\omega-\omega'|^{1/2}\,\Gamma^{m}\le
\min\big\{\lambda(I_{1}),\lambda(I_{{\mathcal{K}}})\big\}\;,$$ we have, assuming $\omega'>\omega$, that $$h^{-1}(\omega)=h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2}{\mathcal{K}}_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}
h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{0}$$ and $$h^{-1}(\omega')=h^{-1}(\omega')_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2}1_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m-1}
(h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}+1)
h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{0}\;.$$ From inequality we get $$\big|p(h^{-1}(\omega)_{0}\,|\,h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}
{\mathcal{K}}_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2})$$ $$-p(h^{-1}(\omega)_{0}\,|\,h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}
{\mathcal{K}}_{-\infty}^{-m-1}\big|\le C\,\rho^{m+M/2}$$ and $$\big|p(h^{-1}(\omega')_{0}\,|\,h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m}
1_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m}h^{-1}(\omega')_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2})$$ $$-p(h^{-1}(\omega')_{0}|h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m}
1_{-\infty}^{-m-1}\big|\le C\,\rho^{m+M/2}\;.$$ Observing that $$h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{0}=h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m+1}^{0}\;,$$ $$h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m}=h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}+1\;,$$ and using Assumption \[equal\], we obtain $$\big|p(h^{-1}(\omega)_{0}\,|\,h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-m}
{\mathcal{K}}_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m-1}h^{-1}(\omega)_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2})$$ $$-p(h^{-1}(\omega')_{0}\,|\,h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m+1}^{-1}h^{-1}(\omega')_{-m}
1_{-m-1-M/2}^{-m}h^{-1}(\omega')_{-\infty}^{-m-2-M/2})\big|$$ $$\le 2\,C\,\rho^{m+M/2}\;.$$ The conclusion follows as in the two other cases.
The case of chains with memory of variable length. {#vl}
==================================================
Stochastic chains with memory of variable length appeared in the pionering paper by Rissanen (1983) as a universal system for data compression. We briefly recall the definition of this class of stochastic chains .
Given a finite alphabet $A$, we define the basic notion of [*context tree*]{}.
A set of strings $$\tau \subset \bigcup_{k \ge 1}A_{-k}^{-1}\, \bigcup\, A_{-\infty}^{-1}$$ is a context tree if
1. $\bigcup_{w\in \tau}C(w)=A_{-\infty}^{-1};$
2. for any pair $w$ and $w'$ of elements of $\tau$, if $w\neq w'$, then $C(w) \cap C(w') =\emptyset$.
In the above definition $w$ and $w'$ denote two sequences, either finite or infinite, and $C(w)$ is the set of all elements of $A_{-\infty}^{-1}$ having the string $w$ as a suffix, [*i. e.*]{} having $w$ as final sequence. In case $w$ is finite, $C(w)$ is a cylinder. In case $w$ is infinite $C(w)$ is the unitary set whose unique element is $w$. The name [*context tree*]{} comes from the fact that $\tau$ can be described by the leaves of a rooted tree. The strings belonging to $\tau$ are called [*contexts*]{}.
A probabilistic context tree is a pair $(\tau, p)$, where $\tau$ is a context tree and $$p=\{p(\cdot)\, |\, w) \, |\, w \in \tau\}$$ is a family indexed by $\tau$ of probability measures on the set $A$.
Given a probabilistic context tree $(\tau, p)$, we define a family of infinite order transition probabilities $\tilde{p}$ on $A$ as follows. For any sequence $x_{-\infty}^{-1} \in A_{-\infty}^{-1} $, and for any symbol $a \in A$ $$\label{tree_model}
\tilde{p}(a\,|\, x_{-\infty}^{-1})=p(a\,|\, w)\,$$ where $w$ is the unique element of $\tau$, such that $x_{-\infty}^{-1} \in C(w)$.
A stochastic chain of infinite order is said to have a memory of variable length described by a probabilistic context tree $(\tau, p)$ if its family of transition probabilities satisfies conditions .
Intuitively speaking in a chain with memory of variable length, at each time step, to predict the next symbol, it is enough to use the past steps corresponding to the context associated to this past.
The question we address in this section is to characterize the maps associated to transition probabilities defined by a probabilistic context tree. This is the content of the following theorem.
Let $T$ be a topological Markov expanding map of the interval with alphabet of monotonicity intervals $A$, and with the Lebesgue measure invariant and ergodic. Assume there is a tree of contexts $\tau$ on the alphabet $A$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{x_{-k}^{-1}\in\tau\,\cap\, A^{-1}_{-k}} \lambda\big(C(x^{-1}_{-k})\big)=1\;,$$ and for any $x_{-k}^{-1}\in \tau$, for any $a\in A$ and for any $\omega$ and $\omega'$ satisfying $$W(\omega)_0^k=a\,x_{-1}\,\ldots\,x_{-k}\,,\qquad\mathrm{and}
\qquad W(\omega')_0^k=a\,x_{-1}\,\ldots\,x_{-k}\;,$$ we have $$T'(\omega)=T'(\omega')\;.$$ Then the family of transition probabilites associated to the map $T$ by theorem \[maptochain\] is a chain with variable length whose contexts are almost surely finite.
Conversely, given a family of transition probabilities which is a chain of variable length with almost surely finite contexts (for an invariant measure), then the associated map by (see also Theorem \[existe\]) is piecewise affine with derivatives satisfying the above property.
The result follows directly from Theorems \[maptochain\] and \[existe\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is part of USP project MaCLinC, “Mathematics, computation, language and the brain", USP/COFECUB project “Stochastic systems with interactions of variable range” and CNPq project 476501/2009-1. AG is partially supported by a CNPq fellowship (grant 305447/2008-4). P.C. thanks Numec-USP for its kind hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we show how to extend the seminal Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem for Gevrey functions and ultradistributions. As applications we present a Gevrey version of the approximate Poincaré Lemma and study ultradistributions vanishing on maximally real submanifolds.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brasil'
- ' Instituto de Matemática, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, 57072-970, Brasil'
- 'Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brasil'
author:
- Gustavo Hoepfner
- 'Renan D. Medrado'
- 'Luis F. Ragognette'
bibliography:
- 'Bibliografia.bib'
title: 'The Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem for Gevrey classes and applications'
---
Introduction
============
The goal of this paper is to extend the celebrated Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem to Gevrey functions and ultradistributions. The classical Baouendi-Treves theorem has deep implications in the theory of CR geometry and in the theory of local solvability of locally integrable structures.
Let us denote by $\Omega$ an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. A locally integrable structure is a subbundle $\mathcal L$ of the complexified tangent bundle ${\mathbb{C}}T\Omega$ if given an arbitrary point $p_0\in\Omega$ there are an open neighborhood $U_0$ of $p_0$ and functions $Z_1,\ldots,Z_m \in C^\infty(U_0)$ such that the orthogonal of $\mathcal{L}$ is generated over $U_0$ by their differentials ${\textnormal{d}}Z_1,\ldots,{\textnormal{d}}Z_m$. We say that $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal L$ if, for every (smooth) local section ${\mathrm{L}}\in\mathcal L$, we have ${\mathrm{L}}u=0.$ The Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem states that any $u$ in $C^k(\Omega)$, $k\in\{0,1,2,\dots,\infty\}$, that is solution of $\mathcal{L}$ can be approximated in a small neighborhood of any given point of $\Omega$ in the $C^k$-topology by polynomials in $Z_1,\dots,Z_m$ and if $u\in \mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ is a solution a similar result holds in the topology of $\mathcal{D}'$. Further generalizations for Lebesgue spaces $L^p$, $1\le p<\infty$; Sobolev spaces; Hölder spaces; and (localizable) Hardy spaces $h^p$, $0<p<\infty$ were given in [@HM98; @bch_iis].
Our main theorem extends to the class of Gevrey functions and their dual spaces.
\[BTAPPthm\] Let $\mathcal L$ be a $G^{s}-$locally integrable structure on $\Omega.$ Let us assume that there is $Z=(Z_1,\dots,Z_m): \Omega {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}^m$ of class $G^{s}$ such that ${\textnormal{d}}Z_1,\dots,{\textnormal{d}}Z_m$ spans $ \mathcal L^\perp$ over $\Omega$. Then, for any $p\in \Omega$, there exist two open sets $U$ and $W$ with $\overline U\subset W\subset \Omega$ such that
1. any $u\in G^{s} (W)$ that is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ in $W$ is the limit in $ G^{s} (U)$ of a sequence of polynomial solutions $P_j(Z)$.
2. any $u\in\mathcal {D}'_s (W)$ that is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ in $W$ is the limit in $\mathcal{D}'_s (U)$ of a sequence of polynomial solutions $P_j(Z)$.
The Baoeundi-Treves approximation formula was already proved in the special case when the Gevrey locally integrable structure has corank zero, i.e., every point has a neighborhood $U$ where we have defined $Z_1, \ldots, Z_N$ Gevrey functions whose differential generate ${\mathbb{C}}T^{\ast} \Omega$ (see [@c00] and [@lfr2019]).
Our first application is a Gevrey version of a result called approximate Poincaré Lemma (see [@treves_has]). It is a useful lemma in the theory of local solvability of locally integrable structures that essentially says that a form that is $\mathbb{L}$-closed is the limit of $\mathbb{L}$-exact forms, here $\mathbb{L}$ is a differential operator induced by the de Rham operator.
Another application says that an ultradistribution solution of $\mathcal{L}$ that vanishes in a submanifold maximally real with respect to $\mathcal{L}$ must be zero in a neighborhood of the submanifold.
The proof of Theorem \[BTAPPthm\] will be divided in two steps: first for ultradifferentiable functions (classical solutions) and second for ultradistributions (weak solutions).
The novelty here is, in one hand, to provide a finer way to write the commutator formula first given by [@BT81; @bch_iis], see , which allow us to obtain optimal control on the constants appearing in the process of differentiating indefinitely the approximation operators when the solution is classic. On the other hand, when the solution is only an ultradistribution, we need to justify the approximation operator by proving that the traces of solutions of $\mathcal L$ are well defined (by the same formula given in [@Hor90a Section 8] in the case of a distribution) and then take the full advantage of this formula to obtain the approximation scheme in these case.
We point out that the original arguments for weak solutions cannot be applied in our situation since ultradistributions cannot be represented by a finite order differential operator. However our argument can be used to recover the original result without making use of either: the representation of distributions by means of a finite order partial differential operators, or Sobolev embedding theorems. Thus we strongly believe that our arguments can be used to simplify the original arguments.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[S2\] we recall some definitions and basic results of the Gevrey functions and introduce the locally integrable structures. The proof of Theorem \[BTAPPthm\] is presented in Section \[DBTG\], first for Gevrey functions, Subsection \[ap\], then for Gevrey ultradistributions, Subsection \[ap2\]. We present two main applications: the first is given in Section \[AAPL\] where we use Theorem \[BTAPPthm\] to prove the approximate Poincaré Lemma in the Gevrey topology; and the second is treated in Section \[AUVOMRS\] where we study ultradistributions vanishing on maximally real submanifolds. The approximation theorem for more general classes of ultradifferentiable functions and ultradistributions is discussed in Section \[BTDC\]. Finally, we conclude with two sections in the Appendix regarding some technicalities needed troughout the paper.
Definitions and Preliminar Results {#S2}
==================================
Let $\Omega$ be an open subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}^N}$ and fix $s\geq 1$. A Gevrey function of order $s$ in $\Omega$ is a smooth function $f\in {C^{\infty}}(\Omega)$ such that for every $K$ compact subset of $\Omega$ there is a $h>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{h, K}\doteq \sup_{\alpha\in Z_+^{N}} \Big(\frac{1}{h^{|\alpha|}\alpha!^s} \sup_{x\in K} |{\partial}^{\alpha} f(x)|\Big)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We will denote the space of Gevrey functions of order $s$ in $\Omega$ by $G^s(\Omega)$. We recall that $G^{1}(\Omega)$ is the space of real-analytic functions in $\Omega$. In this work we will always assume that $s>1$ and we shall denote by $G^{s}_c(\Omega)$ the space of Gevrey functions of order $s$ with compact support.
If $V\subset \subset \Omega$ and $h>0$, we shall denote by $G^{s,h}(\overline{V})$ the space of all smooth functions $f$ in $\overline{V}$ for which $ \|f\|_{h, \overline{V}}<\infty.$ Moreover, we denote by $G^{s}(\overline{V})$ the space of all smooth functions $f$ in $\overline{V}$ for which there is a $h>0$ such that $f\in G^{s,h}(\overline{V})$ and we denote by $G^{s,h}_c(\overline{V})$ the space of all $f\in {C^{\infty}}({{\mathbb{R}}^N})$ with support in $\overline{V}$ such that $f|_{\overline{V}}\in G^{s,h}(\overline{V})$.
The topological dual of $G^{s}_c(\Omega)$ will be called the space of ultradistributions of order $s$ and will be denote by $\mathcal{D}'_s(\Omega)$. The continuity of $u\in \mathcal{D}'_s(\Omega)$ can be expressed in the following way: for every $V\subset \subset \Omega$ and every $h>0$ there is $C_h>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|u(\varphi)|\leq C_h \|\varphi\|_{h, \overline{V}}, \end{aligned}$$ for every $\varphi\in G^{s,h}_c(\overline{V})$. We will denote by $\mathcal{E}'_s(\Omega)$ the space of ultradistributions with compact support in $\Omega$.
Let us assume that $0$ belongs to $\Omega$, $N=m+n$ and consider a $G^{s}$-locally integrable structure of rank $n$ in $\Omega$, i.e., a subbundle $\mathcal L$ of $\mathbb C T\Omega$ of rank $n$ over $\Omega$ which the orthogonal, $\mathcal{L}^{\perp},$ is locally generated by the differentials of $m$ Gevrey functions of order $s$ in $\Omega$.
According to [@bch_iis; @treves_has][^1] we can assume, shrinking $\Omega$ around $0$ if necessary, the existence of a local system of $G^s$ coordinates $(x,t)=(x_1,\dots,x_m,t_1,\dots,t_n)$ in $\Omega$ as well as a map $\phi:\Omega\to\mathbb R^m$, $\phi=(\phi_1,\dots,\phi_m)$ of class $G^{s}$ satisfying $$\label{eq z2}
\phi_k(0,0) =0, \ {\textnormal{d}}_x \phi_k(0,0)=0,\quad k=1,\quad \ldots, m$$ such that $$\label{eq z1}
Z_k(x,t) = x_k +i\phi_k(x,t), \quad k=1,\dots,m.$$
Denote by $B^{{\mathbb{R}}^p}_R(0)= \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^p: |x|<R\}$ and define $V:=B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)\times B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)$. Since ${\textnormal{d}}_x \phi_1(0)=\cdots {\textnormal{d}}_x \phi_m(0)=0$, we can choose a positive number $R$ such that $V\subset\subset \Omega$ and $$\label{eq z4}
|\phi_k(x,t)-\phi_k(y,t)| \le \tfrac12 |x-y|, \quad \forall (x,t), (y,t)\in \overline{V}.$$
Fix an open neighborhood $W\subset \subset \Omega$ of $\overline{V}.$ Modifying the imaginary part of $Z$ outside of $W$ using cutoff functions of class $G^s$ we can obtain a locally integrable structure defined globally in ${{\mathbb{R}}^N}$ that agrees with $\mathcal L$ in $W$. Abusing of notation we will still denote this new structure by $\mathcal{L}$ and assume that holds globally in ${{\mathbb{R}}^N}$. Note that the conclusions that we will obtain for this new structure $\mathcal L$ will also be true for the old structure in $V$.
Since ${\textnormal{d}}Z_1, \ldots, {\textnormal{d}}Z_m, {\textnormal{d}}t_1, \ldots, {\textnormal{d}}t_n$ is a global frame for ${\mathbb{C}}T^{\ast} {{\mathbb{R}}^N}$ we can consider its dual frame in ${\mathbb{C}}T {{\mathbb{R}}^N}$, i.e., consider $N$ vector fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LseMs}
{\mathrm{M}}_1, \ldots, {\mathrm{M}}_m, {\mathrm{L}}_1, \ldots, {\mathrm{L}}_n\end{aligned}$$ with the property that $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{d}}Z_{k}( {\mathrm{M}}_{k'})= \delta_{k k'}, \quad {\textnormal{d}}Z_{k}( L_{j})= 0, \quad\quad k, k'\in \{1, \ldots, m\}, \quad j \in \{1, \ldots, n\},\\
{\textnormal{d}}t_{j}( {\mathrm{M}}_{k})= 0, \quad \quad {\textnormal{d}}t_{j}( L_{j'})= \delta_{j j'}, \quad \quad k \in\{ 1, \ldots, m\},\quad j,j' \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, note that the differential of any $C^1$ function $w(x,t)$ can be expressed in the basis $\{{\textnormal{d}}Z_1, \dots , {\textnormal{d}}Z_m, {\textnormal{d}}t_1,\dots, {\textnormal{d}}t_n\}$ of $\mathbb C T^*\mathbb R^N$ as $${\textnormal{d}}w = \sum_{j=1}^n {\mathrm{L}}_j w\, {\textnormal{d}}t_j + \sum_{k=1}^m{\mathrm{M}}_k w\,{\textnormal{d}}Z_k.$$
Let ${\mathrm{X}}_1, \ldots, {\mathrm{X}}_N$ be a family of $N$ pairwising commuting smooth vector fields that form a global frame to ${\mathbb{C}}T \Omega$. We can define the space of Gevrey functions regarding ${\mathrm{X}}_1, \ldots, {\mathrm{X}}_N$ as the space of all $f\in {C^{\infty}}(\Omega)$ such that for every $K$ compact subset of $\Omega$ there is a $h>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\alpha\in Z_+^{N}} \Big(\frac{1}{h^{|\alpha|}\alpha!^s} \sup_{(x,t)\in K} |{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} f(x,t)|\Big)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We shall denote this space by $G^{s}(\Omega; {\mathrm{X}})$. A sequence of functions $f_\nu\in G^{s}(\Omega; {\mathrm{X}})$ converges to $f\in G^s(\Omega; {\mathrm{X}})$ if for every $K\subset \Omega$ compact there is $h>0$ such that for every $\epsilon>0$ there is $\nu_0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\alpha\in Z_+^{N}} \Big(\frac{1}{h^{|\alpha|}\alpha!^s} \sup_{(x,t)\in K} |{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}f_{\nu}(x,t)- {\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}f(x,t)|\Big)< \epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ for every $\nu>\nu_0$.
Analogously, we denote by $G^s(\Omega; {\mathrm{L}}, {\mathrm{M}})$ the space of Gevrey functions with respect to the vector fields considered in , associated with a locally integrable structure. Since $\mathcal{L}$ is a $G^{s}$-locally integrable structure, it was proved in [@lfr2019] that $$\label{isomorphic}
G^s(\Omega; {\mathrm{L}}, {\mathrm{M}})\ \text{ is isomorphic to } \ G^s(\Omega) \ \text{ as topological spaces}$$ and the same holds for compact sets. These spaces will play an important role in this work since part of the proof will be to show that a sequence of functions converges in $G^{s}(\overline{V}; {\mathrm{M}}, {\mathrm{L}})$ (and consequently in $G^{s}(\overline{V})$) for a relatively compact open subset $V$ of $\Omega$. We will also use the following notation: for every $k$ positive integer we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{C^{k}(\overline{V})}= \sum_{|\alpha|\leq k} \sup_{x\in \overline{V}}|{\partial}^{\alpha}f(x)|
\end{aligned}$$ where $f \in C^{k}(\overline{V})$.
The ultradifferentiable Baouendi-Treves approximation formula \[DBTG\]
======================================================================
In this section we will present the Baouendi-Treves approximation formula for ultradifferentiable functions and ultradistributions that are solutions of a locally integrable structure of arbitrary rank. It is easy to see that the theorem follows if we prove that the solutions are limit in the appropriate topology of entire functions in $Z$.
Proof of Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem in $G^{s}$ {#ap}
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $u\in G^s(\Omega)$ be a solution of $\mathcal L$ in $W$. For each $\chi\in G_c^{s}(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))$ and, for each $\tau>0$, define the function $E_\tau^{\chi}[ u]$ by $$E_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t):=\Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,0) \rangle^2} \chi(y)u(y,0) \,{\rm det} Z_x(y,0)\,{\textnormal{d}}y, \quad (x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^N.$$ For each $\tau>0$, $E_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ is an entire function of $Z(x,t).$ Thus $E_\tau^{\chi}[ u]\in G^s({{\mathbb{R}}^N})$ and is a solution of $\mathcal L$. Consider also the functions defined by $$\label{eq Gtau}
G_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t): = \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,t)\rangle^2} \chi(y)u(y,t) \, {\rm det} Z_x(y,t)\,{\textnormal{d}}y,$$ and, $$\label{eq Rtau}
R_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t):=G_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t) - E_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t).$$
We note that $G_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ converges to $\chi u$ even when $u$ is not a solution of $\mathcal{L}$.
\[GtauFuncao\] Let $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R}(0))$ and $u \in G^{s}(\overline{V})$. Then $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $\chi u$ in $G^{s}(\overline{V})$ when $\tau {\longrightarrow}\infty$.
It is enough to prove (see ) that $$\label{toshow}
G_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t) \to \chi u \quad \text{in }\quad G^{s}(\overline{V}; {\mathrm{M}},{\mathrm{L}}).$$ Note that we may write $$\label{eq:spliting Gtau}
G_\tau^{\chi}[ u](x,t) - \chi(x)u(x,t) = I_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t) - J_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t)$$ where $I_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u]$ and $J_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u]$ can be written, after the change of variables $y \mapsto x+ \tau^{-1/2} y$ in , as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t)&= \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}}\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{-\langle Z_x(x,t)y \rangle^2}\big(v(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y, t)- v(y,t)\big){\textnormal{d}}y,\\
J_\tau^{\chi}[u](x,t)&= \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}}\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} \Big(e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t)\rangle^2}-e^{-\langle Z_x(x,t)y \rangle^{2}}\Big) v(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t)\,{\textnormal{d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ and the function $v$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
v(y,t)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\chi(y)u(y,t) \ {\rm det} Z_x(y,t), \quad &(y,t)\in B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_R(0)\times B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0),
\\[4pt]
0, & (y,t) \in({\mathbb{R}}^{m}\setminus B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_R(0))\times B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0).
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\big|v(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y, t)- v(x,t)\big|&\leq \tau^{-\frac{1}{2}} \|\nabla v\|_{C(\overline{V})}\\[4pt]
&\leq \tau^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|\chi\|_{C^{1}(B_{R}(0))} \|u\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})} \|\det Z_x\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})},\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Itau}
|I_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t)|&\leq \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}}\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{- |y|^{2}+ |\phi_x(x,t) y|^{2}}\big|v(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y, t)- v(x,t)\big|{\textnormal{d}}y
\notag \\[4pt]
&\leq \tau^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{B}{\pi^{\frac{ m}{2}}} \|\chi\|_{C^{1}(B_{R}(0))} \|u\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{- \frac{3}{4}|y|^{2}}{\textnormal{d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ where $B:=\|\det Z_x\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})}$.
To estimate $J^{\chi}_\tau[u](x,t)$, we use the fact that $|e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)-Z(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t)\rangle^2}|\leq e^{-3|y|^{2}/4}$ and $|e^{-\langle Z_x(x,t)y \rangle^{2}}|\leq e^{-3|y|^{2}/4}$, to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Jtau2}
|J_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t)|&\leq \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}} \|v\|_{C(\overline{V})} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} \Big|e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)-Z(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t) \rangle^2}-e^{-\langle Z_x(x,t)y \rangle^{2}}\Big|\,{\textnormal{d}}y\notag\\[4pt]
&\leq \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}} \|v\|_{C(\overline{V})} \int_{|y|< A} \Big|e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t)\rangle^2}-e^{-[Z_x(x,t)y]^{2}}\Big|\,{\textnormal{d}}y\notag\\[4pt]
&\hskip.5cm+ \pi^{-\frac{ m}{2}} \|v\|_{C(\overline{V})} e^{-A^{2}/2} \int_{|y|\geq A} 2e^{- |y|^{2}/4}\,{\textnormal{d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ for every $A>0$. To estimate the first integral on the rightmost hand-side of , we fix $y$ and $t$ and note that $\zeta_1=[ Z(x,t)-Z(x+ \tau^{-1/2}y,t)]/\tau^{-1/2}$ converges to $\zeta_2=-Z_x(x,t)y$ uniformly in $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$ as $\tau$ goes to $\infty$ and so there is $C>0$ such that $|[\zeta_1]^{2}-[\zeta_2]^{2}|\leq C\tau^{-1/2}$. This implies that ${\mathrm{Re}\,}[\zeta_1]^{2}\geq 0$ and ${\mathrm{Re}\,}[\zeta_2]^{2}\geq 0$ and using that $e^{-\zeta}$ is a Lipschitz function on ${\mathrm{Re}\,}\zeta\geq 0$ we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Jtau}
|J_{\tau}^{\chi}[ u](x,t)|&\leq \frac{B}{\pi^{\frac{ m}{2}}} \|\chi\|_{C(B_{R}(0))} \|u\|_{C(\overline{V})} \bigg( C A^{m} \tau^{-1/2}
+ e^{-A^{2}/2} \int_{|y|\geq A} 2e^{- |y|^{2}/4}\,{\textnormal{d}}y \bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Using , we may rewrite Lemma II.1.4 and Lemma II.1.6 in [@bch_iis] as $$\label{LeibnizM}
{\mathrm{M}}_kG^{\chi}_\tau[u]= G_\tau^{\chi} [{\mathrm{M}}_ku]+ G_\tau^{{\mathrm{M}}_k\chi}[u], \quad \forall k=1,\ldots, m$$ and $$\label{LeibnizL}
{\mathrm{L}}_jG^{\chi}_\tau[u]= G_\tau^{\chi} [{\mathrm{L}}_ju]+ G_\tau^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}[u], \quad \forall j=1, \ldots, n.$$ In order to simplify the notation define ${\mathrm{X}}_j= {\mathrm{L}}_j$ for $j=1, \ldots, n$ and ${\mathrm{X}}_{n+k}= {\mathrm{M}}_k$, for $k=1,\dots,m$. Since ${\mathrm{X}}_1, \ldots, {\mathrm{X}}_{n+m}$ are pairwise commuting, we have that $${\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} G^{\chi}_\tau[u]= \sum_{\alpha'+\alpha''= \alpha}{ \alpha\choose \alpha'} G_\tau^{{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi} [{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u], \quad \forall \alpha \in {{\mathbb{Z}}^N}_+.$$ Thus it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{XalphaGtau}
{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} G^{\chi}_\tau[u]- {\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}(\chi u)= \sum_{ \alpha'+\alpha''= \alpha } {\alpha \choose \alpha'} \big( G_\tau^{{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi} [{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u]-({\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi) [{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u]\big).\end{aligned}$$ To estimate ${\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} G^{\chi}_\tau[u]- {\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}(\chi u)$ on $\overline{V}$ we will make use of , and , together to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{des:inter0}
|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} G^{\chi}_\tau[u](x,t)- {\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}(\chi u)(x,t)|&\leq \sum_{ \alpha'+\alpha''= \alpha } {\alpha \choose \alpha'} \Big(|I_{\tau}^{{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi}[{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''} u](x,t)|+|J_{\tau}^{{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi}[{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''} u](x,t)| \Big)
\notag\\[4pt]
&\leq \tau^{-1/2}\frac{B \tilde{C}_A }{\pi^{\frac{ m}{2}}} \sum_{\alpha'+\alpha''= \alpha} {\alpha \choose \alpha' } \|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi\|_{C^{1}(B_{R}(0))} \|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})}
\notag\\[4pt]
&\hskip.4cm +e^{-A^{2}/2}\frac{B \hat{C}}{\pi^{\frac{ m}{2}}} \sum_{ \alpha'+\alpha''= \alpha }\!\!{ \alpha \choose \alpha'}\|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi\|_{C(B_{R}(0))} \|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u\|_{C(\overline{V})} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{C}_A:= \int e^{- \frac{3}{4}|y|^{2}}{\textnormal{d}}y+CA^{m} \quad\text{and}\quad \hat{C}:= \int 2e^{- |y|^{2}/4}\,{\textnormal{d}}y.$$
Now we assume that $\chi \in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))$ and $u \in G^{s}(\overline{V})$ thus, it follows from that we can find $h>0$ such that for every $\alpha', \alpha''\in{{\mathbb{Z}}^N}_+$, we have $$\label{expectedinequalities}
\|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha''}u\|_{C^{1}(\overline{V})}\leq h^{|\alpha''|+1} \|u\|_{h,\overline{V}} (|\alpha''|+1)!^{s}
\ \ \text{and}\ \ \|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha'}\chi\|_{C^{1}(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m})}\leq h^{|\alpha'|+1} \|\chi\|_{h,\overline{B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)}} (|\alpha'|+1)!^{s}.$$
We may use and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{des:inter1}
\displaystyle \sup_{\overline{V}}\frac{|{\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha} G^{\chi}_\tau[u]- {\mathrm{X}}^{\alpha}(\chi u)|}{(2h)^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^{s}} &\leq \Big(\tau^{-1/2}\tilde{C} +e^{-A^{2}/2} \hat{C}_A \Big) \frac{B A}{\pi^{\frac{ m}{2}}} h^{2}2^{3} \|\chi\|_{h,\overline{B_{R}(0)}}\|u\|_{h,\overline{V}},\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $(|\alpha|+2)!^{s}\leq 2^{s (|\alpha|+3)} |\alpha|!^{s}$. Now, for a given $\epsilon>0$ choose $A>0$ so that $e^{-A^{2}/2} \hat{C}\leq \epsilon/2$ and then choose $\tau>1$ so that $\tau^{-1/2}\tilde{C}_A\leq \epsilon/2$ to conclude that $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $\chi u$ in $G^s(\overline{V}; {\mathrm{M}},{\mathrm{L}})$.
We would like to point out that the proof yields a slightly stronger version of Proposition \[GtauFuncao\]. Denote by $\mathcal{B}\big(G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))\times G^s(\overline{V}), G^s(\overline{V})\big)$ the space of the bilinear continuous operator and denote by $P$ the bilinear operator defined by the usual product, i.e., $P(\chi, u)= \chi u$.
The operator $G_\tau: G^s_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))\times G^s(\overline{V}) {\longrightarrow}G^s(\overline{V})$ define by $G_\tau(\chi, u)= G_\tau^\chi[u]$ is a bilinear and continuous. Moreover, the sequence of operators $G_\tau$ converges to $P$ in $\mathcal{B}\big(G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))\times G^{s}(\overline{V}); G^{s}(\overline{V})\big)$ as $\tau {\longrightarrow}\infty$.
Observe that if we take $\chi= 1$ in $B_{R/2}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)$ and define $U:= B_{S}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)\times B_{T}^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)$, where $0<S\leq R/2$ and $0< T\leq R$, then $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $u$ in $G^{s}(U)$.
Next, we recall (see, for instance, [@bch_iis pag. 59-60]) that there exists a positive constant $T<R$ such that $$\label{est:faseRtau}
\big|e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,t')\rangle^2}\big| \le e^{-\tau R^2/33},$$ for all $(x,t) \in B^{\mathbb{R}^m}_{R/4}(0)\times B^{\mathbb{R}^n}_{T}(0)\textrm{ and } (y,t') \in \{y \in {\mathbb{R}}^m:|y|\ge R/2\} \times B_T^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)$. From now on, we fix the open set $U$ in the statement of Theorem \[BTAPPthm\] to be $B_{R/4}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)\times B_{T}^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)$. The proof of Theorem \[BTAPPthm\], in $G^{s}$, will be complete once we proof the following result.
\[RtauFuncao\] Let $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R}(0))$, with $\chi=1$ in $B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R/2}(0)$ and $u \in G^{s}(\Omega)$ that is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ in $W$. Then $R^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $0$ in $G^s(U)$ when $\tau {\longrightarrow}\infty$.
It is a consequence of Stokes’ theorem that we may write $R^{\chi}_\tau[ u]$ given in as $$R^{\chi}_\tau[ u](x,t)= \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\! \sum_{j=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m\times[0,t]} e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,t')\rangle^2} ({\mathrm{L}}_j\chi)(y,t')u(y,t') \,{\rm det} Z_x(y,t')\,{\textnormal{d}}t_j'\wedge {\textnormal{d}}y.$$ Since $\chi(y)=1$ for $|y|<R/2$ and ${\rm supp}\,\chi\subset B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)$, ${\mathrm{L}}_j\chi$ vanishes for $\{|y|\le R/2\}\cup\{|y|\ge R\}$, we can write $$\label{recall:Rtau}
R^{\chi}_\tau[ u](x,t)= \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\! \sum_{j=1}^n\int_{A(\frac{R}{2},R)} \int_0^1 e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,r t)\rangle^2} (L_j\chi)(y,rt)u(y,rt) \,{\rm det} Z_x(y,rt) t_j{\textnormal{d}}r{\textnormal{d}}y,$$ where $A(\frac{R}{2},R):= \{y \in \mathbb{R}^m: \frac{R}{2} < |y| < R\}.$ For each $(\alpha, \beta)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^m_+\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n_+$ we may differentiate under the integration sign the expression in the right hand-side of to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{recall:RtauDer}
\partial_x^\alpha \partial_t^\beta &R^{\chi}_\tau[ u](x,t)
\\[6pt]
&= \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\! \sum_{j=1}^n\int_{A(\frac{R}{2},R)}\int_0^1 \!\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^\beta
\big\{e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt)\rangle^2} (L_j\chi)(y,rt)u(y,rt) \,{\rm det} Z_x(y,rt)t_j\big\} {\textnormal{d}}r{\textnormal{d}}y
\notag\\[6pt]
&= \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\! \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{\gamma\le\beta}{\beta \choose \gamma}\int_{A(\frac{R}{2},R)}\int_0^1 \Big\{\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^\gamma \big\{e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt)\rangle^2}\big\} \times
\notag\\[6pt]
&\hskip6.5cm\times\partial_t^{\beta-\gamma}\big\{ (L_j\chi)(y,rt)u(y,rt) \, \,{\rm det} Z_x(y,rt)t_j\big\} \Big\}{\textnormal{d}}r{\textnormal{d}}y. \notag\end{aligned}$$
We can use Lemma \[lem:usandoFdB\] with $f(y,r,x,t)=[Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt)]^2$ yielding that there are constants $C, h>0$ for which we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:usandoFdBa}
\displaystyle\left| \partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^\gamma\big\{e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt)\rangle^2}\big\} \right|
\leq C h^{|\alpha|+|\gamma|} (|\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^{s} \,e^{-\tau{\mathrm{Re}\,}\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,r t)\rangle^2+ s \tau^{1/s}}\end{aligned}$$ for every $(x,y,t,r)\in B_{R/2}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)\times A(\frac{R}{2},R)\times B_{T}^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)\times [0,1].$
Since there exist $\tilde{h}>0$ so that $(L_j\chi)\,u \det Z_x|_{\overline{V}}\in G^{s, \tilde{h}}(\overline{V})$ for each $j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, we can use , and to find a constant $\tilde{C}>0$ independent of $\alpha, \beta$, $\gamma$ and $\tau$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interm}
\displaystyle \big| \partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^\beta R^{\chi}_\tau[ u](x,t) \big| &\le \tilde{C} \bigg( \sum_{\gamma\leq \beta} h^{|\alpha|+|\gamma|} \tilde{h}^{|\beta-\gamma|}{\beta \choose \gamma} (|\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^{s}(|\beta- \gamma|)!^{s} \bigg) \, \tau^{\tfrac m2}\, e^{s \tau^{1/s}-\tau R^2/33} \notag
\\
&\leq \tilde{C} \tau^{\tfrac m2} e^{s \tau^{1/s}-\tau R^2/33} \big( h+\tilde{h}\big)^{|\alpha|+|\beta|} 2^{|\beta|} (|\alpha|+|\beta|)!^{s} , \end{aligned}$$ for every $(x,t) \in U.$ Thus, $R_{\tau}^{\chi}[u]$ converges to $0$ in $G^s(U)$ when $\tau$ converges to $\infty$.
Proof of Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem in $\mathcal{D}'_s$ {#ap2}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Given $\chi \in G_c^s(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ we will first need to extend the definitions of $E_\tau^{\chi}[u], G_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ and $R_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ when $u \in {\mathcal{D}}'_s(W)$ is a solution of $\mathcal L$.
The definitions of $E_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ and consequently $R_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ will strongly use the fact $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal L$ which guarantee that the pullback of $u$ to the submanifolds $\{(x,t): t=\text{constant}\}$ are well defined in the sense of ultradistributions, see Appendix \[AppendixB\].
We can, however, provide a definition for $G_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ for every $u \in \mathcal{D}_s'(V)$ and as a consequence we will proof the convergence of $G_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ to $\chi u$ in $ {\mathcal{D}}_s'(V)$ when $\tau$ goes to $+\infty$ regardless wether $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal L$ or not.
Let $u \in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(V)$ and fix $\chi \in G^s_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$. We define $G_\tau^{\chi}[u]\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(V)$, acting on $\varphi\in G^{s}_c(V)$ as $$\label{GtauD'}
G_\tau^{\chi}[u](\varphi):= u_{(x't)}\big( \chi(x') G^{\tilde{\chi}}_\tau[\psi](x',t) \det Z_x(x',t)\big),$$ where $\tilde{\chi}$ is any element of $G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ equal to $1$ in the projection of the support of $\varphi$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ and $\psi(x,t):= \varphi(x,t)/\det Z_x(x,t).$
\[ConvGtauD’\] Note that, it follows immediately from and Proposition \[GtauFuncao\] that for every $\varphi \in G^{s}(V)$, $G^{\chi}_\tau[u](\varphi)$ converges to $(\chi u)(\varphi)$, consequently, $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $\chi u$ in ${\mathcal{D}}_s'(V).$
Now we will define $E_\tau^{\chi}[u]$ when $u \in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(V)$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ in $W$. To do so, we will follow the results and notations from Appendix \[AppendixB\], in particular, the definition of the trace of an ultradistribution . Given $t\in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0)$ we can consider $\iota_t: B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0) {\longrightarrow}V$ defined by $\iota_t(x)= (x,t)$. Since $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ it holds that $WF_{s}(u) \cap \{(x,t, 0, \theta), (x,t) \in W, \tau \neq 0\}$ is empty. This means that, for each $t\in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0)$ we can define $\iota_t^{\ast}u\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$, the trace of $u$ at $t$, by $$\begin{aligned}
(\iota_t^{\ast}u)( \varphi )&= \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{N}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigg(\mathcal{F}(\lambda u)(\eta) e^{it \theta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} \varphi(x) e^{i x \sigma} {\textnormal{d}}x\bigg) {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta, \quad \forall \varphi \in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda\in G^{s}_c(W)$ is identically $1$ on $V$ and $\mathcal{F}(\lambda u)$ stands for the Fourier transform of $\lambda u.$ In the Appendix \[AppendixB\], it is shown that $\iota^{\ast}_tu$ is an ultradistribution with the property that, for each fixed $\varphi\in G^{s}_c(W)$, the application $B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0) \ni t \mapsto \iota_t^{\ast}u(\varphi)$ is of class $G^{s}.$
Moving on, notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2}(\iota_0^{\ast}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle z- Z(x', 0)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',0) \big)\end{aligned}$$ is an entire function in $z\in {\mathbb{C}}^m$. So we can define $E_\tau^{\chi}[u]\in G^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EtauD'}
E_{\tau}^{\chi}[u](x,t):= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2}(\iota_0^{\ast}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', 0)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',0) \big).\end{aligned}$$ Also, when $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$, one can verify that $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ given in can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OutraGtau}
G^{\chi}_\tau[u](x,t)= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2}(\iota_t^{\ast}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',t) \big),\end{aligned}$$ in this case one can check that $G^{\chi}_\tau[u] \in G^s(V)$, see Proposition \[Leibiniz\].
Still assuming that $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$, we note that, for each $\varphi\in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))$, we can use and then to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NewGtauD'}
\int_{B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)} G^{\chi}_\tau[u](x,t) \varphi(x) {\textnormal{d}}x&= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2}\!\!\int_{B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)}(\iota_t^{\ast}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',t) \big)\varphi(x) {\textnormal{d}}x
\notag\\[4pt]
&= (\iota_{t}^{\ast} u)_{x'} \big( G^{\tilde{\chi}}_{\tau} [\psi](x',t) \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',t)\big)\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi(x,t)= \varphi(x)/\det Z_x(x,t)$ and $\tilde{\chi}\in G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ is equal to 1 on the support of $\varphi$. Thus, one can use Proposition \[GtauFuncao\] to obtain that for each fixed $t$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GdoTraco}
\lim_{\tau{\longrightarrow}\infty} \int_{B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)} G^{\chi}_\tau[u](x,t) \varphi(x) {\textnormal{d}}x &= (\iota_{t}^{\ast} u)_{x'} \big( \varphi(x')\chi(x') \big), \end{aligned}$$ for every $\varphi \in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)).$ Moving on, we will now work on the error term $R^{\chi}_\tau[u]=E_{\tau}^{\chi}[u]-G_{\tau}^{\chi}[u]$ when $u\in{\mathcal D}'_s(W)$ is a solution of $\mathcal L$. The goal is to obtain an expression analogous to .
Let $u\in{\mathcal D}_s'(W)$ be a solution of $\mathcal L$ and $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R}(0))$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fidentity}
R^{\chi}_{\tau}[u](x,t)= \int_{[0,t]} \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \sum_{j=1}^n (\iota^{\ast}_{t'}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t')\rangle^{2}}{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi(x') \det Z_x(x',t')\big){\textnormal{d}}t'_j \end{aligned}$$ for every $(x,t) \in V.$
To begin with, consider $\omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}$ to be the sequence of $m-$forms with $G^{s}$ coefficients defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}(x',t'):= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t')\rangle^{2}} G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x',t') \tilde{\chi}(x') {\textnormal{d}}Z(x',t') \end{aligned}$$ where ${\textnormal{d}}Z= {\textnormal{d}}Z_1\wedge \cdots\wedge {\textnormal{d}}Z_m$ and $\tilde{\chi}\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_R(0))$ is equal to $1$ in ${\mathrm{supp}}\chi$. Also, let us define $$\begin{aligned}
I_1^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t)&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m\times [0,t]} {\textnormal{d}}\omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}(x',t'),\\
I_2^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t)&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} \omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}(x',t),\ \text{and}\\
I_3^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t)&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} \omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}(x',0).\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to Stokes’ theorem it holds that $I_1^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t)= I_2^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t)- I_3^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(x,t).$ Now for any given $\varphi_1\in G^s_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_R(0))$, $\varphi_2\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}_R(0))$. Applying $I_2^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}$ to $\varphi_1 \otimes \varphi_2$ in the sense of ultradistributions we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I_2^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}} (\varphi_1 \otimes \varphi_2)= \int_{B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)} \mathcal{I}^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}_{\varphi_2}(x)\varphi_1(x) {\textnormal{d}}x, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}_{\varphi_2}(x):= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \int_{B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^m} e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t)\rangle^{2}} G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x', t) \tilde{\chi}(x') \varphi_2(t)\det Z_x(x',t) {\textnormal{d}}x' {\textnormal{d}}t.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, one can use to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{===}
\lim_{\tilde{\tau} {\longrightarrow}\infty} \mathcal I^{\tau, \tilde{\tau}}_{\varphi_2}(x)&= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \int_{B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0)}( \iota_t^{\ast} u)_{x'} \bigg(e^{-\tau \langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \varphi_2(t)\det Z_x(x',t) \bigg){\textnormal{d}}t \notag
\\ &= \int_{B^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}_R(0)} G_\tau^{\chi}[u](x,t) \varphi_2(t){\textnormal{d}}t.\end{aligned}$$ If follows from identity that $I^{\tau, \tilde{\tau}}_2$ converges to $G^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ in $\mathcal{D}_s'(V)$ as $\tilde{\tau} {\longrightarrow}\infty$. Analogously, $I_3^{\tau, \tilde{\tau}}$ converges to $E^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ in $\mathcal{D}_s'(V)$ as $\tilde{\tau} {\longrightarrow}\infty$. Therefore, all we have to do now is to focus on the next identity $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\chi}_\tau[u](\varphi)= \lim_{\tilde{\tau} {\longrightarrow}\infty} I_{1}^{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}(\varphi), \end{aligned}$$ for every $ \varphi \in G^{s}_c(V).$ Note that $ {\textnormal{d}}\omega_{\tau, \tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{d}}\omega_{\tau,\tilde{\tau}}^{(x,t)}(x',t')= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \sum_{j=1}^n e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t')\rangle^{2}} {\mathrm{L}}_j\big( G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x',t') \tilde{\chi}(x')\big) {\textnormal{d}}t'_j\wedge {\textnormal{d}}Z(x',t') \end{aligned}$$ and using the following equality $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{L}}_j \big(G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x',t')\tilde{\chi}(x')\big)= G^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x',t')\tilde{\chi}(x')+ G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[{\mathrm{L}}_j u](x',t')\tilde{\chi}(x')+ G^{\chi}_{\tilde{\tau}}[u](x',t'){\mathrm{L}}_j\tilde{\chi}(x') \end{aligned}$$ together with the convergence stated in we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\chi}_\tau[u](\varphi) = \int_V \int_{[0,t]} \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \sum_{j=1}^n (\iota^{\ast}_{t'}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', t')\rangle^{2}}{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi(x') \det Z_x(x',t')\big) \varphi(x,t){\textnormal{d}}t'_j {\textnormal{d}}x \wedge {\textnormal{d}}t\end{aligned}$$ since $u$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ and ${\mathrm{L}}_j \tilde{\chi}=0 $ over ${\mathrm{supp}}\chi$, as we wished to prove.
Now we can use to conclude the proof of Theorem \[BTAPPthm\], in $\mathcal{D}_s'$.
\[RtauD’\] Let $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R}(0))$, with $\chi=1$ in $B^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}_{R/2}(0)$ and $u \in \mathcal{D}_s'(W)$ a solution of $\mathcal{L}$. Then $R^{\chi}_\tau[u]$ converges to $0$ in $G^s(U)$ when $\tau {\longrightarrow}\infty$.
For every $j= 1, \ldots, n$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\varPhi_j(x,t,x',r)= e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', rt)\rangle^{2}}{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi(x')\det Z_x(x',r t) t_j.\end{aligned}$$ Note that there exist $\rho>0$ such that $\varPhi_j\in G^{s,\rho}(U\times B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)\times (0,1))$ for every $j=1, \ldots, n$. Now we differentiate $R^\chi_\tau[ u](x,t)$ using to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq;der-traco}
{\partial}_{x}^{\alpha} {\partial}_t^{\beta}R^{\chi}_{\tau}[u](x,t) = \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \sum_{j=1}^n \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{\gamma \leq \beta} {\beta \choose \gamma} {\partial}_t^{\beta-\gamma} (\iota^{\ast}_{rt}u)_{x'}\big( {\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_t^{\gamma} \big\{\varPhi_j(x, t, x',r)\big\}\big) {\textnormal{d}}r. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we can consider ${\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_t^{\gamma} \varPhi_j$ as an element of $G^{s, \tilde{\rho}}(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))$ in $x'\in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)$ (where $\tilde{\rho}$ could be any number greater than $\rho$, let us take $\tilde{\rho}=2^s\rho$) and we can apply estimate from Appendix \[AppA\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Traceinequality1}
{\partial}_t^{\beta-\gamma} (\iota^{\ast}_{st}u)_{x'}\big( {\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma}\big\{\varPhi_j(x, t, x',r)\big\}\big)
&\leq \|{\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma} \varPhi_j\|_{\tilde{\rho}, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}C \tilde{H}^{|\beta-\gamma|} |\beta-\gamma|!^{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Now for every $(x, t) \in U$ and each $r\in (0,1)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Traceinequality1'}
\|{\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma}\varPhi_j\|_{ \tilde{\rho}, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}&= \sup_{\theta\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^m} \sup_{x' \in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \frac{ \left| {\partial}_{x'}^{\theta}{\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma} \big\{\varPhi_j(x, t, x',r)\big\}\right|}{ \tilde{\rho}^{|\theta|}|\theta|!^{s}}
\notag\\
&= \sup_{\theta\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^m} \sup_{x' \in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \bigg\{\frac{ \left|{\partial}_{x'}^{\theta}{\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma} \big\{\varPhi_j(x, t, x',r)\big\}\right|}{ \rho^{|\theta|+|\alpha|+ |\gamma|} (|\theta|+ |\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^{s}} \frac{(|\theta|+ |\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^{s} \rho^{|\alpha|+ |\gamma|}}{2^{s|\theta|}|\theta|!^s}\bigg\}
\notag\\
&\leq \sup_{\theta\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^m} \sup_{x' \in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \bigg\{\frac{\left|{\partial}_{x'}^{\theta}{\partial}_x^{\alpha} {\partial}_{t}^{\gamma} \big\{\varPhi_j(x, t, x',r)\big\}\right|}{ \rho^{|\theta|+|\alpha|+ |\gamma|} (|\theta|+ |\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^{s}} \bigg\} (|\alpha|+ |\gamma|)!^{s} (2^s\rho)^{|\alpha|+ |\gamma|}
\notag\\
&\leq \|\varPhi_j\|_{\rho,U\times B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)\times (0,1)} (|\alpha|+ |\gamma|)!^{s} (2^s\rho)^{|\alpha|+ |\gamma|}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote by $\mathcal{U}=U\times B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)\times (0,1)$, then using , and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Est.RtauDerivative}
|{\partial}_{x}^{\alpha} {\partial}_t^{\beta}R^{\chi}_{\tau}[u](x,t)|&\leq \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{\gamma \leq \beta} {\beta \choose \gamma} \|\varPhi_j\|_{\rho,\mathcal{U}} (|\alpha|+|\gamma|)!^s (2\rho)^{|\alpha+ \gamma|}C \tilde{H}^{|\beta-\gamma|}|\beta-\gamma|!^{s}
\notag\\[4pt]
&\leq C \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2} \Big(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \|\varPhi_j\|_{\rho,\mathcal{U}}\Big) (2^s(2^s\rho+ \tilde{H}))^{|\alpha+ \beta|} (|\alpha|+|\beta|)!^{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Now let us estimate $\|\varPhi_j\|_{\rho,U\times B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)\times (0,1)}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:WritingDerivatives}
&{\partial}_{x}^{\alpha}{\partial}_t^{\beta} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma} {\partial}_{s}^{\sigma}\varPhi_j(x,t,x',r)=
\\[4pt]
&=\sum_{S_{\beta, \gamma, \sigma}} {\beta\choose \beta'} { \gamma \choose \gamma'} {\sigma \choose \sigma'} {\partial}_{x}^{\alpha}{\partial}_t^{\beta'} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma'} {\partial}_{r}^{\sigma'} e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', rt)\rangle^{2}} {\partial}_t^{\beta''} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma''} {\partial}_{r}^{\sigma''}\Lambda(t,x', r),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{\beta, \gamma, \sigma}= \{(\beta', \beta'', \gamma', \gamma'', \sigma', \sigma''): \beta'+ \beta''= \beta; \gamma'+ \gamma''= \gamma; \sigma'+ \sigma''=\sigma\}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(t,x', r)= \big({\mathrm{L}}_j\chi(x')\det Z_x(x',r t) t_j\big).\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:usandoFdB\] with $f(x,t,x',r)= \langle Z(x,t)-Z(x',rt)\rangle^2$ we see that there are constants $C'>0$ and $h>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expinequalityR}
\frac{\left| {\partial}_{x}^{\alpha}{\partial}_t^{\beta'} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma'} {\partial}_{r}^{\sigma'} e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', rt)\rangle^{2}}\right|}{ h^{|\alpha|+|\beta'|+|\gamma'|+|\sigma'|} (|\alpha|+|\beta'|+|\gamma'|+|\sigma'|)!^{s} }
&\leq C' \,e^{-\tau{\mathrm{Re}\,}\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt) \rangle^2+ s \tau^{1/s}}.\end{aligned}$$ Also, there is a constant $\tilde{h}>0$ such that $\Lambda \in G^{s, \tilde{h}}(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0)\times B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)\times (0,1))$ and so there is $\tilde{C}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequalityLambdaR}
|{\partial}_t^{\beta''} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma''} {\partial}_{r}^{\sigma''}\Lambda(t,x', r)|\leq \tilde{C} \tilde{h}^{|\beta''|+|\gamma''|+ |\sigma''|}(|\beta''|+|\gamma''|+ |\sigma''|)!^{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, using , , and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est.Der}
\frac{ |{\partial}_{x}^{\alpha}{\partial}_t^{\beta} {\partial}_{x'}^{\gamma} {\partial}_{r}^{\sigma}\varPhi_j(x,t,x',r)|}{\big[2\big( h+ \tilde{h}\big)\big]^{|\alpha|+|\beta|+|\gamma|+|\sigma|} (|\alpha|+|\beta|+|\gamma|+|\sigma|)!^{s} } &\leq C'\tilde{C} e^{-\tau{\mathrm{Re}\,}\langle Z(x,t)-Z(y,rt) \rangle^2+ s \tau^{1/s}}\notag \\
& \leq C'\tilde{C} e^{-\tau R/33+ s \tau^{1/s}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we can take $\rho= 2(h+\tilde{h})$, it follows from and that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ |{\partial}_{x}^{\alpha} {\partial}_t^{\beta}R^{\chi}_{\tau}[u](x,t)|}{(2(2\rho+ \tilde{H}))^{|\alpha|+ |\beta|} (|\alpha|+|\beta|)!^{s}} &\leq \frac{C C'\tilde{C}}{\pi^{\frac{m}{2}}} \tau^{\frac{m}{2}} e^{-\tau R/33+ s \tau^{1/s}}.\end{aligned}$$ Proving that $R_{\tau}^{\chi}[u]$ converges to $0$ in $G^{s}(U)$ as desired.
Approximate Poincaré Lemma \[AAPL\]
===================================
Let $\Omega$ be an open neighborhood of the origin in ${{\mathbb{R}}^N}$ and assume that we have a locally integrable structure in $\Omega$ where the orthogonal $\mathcal{L}^{\perp}$ is defined globally in $\Omega$ by the differential of $Z_1,\ldots, Z_m$ and denote $\lambda(x, t)= (Z_1(x,t), \ldots, Z_m(x,t),t_1, \ldots, t_n)$. We define $G^{s}(\Omega, \Lambda^{p,q})$ the space of all $(p,q)$-forms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Expressaopraf}
f(x,t)= \sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} f_{IJ}(x,t) {\textnormal{d}}Z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $f_{IJ}\in G^{s}(\Omega)$, where ${\textnormal{d}}Z_I = {\textnormal{d}}Z_{i_1} \wedge \ldots \wedge {\textnormal{d}}Z_{i_p}$ and ${\textnormal{d}}t_J= {\textnormal{d}}t_{j_1} \wedge \ldots \wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_{j_q}$ for $I=\{1\leq i_1< \cdots< i_p\leq m\}$ and $J=\{1\leq j_1< \cdots< j_q\leq n\}$. The notation $K=\{ 1\leq k_1< \cdots< k_s\leq r\}$ means that $K= \{k_1, \ldots, k_s\}\subset \{1, \ldots, r\}$ and that $k_1< \cdots< k_s$.
Let us define a linear differential operator $\mathbb{L}: G^{s}(\Omega, \Lambda^{p,q}) {\longrightarrow}G^{s}(\Omega, \Lambda^{p,q+1})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{L}f &= \sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} \sum_{j=1}^{n} {\mathrm{L}}_j f_{IJ} {\textnormal{d}}t_j\wedge{\textnormal{d}}Z_I\wedge{\textnormal{d}}t_J, \end{aligned}$$ for every $ f\in G^{s}(\Omega, \Lambda^{p,q}).$ The Gevrey local solvability of $\mathbb{L}$ in degree $(p,q)$ at a point $p_0\in \Omega$ here means that there is $\Omega_0$ a neighborhood of $p_0$ such that for any other neighborhood $\Omega_1$ of $p_0$ with $\Omega_1\subset \Omega_0$, we can find a neighborhood $\Omega_2$ of $p_0$ such that $\Omega_2\subset \Omega_1$ and for any $f\in G^{s}(\Omega_1,\Lambda^{p,q})$ such that $\mathbb{L}f=0$ there is $g \in G^{s}(\Omega_2, \Lambda^{p,q-1})$ such that $\mathbb{L}g= f$ in $\Omega_2$.
We recall that the approximate Poincaré lemma is a result concerning approximate solvability of $\mathbb{L}$. Before we actually enunciate and prove this result let us fix more notation and recall an important trick. Let $J=\{1\leq j_1< \cdots< j_q\leq n\}$ and $j\in \{1, \ldots, n\}\setminus J$ and we define $\epsilon(j, J)$ to be the sign of permutations to ordenate the $q+1$-form ${\textnormal{d}}t_j \wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J$, i.e, $\epsilon(j, J)$ is $1$ if the number of permutation is even and $-1$ if this number is odd.
Assume that $q\geq 2$ and define, for any $J$ with $|J|=q$, the $q-1$-form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_J= \sum_{j\in J} \epsilon(j, J\setminus \{j\}) t_j {\textnormal{d}}t_{J\setminus\{{j}\}},\end{aligned}$$ and, when $q=1$, $\omega_J= t_J$.
Now we follow [@treves_has], and, for any $q$-form $$\begin{aligned}
F= \sum_{|J|=q} F_J {\textnormal{d}}t_J,\end{aligned}$$ we define an operator for $q$-forms to $q-1$-forms $$\begin{aligned}
K^{(q)}F= \sum_{|J|=q} \Big\{\int_0^{1} F_J(\sigma t)\sigma^{q-1}{\textnormal{d}}\sigma\Big\} \omega_J.\end{aligned}$$ This operator satisfies the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{formulamagica}
F= {\textnormal{d}}_t K^{q}F+ K^{(q+1)} {\textnormal{d}}_t F.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $W$ and $V$ are as in the Baouendi-Treves approximation formula, i.e., $V= B_{R}^{{{\mathbb{R}}^m}}(0)\times B_{R}^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}(0)$, $V\subset \subset W\subset \subset\Omega$ and such that holds and let $U= B_{R/2}^{{{\mathbb{R}}^m}}(0)\times B_{R}^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}(0)$. For every $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ and $g\in G^s(\Omega)$ we define $$\label{NovaeqpraG}
\mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[g](z,t): = \Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\!\! \int e^{-\tau \langle z-Z(x',t)\rangle^2} \chi(x')g(x', t) \, {\rm det} Z_x(x',t) {\textnormal{d}}x'.$$ Note that $\mathcal{G}_{\tau}^{\chi}[g](Z(x,t), t)= G^{\chi}_\tau[g](x,t)$. If $f$ is a $(p,q)$-form as in we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ExpressaopraGf}
\mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau [f](z,t)= \sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} \mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[f_{IJ}](z,t){\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J,\end{aligned}$$ then $\lambda^{\ast}(\mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau [f])(x,t)= G^{\chi}_\tau [f](x,t)$ where $G^{\chi}_\tau [f]$ is defined by allowing $G^{\chi}_\tau$ acts coefficientwise.
We now can define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}_\tau^{(p,q)} [f,\chi](z,t)&= (-1)^{p} K^{(q)} \mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau[f](z,t)\\
&= (-1)^{p}\sum_{|I|=p} \sum_{|J|=q} \Big\{ \int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[f_{IJ}](z,\sigma t)\sigma^{q-1} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma\Big\} {\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge \omega_J\end{aligned}$$ It follows from that we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{segundaformulamagica}
\mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau[f]= (-1)^{p} {\textnormal{d}}_{t}[ K^{(q)} \mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi} [f]]+ (-1)^{p} K^{(q+1)} {\textnormal{d}}_t \mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau[f].\end{aligned}$$
Assume $0\leq p\leq m, 1\leq q\leq n.$ There are open neighborhoods of the origin, $W$ and $U$ as above, such that given any $f\in G^{s}(\overline{W}; \Lambda^{p,q})$ that is $\mathbb{L}$-closed and any $\chi\in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ that is equal to $1$ in $B_{R/2}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
f= \lim_{\tau {\longrightarrow}\infty} \mathbb{L} \big(\lambda^{\ast}\mathcal{K}_\tau^{(p,q)} [f,\chi]\big)
\end{aligned}$$ in $G^{s}(U,\Lambda^{p,q})$.
From , it follows that it is enough to prove that $ K^{(q+1)} {\textnormal{d}}_t \mathcal{G}^{\chi}_\tau[f]$ converges to $0$ in $G^{s}(V,\Lambda^{p,q})$, note that $\mathbb{L} \lambda^{\ast}= \lambda^{\ast} {\textnormal{d}}_t$. Now we use that $$\begin{aligned}
{\textnormal{d}}_t \mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[f](z,t)= \sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} \sum_{j=1}^{n}\Big( \mathcal{G}_\tau^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}[f_{IJ}](z,t)+\mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[{\mathrm{L}}_jf_{IJ}](z,t)\Big) {\textnormal{d}}t_j\wedge {\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $f$ is $\mathbb{L}$-closed it follows, for every $|I|=p$ and every $|K|=q+1$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\frac\tau{\pi}\Big)^{\tfrac m2}\!\! \int e^{-\tau \langle z-Z(x',t)\rangle^2} \chi(x')\sum_{\substack{K=J\cup\{j\}\\|J|=q}} \epsilon(j,J) {\mathrm{L}}_j f_{IJ}(x', t) \, {\rm det} Z_x(x',t) {\textnormal{d}}x'= 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} \sum_{j=1}^{n}\mathcal{G}_\tau^{\chi}[{\mathrm{L}}_jf_{IJ}](z,t) {\textnormal{d}}t_j\wedge {\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore all we need to show is that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{|I|=p}\sum_{|J|=q} \sum_{j=1}^{n}\lambda^{\ast}K^{(q+1)} \Big(\mathcal{G}_\tau^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}[f_{IJ}] {\textnormal{d}}t_j\wedge {\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J\Big)(x,t) {\longrightarrow}0 \textrm{ in } G^s(U; \Lambda^{p,q}).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ultimaequacao}
\lambda^{\ast}K^{(q+1)} \Big(\mathcal{G}_\tau^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}[f_{IJ}] {\textnormal{d}}t_j\wedge {\textnormal{d}}z_I\wedge {\textnormal{d}}t_J\Big)(x,t)= (-1)^{p}\Big( \int_{0}^{1}\mathcal{G}_\tau^{{\mathrm{L}}_j\chi}[f_{IJ}](Z(x,t),\sigma t)\sigma^{q} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma\Big) {\textnormal{d}}Z_I\wedge \omega_J
\end{aligned}$$ one can we use the same argument to prove that $R^{\chi}_\tau[ u](x,t)$ given by converges to $0$ in $G^{s}(U)$ to conclude that coefficient of the form in the left hand side of converges to $0$ in $G^{s}(U)$.
Ultradistributions vanishing on maximally real submanifolds \[AUVOMRS\]
=======================================================================
Let $\Omega$ an open subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}^N}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ be a locally integrable structure of corank $m$. Let $\Sigma\subset \Omega$ be an embedded Gevrey submanifold of dimension $m$, i.e., the defining functions of $\Sigma$ are Gevrey functions. We recall that $\Sigma$ is maximally real with respect to $\mathcal{L}$ if for every $p\in \Sigma$, any nonvanishing section of $\mathcal{L}$ defined in a neighborhood of $p$ is transversal to $\Sigma$ at $p.$
Let $\Sigma$ be an embedded submanifold in $\Omega$ maximally real with respect to $\mathcal{L}$. If $u\in \mathcal{D}'_s(\Omega)$ is a solution of $\mathcal{L}$ and $u|_{\Sigma}=0$, then $u$ vanishes in a neighborhood of $\Sigma.$
It is enough to prove that every $p\in \Sigma$ has a neighborhood where $u$ vanishes. Fix $p\in \Sigma$ so that we can find local coordinates $(x,t)$ centered at $p$ and $Z_1, \ldots, Z_m$ such that properties and hold and $\Sigma=\{(x, 0)\}$ in a neighborhood of $p$ as proved in [@EaGr03].
Now thanks to the Baouendi-Treves approximation formula there is $U$ a neighborhood of $p$ where $u$ is the limit of $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\tau}^{\chi}[u](x,t)= \bigg(\frac{\tau}{\pi}\bigg)^{\tfrac m2}(\iota_0^{\ast}u)_{x'}\big( e^{-\tau\langle Z(x,t)- Z(x', 0)\rangle^{2}} \chi(x') \det Z_x(x',0) \big).\end{aligned}$$
Since $\Sigma= \{(x,0)\}$, $u|_{\Sigma}=0$ means that $\iota_{0}^{\ast} u=u|_{\Sigma}=0$. Therefore, $ E_{\tau}^{\chi}[u](x,t)$ vanishes in a neighborhood of $p$ and so does $u$.
Baouendi-Treves theorem in Denjoy-Carleman classes {#BTDC}
==================================================
One can use the ideas of Section \[ap\] to proof of the Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem for more general classes of ultradifferentiable functions. More precisely, consider the strongly non-quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman classes of Roumieu type associated with a non-decreasing sequence of positive numbers $(M_p)_{p\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+}$ satisfying:
- , $$\label{P1}
M_0=M_1=1.$$
- $$\label{logconvex}
\frac{M_j}{M_{j-1}} \leq \frac{M_{j+1}}{M_j} , \qquad j=1,2,3,\ldots.$$
- There exist $A, \,H>0$ such that $$\label{M2'}
M_{j+k}\leq A H^{j+k} M_j M_k, \qquad\forall\, j,k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+.$$
- there exist a constant $A>0$ such that $$\label{2}
\sum_{j=p+1}^\infty \frac{M_{j-1}}{M_j}<A p\frac{M_p}{M_{p+1}}, \qquad p=1,2,3,\ldots$$
We refer to [@Ko] for more details about these classes. The techniques used strongly the fact that $G^s(\overline{V})$ and $G^s(\overline{V}; {\mathrm{M}}, {\mathrm{L}})$ are isomorphic as topological spaces. This result can be adapted to strongly non-quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman classes. With this equality of topological spaces proved it is not difficult to see that with minor changes in our proof the Baouendi-Treves approximation theorem also holds for these spaces of strongly non-quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman functions and ultradistributions.
Faà di Bruno formula {#AppA}
====================
Next we recall the Faà di Bruno generalized formula.
\[denerlzdibruno\] Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{p}$ and $U\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ open subsets. Let $f\in {C^{\infty}}(\Omega)$ and $g\in {C^{\infty}}(U; {\mathbb{R}}^{p})$ such that $g(U)\subset \Omega$ and denote by $h$ the composition $f\circ g$. For all $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^{n}\setminus\{0\}$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}^{\alpha} h(x)= \sum_{\mathcal{S_{\alpha}}} {\partial}^{\kappa} f(g(x))\alpha! \frac{ \big({\partial}^{\delta_1} g(x)\big)^{\beta_1}}{\beta_1! \delta_1!^{|\beta_1|}} \cdots \frac{ \big({\partial}^{\delta_\ell} g(x)\big)^{\beta_\ell}}{\beta_\ell! \delta_\ell!^{|\beta_\ell|}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa= \beta_1 + \cdots +\beta_\ell$ and $\mathcal{S}_\alpha$ is the set of all $\{\delta_1, \ldots, \delta_\ell\}$ distinct elements of $\big( {\mathbb{Z}}_+^{n}\setminus\{0\}\big)^{\ell}$ and all $(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_\ell)\in \big({\mathbb{Z}}^{p}_+\setminus\{0\}\big)^{\ell}$, $\ell =1, 2, 3, \ldots, $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha= \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} |\beta_j|\delta_j.\end{aligned}$$
We will also need the following result from [@bierstonemilman]:
\[lem:fromBM\] Given $\alpha\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^{n}\setminus\{0\}$ and $p \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+\setminus\{0\}$ let $\mathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ the set defined in the Theorem \[denerlzdibruno\]. For every $(\beta_1, \dots , \beta_{\ell};\delta_1, \dots , \delta_\ell) \in \mathcal{S}_\alpha$, we have $$\label{sk=r}
|\kappa|!^{t}\, |\delta_1|!^{t \beta_1} \ldots |\delta_\ell|!^{t\beta_\ell} \leq |\alpha|!^{t}$$ for every $t>0$ and, for every positive constant $A$, there are constants $L,D>0$, depending only on $A$, $n$ and $p$, such that $$\sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha} \frac{\kappa!}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! } A^{|\kappa|} \le LD^{|\alpha|}.$$
\[lem:usandoFdB\] Let $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^m$ be an open set, $f\in G^{s}(\Omega)$ and $\tau>1$ is a parameter. Then, for each compact subset $K \subset \Omega$ there exist constants $C,h>0$ such that and $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^m$, it holds $$\label{est:usandoFdB}
\sup_{(x, y)\in K}\left|\partial_x^{\alpha} \! \left\{ e^{\tau f(x,y)} \right\} \right|
\leq C h^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^s \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)+ s \tau^{1/s}}.$$
It is enough to prove for $\theta\in (0,1]$. Using Theorem \[denerlzdibruno\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}^{\alpha} \left\{ e^{\tau f(x,y)} \right\}= \sum_{\mathcal{S_{\alpha}}} e^{\tau f(x,y)}\alpha! \frac{\tau \big({\partial}^{\delta_1} f(x,y)\big)^{\beta_1}}{\beta_1! \delta_1!^{\beta_1}} \cdots \frac{\tau \big({\partial}^{\delta_\ell} f(x,y)\big)^{\beta_\ell}}{\beta_\ell! \delta_\ell!^{\beta_\ell}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $f$ is in $G^s(\Omega)$ there exist constants $\tilde{C},\tilde{h}>0$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\partial_x^{\alpha} \! \left\{ e^{\tau f(x,y)} \right\} \right| &\leq \alpha! \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{\tau^{\kappa}}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! }
\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \frac{ \big| \partial^{\delta_j}_x\left\{f(x,y)\right\}\big|^{\beta_j}}{\delta_j!^{\beta_j}} \\[5pt]
&\leq \alpha! \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{\tau^{\kappa}}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! }
\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \frac{ \big( \tilde{C}\tilde{h}^{|\delta_j|} \delta_j!^s\big)^{\beta_j}}{\delta_j!^{\beta_j}}
\\[5pt]
&= \tilde{h}^{|\alpha|} \alpha! \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{(\tilde{C}\tau)^{\kappa}}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! }
\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \delta_j!^{(s-1)|\beta_j|}
\\[5pt]
&\leq \tilde{h}^{|\alpha|} \alpha! \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{(\tilde{C} \tau)^{\kappa}}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! } \bigg(\frac{|\alpha|!}{ \kappa!}\bigg)^{s-1} \\
&\leq \tilde{h}^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^{s} \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{\tilde{C}^{|\kappa|}\kappa!}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! } \bigg(\frac{\tau^{\kappa/s}}{ \kappa!}\bigg)^{s} \\
&\leq \tilde{h}^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^{s} \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)+s \tau^{1/s}} \! \sum_{\mathcal{S}_\alpha}
\frac{\kappa!}{\beta_1! \dots \beta_\ell! }\tilde{C}^{|\kappa|}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we use Lemma \[lem:fromBM\] to find constants $C$ and $h$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\partial_x^{\alpha} \! \left\{ e^{\tau f(x,y)} \right\} \right| \leq Ch^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^{s} \,e^{\tau {\mathrm{Re}\,}f(x,y)+s \tau^{1/s}},\end{aligned}$$ as we wished to prove.
Trace of ultradistributions {#AppendixB}
===========================
Let $u\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(W)$ be an ultradistribution such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WFStraco}
WF_{s}(u) \cap \big\{(x,t, 0, \theta), (x,t) \in W, \theta \neq 0\big\}= \emptyset. \end{aligned}$$
We will see that condition is enough to define the trace of $u$ at $t$, $\iota_t^{\ast}u\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TRACE}
(\iota_t^{\ast}u)( \varphi )&= \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{N}} \int \mathcal{F}(\lambda u)(\sigma,\theta) e^{it \theta} \bigg(\int \varphi(x) e^{i x \sigma} {\textnormal{d}}x\bigg) {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta, \quad \forall \varphi \in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda\in G^{s}_c(W)$ is equal to $1$ in $V$ and $\mathcal{F}(\lambda u)$ stands for the Fourier transform of $\lambda u$. Note that, when $u\in\mathcal{D}'(W)$, this is the classical definition of trace of a distribution, see [@Hor90a Section 8].
\[ProB1\] Let $u\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(W)$ be an ultradistribution such that is valid then $\iota_{t}^{\ast} u$ given by is in ${\mathcal{D}}_s'(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$. Moreover, for each fixed $\varphi \in G^{s}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$ the function $B^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}_R(0) \ni t \mapsto \iota_{t}^{\ast}u(\varphi)$ is in $G^{s}(B^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}_R(0))$.
Since $WF_{s}(u)$ and $\{(x,t, 0, \theta), (x,t) \in {\mathrm{supp}}\lambda, \theta \neq 0\}$ are disjoint closed cones, there is $\rho>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
WF_{s}(u) \cap \big\{(x,t, \sigma, \theta), (x,t) \in {\mathrm{supp}}\lambda,\theta \neq 0, \textrm{ and } |\sigma|\leq \rho |\theta|\big\}= \emptyset.\end{aligned}$$ Let $A_{1}= \{ (\sigma, \theta): |\sigma|\leq \rho|\theta|\}$ and $A_{2}= {{\mathbb{R}}^N}\setminus A_{1}.$ Thus, $$\label{traco11}
{\partial}_{t}^{\beta}(\iota_{t}^{\ast} u)(\varphi)= I_1+ I_2$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{traco12}
I_k= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{N}}\int_{A_{k}} \mathcal{F}(\lambda u)(\sigma,\theta) (i\theta)^{\beta} e^{it \theta} \bigg(\int \varphi(x) e^{i x \sigma} {\textnormal{d}}x\bigg) {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta, \quad k=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ Then, there are $h>0$ and $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{traco21}
|\mathcal{F}(\lambda u)(\sigma, \theta)|\leq C e^{-h |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}}, \end{aligned}$$ for every $ (\sigma, \theta) \in A_{1}$ and for every $\epsilon>0$ there exist a positive constant $C_\epsilon$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estA2}
|\mathcal{F}(\lambda u) (\sigma, \theta)|\leq C_\epsilon e^{\epsilon |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}}, \end{aligned}$$ for every $(\sigma, \theta) \in A_{2}.$ Moving on, assume that $\varphi \in G^{s,r}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$, therefore there is a constant $\tilde{C}$ depending only on $m$ and $R$ and $a$ depending only on $\rho,r$ and $s$ (see inequality below) such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fourierestimate}
|\mathcal{F}\varphi(\sigma)|&\leq \tilde{C} \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}e^{-\frac{s}{r^{1/s}}|\sigma|^{1/s}}\nonumber \\
&\leq \tilde{C} \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}e^{-a |(\sigma,\theta)|^{1/s}}, \end{aligned}$$ for every $(\sigma, \theta) \in A_{2}$. In one hand, if we choose $\tilde{h}= h^{-s}(2s)^s $ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{termI1}
|I_1| &\leq \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \frac{C \tilde{C}}{(2\pi)^{N}} \int_{A_{1}} |\theta|^{|\beta|} e^{-h |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \tilde{h}^{|\beta|} |\beta|!^s \frac{C \tilde{C}}{(2\pi)^{N}} \int_{A_{1}} \frac{|(\sigma,\theta)|^{|\beta|}}{\tilde{h}^{|\beta|}|\beta|!^{s}} e^{-h |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta\nonumber\\&\leq \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \tilde{h}^{|\beta|} |\beta|!^s \frac{C \tilde{C}}{(2\pi)^{N}} \int_{A_{1}} e^{- \frac{h}{2} |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we can choose $\epsilon<a/2$ and $\tilde{a}= a^{-s}(4s)^s$ to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{termI2}
|I_2|&\leq \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}\frac{C_\epsilon \tilde{C} }{(2\pi)^{N}} \int_{A_2} |\theta|^{|\beta|} e^{-\frac{a}{2} |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} \tilde{a}^{|\beta|}|\beta|!^s\frac{C_\epsilon \tilde{C} }{(2\pi)^{N}} \int_{A_2} e^{-\frac{a}{4} |(\sigma, \theta)|^{1/s}} {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Taking $b= \max\{ \tilde{a}, \tilde{h}\}$ we conclude that there is $C'>0$ such that then it holds $$\label{the-end}
|{\partial}_t^{\beta}(\iota_t^{\ast}u)(\varphi)|\leq C'\|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} b^{|\beta|}|\beta|!^s .$$ This means that, if $t\in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0)$ is fixed, then ${\partial}_t^{\beta}(\iota_t^{\ast}u)$ is a continuous linear functional in $ G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0))$, i.e., ${\partial}_t^{\beta}(\iota_t^{\ast}u) \in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^m}(0))$. Moreover if $\varphi$ is fixed, then shows that $(\iota_t^{\ast} u)(\varphi) \in G^{s}(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0))$.
\[Leibiniz\] Let $u\in {\mathcal{D}}_s'(W)$ be an ultradistribution such that is valid and $\psi\in G^s(W)$ then the function $B^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}_R(0) \ni t \mapsto \iota_{t}^{\ast}u(\varphi(\cdot,t))$ is in $G^{s}(B^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}_R(0))$ and the following Leibniz formula holds $${\partial}_t^{\beta}\big\{(\iota_t^{\ast}u)_x(\varphi(x,t))\big\} = \sum_{\alpha\le\beta} {\beta\choose\alpha} \big({\partial}_t^{\alpha}(\iota_t^{\ast}u)\big)_x({\partial}_t^{\beta-\alpha}\varphi(x,t)).$$
It follows from the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[ProB1\].
Note that if $\varphi\in G^{s,r}_c(B_R^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)),$ then $$\begin{aligned}
|\xi^{\alpha} \mathcal{F}\varphi(\xi)|&\leq \big| \int \big(D_{x}^{\alpha}\varphi(x)\big) e^{i x\xi} {\textnormal{d}}x\big|\\
& \leq \mu(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)) \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} r^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^s,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ stands for the Lebesgue measure in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$. Moreover, since there exist a positive constant $C_m$ depending only of the dimension $m$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{F}\varphi(\xi)| & \leq C_m \mu(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)) \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)}\frac{ r^{|\alpha|} |\alpha|!^{s}}{ |\xi|^{|\alpha|}},\quad \xi\ne0
\end{aligned}$$ holds for every $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+^{m}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DesigualdadePraFourier}
|\mathcal{F}\varphi(\xi)| & \leq C_m\mu(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)) \|\varphi\|_{r, B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}}(0)} e^{- \frac{s}{r^{1/s}}|\xi|^{1/s}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Final Remark: definition of the restriction
-------------------------------------------
Observe that $\iota_t^{\ast} u$ in $V$ is independent of the choice of $\lambda$ in the following way: for any $\varphi\in G^s_c(B_{R}^{{{\mathbb{R}}^m}}(0))$ and any $t \in B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(0)$, function $\iota_t^{\ast} u(\varphi)$ does not dependent of the choice of $\lambda$ in $G^{s}_c(W)$ as long as $\lambda=1$ in $V$. To see use that if $\psi \in G^{s}_c(B_{R}^{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}(0))$, then $$\begin{aligned}
u(\psi\otimes \varphi)&= (\lambda u) (\psi\otimes \varphi)\\
&=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{N}}\int \mathcal{F}(\lambda u)(\sigma,\theta) \bigg(\int e^{it \theta}\Psi(t) {\textnormal{d}}t\bigg) \bigg(\int \varphi(x) e^{i x \sigma} {\textnormal{d}}x\bigg) {\textnormal{d}}\sigma {\textnormal{d}}\theta\\
&= \int (\iota^{\ast}_t u)(\varphi) \psi(t){\textnormal{d}}t.\end{aligned}$$ The equality above implies that the function $t\mapsto \iota_t^{\ast}u(\varphi)$ is uniquely determined in $B_R^{{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}}(0)$.
[^1]: It is easy to check that their proofs also work in the $G^s$-category.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The aim of the Yakutsk array enhancement project is to create an instrument to study the highest-energy galactic cosmic rays (CRs) – their sources, energy spectrum, and mass composition. Additionally, there will be unique capabilities for investigations in the transition region between galactic and extragalactic components of CRs.
Using the well-developed imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope technique adapted to the energy region $E>10^{15}$ eV, we plan to measure the longitudinal structure parameters of the shower, e.g., angular and temporal distributions of the Cherenkov signal related to $X_{max}$ and the mass composition of CRs.
The main advantages of the Yakutsk array, such as its multi-component measurements of extensive air showers, and model-independent CR energy estimation based on Cherenkov light measurements, will be inherited by the instrument to be created.
author:
- 'A. A. Ivanov, S. P. Knurenko, Z. E. Petrov, M. I. Pravdin, and I. Ye. Sleptsov'
title: 'Enhancement of the Yakutsk array by atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes to study cosmic rays above $10^{15}$ eV'
---
The cosmic ray (CR) astrophysics behind extensive air shower (EAS) measurements in the energy range $E>10^{14}$ eV pose several problems of great interest that stimulate further in-depth research. In addition to general objectives such as CR energy spectrum, mass composition, and sources, some specific questions should be addressed in the immediate future. For example: What is the maximum energy of supernova remnant (SNR) accelerators? Is the ’knee’ of CR spectrum due to the diffusion of particles in magnetic fields or to the upper limit of galactic sources? Where is the transition region between galactic and extragalactic components of CRs?
Some theoretical predictions may soon be verified experimentally. In particular, it is shown in nonlinear kinetic theory of CR acceleration in SNRs that the maximum energy of nuclei is proportional to their charge [@Shock]. Thus, the knee in the energy spectrum is the result of the contribution of progressively heavier species, and galactic CRs are dominated by iron-group nuclei at $E\sim10^{17}$ eV. An alternative model is proposed by @SSM in which a recent nearby SNR accelerates CRs resulting in rather different structure in the energy spectrum, detectable as well.
As an initial step in enhancement of CR detecting possibilities, the Yakutsk array was recently equipped with a pinhole camera with a row of photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) in the rear as a prototype detector of the angular distribution of Cherenkov light induced by showers in the atmosphere [@PinHole]. A conclusion from the measurements was that angular and temporal characteristics of the signal can be used to investigate longitudinal shower profile in the atmosphere.
Developing these efforts further, we plan to use new device consisting of multi-anode PMT at the focus of a spherical mirror as a Cherenkov light detector embedded in the array.
![Plan of the Yakutsk array. Captions: open circles = soft component detectors; filled circles = Cherenkov light detectors; squares = muon detectors. Three stations at the bottom (indicated by crosses) were destroyed by a flood in 2010.[]{data-label="fig:Map"}](f01){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Present status of the Yakutsk array, and the next-step astrophysical goals
==========================================================================
At present, the Yakutsk array is measuring the soft component of EAS with 58 stations, muons with 6 underground detectors, and Cherenkov light with 48 PMTs. All detectors are irregularly distributed within a 10 km$^2$ array area (Fig. \[fig:Map\]); the target energy range of investigations is $10^{15}$ eV to $10^{20}$ eV. More technical details and physical results are given in @Mono [@CRIS; @NJP; @APJ] and @site.
Our next task is to modernize the array in order to obtain a precise instrument capable of measuring the highest-energy galactic CRs – their sources, energy spectrum, and mass composition. Related to this, we also aim to study a transition region between galactic and extragalactic components of CRs where some irregularities in spectrum and composition may be revealed.
A crucial clue in this approach is the accurate determination of the mass composition of CRs, which is a weak point of existing giant EAS arrays. In this context we plan to adapt the well-known atmospheric Cherenkov telescope technique [e.g., @IACT] to measure the angular and temporal structure of the signal connected to EAS longitudinal profiles above $E=10^{15}$ eV.
The idea is not to concentrate on discriminating the gamma-ray initiated showers from the hadronic showers; instead, all showers from different primary particles will be detected by the wide field of view (FoV) telescopes in coincidence with the array detectors. The angular and temporal parameters of showers measured will then be analyzed to identify EAS primary particles. Longitudinal shower profile measurements can also be used to estimate some hadronic interaction parameters [@WeiHai].
Experimental arguments in elucidating the origin of the knee and ankle in CR spectrum will significantly strengthen due to the estimation of mass composition in the energy range relevant. Existing models (e.g., listed in Introduction) are very different in composition expected around the knee and ankle, so the estimation of the average mass of the primaries in addition to the improved measurement of the sharpness of the knee/ankle should allow us to discriminate between models.
Another important step in the adaptation is the essential reduction in the size and cost of the telescope. This is possible through increased threshold energy because the total number of Cherenkov photons emitted by EAS relativistic electrons is proportional to the shower energy. If we compare one of the High-Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS) telescopes (diameter $D=13$ m, $E_{thr}=10^{11}$ eV /www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/HESS.shtml/) with that reduced to $D=13$ cm, then the number of Cherenkov photons detected from EAS is comparable at $E>10^{15}$ eV. Hence, in our energy range, the set of Cherenkov telescopes with $D=13$ cm is approximately equivalent to HESS functioning in the energy range $E>10^{11}$ eV; this is, of course, excepting the event rate: CR intensity ratio in two energy intervals is $J(E>10^{15})/J(E>10^{11})=10^{-4\kappa}=1.6\times10^{-7}$, where $\kappa\simeq1.7$ is the integral spectrum index.
Modeling the measurement of EAS longitudinal structure parameters with Cherenkov telescopes
===========================================================================================
It is well known that the angular and temporal structure of Cherenkov light emitted by EAS can be used to infer the longitudinal development parameters of a shower [@Zatsepin; @Fomin; @Prosin]. The angular distribution of a Cherenkov signal from EAS was calculated by @Zatsepin, where it was assumed that the angular distribution of emitted photons is determined by that of electrons in the shower. @Fomin then proposed using the pulse shape of the Cherenkov signal, namely the pulse width, to indicate the shower maximum position $X_{max}$ in the atmosphere.
Experimental measurements of the Cherenkov signal pulse shape were performed in Yakutsk in 1973–1979. The pulse width was measured in the core distance interval (100,800) m for the shower size $1.9\times10^7<N<1.3\times10^8$ [@Mono]. The results were used not only to estimate $X_{max}$, but attempts were also made to evaluate the EAS cascade curve at energies around $10^{17}$ eV [@Prosin; @Knrnk]. Unfortunately, the angular and temporal resolutions of optical instruments and data-acquisition systems at that time were not sufficient to obtain the accuracy required to distinguish EAS primaries and/or nuclear interaction models.
To verify the ability of the Cherenkov telescope to discriminate angular and temporal profiles of signals from showers initiated by primary nuclei and photons at energies above $10^{15}$ eV, we modeled the process. The same assumptions as in @Mono are used to describe the Cherenkov light emission in atmosphere by the vertical EAS: The energy spectrum of electrons is taken at $s=1$ (shower maximum); the spatial distribution of electrons is neglected; angular distributions of electrons and Cherenkov photons are Gaussian; and the time of flight to detector for photons is given by $t=\frac{n}{c}\sqrt{h^2+R^2}-h/c$, where $n$ is the refraction coefficient of air, $h$ is height, and $R$ is axis distance.
In this crude approximation the number of photons is given by the integral of the EAS cascade curve multiplied by the function giving the contribution of an electron to the Cherenkov light flux at a given $R$ and depth in the atmosphere [@Mono]. As the cascade curve, we used the gamma-distribution approximation of the HiRes results [@HiRes]. In the energy range $(10^{15},10^{17})$ eV beyond the reach of HiRes, we used neXus2 model simulation results for showers initiated by $P, Fe$ [@neXus]. A difference in $X_{max}(E)$ of showers from proton and iron nuclei in this model was also employed as the input parameter for the cascade curve from HiRes. For the $\gamma$-initiated showers, the Greisen formula was used.
![Angular spread of EAS Cherenkov light in the detector at $R=800$ m from the axis. Vertical showers ($E=10^{15}$ eV) are shown. The areas within dotted curves represent the intrinsic fluctuations of the showers.[]{data-label="fig:Angular"}](f02){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:Angular\] the angular distribution of Cherenkov light in the detector at $R=800$ m is shown. The EAS primaries are $P, Fe$, and $\gamma$ with $E=10^{15}$ eV. It appears from this that the angular resolution $\sim 1^0$ of the Cherenkov telescope is sufficient to distinguish the primaries ($E>10^{15}$ eV), at least the $\gamma$-quanta from the nuclei, based on the angular distribution of the signal alone.
Another parameter that has been suggested by the pioneers is the temporal characteristic of the Cherenkov signal from EAS. In Fig. \[fig:Temporal\] the results of our simulations are shown. In this case the approximation used is too rough, so that the half width of the signal is overestimated by $\sim40\%$ in comparison with the actual value measured in Yakutsk [@Mono] and with more precise simulations [e.g., @Klmkv]. Nevertheless, assuming that the overestimation is independent of the primary particle type (diminishing the widths of the signals to 0.7 in all three cases), we can conclude that the time resolution $\delta t<10$ ns is sufficient to distinguish the primaries at $E>10^{15}$ eV.
Shower fluctuations characterized by $\sigma_{Xmax}=67/22/47$ g/cm$^2$, for $P/Fe/\gamma$ primaries respectively, are shown by the dotted curves in Figs \[fig:Angular\], \[fig:Temporal\]. Conclusions about the possibility to distinguish primaries do not weaken because of fluctuations less than the differences caused by the primaries. More reliable results will be achieved by combining both the angular and the temporal measurements in one experiment.
Preliminary Cherenkov telescope design, and enhancement of the Yakutsk array
============================================================================
Recent developments in the PMT industry have made it possible to dramatically reduce the size of Cherenkov telescopes. For example, the imaging camera for the HESS telescope consists of 960 PMTs each with a photocathode area of $\sim16$ cm$^2$ (pixel size). Proportionally reducing the area of mirror and camera 10$^4$ times, we should have a pixel size of $\sim0.4\times0.4$ mm$^2$ for the same angular resolution.
A newly developed semiconductor light-sensor, the so-called Geiger-mode avalanche photodiode (G-APD, or ’silicon PMT’), typically has a sensitive area of $\sim1\times 1$ mm$^2$ covered by 100 to 10$^4$ cells. This is larger than we need, but on the other hand, the mirror diameter can be greater than 13 cm. Application of this type of light-sensor is currently being widely discussed – see for example @SiPM – and there are examples of cameras designed with appropriate data-acquisition systems [e.g., @DRS].
![Temporal structure of the Cherenkov signal from the vertical EAS, $E=10^{15}$ eV, $R=800$ m, induced by the primary particles indicated. Symbols are the same as in the previous Figure.[]{data-label="fig:Temporal"}](f03){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Another type of light-sensor applicable to the Cherenkov mini-telescope is position-sensitive PMT. In this case the flat multi-anode is segmented in $n\times n$ pixels ($n=2,..,16$ for Hamamatsu products; pixel area $\geq2\times 2$ mm$^2$).
We selected Hamamatsu R2486 PMT with a $16\times 16$ crossed wire anode for the prototype detector. The PMT is used as an imaging camera placed near the focus of a spherical mirror. Because the radius of the R2486 photocathode is 3 cm, the mirror diameter was chosen to be D = 26 cm, and the radius of curvature R = 22.5 cm. The mirror parameters were optimized to provide as wide a FoV as possible where the image distortions are less than the given pixel size.
Angular resolution of the prototype telescope is determined by the pixel size $d=3.8$ mm and focal distance $\delta\alpha=2d/R\simeq2^0$. The width of FoV was estimated as $(-14^0,14^0)$ in regard to the optical axis.
![Scanning angular distribution of light from a distant point source at the slant angle $\alpha$ with the position-sensitive PMT in the focus of the spherical mirror.[]{data-label="fig:Scans"}](f04){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
The result of modeling in the plane intersecting the mirror optical axis is shown in Fig. \[fig:Scans\]. The light intensity emitted by the distant point sources with slant angles $-14^0\leq\alpha\leq14^0$ is shown as a function of the axis distance on the camera surface. The root-mean-square radius of the light spot averaged over camera surface is 0.64 of the pixel size. Thus, the position of intensity maximum is an explicit function of incident angle. This demonstrates the ability of our prototype Cherenkov telescope to convert the angular distribution of light sources to the spatial distribution of signals on the imaging camera surface with adequate accuracy.
The effective acceptance area of our prototype telescope is $\sim200$ cm$^2$ taking into account the device geometry, shadowing of the mirror, etc. This is comparable to the area of FEU-49 PMT (176 cm$^2$) in use in Cherenkov detectors of the Yakutsk array. Thus, the real EAS event rate previously detected with the Cherenkov sub-array can be used as an estimator of the expected number of showers. In the arrangement of Cherenkov light detectors shown in Fig. \[fig:Map\], the number of showers detected per hour at $E>1.2\times10^{15}$ eV is 62, and 4 events were observed at $E>6\times10^{16}$ eV [@CERN].
If we place the set of Cherenkov telescopes in a congruent hierarchical triangle structure as in Fig. \[fig:Map\] (filled circles), then the expected number of EASs detected per year (assuming 500 hours/year is suitable for Cherenkov light measurements) is $\sim31000$ at $E>1.2\times10^{15}$ eV, and $\sim2000$ at $E>6\times10^{16}$ eV.
We have demonstrated the possibility of investigating EAS longitudinal development in the atmosphere through measuring the angular and temporal distributions of a Cherenkov signal with a telescope embedded in a surface EAS array environment. The enhancement of the Yakutsk array by a set of Cherenkov telescopes adapted to the energy range $E>10^{15}$ eV is aimed at significantly improving the array’s ability to study the mass composition of CRs. The main advantage of this combination consists in the integration of the multi-component measurement of EAS and model-independent CR energy estimation by the surface array with excellent angular and temporal resolution of the Cherenkov telescopes.
The work is supported in part by SB RAS (integral project ’Modernization of the Yakutsk array’), RFBR (grant no. 09-02-12028) and Russian ministry of education and science (contract nos. 02.518.11.7173, 02.740.11.0248).
Abu-Zayyad, T. et al.: A measurement of the average longitudinal development profile of CR air showers between $10^{17}$ eV and $10^{18}$ eV, Astropart. Phys., 16, 1–11, 2001.
Anterhub, H. et al.: A novel camera type for VHE gamma-ray astronomy based on G-APD, astro-ph/0911.4920, 2009.
Berezhko, E. G. and Völk, H. J.: Spectrum of CRs produced in SNRs, astro-ph/0704.1715, 2007.
Dyakonov, M. N., Efimov, N. N., Egorov, T. A. et al.: Cosmic rays of extremely high energy, Nauka, Novosibirsk, USSR, 251 pp., 1991 (in Russian).
Egorova, V. P., Glushkov, A. V., Ivanov, A. A. et al.: The spectrum features of UHECRs below and surrounding GZK, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 136, 3–11, 2004.
Erlykin, A. D. and Wolfendale, A. W.: Structure in the cosmic ray spectrum: an update, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 27, 1005-1030, 2001.
Fomin, Yu. A. and Khristiansen, G. B.: Yader. Fiz., 14, 642, 1971.
Garipov, G. K. et al.: The Cherenkov track detector consisting of the Yakutsk array, in: Proceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 3, 885–888, 2001.
Grigorjev, V. M. et al.: Recovering EAS cascade curve from the Cherenkov pulse shape at energy $E>10^{17}$ eV, JETP Lett., 30, 747–750, 1979.
Hinton, J.: Ground based gamma-ray astronomy with Cherenkov telescopes, New Journ. Phys., 11, 055005 (1–17), 2009.
Ivanov, A. A., Knurenko, S. P., and Sleptsov, I. Ye.: The energy spectrum of CRs above $10^{15}$ eV derived from air Cherenkov light measurements in Yakutsk, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 122, 226–230, 2003.
Ivanov, A. A., Knurenko, S. P., and Sleptsov, I. Ye.: Measuring EAS with Cherenkov light detectors of the Yakutsk array: The energy spectrum of CRs, New Journ. Phys., 11, 065008, (1–30), 2009.
Ivanov, A. A.: Comparing the energy spectra of UHECRs measured with EAS arrays, Astrophys. Journ., 712, 746-751, 2010.
Kalmykov, N. N. et al.: Investigation of the pulse shape of EAS Cherenkov radiation, JETP Lett., 21, 66–70, 1975.
Knapp, J. et al.: Extensive air shower simulations at the highest energies, Astropart. Phys., 19, 77–99, 2003.
Knurenko, S. P. et al.: Cherenkov radiation of CR EAS. Part 3. Longitudinal development of showers in the energy region of $10^{15}-10^{17}$ eV, in Proceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 1, 157–160, 2001.
Knurenko, S. P. et al.: Recent results from the Yakutsk experiment: The development of EAS and the energy spectrum and primary particle mass composition in the energy region of $10^{15}-10^{19}$ eV, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 175-176, 201–206, 2008.
Teshima, M. et al.: SiPM development for astroparticle physics applications, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Merida, Mexico, 2, 985–988, 2007.
Website of the Yakutsk array: http://eas.ysn.ru, 2006.
Zatsepin, V. I.: Angular distribution of the Cherenkov light intensity induced by EAS of CRs, JETP, 47, 689-695, 1964.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The EditLens is an interactive lens technique that supports the editing of graphs. The user can insert, update, or delete nodes and edges while maintaining an already existing layout of the graph. For the nodes and edges that are affected by an edit operation, the EditLens suggests suitable locations and routes, which the user can accept or adjust. For this purpose, the EditLens requires an efficient routing algorithm that can compute results at interactive framerates. Existing algorithms cannot fully satisfy the needs of the EditLens. This paper describes a novel algorithm that can compute orthogonal edge routes for incremental edit operations of graphs. Tests indicate that, in general, the algorithm is better than alternative solutions.'
author:
- 'S. Gladisch$^1$'
- 'V. Weigandt$^2$'
- 'H. Schumann$^2$'
- 'C. Tominski$^2$'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Orthogonal Edge Routing\
for the EditLens
---
Introduction {#routing}
============
The EditLens introduced by [@editlens] is an interactive tool for editing graphs. The EditLens enables users to insert, update, and delete nodes and edges of a graph while maintaining an already existing orthogonal layout of the graph. To relief users from time-consuming manual layout adjustments, the EditLens suggests suitable node positions and edge routes. Users can accept suggestions or request alternative suggestions by moving the EditLens across the existing graph layout. The EditLens has been developed in collaboration with domain experts from bio-informatics who need to maintain a constantly evolving molecular network, the so-called PluriNetwork [@Som2010].
To be operational, the EditLens requires an edge routing algorithm for a node-link representation that (i) computes orthogonal edge routes that are short, have a low number of edge bends, and circumvent existing nodes and (ii) has a runtime complexity that allows for interactive frame rates, so that users can explore different layout suggestions while moving the EditLens or switching between placement strategies (see [@editlens] for details).
Wybrow et al.’s [@Wybrow2009] algorithm has been identified as a promising candidate. It should be able to “\[...\] calculate routings fast enough \[...\] during interaction.” In order to confirm this, an experiment has been set up to test the algorithm’s suitability for the EditLens. A graph has been created automatically by incrementally inserting new nodes with edges to two randomly selected existing nodes. Each new node was placed on a randomly chosen free position in the node-link layout. On each insert, the edge routing for the graph was computed using the original implementation, and the runtime was measured. Figure \[fig:chart\] shows the average results of multiple test runs. The time needed for computing the edge routes increases rapidly as the graph grows. The computation of two edge routes in a node-link representation with 65 nodes and 130 edges took 100 ms on the test computer (Intel Core i7-3770k at 4.66 GHz, 16 GB RAM), which is already the upper limit for interactive frame rates. For 300 nodes and 600 edges, which is about the size of the PluriNetwork, the algorithm took nearly 20 seconds. Therefore, a new orthogonal edge routing algorithm has been developed based on the algorithm by [@Wybrow2009].
![Results of a runtime performance test for computing orthogonal edge routes of a node-link layout with the edge routing algorithm by [@Wybrow2009].[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](img/chart1_new.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
For the new algorithm it is assumed that nodes are represented with overlap-free circles whose quadratic bounding boxes leave a certain distance between each other. The algorithm consists of the following three steps which are described in detail below.
1. Computation of potential edge routes
2. Search for suitable edge routes
3. Resolution of edge overlaps
In the following, for simplicity, the terms node and edge refer to their visual representation in a node-link layout, unless otherwise stated.
![Intersection test of orthogonal lines between the connector points of the red nodes. Only the solid lines become edges of the OVG as the dashed ones intersect with the bounding box of the yellow node.[]{data-label="fig:intersection"}](img/intersection){width="60.00000%"}
Computation of Potential Edge Routes
====================================
The first step of the algorithm is to determine all potential orthogonal edge routes of the node-link representation. For that, an auxiliary structure – the so-called orthogonal visibility graph (OVG) – is computed. This structure describes all potential orthogonal edge routes and thus allows finding certain routes by applying search algorithms. As this structure is based on the nodes, it must be updated upon every insert, update, or delete operation on the node set.
Nodes have a primary connector point in their center to which all incident edges connect, and four secondary connector points on the corners of their bounding boxes, through which edges can be routed. The connector points are the nodes of the OVG. The orthogonal edges of the OVG are calculated incrementally for pairs of nodes of the OVG. Let $v_1=(x_1,y_1)$ and $v_2=(x_2,y_2)$ be two nodes of the OVG, where $v_1$ belongs to the node $n_1$ of the node-link representation and $v_2$ to the node $n_2$. Now the two orthogonal lines $e_1=(v_1,(x_1,y_2),v_2)$ and $e_2=(v_1,(x_2,y_1),v_2)$ are computed. If $x_1 = x_2$ or $y_1 = y_2$, then $e_1$ and $e_2$ are reduced to a single edge $e_3=(v_1,v_2)$. For $e_1$, $e_2$, or $e_3$ it is tested whether they intersect with bounding boxes of existing nodes except $n_1$ and $n_2$. Non-intersecting lines become edges of the OVG. Figure \[fig:intersection\] illustrates the computation of orthogonal lines for the two red nodes. In this case, only the solid lines become edges of the OVG. The dashed lines cannot be used because they intersect with the bounding box of an existing node (depicted in yellow).
In contrast to the OVG by [@Wybrow2009], which contains only segments of potential orthogonal edge routes, the edges of the OVG used here can be clearly assigned to two nodes of the node-link representation (connector points have a reference to their nodes). This property is important for efficiently refreshing the OVG upon insert, update, and delete operations. If nodes are inserted, the dedicated nodes and edges of the OVG can be inserted easily as described above. If nodes are deleted or updated, all affected edges of the OVG can be deleted in $O(|E_{OVG}|)$, whereas $E_{OVG}$ is the set of edges of the OVG. If nodes are placed on existing edges of the OVG upon insert or update operations with the EditLens (verified with an intersection test), the respective edges of the OVG are marked as blocked and excluded from the following search. An example is depicted in Figure \[fig:intersection\]. Assuming that the yellow node is placed after the red ones, the dashed edges are marked as blocked. In case the blocking node is moved to a new position during an update operation, it is tested whether the blocked edges of the OVG are still blocked and released if necessary. If the blocking node is deleted, the blocked edges are released too.
The OVG used here and the OVG used by [@Wybrow2009] describe identical potential edge routes. However, the OVG used here requires more memory space. The next step is to use the OVG to search for suitable edge routes.
Search for Suitable Edge Routes
===============================
With the OVG, the search for a suitable edge route between the primary connector points of two arbitrary nodes is easy. If multiple edge routes must be found, the search must be performed multiple times. For this purpose, a search algorithm for graphs can be used. It is suggested to prefer fast, informed search algorithms like A-Star[^1] [@Hart1968], which is also utilized in Wybrow et al.’s algorithm. For finding edge routes that are short and have a low number of edge bends, the cost function of A-Star must be set up accordingly. In case of large OVGs the search should be restricted temporally. If no route can be found in a certain amount of time (e.g., no route exists and the whole OVG must be traversed), a fall back solution must be used or the user must be prompted for further interaction. After finding an edge route, its final representation will be computed.
Resolution of Edge Overlaps
===========================
The search for suitable edge routes on the OVG provides edge routes that might overlap partially. Using these routes in the node-link representation would introduce ambiguities and hinder tracing edges. For that reason a method called nudging is used to resolve these overlaps. The nudging by [@Wybrow2009] uses the available space to spread edges as much as possible and a global strategy to minimize their edge crossings. With this nudging, good results can be achieved. However, it’s runtime is too long for interactive frame rates as needed for the EditLens. Thus, a simple local nudging is used here. All edge routes provided by the search are shifted with an offset in $x$ and $y$ direction. For avoiding crossings with existing nodes due to this shift, the bounding boxes of every node must be enlarged by a safety gap $\delta$. As this is already done when inserting nodes with the Editlens, no further adjustments are needed. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:lanes\], this introduces lanes between all nodes with a thickness of at least $2\delta$. Within these lanes, the final edge routes are laid out. The offset of the shift is computed as follows: Let $r_{src}$ and and $r_{dest}$ be the radii of the source and the target node of an edge to be routed. Let $rand$ be a random number generator for the interval defined by its arguments and let $min$ be the minimum function.
![Lanes between nodes used for edge routes (depicted as hatched area) resulting from enlarging the nodes bounding boxes by a safety gap $\delta$.[]{data-label="fig:lanes"}](img/lanes){width="50.00000%"}
$$\begin{split}
\mbox{offset}_x = rand(0, min(r_{src}, r_{dest}, \delta-\mu))\\
\mbox{offset}_y = rand(0, min(r_{src}, r_{dest}, \delta-\mu))
\end{split}$$
$\mu$ is a parameter $>0$ that prevents edge routes from touching the border of nodes except for the source and target node. By shifting the edge routes with this offset, overlaps are often resolved and it is assured that the routes will connect to the circular nodes.
Figure \[fig:result1\] presents a good result as obtained by this method during the insertion of a node with incident edges using the EditLens. However, due to the randomness of the shift, overlaps can still appear in some cases. An example where this might happen are nodes with many incident edges. Additionally, edge crossing introduced by this shift are not resolved. This can be seen in Figure \[fig:result2\]. Nevertheless, the user is free to explore different results with the EditLens until a good one is found where these problems do not (or only marginally) occur.
In [@Rohrschneider2009], another local nudging strategy based on a topological ordering of a directed acyclic graph is used. It needs to be tested, whether this strategy is a suitable alternative.
\
Discussion
==========
The proposed edge routing algorithm has been implemented in the EditLens prototype. In order to achieve short runtimes, efficient data structures and parallel processing must be utilized.
For managing nodes, R-Trees are suitable. This hierarchical data structure offers an efficient intersection test needed for computing and updating the OVG. This intersection test can be realized for each segment of an edge route. On the test computer (Intel Core i7-3770k at 4.66 GHz, 16 GB RAM), the intersection test of an edge segment with the nodes of the PluriNetwork takes only about 1-2 ms. Another positive aspect of R-trees is that they provide important methods for inserting and deleting nodes, which are needed for incrementally constructing the graph layout.
The storage and the management of the OVG are difficult to handle. On the one hand, inserting and deleting its nodes and edges must be possible efficiently without recomputing the whole structure from scratch. For this purpose, linked lists can be used. On the other hand, the OVG should fit into the RAM to prevent slow access times due to outsourcing to the hard disk. This is already challenging with graphs of the PluriNetwork’s size, as the number of edges of the OVG rises quadratically with its number of nodes. For this reason, only necessary information should be stored in the OVG.
For searching individual edge routes in the OVG, multiple computing threads can be used. This way, the search can be parallelized, which effectively reduces its runtime.
To verify that the proposed edge routing algorithm is better or at least as good as the algorithm by [@Wybrow2009], it was tested under the same conditions mentioned in the introduction. The average results of multiple runs are illustrated in Figure \[fig:chart2\]. It shows that even with increasing number of nodes, the time needed to compute the two orthogonal edge routes remains constant at about 0.4 ms. For comparison, recall the test results of Wybrow et al.’s algorithm that are depicted in Figure \[fig:chart\], where the runtime increases rapidly with increasing number of nodes.
![Results of a runtime performance test for computing orthogonal edge routes of a node-link layout with the edge routing algorithm proposed here.[]{data-label="fig:chart2"}](img/chart2_new.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Thanks to the short runtime of the new edge routing algorithm, using the EditLens for inserting nodes with 15 or more incident edges (as depicted in Figure \[fig:result2\]) is usually possible at interactive frame rates. However, there are also exceptional situations where the algorithms cannot compute an edge route in a given time limit (e.g., 500 ms). The reasons for this are either non-existing edge routes or an extraordinary amount of nodes that must be circumvented. With increasing number of incident edges upon node insertion, the different node placement strategies (e.g., edge length first strategy, see [@editlens]) can also be a limiting factor.
After developing the edge routing algorithm for the EditLens, [@Marriott2014] presented a novel orthogonal edge routing algorithm that is also significantly faster than Wybrow et al.’s algorithm. It remains to be tested whether their algorithm is a suitable alternative to be used for the EditLens.
[^1]: A-Star is an informed search algorithm for graphs which is utilized to find the least-cost path between two given nodes of a graph. To enable a targeted and fast search, a heuristic cost function is used.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Astrophysical fluids are turbulent a fact which changes the dynamics of many key processes, including magnetic reconnection. Fast reconnection of magnetic field in turbulent fluids allows the field to change its topology and connections. As a result, the traditional concept of magnetic fields being frozen into the plasma is no longer applicable. Plasma associated with a given magnetic field line at one instant is distributed along a different set of magnetic field lines at the next instant. This diffusion of plasmas and magnetic field is enabled by reconnection and therefore is termed “reconnection diffusion”. The astrophysical implications of this concept include heat transfer in plasmas, advection of heavy elements in interstellar medium, magnetic field generation etc. However, the most dramatic implications of the concept are related to the star formation process. The reason is that magnetic fields are dynamically important for most of the stages of star formation. The existing theory of star formation has been developed ignoring the possibility of reconnection diffusion. Instead, it appeals to the decoupling of mass and magnetic field arising from neutrals drifting in respect to ions entrained on magnetic field lines, i.e. through the process that is termed “ambipolar diffusion”. The predictions of ambipolar diffusion and reconnection diffusion are very different. For instance, if the ionization of media is high, ambipolar diffusion predicts that the coupling of mass and magnetic field is nearly perfect. At the same time, reconnection diffusion is independent of the ionization but depends on the scale of the turbulent eddies and on the turbulent velocities. In the paper we explain the physics of reconnection diffusion both from macroscopic and microscopic points of view, i.e. appealing to the reconnection of flux tubes and to the diffusion of magnetic field lines. We quantify the reconnection diffusion rate both for weak and strong MHD turbulence and address the problem of reconnection diffusion acting together with ambipolar diffusion. In addition, we provide a criterion for correctly representing the magnetic diffusivity in simulations of star formation. We discuss the intimate relation between the processes of reconnection diffusion, field wandering and turbulent mixing of a magnetized media and show that the role of the plasma effects is limited to “breaking up lines” on small scales and does not affect the rate of reconnection diffusion. We address the existing observational results and demonstrate how reconnection diffusion can explain the puzzles presented by observations, in particular, the observed higher magnetization of cloud cores in comparison with the magnetization of envelopes. We also outline a possible set of observational tests of the reconnection diffusion concept and discuss how the application of the new concept changes our understanding of star formation and its numerical modeling. Finally, we outline the differences of the process of reconnection diffusion and the process of accumulation of matter along magnetic field lines that is frequently invoked to explain the results of numerical simulations.'
author:
- 'A. Lazarian'
title: 'Reconnection in Turbulent Fluids and Reconnection Diffusion: Implications for Star Formation'
---
Magnetic flux freezing is a key textbook concept with a huge impact on astrophysical theory. The concept was first proposed by Alfven (1942) whose principle of Òfrozen-inÓ field lines has provided a powerful heuristic influencing our understanding of many astrophysical processes such as star formation, stellar collapse, evolution of accretion disks, magnetic dynamo etc. This principle, however, is not universal, as we discuss below, its violation entails important consequences for star formation.
The phenomenon of fast magnetic reconnection is an example of failure of the magnetic freezing concept. Fast magnetic reconnection is a type of reconnection which does not depend on resistivity and thus should proceed in a media of negligible resistivity. Solar flares provide an example of the rapid energy release which would not be possible if magnetic fields were perfectly frozen in (see Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji 2010 and references therein).
The issue of “flux freezing” violation by magnetic reconnection has been known for some time, but was not taken very seriously due to the unclear nature of fast reconnection (see Zweibel & Yamada 2009 and references therein). Indeed, for years it was considered that fast reconnection required some special physical conditions and therefore the “flux freezing ” is fulfilled everywhere apart from some special zones.
The present day star formation paradigm has been developed that flux freezing concept holds. In magnetically-mediated star formation theory which was founded by the pioneering studies by L. Mestel and L. Spitzer (see Mestel & Spitzer 1956, Mestel 1966) and brought to the level of sophistication by other researchers (see Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987, Mouschovias 1991, Nakano et al. 2002, Shu et al. 2004, Mouschovias et al. 2006). According to it, magnetic fields slow down and even prevent star formation if the media is sufficiently magnetized. In the [*assumption*]{} of flux freezing of the magnetic field in the ionized component, the change of the flux to mass ratio happens due to neutrals which do not feel magnetic field directly, but only through ion-neutral interactions. In the presence of gravity, neutrals get concentrated towards the center of the gravitational potential while magnetic fields resist compression and therefore leave the forming protostar (e.g. Mestel 1965). This makes star formation inefficient for magnetically dominated (i.e. subcritical) clouds. The low efficiency of star formation corresponds to observations (e.g. Zuckerman & Evans 1974), which is usually interpreted as a strong argument in support of the above scenario. This does not solve all the problems as, at the same time, for clouds dominated by gravity, i.e. supercritical clouds, this scenario does not work as magnetic fields do not have time to leave the cloud through ambipolar diffusion. Therefore for supercritical clouds magnetic field should be dragged into the star, forming stars with magnetizations far in excess of the observed ones (see Galli et al. 2006, Johns-Krull 2007).
What we described above is the initial stage of star formation. However, magnetic fields are important for other stages of star formation, e.g. formation of the accretion disks around forming stars. This, as we discuss below, is also problematic if one relies on ambipolar diffusion. In fact, classical ideas of star formation based exclusively on ambipolar diffusion have been challenged by observations (Troland & Heiles 1986, Shu et al. 2006, Crutcher et al. 2009, 2010, see Crutcher 2012 for a review). While the interpretation of particular observations is the subject of scientific debates (see Moschovias & Tassis 2009), it is suggestive that there may be additional processes that the classical theory does not take into account. The primary suspect is turbulence, which is ubiquitous in the interstellar media and molecular clouds (see Larson 1981, Armstrong et al. 1994, Elmegreen & Falgarone 1996, Lazarian & Pogosyan 2000, Stanimirovic & Lazarian 2001, Heyer & Brunt 2004, Padoan et al. 2006, 2009, Chepurnov & Lazarian 2010, Burkhart et al. 2010). Turbulence has revolutionized the field of star formation (see Vazquez-Semadeni et al. 1995, Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 1999, Elmegreen 2000, 2002, McKee & Tan 2003, Elmegreen & Scalo 2004, MacLow & Klessen 2004, McKee & Ostriker 2007) but the treatment of the turbulent magnetic fields stayed within the flux freezing paradigm.
The understanding of flux freezing in turbulent astrophysical environments has been challenged relatively recently and not all the consequences of this radical change have been evaluated so far. Lazarian & Vishniac (1999, henceforth LV99) identified magnetic field wandering, which is inherent property of magnetized turbulent plasma, as the cause of fast, i.e. independent of resistivity, magnetic reconnection. They showed that in turbulent fluids magnetic fields should undergo constant reconnection and change their identity all the time. This implies that magnetic fields are not any more frozen into a perfectly conducting fluid if this fluid is turbulent as was explicitly stated first in Vishniac & Lazarain (1999). Later, the challenge to the concept of “flux freezing” came from another side, i.e. from more formal mathematical studies of magnetic fields properties in turbulent fluids (see Eyink 2011a). Eyink, Lazarian & Vishniac (2011, henceforth ELV11) showed the consistency of these two approaches and established the equivalence of the LV99 treatment with that in more recent mathematical papers.
While the idea that turbulence can change the reconnection rates has been discussed in a number of earlier papers, the LV99 model was radically different from its predecessors. For instance, Mathaeus & Lamkin (1985, 1986) performed 2D numerical simulations of turbulence and provided arguments in favor of magnetic reconnection getting fast. However, the physics of the processes that they considered was very different from that in LV99 (see more §5.3).
The LV99 analytical predictions have been successfully tested in Kowal et al. (2009) which made it important to study astrophysical applications of the model. Magnetic reconnection was treated in LV99 for both collisional and collisionless turbulent plasmas and was extended to the partially ionized gas in Lazarian, Vishniac & Cho (2004). This motivated Lazarian (2005) to identify fast reconnection of magnetic field as an essential process of removing magnetic flux at different stages of star formation. Later, in Lazarian et al. (2010) this process was termed “reconnection diffusion”.
One may claim that the reconnection diffusion concept extends the concept of hydrodynamic turbulent diffusion to magnetized fluids. The physics of it is very different from the “magnetic turbulent diffusivity” idea discussed within the theories of kinematic dynamo (see Parker 1979). Reconnection diffusion, unlike “magnetic turbulent diffusivity”, deals with dynamically important magnetic fields, e.g. with subAlfvenic turbulence. Thus magnetic fields are [*not*]{} passively mixed and magnetic reconnection plays a vital role for the process. Recently, the consequences of reconnection diffusion have been studied numerically for the diffuse interstellar media, molecular clouds and accretion disks (Santos-Lima et al. 2010, 2012). These studies should be understood in the appropriate context. For example, it is wrong to view numerical calculations in Santos-Lima et al. (2010, 2012) as the actual justification of the reconnection diffusion concept. The concept of reconnection diffusion can only be justified appealing to the LV99 model and to high resolution numerical testing of the latter. Indeed, the testing of the reconnection rates predicted in LV99 is performed at much higher resolution (see Kowal et al. 2009, 2012, Lazarian et al. 2011) than the resolution of the cores and accretion disks in our simulations in Santos-Lima et al. (2010, 2012). In other words, the numerical effects are under control in the simulations focused to test LV99 theoretical predictions, while the LV99 theory justifies why one should not be too much worried about small scale numerical effects present in the astrophysically-movitated set ups exploring astrophysical consequences of reconnection diffusion.
The major shortcoming of our previous papers on reconnection diffusion is that the physical picture of the process has never been clearly explained. This causes confusion and prevents the heuristic use of the reconnection diffusion concept. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the textbook picture of reconnection involves magnetic fluxes of opposite polarities getting into contact. This is clearly different from what one expects to see during the star formation process where magnetic fields without large scale reversals are being dragged together towards the center of the gravitational potential.
The goal of this paper is to clarify what are the actual foundations of the reconnection diffusion concept, present the physical picture of the diffusion of magnetic field and plasmas in the presence of turbulence, to provide the comparison of the predictions based on the reconnection diffusion concept and observations as well as to present testable predictions. We attempt to provide foundations for the alternative picture of the star formation process based on the process of reconnection diffusion.
In what follows, we discuss the problem of magnetic flux removal for star formation in §2, present the description of MHD turbulence in §3, describe the model of magnetic reconnection in turbulent media in §4, introduce the concept of reconnection diffusion in §5. In §6 we discuss the microscopic picture of reconnection diffusion and in §7 consider a possibility of two distinct regimes of reconnection diffusion. §8 outlines the limitations of numerical studies and presents the numerical results of reconnection diffusion for different stages of star formation; in §9 we discuss how the existing observational data corresponds to the reconnection diffusion model and provide observational predictions. Additional consequences of reconnection diffusion for observations and numerics are outlined in §10, while the discussion and the conclusions are presented in §11 and §12, respectively.
Star Formation and Magnetic Flux Problem
========================================
Turbulence in magnetized interstellar plasmas
---------------------------------------------
A paradigm shift, a concept popularized by the science historian Thomas Kuhn (1962), usually delivers a major advance in our perception of reality. In their 2004 ARA&A review, Scalo & Elmegreen write: ”One of the most important developments in the field of interstellar gas dynamics during the last half century was renewed perception that most processes and structures are strongly affected by turbulence. This is a paradigm shift unparalleled in many other fields of astronomy, comparable perhaps to the discovery of extrasolar planets and cosmological structure at high redshift.”
It has been known for decades that interstellar medium (ISM) is driven by violent supernovae explosions (McKee & Ostriker 1977). By now it has been accepted that the ISM is turbulent on scales ranging from AUs to kpc (see Armstrong et al. 1995, Elmegreen & Scalo 2004, Lazarian 2009). Fig. 1 shows the turbulent power density plotted against the inverse of the scale length, with data at large scales, i.e. at small wavenumbers $q$ expanded using the Wisconsin H$_{\alpha}$ Mapper (WHAM) data on electron density fluctuations (Chepurnov & Lazarian 2010).
A more direct evidence comes from the observations of spectral lines. Apart from showing non-thermal Doppler broadening (see Larson 1981), they also reveal spectra of supersonic turbulent velocity fluctuations when analyzed with techniques like Velocity Channel Analysis (VCA) of Velocity Coordinate Spectrum (VCS) developed (see Lazarian & Pogosyan 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008) and applied to the observational data (see Padoan et al. 2004, 2009, Chepurnov et al. 2010).
![Turbulence in the interstellar gas as revealed by electron density fluctuations. “Big Power Law in the Sky” in Armstrong et al. (1995) extended using WHAM data. The slope corresponds to that of Kolmogorov turbulence. Modified from Chepurnov & Lazarian (2010).[]{data-label="CL"}](figure1.eps){height=".45\textheight"}
We should clarify that turbulence in astrophysical environments is the most natural and expected phenomenon. Magnetized astrophysical plasmas generally have very large Reynolds numbers due to the large length scales involved, as well as the fact that the motions of charged particles in the direction perpendicular to magnetic fields are constrained. Laminar plasma flows at these high Reynolds numbers $R=VL_f/\nu$, where $V$ and $L_f$ are the velocity and the scale of the flow, $\nu$ is fluid viscosity, are prey to numerous linear and finite-amplitude instabilities, from which turbulent motions readily develop. The drivers of turbulence include supernovae explosions that shape the interstellar medium (McKee & Ostriker 1977, Nakamura et al. 2006), accretion flows (see Klessen & Hennebelle 2010), magneto-rotational instability in the galactic disk (Sellwood & Balbus 1999), thermal instability (see Kritsuk & Norman 2002, Koyama & Inutsuka 2002), collimated outflows (see Nakamura & Li 2007) etc. In fact, present day understanding of interstellar medium views molecular clouds as part of interstellar turbulent cascade, i.e. as density fluctuations in a compressible flow (see Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie 2001, McKee & Ostriker 2007 and references therein). As molecular clouds are magnetized, one must understand the diffusion of magnetic fields in turbulent flows in order to describe star formation.
Star formation and role of turbulence
-------------------------------------
Star formation is known to be a rather inefficient process. Indeed, the mass of the Milky way is $M_{MW}\approx10^9$ solar mass. For the typical density of the gas of 50 cm$^{-3}$ the free fall time is $\tau_{ff}\approx
(3\pi/32G\rho)^{1/2}\approx 6\times 10^6$ years which provides a “natural” star formation rate $M_{MW}/\tau_{ff}$ of 200 solar mass per year. At the same time the measured star formation rate is $\approx$ 1.3 solar mass per year (Murray & Rahman 2010). It is because of this inefficiency we still have large amounts of present in interstellar media of spiral galaxies. A traditional way of explaining this inefficiency is to appeal to magnetic forces preventing gravitational collapse (see Mouschovias & Spitzer 1976).
The role of magnetic fields has been subjected to scrutiny from the very beginning of research on star formation theory (see Mestel & Spitzer 1956). Eventually, star formation happens due to gravity, but if the portion of gas is strongly magnetized, the magnetic field may prevent such a collapse. It is possible to show that if the ratio of the magnetic flux to mass is larger than the critical one: $$(\Phi/M)_{crit}\approx 1.8\times 10^{-3} ~{\rm gauss}~{\rm cm}^2~g^{-1}
\label{crit}$$ magnetic field prevents the cloud collapse (see Draine 2011). These strongly magnetized clouds are termed [*subcritical*]{}. Such clouds cannot collapse unless than lose their magnetic flux. The typical values of magnetization of diffuse gas corresponds to subcritical magnetization. Therefore the compression of matter together with magnetic field would result in subcritical clouds. Naturally, if most of the clouds are subcritical, star formation is inefficient.
To address the problem of the magnetic field diffusion both in the partially ionized ISM and in molecular clouds, researchers usually appeal to the ambipolar diffusion concept (see Mestel 1956, Shu 1983). The idea of the ambipolar diffusion is very simple and may be easily exemplified in the case of gas collapsing to form a protostar. As the magnetic field is acting on charged particles only, it does not directly affect neutrals. Neutrals move under the gravitational pull but are scattered by collisions with ions and charged dust grains that are coupled with the magnetic field. The resulting flow dominated by the neutrals does not drag the magnetic field lines and those will diffuse away dragging through the infalling matter. This process of ambipolar diffusion becomes faster as the ionization ratio decreases and therefore, becomes more important in poorly ionized cloud cores. The corresponding theory of star formation based on ambipolar diffusion is well developed (see Mouschovias et al. 2006) and it predicts low star formation rates in agreement with observations.
If the cloud is not magnetically dominated, i.e. it is supercritical, the above discussion is not applicable and the gravity should induce a collapse dragging magnetic flux with entrained matter into the forming star on the timescales less than the ambipolar diffusion time. This presents twofold problem. First of all, simple estimates show that if all the magnetic flux is brought together with the material that collapses to form a star in molecular clouds, then the magnetic field in a proto-star should be several orders of magnitude higher than the one observed in stars (this is the “magnetic flux problem”, see Galli et al. (2006) and references therein). For instance, T-Tauri stars have magnetic field $\approx 2\times 10^3$ Gauss (see Johns-Krull 2007), which amounts to $(\Phi/M)\approx 3\times 10^{-8}$ gauss cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, which is a million times smaller that the flux to mass ratio estimated for one solar mass clump in a cloud of density $10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ (see Draine 2011). To avoid the “magnetic flux problem” one has to identify ways of efficient magnetic flux removal.
As we discuss earlier, turbulence is an essential process for interstellar media. Traditionally, in the textbooks the role of turbulence was mostly limited to affecting the virial mass. Numerical simulations have shown that turbulence can play the dominant role for the formation of the molecular clouds (Ballestros-Paredes et al. 2007). Moreover, simulations were indicating the ability of turbulence to change the flux to mass ratio even without ambipolar diffusion. Those were interpreted as suggestive of a scenario in which compressible turbulence collects matter along magnetic field lines and induces supercritical star formation (Vazquez-Semadeni et al. 2011). One might claim that this approach does not require magnetic flux diffusion provided that the collapse is strictly one-dimensional. As we discuss in §11.6 this scenario is very restrictive and in this paper we propose a different solution of the magnetic flux problem for star formation, namely, we claim that the turbulent scenario should be extended by allowing the process of reconnection diffusion that is inevitably induced by MHD turbulence.
There have been attempts to “turbocharge” ambipolar diffusion by combining its action with turbulence. We briefly discuss these ideas in §11.4. Our claim in the paper that in the presence of turbulence the removal of magnetic flux is fast and ambipolar diffusion is not required.
Problems of the ambipolar diffusion paradigm
--------------------------------------------
The alternatives to the classical star formation theory have emerged in the last decade as numerical simulations showed that star formation can also be slow due to feedback introduced by turbulence (see McKee & Ostriker 2007, Pudritz & Kevlahan 2012). This feedback can disperse clouds before they can give birth to new stars. The fact that clouds and cores must be necessarily subcritical has also been challenged both numerically (see Padoan et al. 2004) and observationally (see Crutcher 2012 and references therein). In fact, in his 2012 ARA&A review Crutcher states: “There is no definitive evidence for subcritical molecular clouds or for ambipolar diffusion driven star formation.” Below we list some other examples where researchers claim that ambipolar diffusion is not adequate to explain observations.
Shu et al. (2006) explored the accretion phase in low-mass star formation and concluded that ambipolar diffusion could work only under rather special circumstances like, for instance, considering particular dust grain sizes. Instead they proposed a solution which is based on the magnetic flux diffusion by Ohmic resistivity. However, to do the job, they postulated that the Ohmic resistivity should be increased by about 4 orders of magnitude. We feel that there is no physical justification for such a resistivity enhancement (see more in §11.5).
Observations of different regions of the diffuse ISM compiled by Troland & Heiles (1986) indicate that magnetic fields and density are not correlated. Such a correlation would be expected in a naive picture of turbulence where compressions of magnetic fields are accompanied by compressions of density. Magnetic diffusion can explain the absence of correlations, but the ambiplar diffusion in diffuse ISM is negligible due to high degree of gas ionization. In addition, observations of magnetized cores by Crutcher et al. (2010) contradict to the predictions of the ambipolar diffusion paradigm. All these cases are troublesome from the point of ambipolar diffusion paradigm but, as we discuss further in the paper (see §9), are consistent with the reconnection diffusion concept that we advocate.
Turbulent astrophysical media and its description
=================================================
To quantify reconnection diffusion the quantitative description of astrophysical turbulence is required.
Magnetized turbulence in astrophysical plasmas
----------------------------------------------
In addition to being turbulent, astrophysical plasmas are magnetized (see Spitzer 1978, Draine 2011). The magnetization of astrophysical fluids most frequently arises from the dynamo action to which turbulence is an essential component (see Schekochihin et al. 2007). In fact, it has been shown that turbulence converts in weakly magnetized conducting fluid from five to ten percent of the energy of the cascade into the magnetic field energy (see Cho et al. 2009). This fraction [*does not*]{} depend on the original magnetization[^1] and therefore magnetic fields will come to equipartition[^2] with the turbulent motions within a few eddy turnover times.
We deal with magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence which provides a correct fluid-type description of plasma turbulence at large scales (see §4.2). Astrophysical turbulence is a direct consequence of large scale fluid motions experiencing low friction. The Reynolds numbers are typically very large in astrophysical flows as the scales are large. As magnetic fields decrease the viscosity for the plasma motion perpendicular to their direction, $Re$ numbers get really astronomically large. For instance, $Re$ numbers of $10^{10}$ are very common for astrophysical flow. For so large $Re$ the inner degrees of fluid motion get excited and a complex pattern of motion develops.
The drivers of turbulence, e.g. supernovae explosions in the interstellar medium, inject energy at large scales and then the energy cascades down to small scales through the hierarchy of eddies spanning up over the entire inertial range. The famous Kolmogorov picture (Kolmogorov 1941) corresponds to hydrodynamic turbulence, but, as we discuss further, a qualitatively similar turbulence also develops in magnetized fluids/plasmas. Therefore both turbulence and magnetic fields should be dealt with while addressing the problem of star formation. Direct observations in Milky Way and nearby galaxies provide ample evidence that the star formation happens in magnetized turbulent clouds. Due to the process of turbulent dynamo magnetic energy increases fast and one may argue that the formation of stars at high redshifts, including the first starts in early universe (see Norman, Wilson & Barton 1980, Abel et al. 2002, Nakamura & Umemura 2001, Scheicher et al. 2010) could also take place in turbulent magnetized environments.
Strong and weak Alfvenic turbulence
-----------------------------------
For the purposes of reconnection diffusion that we describe below, Alfvenic perturbations are vital. Numerical studies in Cho & Lazarian (2002, 2003) showed that the Alfvenic turbulence develops an independent cascade which is marginally affected by the fluid compressibility. This observation corresponds to theoretical expectations of the Goldreich & Sridhar (1995, henceforth GS95) theory that we briefly describe below (see also Lithwick & Goldreich 2001). In this respect we note that the MHD approximation is widely used to describe the actual magnetized plasma turbulence over scales that are much larger than both the mean free path of the particles and their Larmor radius (see Kulsrud 1983, 2005 and references therein). More generally, the most important incompressible Alfenic part of the plasma motions can described by MHD even below the mean free path but on the scales larger than the Larmor radius (see also §4.2).
While having a long history of ideas, the theory of MHD turbulence has become testable recently due to the advent of numerical simulations (see Biskamp 2003) which confirmed (see Cho & Lazarian 2005 and references therein) the prediction of magnetized Alfvénic eddies being elongated in the direction of magnetic field (see Shebalin, Matthaeus & Montgomery 1983, Higdon 1984) and provided results consistent with the quantitative relations for the degree of eddy elongation obtained in GS95.
[lllll]{}\
\
Type & Injection & Range & Motion & Ways\
of MHD turbulence & velocity & of scales & type & of study\
Weak & $V_L<V_A$ & $[L, l_{trans}]$ & wave-like & analytical\
Strong & & & &\
subAlfvenic& $V_L<V_A$ & $[l_{trans}, l_{min}]$ & eddy-like & numerical\
Strong & & & &\
superAlfvenic & $V_L> V_A$ & $[l_A, l_{min}]$ & eddy-like & numerical\
& & &\
\
\
The hydrodynamic counterpart of the MHD turbulence theory is the famous Kolmogorov (1941) theory of turbulence. In the latter theory energy is injected at large scales, creating large eddies which correspond to large $Re$ numbers and therefore do not dissipate energy through viscosity[^3] but transfer energy to smaller eddies. The process continues untill the cascade reaches the eddies that are small enough to dissipate energy over eddy turnover time. In the absence of compressibility the hydrodynamic cascade of energy is $\sim v^2_l/\tau_{casc, l} =const$, where $v_l$ is the velocity at the scale $l$ and the cascading time for the eddies of size $l$ is $\tau_{cask, l}\approx l/v_l$. From this the well known relation $v_l\sim l^{1/3}$ follows.
A frequent mental picture that astrophysicists have of the Alfvenic turbulence is based of Alfven waves with wavevectors along the magnetic field. This is not true for the strong Alfvenic turbulence which, similar to its hydrodynamic counterpart, can be described in terms of eddies[^4]. However, contrary to Kolmogorov turbulence, in the presence of dynamically important magnetic field eddies become anisotropic. At the same time, one can imagine eddies mixing magnetic field lines perpendicular to the direction of magnetic field. For the latter eddies the original Kolmogorov treatment is applicable resulting in perpendicular motions scaling as $v_l\sim \l_{\bot}^{1/3}$, where $l_{\bot}$ denotes eddy scales measured perpendicular to magnetic field. These mixing motions induce Alfvenic perturbations that determine the parallel size of the magnetized eddy. The key stone of the GS95 theory is [*critical balance*]{}, i.e. the equality of the eddy turnover time $l_{\bot}/v_l$ and the period of the corresponding Alfven wave $\sim l_{\|}/V_A$, where $l_{\|}$ is the parallel eddy scale and $V_A$ is the Alfven velocity. Making use of the earlier expression for $v_l$ one can easily obtain $l_{\|}\sim l_{\bot}^{2/3}$, which reflects the tendency of eddies to become more and more elongated as the energy cascades to smaller scales (see Beresnyak, Lazarian & Cho 2005).
It is important to stress that the scales $l_{\bot}$ and $l_{\|}$ are measured in respect to the system of reference related to the direction of the local magnetic field “seen” by the eddy. This notion was not present in the original formulation of the GS95 theory and was added to it in LV99. The local system of reference was later used in numerical studies in Cho & Vishniac (2000), Maron & Goldreich (2001), Cho, Lazarian & Vishniac (2002) testing GS95 theory. In terms of mixing motions, it is rather obvious that the free Kolmogorov-type mixing is possible only in respect to the local magnetic field of the eddy rather than the mean magnetic field of the flow.
While the arguments above are far from being rigorous (see more in a review by Cho & Lazarian 2005), they correctly reproduce the basic scalings of magnetized turbulence when the velocity equal to $V_A$ at the injection scale $L$. The most serious argument against the picture is the ability of eddies to perform mixing motions perpendicular to magnetic field. Jumping ahead of our story, we can mention that this ability is related to the ability of magnetic field lines to reconnect fast, i.e. at the rate independent of the fluid resistivity (see more in §5.1).
GS95 theory assumes the isotropic injection of energy at scale $L$ and the injection velocity equal to the Alfvén velocity in the fluid $V_A$, i.e. the Alfvén Mach number $M_A\equiv (V_L/V_A)=1$, where $V_L$ is the injection velocity. Thus it provides the description of transAlfvenic turbulence. This model was later generalized for both subAlfvenic, i.e. $M_A<1$, and superAlfvenic, i.e. $M_A>1$, cases (see Lazarian & Vishniac 1999 and Lazarian 2006, respectively; see also Table 1). Indeed, if $M_A>1$, instead of the driving scale $L$ for one can use another scale, namely $l_A$ (see Eq. (\[alf\]), which is the scale at which the turbulent velocity equals to $V_A$. For $M_A\gg 1$ magnetic fields are not dynamically important at the largest scales and the turbulence at those scales follows the isotropic Kolmogorov cascade $v_l\sim l^{1/3}$ over the range of scales $[L, l_A]$. At the same time, if $M_A<1$, the turbulence obeys GS95 scaling (also called “strong” MHD turbulence) not from the scale $L$, but from a smaller scale $l_{trans}$ given by Eq. (\[trans\]), while in the range $[L, l_{trans}]$ the turbulence is “weak”. We discuss more superAlfvenic and subAlfvenic turbulence in §5.1.
The properties of weak and strong turbulence are rather different. Weak turbulence is wave-like turbulence with wave packets undergoing many collisions before transferring energy to small scales. It corresponds well to the mental picture of turbulence of weakly interacting Alfvenic waves that used to dominate astrophysics textbooks. Weak turbulence, unlike the strong one, allows an exact analytical treatment (Gaultier et al. 2000). On the contrary, the strong turbulence is eddy-like with cascading happening similar to Kolmogorov turbulence within roughly an eddy turnover time. The strong interactions between wave packets prevent the use of perturbative approach and do not allow exact derivations. It were the numerical experiments that proved the predicted scalings for incompressible MHD turbulence (see Cho & Vishniac 2000, Maron & Goldreich 2001, Cho et al. 2002, Beresnyak & Lazarian 2010, Beresnyak 2011) and for the Alfvenic component of the compressible MHD turbulence[^5] (Cho & Lazarian 2002, 2003, Kowal & Lazarian 2010).
One also should keep in mind that the notion “strong” should not be associated with the amplitude of turbulent motions but only with the strength of the non-linear interaction. As the weak turbulence evolves, the interactions of wave packets [*get stronger*]{} making the turbulence strong. In this case, the amplitude of the perturbations can be very small.
While there are ongoing debates whether the original GS95 theory must be modified to better describe MHD turbulence, we believe that, first of all, we do not have compelling evidence that GS95 is not adequate[^6]. Moreover, the proposed additions to the GS95 model do not change the nature of the physical processes that we discuss below.
Magnetic reconnection of turbulent magnetic field
=================================================
In what follows we describe the model of reconnection of magnetic field proposed in LV99.
Turbulence in reconnection zone
-------------------------------
Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental process that violates the frozen-in state of magnetic flux. We would like to stress that we are discussing the case of dynamically important magnetic field, including the case of a weakly turbulent magnetic field. The case of a weak magnetic field which can be easily stretched and bent by turbulence at any scale up to the dissipation one is rather trivial and of little astrophysical significance for star formation (see more in §5.1). Indeed, at sufficiently small scales magnetic fields get dynamically important even for superAlfvenic turbulence (see Eq. (\[alf\])).
![[*Upper panel*]{}: Sweet-Parker reconnection. $\Delta$ is limited by resistivity and small. [*Middle panel*]{}: reconnection according to LV99 model. $\Delta$ is determined by turbulent field wandering and can be large. [*Lower panel*]{}: magnetic field reconnect over small scales. From Lazarian, Vishniac & Cho (2004).[]{data-label="LV"}](figure2.eps){height=".30\textheight"}
Within the picture of eddies mixing perpendicular to the local magnetic field (see §3.2), it is suggestive that magnetized eddies can induce turbulent diffusion similar to ordinary hydrodynamic eddies. This is a rather counter-intuitive notion in view of the well-entrenched idea of flux being frozen in to astrophysical fluids. As it is explained in ELV11 the frozen-in condition is not a good approximation for turbulent fluids[^7]. The violation of the frozen in condition also follows from LV99 model of reconnection (see discussion in Vishniac & Lazarian 1999).
A picture of two flux tubes of different directions which get into contact in 3D space is a generic framework to describe magnetic reconnection. The upper panel of Figure \[LV\] illustrates why reconnection is so slow in the textbook Sweet-Parker model. Indeed, the model considers magnetic fields that are laminar and therefore the frozen-in condition for magnetic field is violated only over a thin layer dominated by plasma resistivity. The scales over which the resistive diffusion is important are microscopic and therefore the layer is very thin, i.e. $\Delta\ll L_x$, where $L_x$ is the scale at which magnetic flux tubes come into contact. The latter is of the order of the diameter of the flux tubes and typically very large for astrophysical conditions. During the process of magnetic reconnection all the plasma and the shared magnetic flux[^8] arriving over an astrophysical scale $L_x$ should be ejected through a microscopic slot of thickness $\Delta$. As the ejection velocity of magnetized plasmas is limited by Alfven velocity $V_A$, this automatically means that the velocity in the vertical direction, which is reconnection velocity, is much smaller than $V_A$.
Being more quantitative, one can write $$v_{rec}= V_A \frac{\Delta}{L_x},
\label{vrec}$$ meaning that $v_{rec}\ll V_A$ if $\Delta \ll L_x$. There are different ways to derive Sweet-Parker formulae for the reconnection rate (see Parker 1979). One way is to consider the Ohmic diffusion of magnetic field lines (see ELV11). The mean-square vertical distance that a magnetic field-line can diffuse by resistivity in time $t$ is $$\langle y^2(t)\rangle \sim \lambda t,
\label{diff-dist}$$ where $\lambda=\eta c^2/4\pi$ is Ohmic diffusivity. The field lines are advected out of the sides of the reconnection layer of length $L_x$ at a velocity of order $V_A.$ Thus, the time that the lines can spend in the resistive layer is the Alfvén crossing time $t_A=L_x/V_A.$ Thus, field lines can only be merged that are separated by a distance $$\Delta = \sqrt{\langle y^2(t_A)\rangle} \sim \sqrt{\lambda t_A} = L_x/\sqrt{S},
\label{Delta}$$ where $S$ is Lundquist number, $$S=L_x V_A/\lambda.
\label{Lun}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[vrec\]) and (\[Delta\]) one gets the famous Sweet-Parker reconnection rate, $$v_{rec, SP}=V_A/\sqrt{S}.
\label{SP}$$
The LV99 model generalizes the Sweet-Parker one by accounting for the existence of magnetic field line stochasticity (Figure \[LV\] \[lower panels\]). The shown turbulence is subAlfvenic and the mean field is clearly defined. At the same time turbulence induces magnetic field wandering. This wandering was quantified in LV99 and it depends on the intensity of turbulence. The vertical extend of wandering of magnetic field lines that at any point get into contact with the field of the other flux tube was identified in LV99 with the width of the outflow region. In other words, the LV99 model of reconnection makes use of the fact that in the presence of magnetic field wandering, which is a characteristic feature of magnetized turbulence in 3D, the outflow is no more constrained by the narrow resistive layer, but happens through a much wider area $\Delta$ defined by wandering magnetic field lines. An important consequence of this is that as turbulence amplitude increases, the outflow region and therefore reconnection rate also increases, which entails the ability of reconnection to change its rate depending on the level of turbulence. The latter is important both for understanding the dynamics of magnetic field in turbulent flow and for explaining flaring reconnection events, e.g. solar flares.
We should note that the magnetic field wandering is mostly due to Alfvenic turbulence[^9] and the corresponding expressions for $\Delta$ arising from the field wandering were obtained in LV99. An alternative derivation of the $\Delta$ was obtained in analogy with the Sweet-Parker derivation above in ELV11 appealing to the concept of Richardson (1926) diffusion.
Richardson diffusion (see Kupiainen et al. 2003) implies the mean squared separation of particles $$\langle |x_1(t)-x_2(t)|^2 \rangle\approx \epsilon t^3,
\label{Rich}$$ where $t$ is time, $\epsilon$ is the energy cascading rate and $\langleÉ\rangle$ denote an ensemble averaging. For subAlfvenic turbulence $\epsilon\approx u_L^4/(V_A L)$, where $u_L$ is the injection velocity and $L$ is an injection scale (see LV99) and therefore analogously to Eq. (\[Delta\]) one can write $$\Delta\approx \sqrt{\epsilon t_A^3}\approx L_x(L_x/L)^{1/2}M_A^2
\label{D2}$$ where it is assumed that $L_x<L$. Combining Eqs. (\[vrec\]) and (\[D2\]) one recovers the LV99 expression for the rate of magnetic reconnection (see also ELV11) $$v_{rec, LV99}\approx V_A (L_x/L)^{1/2}M_A^2.
\label{LV99}$$ in the limit of $L_x<L$. Analogous considerations allow to recover the LV99 expression for $L_x>L$, which differs from Eq. (\[LV99\]) by the change of the power $1/2$ to $-1/2$.
It is important to stress that Richardson diffusion ultimately leads to the diffusion over the entire width of large scale eddies once the plasma has moved the length of one such eddy. The precise scaling exponents for the turbulent cascade does not affect this result, and all of the alternative scalings considered in LV99 yield the same behavior.
The predictions of the turbulent reconnection rates in LV99 were successfully tested 3D numerical simualtions in Kowal et al. (2009) (see also Lazarian et al. 2010 for an example of higher resolution runs). In Figure \[pow\_dep\] we see the results for varying amounts of input power, for fixed resistivity and injection scale as well as for the case of no turbulence at all. The line drawn through the simulation points is for the predicted scaling with the square root of the input power. The agreement between equation (\[LV99\]) and Figure \[pow\_dep\] is encouraging. Similarly the dependences of the reconnection rate on the injection scale and on the Ohmic and anomalous resistivity were successfully tested.
![Reconnection speed versus input power for the driven turbulence. We show the reconnection speed plotted against the input power for an injection wavenumber equal to 8 (i.e. a wavelength equal to one eighth of the box size) and a resistivity $\nu_u$. The dashed line is a fit to the predicted dependence of $P^{1/2}$ (see eq. (3)). The horizontal line shows the laminar reconnection rates for each of the simulations before the turbulent forcing started. Here the uncertainty in the time averages are indicated by the size of the symbols and the variances are shown by the error bars. Modified from Kowal et al. (2009). \[pow\_dep\]](figure3.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The testing of LV99 predictions provides more confidence to the theory and stimulates to think of its applications, e.g. for star formation. One should keep in mind that the LV99 model assumes that the magnetic field flux tubes can come at arbitrary angle, which corresponds to the existence of shared or guide field within the reconnection layer[^10].
LV99 Reconnection and Plasma effects
------------------------------------
For years plasma effects have been considered essential for fast magnetic reconnection (see Shay et al. 1998, Daughton et al. 2006, 2008). On the contrary, LV99 makes use of the MHD approximation. To issue of the justification of the MHD description of plasmas in the LV99 model was recently revisited in ELV11. One can think of three relevant length-scales: the ion gyroradius $\rho_i,$ the ion mean-free-path length $\ell_{mfp,i}$, and the scale $L_{s}$ of large-scale variation of magnetic and velocity fields. Astrophysical plasmas can be “strongly collisional” if $\ell_{mfp,i}\ll \rho_i,$ and can be described as fluids. The interiors of stars and accretion disks present examples of such plasmas. Another case is “weakly collisional” $\ell_{mfp,i}\gg \rho_i$ plasmas. The ratio of the mean free path to the gyroscale $$\frac{\ell_{mfp,i}}{\rho_i}\propto \frac{\Lambda}{\ln\Lambda}\frac{v_A}{c},
\label{lmfp-rho}$$ follows from the expression for the Coulomb collision frequency (see Fitzpatrick 2011, eq.(1.25)), where $\Lambda=4\pi n\lambda_D^3$ is the plasma parameter, or number of particles within the Debye screening sphere. Hot and rarified astrophysical plasmas are weakly coupled which entails $\Lambda$ being large, for instance, of the order of $10^9$ or more for the warm component of the interstellar medium or solar wind (see Table 1 in ELV11). For such ratio the expansion over small ion gyroradius results in “kinetic MHD equations”. Those differ from the standard MHD by having anisotropic pressure tensor (see more discussion in Kowal et al. 2011a and references therein).
In addition, plasmas that are not strongly collisional can be divided into two subclasses: “collisionless” plasmas for which the mean free pass is larger than the largest scales of interest $\ell_{mfp,i}\gg L_s,$, and “weakly collisional” plasmas for which the opposite is true, i.e. $L_s\gg \ell_{mfp,i}.$ In the latter case the“kinetic MHD” description allows further reduction in complexity at scales larger the mean free path $\ell_{mfp,i}$. This, as discussed in ELV11, reproduces a fully hydrodynamic MHD description [*at those scales*]{}. For instance, the warm ionized ISM is “weakly collisional”, while the solar wind interaction with the magnetosphere is “collisionless.”
Additional simplifications are possible when (a) turbulent fluctuations are small compared to the mean magnetic field, (b) have length-scales parallel to the mean field much larger than perpendicular length-scales, and © have frequencies low compared to the ion cyclotron frequency. This set of assumptions (a), (b) and (c) is adopted in the GS95 theory and for “gyrokinetic approximation” (see Schekochihin et al 2007). At length-scales, i.e. at scales much larger than $\rho_i$, an important simplification takes place. At those scales incompressible shear-Alfven wave modes have get independent from the compressive modes and described by the simple “reduced MHD” (RMHD) equations (see GS95, Cho & Lazarian 2003). This fact is of major importance for the LV99 justifying the use of the analysis based on an incompressible MHD fluid model.
![ [*Upper plot*]{}:Reconnection rate in the presence of anomalous resistivity and turbulence. Changes of the anomalous resistivity do not change the reconnection rate. [*Lower plot*]{}: Visualization of reconnection region. Turbulence is weakly driven and the big changes in magnetic field lines are due to reconnection. Plotted with data in Kowal et al. (2009).[]{data-label="kov2"}](figure4a.eps "fig:"){height=".20\textheight"} ![ [*Upper plot*]{}:Reconnection rate in the presence of anomalous resistivity and turbulence. Changes of the anomalous resistivity do not change the reconnection rate. [*Lower plot*]{}: Visualization of reconnection region. Turbulence is weakly driven and the big changes in magnetic field lines are due to reconnection. Plotted with data in Kowal et al. (2009).[]{data-label="kov2"}](figure4b.eps "fig:"){height=".20\textheight"}
For most astrophysical problems, including the problem of star formation, one has deal with the reconnection at length scales much larger than ion gyroradius, i.e. $L_s\gg \rho_i$. For the solar wind at in the Earth magnetosphere where some of the reconnection measurement have been done (Retino et al. 2007), the ion gyroradius $\rho_i\approx 6\times 10^6$ cm, i.e. comparable with $L_s$. In these circumstances, for the span of scales from $\rho_i$ to the electron gyroradius $\rho_e$ the plasmas is described by an ion kinetic equation and electron “reduced MHD” (ERMHD) equations for kinetic Alfven modes (see Schekochihin et al. 2009). This is the domain of Hall physics, with ion and electrons moving very differently and “Hall reconnection” being expected (see Uzdensky & Kulsrud 2006). Magnetic field wandering still can take place due to the electron fluid (see Daughton et al. 2011) but the nature of the turbulent cascade is different (see Cho & Lazarian 2004, 2009, Schekochihin et al. 2007, 2009). We hope that future research will clarify to what extend features of the LV99 model carries over to this very different regime of reconnection in magnetosphere.
Within the LV99 model, the reconnection rate is determined by large scale magnetic wandering (see Figure \[LV\] for a pictorial representation and Figure \[wand\] for the analysis of simulations), while small scale plasma effects are irrelevant for the global reconnection[^11] at least in the fully ionized plasma (see Lazarian et al. 2004). This conclusion is supported by simulations in Kowal et al. (2009) where plasma effect were simulated by using anomalous resistivity, i.e. the resistivity that depends on the value of the current. Figure \[kov2\] shows that substantial variations of the anomalous resistivity do not change the resulting reconnection rates. Note that the numerical effects produce also a sort of anomalous resistivity on the scales comparable to the grid size. Therefore our results testify that, in the presence of turbulence, numerical effects do not dominate simulations in terms of reconnection. We should mention that although plasma effects do not change the global reconnection rate, they can be important for other processes, e.g. the acceleration of electrons (see §10.1).
Alternative views on fast reconnection
--------------------------------------
Alternative models of magnetic reconnection appeal to different physics to overcome the limitations of the Sweet-Parker model. In the Petschek (1964) model of reconnection the reconnection layer opens up to enable the outflow which thickness does not depend on resistivity. There the extend of the current sheet gets of the order of microscopic $\Delta$ and therefore Eq. (\[vrec\]) provides $v_{rec}\approx V_A$. For years this had been considered the only way of make magnetic reconnection fast. To realize this idea inhomogeneous resistivity, e.g. anomalous resisitivity associated with plasma effects, is required (see Shay & Drake 1998, Shay et al. 1998, 1999, Bhattacharjee et al. 2005, Cassak et al. 2006, 2008, 2009). However, for turbulent plasmas, the effects arising from modifying the local reconnection events by introducing anomalous resistivity are negligible as confirmed e.g. in Kowal et al. (2009). Other effects, e.g. formation and ejection of plasmoids (see Shibata & Tanuma 2001, Lourreiro et al. 2007, Uzdensky et al. 2010, Huang et al. 2011) may be important for initially laminar environments and contribute to the onset of reconnection. However, for the problems of star formation, it is more important to account for the pre-existing turbulence for which LV99 model is directly applicable.
Turbulence is known to make accelerated diffusive processes. Therefore it is not surprising that it had been appealed as the way of speeding up the reconnection prior to LV99 study. Nevertheless, LV99 model is radically different from its predecessors which also appealed to the effects of turbulence. For instance, unlike Speiser (1970) and Jacobson (1984) the model does not appeal to changes of the microscopic properties of the plasma. The closest in its approach to LV99 among papers dealing with effects of turbulence was the work of Matthaeus & Lamkin (1985, 1986) who studied the problem numerically in 2D MHD and who suggested that magnetic reconnection may be fast due to a number of turbulence effects, e.g. multiple X points and turbulent EMF. However, the physics of reconnection discussed in Matthaeus & Lamkin (1985, 1986) is very different, as they did not realize the key role played by magnetic field-line wandering, which is the corner stone idea of the LV99 model. They did not obtain a quantitative prediction for the reconnection rate, as did LV99.
A number of earlier papers may be seen as [*indirect*]{} evidence of fast reconnection in turbulent fluids. For instance, a study of tearing instability of current sheets in the presence of background 2D turbulence and the formation of large-scale, long-lived magnetic islands has been performed in [@Politanoetal89]. They present evidence for “fast energy dissipation” in 2D MHD turbulence and show that this result does not change as they change the resolution. A more recent study of of [@MininniPouquet09] also provides evidence for “fast dissipation” but in 3D MHD turbulence. This phenomenon is consistent with the idea of fast reconnection, but cannot be treated as a direct evidence of the process. It is very clear that [*fast energy dissipation*]{} and [*fast magnetic reconnection*]{} are distinclty different physical processes. In addition, a paper by Galsgaard and Nordlund, [@GalsgaardNordlund97b], might also be interpreted as providing indirect evidence for fast reconnection. The authors noted that in their simulations they could not produce highly twisted magnetic fields. One of the interpretations of this finding could be the relaxation of magnetic field via reconnection. In this case, this observations could be related to the numerical finding of [@LapentaBettarini11] which shows that reconnecting magnetic configurations spontaneously get chaotic and dissipate, which in its turn may be related to the predictions in LV99 (see more in Lapenta & Lazarian 2011). However, in view of the uncertainties of the numerical studies, it is difficult to be confident of this connection.
LV99 model deals with balanced turbulence where the energy flows in opposite directions are equal. If the latter is not true, MHD turbulence is imbalanced, or has non-zero cross helicity. Solar wind presents an example of system with imbalanced turbulence. There have been recent attempts to study reconnection in systems with a flow and imbalanced turbulence (Yokoi & Hoshino 2011). We feel that to obtain quantitative predictions one needs to use the scaling properties of the turbulence as it is done in LV99. At the same time the theory of strong imbalanced MHD turbulence is still controversial. Among the existing theories of imbalanced turbulence (see [@LithwickGoldreich07; @BeresnyakLazarian08; @Chandran08; @PerezBoldyrev09], all, but [@BeresnyakLazarian08] seem to contradict to numerical testing in Beresnyak & Lazarian (2009b). We defer the discussion of reconnection in imbalanced turbulence to future publications[^12].
It is important to stress that while possible reconnection schemes may be numerous, the [*generic astrophysical reconnection model*]{} should satisfy several constraints. A fundamental consideration for such a model is that they must explain fast reconnection in collisional and collisionless plasmas. At the same time, to explain flares, it should be possible for reconnection to be delayed for significant amounts of time. The reconnection model should be able to operate in the turbulent environment as astrophysical media are turbulent. As far as we know, only LV99 model satisfies to all of these requirements.
For instance, LV99 model explains the accumulation of flux in highly magnetized plasmas if the level of turbulence is low. It is possible that tearing mechanisms may provide original perturbations stimulating the development of turbulence and reconnection that it induces. As the outflow within the reconnection region gets turbulent, it induces more of field wandering of the reconnecting fluxes and therefore higher reconnection speed (see more in Lazarian & Vishniac 2009). This introduces the positive feedback which results in a flare. LV99 predicted that turbulence from neighboring regions can also ignite reconnection and the observation of the initiation of flares by incoming Alfvenic waves was reported by Sych et al. (2009).
We would like to stress, that magnetic turbulence and reconnection are intrinsically connected. Therefore there is no “magic” reconnection rate, e.g. $0.1 V_A$, that satisfies all the requirements[^13] For instance, to avoid formation of magnetic knots turbulent eddies should be able to reform their magnetic field structure over the time scales of their turnover. For transAlfvenic turbulence this means the reconnection rate $\sim V_A$. This stringent constraint is satisfied by the LV99 model (see §5.1).
Reconnection diffusion concept
==============================
Diffusion in magnetized turbulent fluid
---------------------------------------
The exact treatment of diffusion in turbulent fluid is rather complicated and it requires dealing with magnetic reconnection as a part of the process. Therefore we first discuss an illustrative example with pure hydro turbulence.
[*Hydrodynamic Diffusion*]{}\
To illustrate analytical approaches to diffusion in a turbulent fluid one can consider first incompressible unmagnetized fluid where the velocity $U$ is decomposed into a regular part $V$ and a fluctuation $v$. Averaging the Navier-Stockes equations one gets $$\frac{\partial V_i}{\partial t}+V_j\frac{V_i}{\partial x_j}=-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\mu}{\rho}\frac{\partial^2V_i}{\partial x_j^2}-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\langle v_i v_j\rangle$$ where $P$ is the average pressure, $\langle ..\rangle$ denote averaging procedure and the indices indicate vectors and the standard summation convention. The term $\langle v_i v_j\rangle$ is not specified by the equation and its approximation involves the different “closures” (see Monin & Yaglom 1975 for a discussion of various hydrodynamic closures). A similar problem emerges in the description of the diffusion induced by turbulence.
Consider as an example the diffusion of a scalar quantity $s$, e.g. a passive impurity, e.g. heavy elements in the ISM. If only molecular diffusion were present, the rate of transport of $s$ in $x$-direction would be given by Fick’s law, namely, $$q=-D\frac{\partial s}{\partial x}
\label{fick}$$ where $D$ is the molecular diffusion coefficient. This law is being modified by the advection of the quantity $s$ by the transport induced by the velocity field. Then one can get the advective - diffusion equation (see Fisher 1979): $$\frac{\partial s}{\partial t} + U_x \frac{\partial s}{\partial x} + U_y \frac{\partial s}{\partial y}+ U_z \frac{\partial s}{\partial z}=D\left(\frac{\partial^2 s}{\partial x^2} +\frac{\partial^2 s}{\partial y^2} +\frac{\partial^2 s}{\partial z^2} \right)
\label{advec}$$
Decomposing the field $s$ into the mean $s_m$ and fluctuating $s_f$ parts one gets after averaging from Eq. \[advec\] $$\frac{\partial s_m}{\partial t}+V_j\frac{\partial s_m}{\partial x_j}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left(D \frac{\partial^2 s_m}{\partial x_j} - \langle v_j s_f
\rangle\right)
\label{s-diff}$$ where the last term corresponds to the transport of the field by turbulent fluctuations compared to the Fick’s law based on molecular diffusion (see Eq. \[fick\]). The frequently used “closure” appeals to “eddy diffusivity” coefficients defined as follows $$\langle v_j s_f \rangle=-\epsilon_l \frac{\partial s}{\partial x_j}
\label{closure}$$ where, in general, coefficients $\epsilon$ may depend on the direction. For hydrodynamic turbulence $\epsilon_l \sim v_l l$, which results in Richardson (1926) diffusion coefficient $\epsilon \sim l^{4/3}$ if velocity field is Kolmogorov, i.e. $v_l\sim l^{1/3}$. For the diffusion at the largest scales induced by turbulence with the injection scale $L$ and velocity $V_L$ $$\kappa_{hydro}\sim L V_L
\label{hydro}$$ corresponds to the maximal diffusivity of unmagnetized turbulent fluid. The above treatment can approximate the dynamics of fluid perpendicular to the local magnetic field, provided that the reconnection is fast. This is the issue that we address below.
[*Diffusion in Magnetized Fluid*]{}\
The introduction of magnetic field complicates the process of diffusion as it forces one to account for the back reaction of magnetic field. The latter was a hotly debated subject in the dynamo theory (see Parker 1979). For infinitesimally weak magnetic field which backreaction is negligible the turbulent eddies bend magnetic field lines over all scales up to the Ohmic dissipation one and the disparity of scales present in the problem of reconnection described in §4.1 does not emerge. This way of reasoning resulted in the concept of [*magnetic turbulent diffusivity*]{} within kinematic dynamo according to which the diffusion of magnetic field should is similar to the diffusion of passive scalar in hydrodynamic turbulence. However, this regime of dynamically unimportant magnetic field presents a highly unrealistic case of marginal astrophysical importance[^14].
The problem of diffusion of magnetized fluid when magnetic fields are dynamically important demands that the issue of magnetic reconnection is to be addressed. Otherwise, the existence of eddies is questionable. Mixing motions in MHD turbulence require that reconnection events in MHD turbulence should happen through every eddy turnover. This is, however, what the LV99 model predicts. Indeed, for small scales magnetic field lines are nearly parallel and, when they intersect, the pressure gradient is not $V_A^2/l_{\|}$ but rather $(l_{\bot}^2/l_{\|}^3) V_A^2$, since only the energy of the component of the magnetic field that is not shared is available to drive the outflow. On the other hand, the characteristic length contraction of a given field line due to reconnection between adjacent eddies is $l_{\bot}^2/l_{\|}$. This gives an effective ejection rate of $V_A/l_{\|}$. Since the width of the diffusion layer over the length $l_{\|}$ is $l_{\bot}$ Eq.(\[LV99\]) should be replaced by $V_{R}\approx V_A (l_{\bot}/l_{\|})$, which provides the reconnection rate $V_A/l_{\|}$, which is just the nonlinear cascade rate on the scale $l_{\|}$. This ensures self-consistency of critical balance for strong Alfvenic turbulence in highly conducting fluids (LV99). In fact, if not for the LV99 reconnection the buildup of unresolved magnetic knots would be unavoidable, flattening the turbulence spectrum compared to the theoretical predictions. The latter contradicts both Solar wind measurements and numerical calculations[^15].
Let us first consider the maximal rate allowed by the reconnection diffusion, i.e. evaluate the diffusivity arising from the largest eddies. Dealing with reconnection diffusion one should consider all regimes of MHD turbulence, superAlfvenic, transAlfvenic and subAlfvenic. We start with a superAlfvenic regime, i.e. $M_A>1$. Magnetic field gets dynamically important as soon as its energy density exceeds the energy of eddies at the Ohmic dissipation scale, which translates into Alfvenic velocity getting larger than the velocity of eddies at the Ohmic dissipation scale or the ion Larmor radius, whichever is larger. As the velocity in Kolmogorov turbulence scale as $v_l\sim l^{1/3}$, it is clear that even weak magnetic field can make a significant impact on the dynamics of the smallest eddies. In view of that it is advantageous to introduce a scale at which the magnetic field gets dynamically important and the nature of the turbulence changes from hydrodynamic to MHD (see Lazarian 2006), namely, $$l_A=L(V_A/V_L)^3=LM_A^{-3}
\label{alf}$$ where, similar to the notation in the hydrodynamic case, $L$ and $V_L$ are the injection scale and injection turbulent velocity, respectively. If the mean free path of particles is larger than $l_A$, the scale $l_A$ may act as an effective mean free path in terms of particle diffusion along magnetic fields. This is an important consideration for the diffusion of heat in collisionless fluid, but it is not so for the diffusion of magnetic field and plasmas induced by turbulence. The corresponding diffusion coefficient for the maximal rate coincides with its hydrodynamic counterpart given by Eq. (\[hydro\]), i.e. $$\kappa_{supA}=\kappa_{hydro}.
\label{supA}$$ This is due to the fact that for the largest eddies of superAlfvenic turbulence are marginally affected by magnetic field.
For low Alfvenic Mach numbers, i.e. for $V_A\gg V_L$ at large scales $\sim L$ the turbulence is weak (see Ng & Bhattachargee 1997, LV99, Gaultier et al. 2000) and magnetic fields are slightly perturbed by propagating Alfven waves. The wave packets in weak turbulence evolve changing their perpendicular scale $l_{\bot}$, while their scale $l_{\|}$ along the magnetic field does not change. The diffusion that is being induced by weak turbulence is substantially reduced compared to the case of hydrodynamic turbulence. It can be estimated as $$\kappa_{weak} \sim d^2\omega,
\label{kappa}$$ where $d$ is the random walk of the field line over the wave period $\sim \omega^{-1}$. The weak turbulence at scale $L$ evolves over the non-linear evolution time (see review by Cho, Lazarian & Vishniac 2003 and references therein) $$\tau\sim (V_A/V_L)^2 \omega^{-1}
\label{tau}$$ The transverse displacement of magnetic field lines in the perpendicular direction is a result of random walk $$\langle y^2\rangle\sim (\tau \omega)d^2.
\label{y1}$$ According to LV99, the transverse displacement of magnetic field lines over distance $x$ is a spatial random walk given by the equation $d\langle y^2\rangle/dx\sim L (V_L/V_A)^4$, which results in $$\langle y^2 \rangle\sim L x (V_L/V_A)^4.
\label{y2}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[kappa\]), (\[tau\]), (\[y1\]) and (\[y2\]) one gets the diffusion coefficient for the weak turbulence $$\kappa_{weak}\sim LV_L (V_L/V_A)^3\equiv LV_L M_A^3
\label{kappa2}$$ which is smaller than its hydrodynamic counterpart by the factor $M_A^3\ll 1$.
The additional contribution to diffusivity in the case $V_A\gg V_L$ comes from scales at which magnetic turbulence gets strong. As scaling of weak turbulence predicts $V_l\sim V_L(l_\bot/L)^{1/2}$ (LV99), at the scale $$l_{trans}\sim L(V_L/V_A)^2\equiv LM_A^2
\label{trans}$$ the critical balance condition $l_{\|}/V_A\approx l_{\bot}/V_l$ is getting satisfied making turbulence strong. It is easy to see that the velocity corresponding to $l_{trans}$ is $V_{trans}\sim V_L (V_L/V_A)$. For strong turbulence the diffusion $$\kappa_{strong}\sim V_{trans} l_{trans}\sim L V_L (V_L/V_A)^3
\label{kappa_st}$$ which coincides with Eq. (\[kappa2\]), indicating that the enhanced diffusivity of smaller eddies in strong MHD turbulence regime can produce as efficient magnetic field mixing as the diffusivity induced by weak turbulence at the injection scale. This coincidence illustrate the deep connection of the weak and strong turbulence in terms of the mixing that these processes induce.
Dealing with subAlfvenic turbulence one should distinguish between the diffusivity parallel and perpendicular to magnetic field. Magnetic field in a turbulent fluid changes the diffusion of plasma with particles moving along magnetic field lines. At the same time, turbulent eddies in the direction perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field, according LV99, are similar to the Kolmogorov picture. Indeed, in the presence of fast reconnection magnetic mixing is not inhibited for motions perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field. As the local direction of the magnetic field varies in respect to the [*mean*]{} magnetic field, the diffusivity induced by mildly subAlfvenic and trans-Alfvenic turbulence is not expected to be very different for the directions parallel and perpendicular to the [*mean*]{} magnetic field. At the same time, superAlfvenic turbulence, naturally, induces an isotropic diffusion.
The transAlfvenic case of $M_A\sim 1$ is the case which the GS95 model in its original formulation deals with. It should not be special and should correspond to substituting $M_A\equiv 1$ in the expressions obtained for superAlfvenic and subAlfvenic cases, e.g. in Eq. (\[kappa\_st\]).
As we mentioned earlier, the diffusion of magnetic field and plasmas at scales smaller than the scales of injection $L$ as well as the scale transfer to the Alfvenic turbulence $l_{trans}$ for the case of subAlfvenic turbulence, is subject to Richardson diffusion (see Eq. (\[Rich\])). This is the type of diffusion that gets accelerated with time as well as with scale involved, i.e. “superdiffusion”. We discuss below that dealing with star formation one is interested in the rate of the diffusion from a given clump or a cloud. In this case one can use the scale and velocity dispersion of the cloud as the proxies of $L$ and $V_L$. In the case of subAlfvenic turbulence, the diffusion coefficient can be approximated as $$\kappa_{cloud}\sim v_{cloud} l_{cloud} (v_{cloud}/V_A)^3
\label{kappa_cl}$$ while for the case of turbulence being transAlfvenic or superAlfvenic the same estimate but without $M_A^3$ factor should be used.
Physical picture of reconnection diffusion in the absence of gravity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The description above provides the mathematical framework of turbulent diffusivity in a homogeneous magnetized fluid. To what extent these results carry over to the mixing of highly inhomogeneous magnetic fields important for star formation is being discussed below.
![Motion of matter in the process of reconnection diffusion. 3D magnetic flux tubes get into contact and after reconnection plasma streams along magnetic field lines. [*Left panel*]{}: XY projection before reconnection, upper panel shows that the flux tubes are at angle in X-Z plane. [*Right panel*]{}: after reconnection. []{data-label="recdiff"}](figure5.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth" height="0.24\textheight"}
We should mention that the concept of reconnection diffusion is based on LV99 model and was first discussed in Lazarian (2005) in the context of star formation. The concept, however, is also applicable to heat transfer (see Lazarian 2006) as well as the turbulent transfer of heavy elements, i.e. “metals”, in the galaxy (see Lazarian 2011). The dynamo implications of the LV99 reconnection model were discussed in LV99 and we may claim that the reconnection diffusion of dynamically important magnetic fields should be used instead of the “turbulent diffusion” that was introduced to describe kinematic dynamo, i.e. the dynamo applicable to the case of extremely weak magnetic fields only[^16] (see §5.1). In terms of star forming clouds, the most important type of dynamo is the turbulent dynamo (see Cho et al. 2010 and ref. therein). Such a dynamo may be essential for the clouds in the early Universe when the plasmas were only weakly magnetized. Turbulent dynamo can also play role in increasing magnetization of superAlfvenic turbulent clouds. However, within the present paper we are mostly concerned with the issues of magnetic field removal via reconnection diffusion.
If magnetic field lines preserve their identify the diffusion of charged particles perpendicular to magnetic field lines is very restricted and the mass loading of magnetic field lines does not change. However, LV99 model (see also ELV11) suggests that the standard assumptions are violated if magnetized fluids are turbulent. As a result, in the presence of MHD turbulence, relative motions of plasma perpendicular to magnetic field not only possible, but [*inevitable*]{}.
We shall first illustrate the reconnection diffusion process showing how it allows plasma to move perpendicular to the mean inhomogeneous magnetic field (see Figure \[recdiff\]). The set up is relevant to what we encounter in star formation. Two magnetic flux tubes with entrained plasmas intersect each other at an angle and due to reconnection the identity of magnetic field lines change. Before the reconnection plasma pressure $P_{plasma}$ in the tubes is different, but the total pressure $P_{plasma}+P_{magn}$ is the same for two tubes. This is a textbook situation of a stable equilibrium. If plasmas are partially ionized then slow diffusion of neutrals which do not feel magnetic field directly can make gradually smoothen the magnetic field pressure gradients. We claim that in the presence of turbulence a different process takes place.
Magnetic field lines in the presence of turbulence are not parallel. Such field lines can reconnect and do reconnect all the time in a turbulent flow (see §4.1). The process of reconnection changes the topology of the initial magnetic configuration and connects magnetic fields with different mass loading and plasma pressures. As a result, plasmas stream along newly formed magnetic field lines to equalize the pressure along flux tubes. Portions of magnetic flux tubes with higher magnetic pressure expand as plasma pressure increases due to the flow of plasma along magnetic field lines. The entropy of the system increases with magnetic and plasma pressures becoming equal through the volume. In other words, an efficient process of the diffusion of plasmas and magnetic field takes place and this process does not rely on the partial ionization of the material. In the absence of gravity, the effect of this process is to make magnetic field and plasmas more homogeneously distributed. The effective diffusion of both magnetic field and plasmas is about $LV_{stream}$, where $V_{stream}$ arises due to plasma pressure difference along the parts of the reconnected flux tube. Therefore it is of the order of the sound speed. A “microscopic” picture of the same process is presented in §6.
If the process shown in Figure \[recdiff\] were the only one, the speed of reconnection diffusion would be limited by the speed of plasma motion along magnetic field lines. This is not the case, however. The exchange, as a result of reconnection, of parts of flux tubes with entrained material is another process essential for the process of reconnection diffusion. This ensures, for instance, that for supersonic turbulence, the exchange is happening at turbulent velocities.
![Reconnection diffusion: exchange of flux with entrained matter. Illustration of the mixing of matter and magnetic fields due to reconnection as two flux tubes of different eddies interact. Only one scale of turbulent motions is shown. In real turbulent cascade such interactions proceed at every scale of turbulent motions.[]{data-label="mix"}](figure6.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth" height="0.24\textheight"}
To get a clear mental picture of what is going on, consider a toy model of turbulence with only one scale of motions. Thus, similar to Figure \[recdiff\], where instead of considering the entire multitude of flux tubes of different sizes we focused on what is happening with two flux tubes, here we consider just two neighboring eddies as is illustrated by Figure \[mix\]. Magnetic flux tubes moving with the eddies reconnect and plasmas and magnetic fields associated with one eddy becomes a part of the other. This induces efficient diffusion of both magnetic field and plasmas. Indeed, if, as in the case illustrated by Figure \[recdiff\], the densities of plasma along magnetic field lines are different in the two flux tubes, the reconnection in Figure \[mix\] creates new flux tube with columns of entrained dense and rarefied plasmas. The situation is similar to the earlier discussed case with plasma moving along magnetic fields and equalizing the pressure within the newly formed flux tubes. As a result, eddies with initially different plasma pressure exchange matter and equalize plasma pressure. This process can be described as the diffusion of plasma perpendicular to the mean magnetic field.
In reality, for turbulence with the extended inertial range, the shredding of the columns of plasmas with different density proceeds at all turbulence scales making speed of plasma motion irrelevant for the diffusion. For the case of strong turbulence the diffusion of matter and magnetic field is given by Eq. (\[kappa\_st\]).
Naturally, the process of reconnection diffusion also takes place when the pressure of plasmas is the same throughout the volume. This is important for the diffusion of plasma impurities and heat. The mixing is happening as new magnetic flux tubes are constantly formed from magnetic flux tubes that belong to different eddies. It is clear that plasmas which were originally entrained on different flux tubes get into contact along the flux tubes created through reconnection. The process similar to the depicted one takes place at different scales down to the scale of the smallest eddies. At the smallest scales, the microscopic diffusivity of plasmas takes over.
The efficiency of reconnection diffusion depends on the scale of the motions involved. The process of reconnection diffusion may be illustrated with the case of the diffusion of impurity from a blob of the size $a$ (Figure \[turb\]). This setting allows us to consider homogeneous turbulence, which is simplifies the analysis. Turbulence is characterized by its injection scale $L_{max}$, its dissipation scale $L_{min}$ and its inertial range $[L_{min}, L_{max}]$. Consider Alfvenic eddies perpendicular to magnetic field lines. If turbulent eddies are much smaller than $a$, i.e. $a\gg L_{min}$ they extend the spot acting in a random walk fashion. For eddies much larger than the blob, i.e. $a\ll L_{min}$ they mostly advect the spot[^17]. If $a$ is the within the inertial range of turbulent motions, i.e. $L_{min}<a<L_{max}$ then a more complex dynamics of turbulent motions is involved. This is the case of Richardson diffusion (see Eq. (\[Rich\])).
If the blob $a$ is not just an impurity, but has density different from the density of the surrounding flow, the process of reconnection diffusion depends on the properties of turbulence within and outside the blob. The level and scale of turbulence may differ within and outside the blob. We may use the idealized picture in Figure \[turb\] to get a qualitative insight, nevertheless. If the blob is constrained by gravity, as this is relevant to star formation, and is turbulent up to the largest scale the diffusivity of magnetic field from the blob can be roughly estimated as $a v_a$, where $v_a$ is the velocity at the scale $a$. This estimate assumes that scale $a$ is within the range of strong MHD turbulence. Then the reconnection diffusion from the volume scales as $a^{4/3}$. If $a$ is within the range of weak turbulence the reconnection diffusivity is given by Eq. (\[kappa\_cl\]).
Our example in Figure \[turb\] illustrates the diffusion perpendicular to magnetic field. As we mentioned in §3.2, Alfvenic motions that are most efficient in mixing perpendicular to the [*local*]{} direction of magnetic field. This direction, in general, does not coincide with the mean magnetic field direction. Therefore in the system of reference related to the mean magnetic field (and to the external observer) the diffusion of magnetic field and plasmas will happen both parallel and perpendicular to the mean magnetic field direction. However, the weaker the perturbations of the magnetic field, i.e. the smaller the $V_L/V_A$ ratio, the more anisotropic the reconnection diffusion is.
![Reconnection diffusion depends on the size $a$ of the zone from which the diffusion happens. Different regimes emerge depending on the relation $a$ to the sizes of maximal and minimal eddies present in the turbulence cascade. Eddies perpendicular to magnetic field lines correspond to Alfvenic turbulence. The plots illustrate heat diffusion for different regimes. [*Upper*]{} plot corresponds to $a$ being less than the minimal size of turbulent eddies; [*Middle plot*]{} corresponds to $a$ being less than the damping scale of turbulence; [*Lower plot*]{} corresponds to $a$ within the inertial range of turbulent motions. This is the case of Richardson diffusion.[]{data-label="turb"}](figure7.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth" height="0.24\textheight"}
Reconnection diffusion in the presence of gravity
-------------------------------------------------
In the presence of gravitational forces acting upon plasmas, the diffusion will also increase the entropy of the system, allowing the “heavy fluid”, i.e. gas, to be concentrated and “light fluid”, i.e. magnetic field, to leave the the gravitational potential[^18].
Consider the idealized system of plasmas and magnetic field in a uniform directed downwards gravitational field with the acceleration $g$. In the thermodynamic equilibrium the plasmas will have the Boltzmann distribution with $\rho \exp[-m_i g z/kT_{eff}]$, where the effective temperature for supersonic turbulence can be roughly estimated from $kT_{eff}\sim m_{dom}V_L^2/2$, $m_{dom}$ is the mass of dominant species in the flow. As a result, the light fluid, namely magnetic field, would fill the entire volume and have the same pressure. Therefore the magnetization of the media measured in terms of magnetic flux to plasma mass ratio is the lowest at the bottom and highest at the top of the system.
The redistribution of the magnetic field is induced by the reconnection diffusion. However, one should clarify what is the diffusion coefficient for the magnetic field that is induced by the process. We discussed in §5.2 that the diffusion happens in a different way at different scales. It is generally accepted that the turbulence in molecular clouds is a part of a big power law turbulent cascade (see Figure\[CL\] and the discussion in §3.1). The gravitational cores that get rid of the magnetic field excess are much smaller than the scale of interstellar turbulent driving, i.e. $\sim 100$ pc. Assuming that clouds are parts of the same turbulent cascade existing in the diffuse gas one can use the idealized sketch in Figure \[turb\] to estimate the efficiency of reconnection diffusion. It seems natural to associate the size of blob $a$ with the virial radius of the core $r_{vir}$, which for the case of the turbulence support of the core is $G M/r_{vir}\sim V_{turb}^2$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the core mass and $V_{turb}$ is the turbulent velocity associated with the cloud at the scale $r_{vir}$.
Reconnection diffusion and the identity of magnetic field lines
===============================================================
Below we consider the process of reconnection diffusion microscopically, at the level of individual field lines.
Explosive diffusion of magnetic field lines in turbulent flows
--------------------------------------------------------------
A textbook description of magnetic field lines in perfectly or nearly perfectly conducting fluid assumes that the line preserves its identity. There is a number of ways to see that this is impossible in a turbulent fluid (see ELV11).
We shall start by showing that the Richarson diffusion (see Eq. (\[Rich\])) produces very non-trivial results. Consider the problem of separating particles in Kolmorogov turbulence. The separation between two particles $d/dt l(t)\sim v(l)\sim \alpha l^{1/3}$, where $\alpha$ is proportional to a cubical root of the energy cascading rate. The solution of this equation is $l(t)=[l_0^{2/3}+\alpha (t-t_0)]^{1/3}$, which provides Richardson diffusion[^19] of $l^2\sim t^3$. However, as correctly stressed by Greg Eyink (2011), the odd feature of this solution is that the provides this type of fast separation even if the initial separation of particles is zero, which means the violation of Laplacian determinism. Mathematically the above paradox is resolved by accounting to the fact that turbulent field is not differentiable[^20] and therefore the initial value problem does not have a unique solution. Thinking physically, we cannot assume that the turbulence is present up to $l_0=0$.
Although the previous example dealt with hydrodynamic turbulence, the essential features of this example cary over to the case of MHD turbulence, as in the plane perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field, strong MHD turbulence satisfies the Kolmogorov description[^21]
The study in LV99 revealed the Richardson-type diffusion of magnetic field lines. Figure \[expl\] illustrates the loss of the Laplacian determinism for magnetic field lines. In analogy with the illustrative example above, the final line spread $l_{\bot}$ does not depend on the initial separation of the field lines. This is a remarkable effect that provides a microscopic picture of reconnection diffusion based on the description of magnetic field lines rather than on the reconnection of well organized flux tubes in §5.1.
We shall consider tracing magnetic field lines in the realistic turbulence with the dissipation scale $l_{min, \bot}$, where, as everywhere in the paper, $\bot$ denotes the scale perpendicular to the local magnetic field. We feel that this avoids some of the paradoxes discussed in ELV11 and also allows to treat a more generic case of astrophysical turbulence. However, we first briefly stress a couple of points presented in ELV11. First of all, resistivity, whatever its nature, introduces stochastic forcing in the description of magnetic field line dynamics. Indeed, the induction equation with the resistive term $\eta\Delta B$ signifies stochasticity associated with Ohmic diffusion. Therefore the definition of the magnetic field line on scales affected by resistivity is not deterministic. In addition, one has to accept that the magnetic field line motion is a concept defined by convention and not testable experimentally. This point is stressed in the literature (see Newcomb 1958, Vasylianas 1972, Alfven 1976, ELV11), but sometimes forgotten. Thus magnetic field lines may be tagged by ions that start at the same field line (see Figure \[regimes\]) In the case of smooth laminar magnetic field and ideal MHD equations the motions of ions will reveal magnetic field lines and two ions on the same field line will always remain on the same line. The situation is radically different in the presence of turbulence.
![Particle tracing magnetic field lines may start at different initial locations shown as coaxial ellipsoids. However after a period of time the field line spread over a larger volume and the final position of the field lines does not correlate with their initial position.[]{data-label="expl"}](figure8.eps){height=".30\textheight"}
In our thought experiment we shall trace ions moving with the same velocity and separated perpendicular to magnetic field by a distance of a Larmor radius $\rho_0$. As we discuss further, if the separation is less $rho_0$ than that one can appeal to plasma effects to increase the separation to $\rho_0$. Let us assume that the minimal scale of turbulence $l_{min, \bot} >\rho_0$. In this situation the dynamics of ions can be approximated by the dynamics of charged particles in toy model of “a single scale MHD turbulence” discussed in Rechester & Rosenbluth (1978). Indeed, the turbulent motions at the critically damped scale $l_{min, \bot}$ are dominant for shearing and steering matter and magnetic field on the smaller scales. The Rechester & Rosenbluth (1978) theory predicts the Lypunov growth of the perpendicular separation of ions, i.e. the separation gets $\rho_0\exp(l/l_{min, \|}$, where $l$ is the distance traveled by ions and $l_{min, \|}$ is the scale parallel scale of the critically damped eddies with the perpendicular scale $l_{min, \bot}$ (see also Narayan & Medvedev 2001, Lazarian 2006). Thus to get separated by the distance $l_{min, \bot}$ the ions should travel the so-called Rechester-Rosenbluth distance: $$L_{RR}\approx l_{min, \|} ln(l_{min, \bot}/\rho_0)
\label{RR}$$ which at most a dozen times larger than the microscopic scale $l_{min, \|}$. As soon as ions get separated over the distance of $l_{min, \bot}$ they get into different eddies and the process of Richardson diffusion starts. Thus after a relatively short period when ions move in a correlated manner remembering their original position, a stochastic regime when the initial vicinity of the ions is completely forgotten takes over. As we used the ions as tracers of magnetic field, we can talk about the stochasticity of magnetic field lines (as traced by ions).
If the minimal turbulence scale is equal to $\rho_0$, the arguments above only get stronger, as from the very beginning the ions may experience stochastic turbulence driving and get uncorrelated. In many cases, for instance, in fully or mostly ionized ISM (e.g. with the ionization larger than 93% as discussed e.g. in Lazarian, Vishniac & Cho 2004), the Alfvenic turbulent cascade at $\rho_0$ gets continued as a whistler cascade involving only electrons. Such cascading provides stochasticity below $\rho_0$. With the whistler scaling as $v_l\sim l^{2/3}$ (see Cho & Lazarian 2009 and references therein) the “whistler-induced” Richardson diffusion should go as $l^2\sim t^6$, inducing fast separation of magnetic field lines that can be now traced by electrons and inducing stochastic perturbations on ion trajectories. This only makes the case for the stochasticity when the ions are separated initially over less than $\rho_0$ more evident.
Consider the case of ions separate by less than the $\rho_0$ distance and turbulence truncated at scales larger than $\rho_0$. The generalized Ohms law can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\bf E}=-\frac{1}{c}{\bf u\times B}+\eta_\perp{\bf J}_\perp+\eta_\|{\bf J}_\|
+\frac{\bf J\times B}{nec}\cr
&& \,\,\,\,\,-\frac{{\bf \nabla \dot P_e}}{nec}
+ \frac{m_e}{ne^2}\left(\frac{\partial {\bf J}}{\partial t} + \nabla\dot({\bf uJ}+{\bf Ju}-\frac{1}{ne}{\bf JJ})\right),
\label{Ohm} \end{aligned}$$ when quasi-neutrality and $m_e\ll m_i$ are assumed (see Bhattacharjee et al. 1999). The electric fields on the righthand side are, respectively, the motional field, Ohmic fields associated to perpendicular and parallel resistivities, the Hall field, a contribution from the electron pressure tensor, and electron inertial contributions. All of these terms contribute to the slippage of magnetic field-lines through the plasma on the scales of the order of $\rho_0$. This introduces small scale diffusion and therefore stochasticity for the ions initially very close in their position (ELV11). Therefore the ions are bound to separate fast however close they were initially. The diffusion introduced by the terms in the Ohm’s law is important on the scales $\rho_0$, but for the reconnection diffusion the exact form of these terms does not matter. The initial separation of the particles is being fast forgotten and it is the large scale turbulence that determines the macroscopic stochasticity of magnetic field lines.
For the purposes of discussing reconnection diffusion, we have chosen ions as our trace particles. One, however, may argue that electrons as current carrying agents are more appropriate. This does not change our arguments above, however, as using the Larmor radius of electron $\rho_{electron}$ instead of $\rho_0$ in Eq. (\[RR\]) changes the result by an insignificant factor.
![[*Upper plot*]{} Ions tracing the same magnetic field line. The diffusion and decorrelation arises from plasma or Ohmic effects as well Rechester-Rosenbluth effect. [*Middle plot*]{} Ions separated by scales much larger than the ion Larmor radius are further separated by the Rechester-Rosenbluth effect. [*Lower*]{} At scales larger than the turbulence damping scale the Richardson diffusion takes over resulting in explosive separation of field lines.[]{data-label="regimes"}](figure9.eps){height=".40\textheight"}
Spontaneous stochasticity of magnetic field lines and reconnection diffusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process of magnetic field lines becoming stochastic in turbulent fluids is also called “spontaneous stochasticity” (see Eyink 2011, ELV11). We believe that the way of tracing magnetic field lines with ions discussed in §6.1 has a very transparent meaning in terms of diffusion of plasmas in astrophysical conditions. The common wisdom underlying the star formation research, for instance, is based on the picture of laminar field lines where nearby ions stay all the time entrained on the same field line provided that the non-ideal effects, e.g. resistivity, are negligibly small. It is evident from §6.1 that this is not correct for realistically turbulent fluids.
To proceed with our discussion of the physics of reconnection diffusion, consider two turbulent volumes at a distance between them (see Figure \[alt\]). Each of the volumes has its own set of magnetic field lines. However, as the field lines wander and spread as the consequence of the Richardson diffusion they overlap in the volume $\Delta_{int}$ and their identity as associated with the particular volume is lost (Figure \[alt\], left). Magnetic field lines reconnect and the newly formed lines allow plasma exchange between the initially disconnected volumes. If plasma and magnetic field pressures in the volumes was different, one can easily seen that this picture based on the diffusion of magnetic field lines is analogous to the picture describing the exchange of plasmas between magnetic flux tubes in Figure \[recdiff\].
Figure \[alt\], left, illustrates the spread of magnetic field lines in the perpendicular direction as magnetic field lines are traced by particles moving along them. Using Eq. (\[y2\]) one can get the RMS separation of the magnetic field lines (LV99) $$\delta l_{\bot}^2\approx \frac{l_{\|}^3}{L}\left(\frac{V_L}{V_A}\right)^4,
\label{l_rms}$$ i.e. $l_{\bot}^2$ is proportional to $l_{\|}^3$. This regime identified in LV99 is a Richardson diffusion but in terms of magnetic field lines[^22]. The numerical testing of this prediction of LV99 is shown in Figure \[wand\]. This is the case of diffusion in space. Eq. (\[l\_rms\]) allow one to calculate the distance $l_{\|}$ at which the magnetic field lines of regions separated by $l_{\bot}$ start overlapping[^23], i.e. $l_{\|}\approx (\delta l_{\bot}^2 L)^{1/3}(V_A/V_L)^{4/3}$. Thus for sufficiently large $l_{\|}$ all parts of the volume of magnetized plasmas get connected. In other words, the entire volume becomes accessible to particles moving along magnetic field lines. Naturally, in this situation the customary for the star formation community notion of flux to mass ratio loses its original sense.
In addition, in turbulent plasmas, our turbulent volumes spread due to Richardson diffusion with $\delta l_{\perp}^2\sim t^3$. This process is illustrated by Figure \[alt\], right. The magnetized plasmas spreads by subAlfvenic turbulence over a larger volume, while motions of plasma along magnetic field lines are ignored. The two initially disconnected volumes get overlapped and the magnetic field and plasma of two regions gets mixed up. Again, one easily can see that the process that we described in terms of magnetic field lines is similar to the one we described in terms of reconnected magnetic field flux tubes in Figure \[mix\]. This is expected, as magnetic reconnection is an intrinsic part of the picture of MHD turbulence that governs the dynamics of magnetic field lines (LV99)[^24]
![Microscopic physical picture of reconnection diffusion. Magnetized plasma from two regions is spread by turbulence and mixed up over $\Delta_{int}$. [*Left panel*]{}: Description of the process in terms of field wandering in space. [*Right panel*]{}. Description of the spread in time.[]{data-label="alt"}](figure10.eps){height=".22\textheight"}
For the partially ionized gas the following questions are practically important. Does the Rechester-Rosenbluth length given by Eq. (\[RR\]) present a serious bottleneck for Richarson diffusion on the larger scales? Does the Richarson diffusion provide faster diffusion rates compared to the ambipolar diffusion? The latter question is addressed in §11.4 where we argue that if ambipolar diffusion is too efficient, we expect turbulence to decay, while if strong MHD turbulence is present in the volume this means that the reconnection diffusion dominates. The answer to the former question is more subtle. There has not yet been a study of the Richardson diffusion in a partially ionized gas. However, appealing to the equivalence of fast reconnection and spontaneous stochasticity revealed in ELV11, we can appeal to the work by Lazarian et al. (2004) that demonstrates that the reconnection in a partially ionized gas is fast. This justifies our application of the Richardson diffusivity to the partially ionized gas. Intuitively, one can argue that the Richardson diffusion on the scales larger than the damping scale makes the latter irrelevant similar to the case of damping scale in fully ionized plasma that we discussed earlier[^25].
Naturally, in the presence of diffusion, ions that we use to trace magnetic field spread in the volume, reproducing the results of spreading of magnetic field in the turbulent volume via reconnection diffusion that we argued in §5.2. In the presence of gravity, it is obvious that the lighter fluid of magnetized ions should tend to escape the gravitational potential as we discussed in §5.3. In other words, tracing of ions provides us with the microscopic picture of reconnection diffusion.
Magnetic field wandering and reconnection diffusion
---------------------------------------------------
Magnetic field wandering described in LV99 is a implementation of Richardson diffusion (ELV11). This very wandering has then been then used in the literature to describe the properties of cosmic ray diffusion and heat transport (see Narayan & Medvedev 2001, Lazarian 2005, Yan & Lazarian 2008) and has been tested numerically (Maron et al. 2004, Lazarian et al. 2004). Figure \[wand\] shows numerical results on magnetic field separation. The regime corresponding to the Richardson-type scaling is clearly seen at the scales corresponding to the inertial range of the turbulence. At the scales larger than the injection scale the usual diffusion regime takes over. The latter regime was discussed decades ago within earlier models of MHD turbulence (see, for instance, classical papers by Parker 1965, Jokipii 1973).
![Magnetic field wandering from numerical simulations. Separation of magnetic field lines shown. Modified from Lazarian et al. 2004.[]{data-label="wand"}](figure11.eps){height=".30\textheight"}
Neither of the regimes of magnetic wandering can be understood as static with magnetic field lines preserving their identify in turbulent flows. Magnetic field lines should constantly reconnect inducing the exchange of plasmas and magnetic field inducing the reconnection diffusion process that we advocate in this paper. In view of this, interesting ideas on the non-trivial nature of magnetic field lines can be found in a prophetic book by Parker (1979). Nevertheless, Parker (1979) does not formulate the reconnection diffusion or spontaneous stochasticity concepts.
MHD and plasma-based descriptions of reconnection diffusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the previous section we proved that LV99 ensures efficient diffusion of matter and magnetic fields in turbulent fluids. One may wonder whether other models of fast reconnection, e.g. collisionless reconnection, can also induce reconnection diffusion.
First of all, we would like to stress that the LV99 model is not in conflict with the studies of magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas that have been a major thrust of the plasma physics community (see Shay et al. 1998, Daughton et al. 2006). Unlike latter studies, LV99 deals with turbulent environments. It shows, as we discussed in §4.1 that local reconnection rates are influenced by plasma effects, e.g. kinetic effects of Hall effects, but the overall or global reconnection rate, i.e. the rate at which magnetic flux tubes reconnect, is determined by the turbulent broadening of the reconnection region. Thus, in the turbulent astrophysical media the rate of reconnection is not going to be affected by additional mechanisms. As a result, the reconnection diffusion will proceed with its maximal rate limited by turbulent motions only.
If, on the contrary, the media that we deal with is not turbulent, reconnection diffusion does not take place even in the presence of fast reconnection. Turbulent mixing is a necessary condition for reconnection diffusion to exist. If other mechanisms of reconnection induce turbulence, this turbulence will induce reconnection diffusion and we return back to the case above.
Plasma effect might be potentially important on a more subtle level, however. As field wandering is essential for reconnection diffusion, one may wonder to what extend the plasma effects can be neglected while describing field wandering. Indeed, as we mentioned in §6.1 the non-ideal terms in the Ohms law (\[Ohm\]) provide the stochasticity of charge carriers and therefore of the magnetic field lines that these charges trace. Consider, for instance, Hall term which is most commonly invoked in the literature of fast reconnection. Hall term was also invoked in a studies of magnetic field loss by circumstellar accretion disks[^26] (see Krasnopolsky et al. 2010). The usual criterion for the Hall term to dominate is that the electron flow velocity is dominated by the current. However, to dominate magnetic field stochasticity the criterion should be different as the correlations of the Hall velocity are short ranged. Assuming the small-scale equipartition of velocity and magnetic field, $B(r)^2/4\pi\sim \rho v(r)^2/2$ and turbulent correlation of velocities $\langle v_i v_j\rangle\sim C r^{\gamma}$, one gets for the Hall velocity $V_{Hall}=J/ne=c\nabla \times B/4\pi ne$ correlations $$\langle V_{Hall, i} V_{Hall, j}\rangle \sim \left(\frac{c}{4\pi ne}\right)^2 \Delta \langle B_i B_j\rangle
\label{Hall}$$ The right hand sight Eq. (\[Hall\]) can be estimated as $\left(\frac{c}{4\pi ne}\right)^2 4\pi n \rho C r^{\gamma -2}$, which is much smaller than the correlation of the turbulent velocities if the distance between point of correlation $r\gg c^2 m_i/4\pi n e^2=\delta_i$, where $\delta_i$ is the ion inertial skin depth. This estimate is consistent with a more elaborate one in ELV11. Therefore even large Hall velocities do not affect meandering of magnetic field lines on the scale much larger that the inertial skin depth. The reconnection diffusion applicable to star formation deals with scales $\gg \delta_i$.
To finish with the discussion of plasma effects, we should mention that the Hall MHD (HMHD) is frequently presented as a proper way to describe reconnection in astrophysical systems. However, it is shown in ELV11 that HMHD is rarely applicable to the actual astrophysical plasmas. Indeed, the derivation of Hall MHD based on collisionality requires that the ion skin-depth $\delta_i$ must satisfy the conditions $\delta_i\gg S \gg \ell_{mfp,i}$, where $S$ is the scale of large-scale variations of magnetic field. The second inequality is needed so that a two-fluid description is valid at the scales of interest, while the first inequality is needed so that the Hall term remains significant at those scales. However, substituting $\delta_i=\rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ into the expression for the Coulomb collisional frequency (see Eq. (\[lmfp-rho\])) yields the result $$\frac{\ell_{mfp,i}}{\delta_i}\propto \frac{\Lambda}{\ln\Lambda}\frac{v_{th,i}}{c}.$$ where $\Lambda=4\pi \rho n \lambda_D^3$ is the number of particles in the Debye sphere. For weakly coupled astrophysical plasmas $\Lambda$ is really large (see table in EVL11) and therefore $\ell_{mfp,i}\gg \delta_i,$ unless the ion temperature is extremely low. Thus, Hall MHD is valid only for cold, dense plasmas,e.g. that produced by the MRX reconnection experiment (e.g. Yamada et al. 2010), but not in the conditions of the diffuse ISM and molecular clouds where star formation takes place.
Hypothetical weak regime of reconnection diffusion
==================================================
Our discussion above shows that, similar to the case of hydrodynamic turbulence, strong MHD turbulence induces efficient diffusion. In this regimes the initial separation of particles and magnetic field lines does not affect their final position after a sufficiently extended period of time (see our illustration of the Richardson diffusion in §6.1). For superAlfvenic and transAlfvenic turbulence the regime of accelerated diffusion spans from the scale of dissipation to the one of injection. For subAlfvenic turbulence the Richardson regime covers scales from the dissipation scale to the scale of the transition to the strong turbulence, i.e. $t_{trans}$ given by Eq. (\[trans\]). The latter is true provided that the dissipation scale is larger than $t_{trans}$.
What would happen if the turbulence dissipation scale is larger than $t_{trans}$? This can result in a very different regime of diffusion. Indeed, the diffusion induced by weak turbulence obeys the ordinary diffusion laws with the squared displacement proportional to time, i.e. $\delta^2\sim t$, rather than $t^3$ for the Richardson diffusion. The trajectories of particles exponentially depart, but they remember their starting point. Therefore the reconnection is expected to depend on the plasma microphysics and will not be fast. This is a very special regime of very weak driving and very strong dissipation. This regime can be called “weak reconnection diffusion”. In this situation, one would expect interesting new effects, e.g. the joined action of ambipolar diffusion and weak reconnection diffusion.
We feel that the situation with weak reconnection diffusion requires further studies and no definitive conclusions are possible at the moment. Potentially, weakly driven turbulence in a partially ionized gas could realize “weak reconnection diffusion”. However, Lazarian et al. (2004) claimed that in the partially ionized gas the turbulence proceeds first as a viscosity damped magnetic turbulence with a shallow spectrum of magnetic perturbations and steep velocity spectrum. Then this regime transfers to strong turbulence involving only ions and electrons. From the scale of the strong turbulence resurrection to the dissipation scale one expect to observe the regime of the accelerated diffusion making the microphysics on the smaller scales irrelevant. A more fundamental problem is that in the regime of weak turbulence without a transition to the strong one, the reconnection may get dependent on resistivity, i.e. become slow. In this situation one would expect the accumulation of magnetic winding and also eventual transfer to bursty strong regime even in one fluid approximation. These issues are, however, are beyond the scope of the present paper. For astrophysical settings that we discuss in §8 and §9 we do not expect the reconnection diffusion to be in weak regime.
Theoretical expectations and numerical simulations of reconnection diffusion
============================================================================
Limitations of numerical simulations
------------------------------------
Recently we performed a few numerical studies to explore the consequences of reconnection diffusion. Similarly, as numerical studies of ambipolar diffusion do not “prove” the very concept of ambipolar diffusion, our studies were not intended to “prove” the idea of reconnection diffusion. Our goal was to demonstrate that, [*in agreement with the theoretical expectations*]{}, the process of reconnection diffusion is important for a number of astrophysical set-ups relevant to star formation.
We have to admit that the limitations arising from numerical simulations are not always appreciated within the astrophysical community. While low resolution observations provide a true picture smoothed by a telescope beam, potentially, low resolution numerical simulations may provide a completely erroneous physical picture.
To understand the difference between reconnection in astrophysical situations and in numerical simulations, one should recall that the dimensionless combination that controls the resistive reconnection rate is the Lundquist number given by Eq. (\[Lun\])[^27]. Because of the huge astrophysical length-scales $L_x$ involved, the astrophysical Lundquist numbers are also huge, e.g. for the ISM they are about $10^{16}$, while present-day MHD simulations correspond to $S<10^4$. As the numerical efforts scale as $L_x^4$, where $L_x$ is the size of the box, it is feasible neither at present nor in the foreseeable future to have simulations with realistically Lundquist numbers. Therefore our numerical studies of reconnection diffusion in Santos-Lima et al. (2010, 2012) deal with a different domain of Lundquist numbers and the theoretical justification why [*for the given problem*]{} the difference in the Lundquist numbers is not essential is mandatory. For the case of reconnection diffusion simulations, LV99 theory predicts that the dynamics of reconnection is independent from the Lundquist number and therefore the reconnection in the computer simulations [*in the presence of turbulence*]{} adequately represents the astrophysical process.
![Removal of magnetic field via reconnection diffusion from cylindrical models of molecular clouds. In the process of simulations the density is accumulated at the center of the potential well ([*upper raw*]{}), while the magnetic field leaves the center ([*lower raw*]{}). From Santos-Lima et al. (2010). \[10\]](figure12.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We can rely on LV99 theory as by now its [*analytical predictions*]{} have been confirmed (see Kowal et al. 2009, 2012, Lazarian et al. 2011, Vishniac et al. 2012; see also §4.3). Moreover, the correspondence of the LV99 theory and more recent ideas on spontaneous stochasticity developed in the theory of turbulence have been revealed in ELV11. These studies provide us with confidence that we understand what is happening with the magnetic field in the Santos-Lima (2010, 2011) simulations.
We must also stress that for the reconnection diffusion process turbulence is essential. Similarly with the Lundquist number issue, the perfect representation of astrophysical turbulence is not possible due to the huge difference of the Reynolds numbers in astrophysical fluids and in simulations. However, our theoretical study allows us to claim that for the reconnection diffusion the scales of turbulence injection or the scale of the transition to strong MHD turbulence ($l_{trans}$, see Eq. (\[trans\])) matter the most. Therefore if the simulations resolve these scales one may rely on the reconnection diffusion in astrophysical settings being correctly represented. In terms of simulating reconnection diffusion, it is important to keep in mind that the LV99 model predicts that the largest eddies are the most important for providing outflow in the reconnection zone and therefore the reconnection will not be appreciably changed if turbulence does not have an extended inertial range. In addition, LV99 predicts that the effects of anomalous resistivity, including that arising from the finite numerical grid, do not change the rate of turbulent reconnection (see more discussion in §4.2).
Reconnection diffusion and magnetic field removal from clouds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding of the nature of reconnection diffusion allows one to simulate process with 3D MHD codes. Some results of such a simulation is shown in Figure \[10\]. We observe that [*in the absence of ambipolar diffusion*]{}, the magnetic field escapes the gravitational potential, allowing the matter to become concentrated in the center. The simulations were performed both from equilibrium configurations simulating subcritical clouds and in collapsing clouds, simulating supercritical clouds. In all the cases, the efficient removal of magnetic flux from clouds was observed.
It worth stressing that the application of concept of reconnection diffusion is not limited to accounting for the known observational facts. It includes predictions, e.g. the possibility of a gravitational collapse irrespectively of the degree of cloud ionization. As we discuss in §9.4 reconnection diffusion provides an attractive scenario for star formation in special cases when the expected high ionization should make ambipolar diffusion prohibitively slow.
Reconnection diffusion and circumstellar accretion disks
--------------------------------------------------------
Circumstellar disks are known to play a fundamental role at the late stages of star formation (see Aikawa & Nomura 2008). Observational studies revealed that embedded magnetic fields in molecular cloud cores are high enough to inhibit the formation of rotationally supported disks. Ambipolar diffusion is not powerful enough to induce the removal of magnetic fields fast enough. This motivated Shu et al. (2006) to talk about effects of enhanced resistivity that can explain the observational data (see also more recent elaborations of this idea of microscopic resistivity in Krasnopolsky et al. 2010 and Li et al. 2011). On the contrary, appealing to fast reconnection in LV99, Lazarian & Vishniac (2009) argued that the removal of magnetic field is due to reconnection diffusion.
Figure \[100\] shows results of recent simulations by Santos-Lima et al. (2012) which, indeed, support the notion that reconnection diffusion is the process that is responsible for the removal of magnetic fields from accretion disks. The turbulence injection in the simulations was done to mimic the turbulence associated with the process of disk formation. The simulations also testify that without turbulence for realistic parameters of resistivity the formation of disks is suppressed. This work established the correspondence of the properties of the disks produced by reconnection diffusion to observations. While additional processes may also be important for solving “magnetic braking catastrophe” (see Seifried et al. 2012), the reconnection diffusion is the process that is definitely present[^28] in turbulent fluids and therefore is an essential part of circumstellar accretion disks models. Apart from being important for the dynamics of accretion disks, the intensity of turbulent magnetic field is important for the growth of dust particles in accretion disks (Steinacket et al. 2010) through the coagulation and shuttering induced by MHD turbulence (see Lazarian & Yan 2002, Yan & Lazarian 2003, Hoang, Lazarian & Schlickeiser 2012). Thus the process should be taken into account for any self-consistent model of circumstellar accretion disks (e.g. see Henning & Meeus 2011), including accretion disks around massive stars (see Keto & Zhang 2011).
![Formation of circumstellar disks (from left to right): in hydro simulations, MHD simulations without turbulence, MHD simulations with unrealistically high resistivity and MHD simulations with turbulence at the start of simulations. Reconnection diffusion produces realistic disks. From Santos-Lima et al. (2012). \[100\]](figure13.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Predictions and tests for reconnection diffusion
================================================
Reconnection diffusion is a physical process very different from the ambipolar diffusion. Thus it is not surprising that the star formation controlled by reconnection diffusion is very different from the picture based on the ambipolar diffusion concept. Below we outline a few predictions that follow from the reconnection diffusion model.
Reconnection diffusion in interstellar diffuse gas
--------------------------------------------------
A naive picture of frozen in magnetized plasma suggests that fluctuations of magnetic field and density should be correlated. The correlations may not be perfect, as motions along magnetic field lines that compress only gas are also present, e.g. slow modes in the media with magnetic pressure larger than the pressure of the ionized gas (see Cho & Lazarian 2002, Passot & Vazquez-Semadeni 2003).
Observations by Troland & Heiles (1986) demonstrated a poor correlation between the magnetic field strength and density, which was rather unexpected at the time the work was done. Note that the degree of ionization of the diffuse media is sufficiently large to make the effects of ambipolar diffusion negligible. We discuss the approaches to this problem based on the works by Passot & Vazquez-Semadeni (2003) and Heitsch et al. (2004) in §11.6 and §11.4, respectively.
In view of our earlier discussion in this paper, the above result is expected. Indeed, we discussed that the reconnection diffusion tends to make the magnetic energy density uniformly distributed in the volume. In other words, in the presence of reconnection diffusion mixing of density fluctuations by turbulent eddies is present and this should mitigate any density-magnetic field correlations arising from simultaneous compression of magnetic field and conducting gas[^29]
Applying our results in §5.1 one can conclude that the diffusion of magnetic field for the diffuse interstellar media is determined by motions at the large scale which for super- or transAlfvenic driving provides the coefficient of reconnection diffusivity $L V_L$ if the scale of interest $a$ is larger than the turbulence injection scale $L$. Similarly, for $a<L$ the diffusion coefficient is $\sim a V_L (a/L)^{1/3}$ if $a<L$. For the subAlfvenic driving, i.e. for the Alfven Mach number of turbulence $M_A<1$ additional factor of $M_A^3$ is expected in the diffusion coefficient expressions reflecting the decreased efficiency of mixing by subAlfvenic turbulence. The results of numerical simulations are consistent with these expectations (see Santos-Lima et al. 2010). In fact, reconnection diffusion was demonstrated to decorrelate magnetic field and density, if initially this correlation was present.
Reconnection diffusion can explain other observations as well. For instance, Crutcher (2012) analyzed an extensive set of published as well as unpublished Zeeman measurements and showed that clouds with column densities $N_H$ less than $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ are subcritical, while at higher densities they get supercritical. He noted, that that for cold HI clouds with $N_H<10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ the magnetic field is approximately $6 \mu$G, which corresponds to the value of magnetic field strength in a much more rarefied warm neutral media. From this he concluded that the diffuse clouds had to be formed either via the compression along magnetic lines or that the formation of clouds proceeds selectively only at the regions of low magnetic field strength. In contrast to this, on the basis of our study we claim that reconnection diffusion presents a more appealing alternative. Indeed, as we discussed above, the efficient diffusion of magnetic field from the clouds should make magnetic field strength the same in cold dense clouds and surrounding warm rarefied medium.
In addition, Crutcher (2012) notes that the kinetic and magnetic energies of such low density clouds are approximately in equipartition and larger that the thermal energy. From the point of view of our analysis, this is a signature of the transAlfvenic supersonic turbulence indicating that the turbulence should be efficient in driving reconnection diffusion. From the plot presented in Crutcher (2012), namely, figure 7 in his paper, it is evident that the majority of the clouds in his compilation still preserves the same magnetic field strength of the order of $6 \mu$G even as the column density gets as high as $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. We believe that this is the consequence of the reconnection diffusion being efficient at those densities. We see a clear tendency of the increase of the mean magnetic field in the sample for densities larger than $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. A possible explanation for this is that for those clouds self-gravity gets important and therefore the reconnection diffusion fails to remove magnetic field from the contracting clouds fast enough. Note, that the high density clouds tend to be smaller and therefore, as we discussed in §5.2 the turbulent scales involved in the reconnection diffusion get also smaller. The reconnection diffusion for such clouds slows down.
We note that the observational results in Crutcher (2012) on the independence of magnetic field strength on the cloud density (and the reconnection diffusion concept that accounts for these results) can be related to the empirical Larson relations (Larson 1981) obtained for interstellar turbulence. Larson (1981) found that the velocity dispersion is proportional to the square root of the cloud size, i.e. $\sigma_{V}\sim R^{1/2}$ and that the 3D density of cloud is inversely proportional to cloud size, i.e. $\rho \sim R^{-1}$. For instance, one can assume a rough equality between the kinetic energy and magnetic energy $$\frac{B^2}{8\pi}\sim \rho \sigma_{v}^2,
\label{equi}$$ which is natural for transAlfvenic turbulence as well as the virialization of a cloud $$\frac{GM}{R}\sim \sigma_v^2 .
\label{vir}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[equi\]) and (\[vir\]) with a simplest estimate of cloud mass $M\sim \rho R^3$ one gets $$\sigma_v\sim B^{1/2} R^{1/2}$$ and $$\rho\sim B R^{-1},$$ which reproduce the Larson (1981) relations if the reconnection diffusion keeps magnetic field uncorrelated with density. For cloud cores where reconnection diffusion is not fast enough to remove magnetic field on the time of the dynamic collapse (see Tafalla et al. 1998, Reiter et al. 2011), the Larson relations fail, in agreement with observations and simulations (see Nakamura & Li 2011). Quantitatively, the criterion for the reconnection diffusion to be able to remove the magnetic field from the collapsing cloud is $V_{infall}<\kappa/l_{cloud}$, where $\kappa$ is one of the diffusion coefficients the choice of which depends on the regime of the turbulence (see §5.1).
Core and envelope magnetization
-------------------------------
Recently the idea of star formation being mediated by ambipolar diffusion was challenged in Crutcher et al. (2010, 2011). The authors measured matter magnetization in the core of a dark cloud and in the envelope surrounding the cloud (see our schematic representation in Figure \[crutcher\]). Contrary to the predictions of the theory based on ambipolar diffusion, the observations showed that the core is more magnetized that the envelope. Naturally, this work, which challenged the key predictions of the ambipolar diffusion paradigm induced intensive controversy (Mouschovias & Tassis 2009, 2010). Without getting into details of the well-publicized arguments of both sides, let us pose a question of whether the results observed by Crutcher et al. (2010, 2011) are consistent in the presence of reconnection diffusion.
As we mentioned earlier, in the presence of gravity reconnection diffusion allows density to concentrate towards the gravitational center, while magnetic field leave the gravitational potential. The reconnection diffusion rate and thus the rate of magnetic field removal is expected to be proportional to the level of turbulence (see Eqs. (\[supA\]), (\[kappa\_st\]), (\[kappa\_cl\])). Simulations that illustrate this effect are presented in Figure \[crutcher\]. It is known that the velocities in cloud envelopes are larger than the velocities in the cloud cores (see Taffalla et al. 1998). In addition, the scale of turbulence involved in reconnection diffusion is also larger. Thus we expect the diffusion coefficient for the envelope (see Eq. \[kappa\_st\]) to be larger for the envelope compared to the core and faster removal of magnetic field from the envelope than from the core. This agrees with the results in Crutcher et al. (2010).
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Predictions for the big picture of star formation
-------------------------------------------------
Both reconnection diffusion and ambipolar diffusion remove magnetic field and can initiate gravitational collapse of the gas. However, there are substantial differences between the two processes.
The characteristic diffusion time for magnetic fields is given by $\kappa_m/L^2$, where $\kappa_m$ is given by Eqs. (\[supA\]), (\[kappa\_st\]), (\[kappa\_cl\]) depending on the regime of turbulence. The diffusion coefficient $\kappa_m$ varies spatially, as the turbulence changes from place to place and also with density. For individual clouds and cores if we neglect, for the sake of simplicity, the effects of stratification the reconnection diffusion becomes the function of turbulent driving. For subAlfvenic driving one gets a suppression factor of $M_A^3$, which reflects the inefficiency of weak turbulence to induce magnetic field diffusion. For superAlfvenic and transAlfvenic driving, the magnetic field is to be transported with the turbulent diffusivity rate. The length scale of turbulence depends on the sources of the turbulence. If the turbulence is driven externally, the corresponding length-scale is expected to be of the order of the cloud size, if the stratification of the cloud is negligible.
In diffuse interstellar gas and Giant Molecular Cloud (GMC) the reconnection diffusion is expected to dominate. One may provide evidence in support of the reconnection diffusion concept. For instance, unlike ambipolar diffusion, the reconnection does not depend on atomic level or dust physics. It was pointed to us by Bruce Elmegreen (private communication) that it is observed that the star formation is about the same in galaxies with low metallicities as in galaxies with high metallicities, which is hard to understand if magnetic field loss is governed by ambipolar diffusion. Indeed, the latter is supposed to be much faster in low-$Z$ galaxies with high metallicities and, within the ambipolar diffusion paradigm it is expected, contrary to observations, that the Initial Mass Function (IMF) and star formation rate to shifted in low-$Z$ galaxies. This is not a problem for the reconnection diffusion which is controlled only by the media turbulence.
Within the standard star formation paradigm the low efficiency of star formation is bottlenecked by the ambipolar diffusion rate. This paradigm has been altered recently and the low efficiency of star formation was attributed to the low fraction of the cloud mass that has sufficiently high density to form stars (Elmegreen 2007, Vazquez-Semadeni et al. 2009). In the latter picture, star formation blows the cloud cores apart, while the efficiency of star formation is high in the cloud core with up to third of the mass going into stars. At the same time, in terms of the mass of GMCs the efficiency is low e.g. less than five percent. In other words, the cloud envelope is passive in terms of star formation, the matter is being dispersed or/and pushed aside without forming stars. In the GMC envelopes, the reconnection diffusion is going to be efficient making sure that density and magnetic fields are well mixed. On the available time scales it will tend to equalize the magnetic field strength within the clouds and the ambient interstellar medium, inducing the loss of part of the flux captured in the cloud at the stage of its formation. An important difference with the ambipolar diffusion is that the reconnection diffusion is not only associated with the removal of the magnetic field, but also with its turbulent mixing which tends to make the distribution of magnetic field uniform. Turbulent mixing helps keeping the diffuse media in magnetized subcritical state. In this situation, the external pressure is important for initiating collapse and which well corresponds to the observations of numerous small dark clouds not forming stars in the inter-arm regions of galaxies (Elmegreen 2011). The reconnection diffusion process is expected to relax the sharp local changes of magnetic field direction, thus explaining the alignment of magnetic field of molecular clouds cores with the magnetic field of the spiral arms (Li & Henning 2011).
Ambipolar diffusion depends on the ionization of material and this results in the introduction of characteristic density for the clouds and cores to become leaky to magnetic field. In contrast, the reconnection diffusion concept implies that in realistic turbulent media there is no characteristic density for the collapse to be initiated. Therefore any cloud with the appropriate virial parameter (see McKee & Zweibel 1992) can form stars. The difference between different clouds stems from the density controlling the timescale of the collapse, level of steering turbulence or temperature of media. Directly, the requirement of clouds to be molecular is not present for the reconnection diffusion to induce star formation. However, molecular clouds have lower temperature.
We would like to emphasize that the role of turbulence in the presence of reconnection diffusion is two fold. First of all, it allows the removal of magnetic flux, stimulating star formation within a contracting cloud. However, solenoidal steering also changes the virial balance making clouds less prone to collapse. The amplitude of the steering motions increases as $v_l\sim l^{1/3}$ making larger, e.g. diffuse atomic clouds, not eligible for a gravitational collapse. The compressible motions associated with turbulence at the same time increase the density and may stimulate the collapse. The ratio between compressible and incompressible motions depends on turbulence driving. However, simulations (e.g. Cho & Lazarian 2002) testify that the most of energy tend to reside in solenoidal motions. Therefore, one would expect that the increase of the level of turbulence decreases star formation, although it cannot shut it down completely. A further discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this paper. It is clear that reconnection diffusion reveals a new important role that is played by interstellar turbulence.
Reconnection diffusion and extreme cases of star formation
----------------------------------------------------------
Reconnection diffusion concept provides new ways of approaching challenging physics of star formation in extreme environments. For instance, galaxies emitting more than $10^{12}$ solar luminosities in the far-infrared are called ultra-luminous infrared galaxies or ULIRGs. The physical conditions in such galaxies are extreme with very high density of cosmic rays (see Papadopoulos et al. 2011). Ambipolar diffusion is expected to be suppressed due to cosmic ray ionization. At the same time these environments provide the highest star formation rate which is suggestive of a process which removes magnetic fields irrespectively of the level of ionization. Reconnection diffusion is such a process.
The formation of early stars (see Chiappini et al. 2011) is a great problem for which the effects of magnetic fields are debated. Reconnection diffusion mitigates the effects of magnetic fields and therefore decreases the uncertainties associated with the presence of magnetic fields at the sites of early Universe star formation.
Additional consequences of reconnection diffusion
=================================================
Reconnection diffusion and cosmic ray acceleration in dark clouds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lower energy e.g. $\sim 100$ MeV cosmic rays dominate the ionization of cool neutral gas, especially dark UV shielded molecular regions (Goldsmith & Langer 1978). Some observations indicate substantial changes of the cosmic rate ionization rate between diffuse and dense gas (see McCall et al. 2003) which may be the consequence of local cosmic ray acceleration. As we discussed, reconnection diffusion invokes LV99 model of reconnection. However, the same type of reconnection is expected to accelerate cosmic rays (de Gouveia dal Pino & Lazarian 2005, Lazarian 2005)[^30]. The acceleration happens as particles bounce back and forth within shrinking magnetic loops (see Figure \[CR\]). Recently, the acceleration of cosmic rays in reconnection has been invoked to explain results on the anomalous cosmic rays obtained by Voyager spacecrats (Lazarian & Opher 2009, Drake et al. 2010), the local anisotropy of cosmic rays (Lazarian & Desiati 2010) and the acceleration of cosmic rays in clusters of galaxies (Lazarian & Brunetti 2011). Naturally, the process of acceleration is much wider spread and not limited by the explored examples.
![First order Fermi acceleration as cosmic rays bounce within a 3D loop of reconnected flux that shrinks due to magnetic reconnection. From Lazarian 2005. \[CR\]](figure15.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The maximal energy of the particles can be estimated with the standard formulae (see Longair 2011) $E_{max}\sim 10^{16} eV \hat{B} \hat{R}$, where magnetic field $\hat{B}$ is normalized by 1 $\mu$G and the radus is normalized by 1 $pc$. This maximal energy may not be reached due to the CR losses if the acceleration is insufficiently efficient. Numerical simulations by Kowal et al. (2012) show a relative inefficiency of first order Fermi acceleration by reconnection in pure turbulence without a large scale magnetic reversal. This is likely to be due to the gentle variations of magnetic field in the GS95 model of turbulence. As we discussed earlier (see §5.1) reconnection in strong MHD turbulence does necessarily take place, but the reconnecting bundles of magnetic field cross each other at a small angle $\phi$ and the resulting rate of energy gain $V_A\cos\phi/c$ is low. Gravitational forces acting on a collapsing core sufficiently perturb magnetic field lines increasing the efficiency of the acceleration within reconnection regions.
Stretching of the magnetic field lines happens both inside molecular clouds and outside them as curved magnetic field lines diffuse away. The Alfven velocity outside clouds is larger and this may provide a more efficient acceleration in agreement with the ionization results for the $\zeta$ Persei cloud (see Le Petit 2004). Naturally, more 3D modeling[^31] of the acceleration in reconnection regions is necessary to seek the quantitative agreement with observations.
Heating of clouds
-----------------
Ambipolar drag induces additional heating of star forming clouds, which can potentially be detected as the excess of the heat after turbulent, cosmic ray etc. ways of heating are accounted for. As any fast reconnection model, LV99 predicts that only a small fraction of magnetic energy is going to be dissipated directly through Ohmic heating. Most of the energy is going to be consumed by the turbulent outflow. Thus in the process of reconnection diffusion we expect that the heating is going to be linked with turbulence in clouds. Additional turbulent energy input might be detected through the variations of the power spectrum. The latter can be measured by the Velocity Channel Analysis (VCA) or Velocity Correlation Spectrum (VCS) techniques (Lazarian & Pogosyan 2000, 2004, 2006, Padoan et al. 2004, 2009, Chepurnov & Lazarian 2009, Chepurnov et al. 2010, see Lazarian 2010 for a review).
Star formation simulations: criterion for representing magnetic diffusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that flux freezing being the dominant idea in astrophysical community strongly influenced the interpretation of the results of numerical simulations. Indeed, within the flux freezing paradigm the only way to explain how conductive matter become concentrated without dragging magnetic field lines along is to postulate its motion along magnetic field lines. Any other explanation would open a a pandora box of the necessity to justify how diffusive numerical simulations can represent highly conductive astrophysical environments.
The concept of reconnection diffusion provides a new outlook at the existing simulations. Plasmas and magnetic field are subject to efficient reconnection diffusion both in astrophysical conditions and in numerical simulations. As we discussed in §4.2 and §6.4 the rate of reconnection diffusion is independent of the detailed microphysics of local reconnection events. In this respect, numerical small scale reconnection does not compromise the results of numerical simulations of turbulent environments. However, at scales where numerical diffusion suppresses turbulence the physics reproduced by codes is different in simulations and in real astrophysical conditions.
The field wandering weakly which is essential for the LV99 reconnection depends on the amplitude and scale of turbulent motions and does not depend on the small scale microphysics. These is excellent news for MHD simulations of astrophysical turbulent environments, in particularly, the star formation. As we mentioned in §8.1 astrophysical simulations are not in the right ballpark of the magnetic Reynolds or Lundquist numbers and it is important that in terms of magnetic reconnection this huge difference do not alter the physics of the process.
In fact, reconnection diffusion has always been part of the numerical simulations involving turbulence even if its role has not been identified. For instance, Julian Krolik pointed to us his work on magnetic field transport around a black hole (Beckwith, Hawley & Krolik 2009). We also believe that reconnection diffusion is the reason for the expulsion of the magnetic flux in the simulations of Romanova et al. (2011). We might speculate the simulations in Li et al. (2012) are also affected by reconnection diffusion. We may argue that some effects explained as the consequence of the accumulation of matter along magnetic field lines (see §11.6) are also due to reconnection diffusion. However, without detailed studies of the aforementioned simulations it is not clear whether the real reconnection diffusion physics or bogus effects of numerical diffusivity are at play. For instance, Crutcher et al. (2011) refers to the simulations in Luntilla et al. (2009) which produce, in agreement with observations, higher magnetization of the cloud cores. If these cores are of the size of several grid units across, numerical effects rather than reconnection diffusion may be dominant and turbulence is suppressed at these scales.
All in all, one can formulate the criterion for the numerical simulations to represent the actual diffusion of magnetic fields: [*if on the scales of study simulations exhibit turbulence, it is reconnection diffusion that dominates the numerical one*]{}. If this criterion is satisfied, in terms of the magnetic field diffusion, the simulations are trustworthy. Thus we claim that if the cores in the simulations are turbulent, the removal of magnetic flux from them via reconnection diffusion is similar to astrophysical highly conductive environment. This opens a possibility of developing adaptive mesh codes designed to reproduce astrophysical magnetic diffusion correctly in spite of the difference in Lundquist numbers.
Discussion
==========
Physics of reconnection diffusion
---------------------------------
The idea that fast reconnection predicted by LV99 model can change the picture of star formation by inducing magnetic field diffusion has been discussed in a number of papers starting with Lazarian (2005). However, the physical picture of the process has not been properly discussed. This was a problem, as the competing picture of magnetic drift via ambipolar diffusion is very clear in terms of the physics involved (see Mouschovias 1991).
The above shortcoming is dealt with in the present paper where two physical pictures of the process, macrophysical based on LV99, and microphysical, based on ELV11, are presented. The two approachers are equivalent in the very core of the underlying physics, but in terms of understanding of the process they exhibit complementary features. Indeed, LV99 primary deals with large scale fluxes that intersect and reconnect. This is the standard way of dealing with magnetic reconnection. The large scale variations of magnetic field must be dealt in star formation and the answer provided by LV99 is that such variations do not stop the process of reconnection diffusion. Naturally, as we also showed in this paper, the LV99 model can be applied to different scales of magnetic field hierarchy, including the hierarchy of the turbulent eddies within the magnetized flow. At this point it enters the domain of self consistently describing the cascade of reconnection events in the turbulent flow that is important for the continues changes of magnetic field line identities that is essential for reconnection diffusion. This is also the domain which is described by the concept of “spontaneous stochasticity” (see ELV11). The latter, instead of describing the constantly and stochastically changing magnetic field line connections, uses the description which explicitly appeals to the magnetic field stochasticity at turbulent scales and the violation of flux freezing.
The gain in physical understanding of the reconnection diffusion enabled us to provide a better description of the consequences of the process of star formation. For instance, it allowed us to better identify the role of weak and strong turbulence for transporting magnetic fields. The estimates that we provided can be tested both observationally and numerically. In view of the latter point, we would like to stress that by itself the existing numerical studies of reconnection diffusion cannot be used to prove the concept. The simulations so far have been done in MHD regime and instead of the generalized Ohm’s law (see Eq. (\[Ohm\]) have used ordinary resistivity. In this situation it is the LV99 reconnection theory and the physically equivalent to it theory of spontaneous stochasticity (ELV11) that justify that why one can disregards the small scale physics dealing with the reconnection diffusion process.
Our results in the paper should not be understood as the claim that ambipolar diffusion is unimportant for star formation. Future research, both observational and theoretical, should determine the relative importance of reconnection and ambipolar diffusion processes. As observations show that turbulence is ubiquitous in diffuse ISM and molecular clouds, we expect the reconnection diffusion to be important for magnetic field transport in these environments. However, in very quiescent cloud cores ambipolar diffusion may be the dominant process.
Intuitive understanding of reconnection diffusion
-------------------------------------------------
The idea of magnetic flux freezing is so deeply rooted in astrophysics, that any attempts to challenge it sound rather heretical. We would like to stress that fast reconnection in turbulent magnetized media is very natural. Without it the turbulent fluid would create felt-like structures, as was advocated by Don Cox (private communication). Indeed, intersecting and not being able to pass through each other magnetic field lines are bound to stop magnetized fluid behave like a fluid. If, however, this is not the case and magnetized fluids preserve fluid-type behavior in the presence of turbulence, one has to accept the efficient diffusion of matter and magnetic fields. This happens through reconnection diffusion as we explained in this paper. It worth mentioning that the ideas of magnetic field meandering that have been invoked for decades to understand the observed diffusion of cosmic rays perpendicular to magnetic field (see Parker 1965, Jokipii 1973) are naturally related to the reconnection diffusion concept.
As we discussed in the paper, the reconnection diffusion is closely related to the flux freezing violation in turbulent environments. The failure of flux freezing in turbulent fluids has very big astrophysical consequences for star formation and beyond it. The widely accepted point of view is that in astrophysical situations the flux freezing is “nearly” fulfilled and the violations are due to the existing finite non-ideal effects. The problem is that this is not true in realistically turbulent astrophysical fluids. However, one should keep in mind that turbulence, unlike resistivity, does not destroy magnetic field lines, but it makes the magnetic field stochastic. The total magnetic flux does not change, but the charged particles get the possibility of exploring the entire volume, which also means that magnetic field gets diffusive. In turn, the latter entails magnetic field filling the entire volume and mitigating its effects of counteracting gravitational compressing the matter.
Turbulent and magnetic support of clouds
----------------------------------------
The traditional approach to star formation frequently appeals to turbulent and magnetic support of the clouds (see Mestel 1965). As magnetic field is usually assumed to be in rough equipartition with kinetic motions, one may wonder whether neglecting magnetic support just amounts to the factor of order unity in the picture above.
There is, however, a serious difference between the effects of magnetic field and turbulence. For the virial support by turbulence, only motions less than the cloud scale are important. The larger scale motions do not enter the virial equation. The outside cascade, if anything, can compress the cloud due to compressible turbulent fluctuations and cloud-turbulent interactions. The role of magnetic field is different. If the large scale magnetic field is dragged into the cloud, it can only be amplified by the cloud compression. Therefore the large scale equipartition between turbulence and magnetic field does not preclude the magnetic field to be dominant on the scale of self-gravitating cores.
The process of reconnection diffusion allows the magnetic field to equalize inside and outside the cloud, decreasing the effect of magnetic support. This corresponds to the modern understanding of star formation as a very dynamic process with no necessity of support of small scale infall of matter (see Elmegreen 2011 and references therein).
Incidentally, reconnection diffusion shows that the textbook picture of the magnetized cloud with magnetic field support in the direction perpendicular to magnetic field and turbulence providing the vertical extend of the cloud is not sustainable. Reconnection diffusion is expected to remove the excess of magnetic field from the cloud on the dynamical time scales. The conventional picture above holds only in the absence of strong MHD turbulence.
Reconnection diffusion and turbulent ambipolar diffusion
--------------------------------------------------------
An interesting study focused on the ambipolar diffusion physics in a turbulent flow was performed Heitsch et al. (2004, henceforth HX04). They performed 2.5D simulations of turbulence with two-fluid code and examined the decorrelation of neutrals and magnetic field that was taking place as they were driving the turbulence. The study reported an enhancement of ambipolar diffusion rate compared to the ambipolar diffusion acting in a laminar fluid. HX04 correctly associated the enhancement with turbulence creating density gradients that are being dissolved by ambipolar diffusion (see also Zweibel 2002). Due to magnetic field being perpendicular to the flow in 2.5D, the set up precluded magnetic field reconnection and magnetic fields preserved their identity throughout the simulations (cf. §6). Thus HX04 studied the effect different from reconnection diffusion that we deal in the paper. They termed the process “turbulent ambipolar diffusion”.
The set up in HX04 presents a special case of a magnetized flow when magnetic fields act only as an additional pressure within the fluid that exhibits hydrodynamic behavior irrespectively of the strength of magnetic field. Therefore, similar to the hydrodynamic case, turbulence in this situation cannot be weak, even if $V_A\gg V_L$ (cf. Table 1) and 2.5D eddies stir the fluid irrespectively of the strength of the driving. Ions stayed entrained on the field lines (cf. Figure \[regimes\]) while both neutral density and magnetic field spread diffusively at approximately the eddy rate. The decorrelation arose due to small scale ion-neutral drifts.
Both viscosity and the decorrelation of magnetic field and neutral density in HX04 are due to the slippage of neutrals and ions and therefore in the presence of hydrodynamic-type eddies the diffusivity given by Eq. (\[hydro\]) agrees well with their finding. In analogy with hydrodynamics, we expect that the diffusivity would not change even as ambipolar diffusion rate changes. Indeed, if the rate of ambipolar diffusion gets smaller the turbulent cascade proceeds to smaller scales allowing mixing at those scales[^32]. The reduced ambipolar diffusion would still be adequate to decorrelate the magnetic field and the reduced scales. We infer that the limiting case of this flow is the 2.5D flow with no ambipolar diffusion but with the diffusivity still given by Eq. (\[hydro\]). This still would not be the reconnection diffusion case, as no reconnection is allowed.
The difference of what we discussed in the present paper and the idea in HX04 arises from the difference in the flows that we considered. The set up that we deal with is a generic 3D turbulent flow where magnetic reconnection is inevitable. Therefore, as we discussed in the paper, ions themselves are diffusive (see §6) and the [*ionic density decorrelates with magnetic field*]{} as well. Similarly to what we discussed earlier, in the absence of ambipolar diffusion, the turbulence propagates to smaller scales making small-scale interactions possible. On the other hand, ambipolar diffusion affects the turbulence, increasing its damping. As a result, analogously to 2.5D case above, the ambipolar diffusion acts in two ways, in one to increase the small-scale diffusivity of the magnetic field, in another is to decrease the turbulent small-scale diffusivity and these effects essentially compensate each other[^33]. Therefore, we believe that, at least for the case of strong MHD turbulence, ambipolar diffusion does not play any role for the turbulent transport in magnetized fluid. In a generic situation of 3D magnetized turbulence, reconnection is essential and reconnection diffusion takes place. The diffusion coefficient $\sim LV_L$ corresponds to our prediction of reconnection diffusion induced by transAlfvenic and superAlfvenic turbulence. We note that, in the presence of turbulence, the independence of the gravitational collapse from ambipolar diffusion rate was reported in numerical simulations by Balsara, Crutcher & Pouquet (2001).
What does happen in the subAlfvenic case of weak turbulence? As we mentioned before, we are not aware of the studies of diffusion in two fluids in this regime. At the same time, this may be potentially the most interesting case as far as the interplay of turbulence and ambipolar diffusion is concerned. As we discussed in §3.2 and §5.1 MHD turbulence at large scales corresponds to the “weak” regime and can be viewed as a collection of non-linear weakly interacting waves. However, at a smaller scale, namely at the scale $l_{trans}$ given by Eq. (\[trans\]) the turbulence gets into the regime of strong interactions, when the intensive mixing happens in the direction perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field. The diffusivity associated with turbulence is given by Eq. (\[kappa\_st\]). If the ambipolar diffusivity is less than this value, it will not play any role and the diffusivity will be purely “turbulent”. If, however, damping happens at scale larger than $t_{trans}$ a hypothetical new regime of “weak reconnection diffusion” may be present (see §7). The study of “turbulent ambipolar diffusion” with weak MHD turbulence has not been performed as far as we know. The effects of the enhancement of the total diffusivity are thus unclear. We might expect little, if any, parameter space for the “turbulent ambipolar diffusion” when turbulence and ambipolar diffusion synergetically enhance diffusivity, acting in unison. Nevertheless, this point should be tested by three-dimensional two-fluid simulations exhibiting both ambipolar diffusion and turbulence. The effect to search in order to test the effect of “turbulent ambipolar diffusion” is the enhancement of the diffusivity compared to the rate of diffusivity arising from the weak subAlfvenic turbulence (given by Eq. (\[kappa2\])).
Reconnection diffusion and hyper-resistivity
--------------------------------------------
To explain fast removal of magnetic field from accretion disks Shu et al. (2006) appealed to the hyperrestivity concept (Strauss 1986, Bhattacharjee & Hameiri 1986, Hameiri & Bhattacharjee, Diamond & Malkov 2003). The studies introducing hyperresistivity attempt to derive the effective resistivity of the turbulent media in the context of the mean-field resistive MHD. Using magnetic helicity conservation the authors derived the electric field. Then, integrating by part, one obtained a term which could be identified with effective resistivity proportional to the magnetic helicity current. There are several problems with this derivation. In particular, the most serious is the assumption that the helicity of magnetic field and the small scale turbulent fields are separately conserved, which erroneously disregard the magnetic helicity fluxes through open boundaries, which is essential for fast stationary reconnection (see more discussion in Kowal et al. 2009 and ELV11). In more general terms, hyper-resistivity idea is an incarnation the mean-field approach to explaining fast reconnection. As explained in ELV11, the problem of such approaches is that the lines of the actual astrophysical magnetic field should reconnect, not the lines of the mean field. Therefore the correct approach to fast reconnection should be independent of the spatial and time averaging.
All in all, we believe that the concept of hyperresistivity is poorly justified and should not be applied to astrophysical environments.
Reconnection diffusion and collecting matter along magnetic field
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As we mentioned in §9.1 an alternative way for changing flux to mass ratio is to allow conducting matter to be accumulated along magnetic field lines. This process definitely takes place, but the prescription of one dimensional motion of matter is very restrictive. More importantly, as we discussed in §6 the idea of fixed magnetic field lines is not applicable to turbulent magnetized fluid. Thus the effects of reconnection diffusion should inevitably interfere even if plasmas is launched along magnetic field lines.
For instance, our work on reconnection diffusion in diffuse interstellar medium should also be distinguished from the research on the de-correlation of magnetic field and density within compressible turbulent fluctuations. Cho & Lazarian (2002, 2003) performed three-dimensional MHD simulations and reported the existence of separate turbulent cascades of Alfven and fast modes in strongly driven turbulence as well as a cascade of slow modes driven by Alfvénic cascade. Slow modes in magnetically dominated plasma are associated with density perturbations with marginal perturbation of magnetic fields, while the same is true for fast modes in weakly magnetized or high beta plasmas. Naturally, these two modes de-correlate magnetic fields and density on the crossing time of the wave. This was the effect studied in more detail in one-dimensional setting both both analytically and numerically by Passot & Vazquez-Semadeni (2003), who stressed that the enhancements of magnetic field strength and density may correlate and anti-correlate in turbulent interstellar gas within the fluctuations and this can introduce the dispersion of the mass-to-flux ratios within the turbulent volume. Each of the fluctuations provide a [*transient*]{} change of the pointwise magnetization. In the absence of other effects, e.g. related to the thermal instability, the de-correlation is reversible. In comparison, the “reconnection diffusion” deals with the [*permanent*]{} de-correlation of magnetic field and density making magnetic field-density de-correlation irreversible. In many instances both processes act together providing the observed (see §9.1) decorrelated magnetic field and density state.
While for the diffuse media both collecting the matter through compressible modes and mixing through reconnection diffusion can act together, the idea of star formation based on collecting matter along magnetic field lines is more problematic. The scales for such one-dimensional collection are enormous ($\sim 1$ kpc see Vazquez-Semadeni et al. 2011) and it is not feasible that in turbulent environments reconnection diffusion would not interfere with the postulated one-dimensional motion. We believe that reconnection diffusion is an intrinsic part of the simulations of the turbulent interstellar medium and it should be accounted for in interpreting the results of numerical simulations provided that the criterion in §10.3 is satisfied. If the criterion is not satisfied, then the magnetic diffusivity is dominated by numerical effects and one should be cautious interpreting such simulations.
Reconnection diffusion and modern understanding of MHD turbulence and reconnection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of reconnection diffusion is deeply rooted in the modern understanding of MHD turbulence and its intrinsic connection with reconnection. While mixing motions perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field is a part of the GS95 picture of Alfvenic turbulence, the star formation textbooks frequently depict magnetic turbulence as a collection of waves with wavevectors mostly parallel to magnetic field. The latter induce only marginal mixing of matter and therefore other mechanisms of changing flux to mass ratio are required.
Mixing motions inevitably induce the question of magnetic reconnection. Fortunately, as we discussed at the end of section §4.3 the LV99 model provides the necessary rates thus providing a physical justification for both the GS95 model and the reconnection diffusion concept.
In the paper we considered MHD turbulence where the flows of energy in the opposite directions are balanced. When this is not true, i.e. when the turbulence has non-zero cross-helicity, or imbalanced (see §4.3). Studies of reconnection diffusion in such turbulence is a goal for a future. In terms of star formation, we do not believe that turbulence is strongly imbalanced. In fact, in compressible media the imbalance decreases due to reflecting of waves from pre-existing density fluctuations and due to the development of parametric instabililites (see Del Zanna, Velli & Londrillo 2001).
In this paper we consider the process of reconnection diffusion which arises in magnetized turbulence due to fast magnetic reconnection. We consider GS95 model of strong turbulence and LV99 model of fast magnetic reconnection. We claim that in the presence of strong magnetic turbulence the notion of plasma frozen onto a magnetic flux tube becomes meaningless. Due to reconnection, magnetic field lines constantly change their identity inducing intensive mixing of plasmas. The intensity of this process is determined by the intensity of turbulence and does not depend on microphysics of reconnection, e.g. it does not depend on the collisional or collisionless nature of the small scale reconnection events.
While reconnection diffusion is important for many key astrophysical processes, e.g. heat transport in plasmas, generation of magnetic field etc., this paper is focused on star formation, where the flux freezing idea is at the core of the existing paradigm. Therefore the concept of reconnection diffusion alters the paradigm. The new concept explains the existing observational data that contradicts the theory based on ambipolar diffusion. In particular it can explain data on the decorrelation of density and magnetic field in diffuse interstellar media, fast removal of magnetic field in molecular clouds, higher magnetization of cloud core compared to envelope, properties of circumstellar rotation disks, independence of star formation rate on metallicity, possibility of star formation in ULIRGs, selected empirical relations etc. It also provide predictions for future observations and helps to bridge the gap between numerical simulations and actual star formation in galaxies and early universe. More studies of the new approach to magnetic field diffusion in star formation is necessary.
The research is supported by the Center for Magnetic Self-Organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas. Stimulating environment provided by Humboldt Award at the Universities of Cologne and Bochum, as well as a Fellowship at the International Institute of Physics (Brazil) is acknowledged. A productive exchange on star formation with Bruce Elmegreen was particularly valuable. I am grateful to Elisabeth Gouveia dal Pino, Reinaldo Santos-Lima, Dick Crutcher, Chris Mckee, Greg Eyink, Ethan Vishniac for stimulating discussions on various aspects of the problem. Exchanges with Julian Krolik on the reconnection diffusion around black holes and with Ellen Zweibel on the role of ambipolar diffusion are acknowledged. We thank the anonymous referee for useful input and Blakesley Burkhart for reading the manuscript.
Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2002, Science, 295, 93
Aikawa, Y., & Nomura, H. 2008, Physica Scripta Volume T, 130, 014011
Alfvén, H. 1942, Ark. Mat., Astron. o. Fys., 29B, 1
Alfvén, H. 1976, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 4019
Armstrong, J. W., Rickett, B. J., & Spangler, S. R. 1995, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 443, 209
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., & Scalo, J. 1999, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 515, 286
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R. S., Mac Low, M.-M., & Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 63
Balsara, D. S., Crutcher, R. M., & Pouquet, A. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 557, 451
Beckwith, K., Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 707, 428
Beresnyak, A. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 075001
Beresnyak, A., & Lazarian, A. 2008, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 682, 1070
Beresnyak, A., & Lazarian, A. 2009a, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 702, 1190
Beresnyak, A., & Lazarian, A. 2009b, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 702, 460
Beresnyak, A., & Lazarian, A. 2010, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 722, L110
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A., & Cho, J. 2005, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 624, L93
Bettarini, L. & Lapenta, G. 2010, A&A 518, A57
Bhattacharjee, A., & Hameiri, E. 1986, Physical Review Letters, 57, 206
Bhattacharjee, A., Ma, Z. W. & Wang, X. 1999, [J. Geophys. Res.]{}, 104, 14543
Bhattacharjee, A., Germaschewski, K., & Ng, C. S. 2005, Physics of Plasmas, 12, 042305
Biskamp, D. 2003, [*Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence.*]{} (Cambridge: CUP)
Burkhart, B., Falceta-Gon[ç]{}alves, D., Kowal, G., & Lazarian, A. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 693, 250
Burkhart, B., Lazarian, A., & Gaensler, B. M. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, submitted
Cassak, P. A., Drake, J. F. and Shay, M. A. 2006. [Astrophys. J.]{}, 644, L145.
Cassak, P. A. & Shay, M. A. 2007, Phys. Plasmas, 14, 102114
Cassak, P. A., Shay, M. A. and Drake, J. F. 2009. Phys. Plasmas 16, 120702.
Cassak, P. A., Shay, M. A., & Drake, J. F. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062105
Chandran, B. D. G. 2008, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 685, 646
Chandran, B. & Cowley, S. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 307
Chepurnov, A., & Lazarian, A. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 693, 1074
Chepurnov, A., & Lazarian, A. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 710, 853
Chepurnov, A., Lazarian, A., Stanimirovi[ć]{}, S., Heiles, C., & Peek, J. E. G. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1398
Chiappini, C., Frischknecht, U., Meynet, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 454
Cho J., Lazarian A., 2005, Theoret. Comput. Fluid Dynamics, 19, 127
Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2004, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 37, 557
Cho, J. & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 5001
Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2003, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 345, 325
Cho, J., Lazarian, A., Honein, A., Kassions, S., & Moin, P. 2003, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 589, L77
Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 539, 273
Cho, J., Vishniac, E. T., Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A., & Ryu, D. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 693, 1449
Churazov, E., Bruggen, M., Kaiser, C., Bohringer, H., & Forman W. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 554, 261
Ciaravella, A., & Raymond, J. C. 2008, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 686, 1372
Crutcher, R. M., Hakobian, N., & Troland, T. H. 2010, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 402, L64
Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 725, 466
Crutcher, R.M. 2012, ARA&A, in press
de Gouveia dal Pino, E. M., & Lazarian, A. 2005, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 441, 845
Daughton, W., Scudder, J., & Karimabadi, H. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 072101
Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V., Albright, B. J., Bowers, K., Yin, L., & Karimabadi, H. 2008, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, A1705
Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V., Karimabadi, H., Yin, L., Albright, B. J., Bergen, B., & Bowers, K., 2011, Nature Physics, in press
Del Zanna, L., Velli, M., & Londrillo, P. 2001, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 367, 705
De Marchi, G., Paresce, F., Panagia, N., et al. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 739, 27
Diamond, P. H., & Malkov, M. 2003, Physics of Plasmas, 10, 2322
Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M. A. 2006, [Nature]{}, 443, 553
Drake, J. F., Opher, M., Swisdak, M., & Chamoun, J. N. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 709, 963
Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium by Bruce T. Draine. Princeton University Press, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-691-12214-4,
Draine, B. T., & Lazarian, A. 1998, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 508, 157
Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S., Newel, A. & Pouquet, A. 2000, J. Plasma Phys., 63, 447
Elmegreen, B. G. 2000, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 530, 277
Elmegreen, B. G. 2002, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 577, 206
Elmegreen, B. G. 2007, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 668, 1064
Elmegreen, B. G. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 731, 61
Elmegreen, B. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 471, 816
En[ß]{}lin, T., Vogt, C. & Pfrommer, C. 2005, in The Magnetized Plasma in Galaxy Evolution, Eds. K.T. Chyzy, K. Otminowska-Mazur, M. Soida and R.-J. Dettmar, Jagielonian University, Kracow, p. 231
En[ß]{}lin, T. A., & Vogt, C. 2006, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 453, 447
Evans, N. J., II, & The C2d Team 2004, The Dense Interstellar Medium in Galaxies, 339
Eyink, G. L. 2007, Phys. Lett. A, 368, 486
Eyink, G. L. 2009, J. Math. Phys., 50, 083102
Eyink, G. L. 2011,Phys. Rev. E 83, 056405
Eyink, G. L., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 743, 51 (ELV11)
Fabian, A.C. 1994, ARA& A, 32, 277
Fabian, A.C., Mushotzky, R.F., Nulsen, P.E.J., & Peterson, J.R. 2001, MNRAS, 321, L20
Fabian, A.C., Reynolds, C.S., Taylor, G.B. & Dunn, R.J. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 891
Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Williams, R. J. R., et al. 2011, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 417, 172
Fisher, F. H. 1979, Acoustical Society of America Journal, 65, 1327
Fitzpatrick, R. "Introduction to Plasma Physics, lecture notes http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/plasm.html
Galsgaard, K. & Nordlund, Å. 1997, [J. Geophys. Res.]{}, 102, 231
Galli, D., Lizano, S., Shu, F. H., & Allen, A. 2006, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 647, 374
Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S. V., Newell, A. C. & Pouquet, A. 2000, J. Plasma Phys., 63, 447
Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S. V., Newell, A. C. & Pouquet, A. 2002, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 564, L49
Goldreich, P. & Sridhar, S. 1995, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 438, 763 (GS95)
Goldsmith, P. & Langer, W. 1978, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 222, 811
Greene, T. P., & Young, E. T. 1992, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 395, 516
Hameiri, E., & Bhattacharjee, A. 1987, Physics of Fluids, 30, 1743
Hennebelle, P., Commer[ç]{}on, B., Joos, M., et al. 2011, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 528, A72
Henning, T., & Meeus, G. 2011, Physical Processes in Circumstellar Disks around Young Stars, 114
Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M. 2004, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 615, L45
Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E. G., Slyz, A. D., & Devriendt, J. E. G. 2004, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 603, 165 (HX04)
Higdon J. C., 1984, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 285, 109
Hoang, T., Lazarian, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, in press, arXiv:1111.4024
Huang, Y.-M., Bhattacharjee, A., & Sullivan, B. P. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 072109
Jacobson, A. R., & Moses, R. W. 1984, [Phys. Rev. A]{}, 29, 3335
Jokipii, J. R. 1973, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 183, 1029.
Klessen, R. S., Glover, S. C. O., & Clark, P. C. 2012, arXiv:1201.2695
Klessen, R. S., & Hennebelle, P. 2010, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 520, A17
Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301
Kota, J. & Jokipii, J. 2000, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 531, 1067
Kowal, G., Falceta-Gon[c c]{}alves, D. A., & Lazarian, A. 2011a, New Journal of Physics, 13, 053001
Kowal, G., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Lazarian, A. 2011b, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 735, 102
Kowal, G., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E., & Lazarian, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett. submitted
Kowal, G., & Lazarian, A. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 720, 742
Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., & Beresnyak, A. 2007, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 658, 423
Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. T., & Otmianowska-Mazur, K. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 700, 63
Krasnopolsky, R., Li, Z.-Y., & Shang, H. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 716, 1541
Kritsuk, A. G., & Norman, M. L. 2002, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 569, L127
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Kulsrud, R. 1983, Handbook of Plasma Physics, eds. M. N. Rosenbluth & R. Z. Sagdeev (North Holland, New York)
Kulsrud, R. 2005 Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Kupiainen, A. 2003, Ann. Henri Poincaré, 4, Suppl. 2, S713 Lapenta, G. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 235001
Lapenta, G., & Bettarini, L. 2011, EPL (Europhysics Letters), 93, 65001
Lapenta, G., & Lazarian, A. 2011, arXiv:1110.0089
Lazarian, A. 1992, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 264, 326
Lazarian, A. 2006, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 645, L25
Lazarian, A. 2005, Magnetic Fields in the Universe: From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures., 784, 42
Lazarian, A., & Brunetti, G. 2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 82, 636
Lazarian, A., & Desiati, P. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 722, 188
Lazarian, A., Santos-Lima, R., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. 2010, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, Astronum-2009, 429, 113
Lazarian, A., Kowal, G., Vishniac, E., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. 2011, Planetary and Space Science, 59, 537
Lazarian, A., & Opher, M. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 703, 8
Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2008, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 686, 350
Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2006, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 652, 1348
Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 943
Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2000, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 537, 720
Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. & Cho, J. 2004, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 603, 180
Lazarian, A. & Vishniac, E. 1999, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 517, 700 (LV99)
bibitem\[Lazarian & Vishniac(2009)\][2009RMxAC..36...81L]{} Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2009, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 36, 81
Lazarian, A., & Yan, H. 2002, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 566, L105
Lesieur, M. 1990, [*Turbulence in fluids : stochastic and numerical modelling*]{}, 2nd. rev. ed. (Dordrecht; Kluwer)
Li, H.-B., & Henning, T. 2011, [Nature]{}, 479, 499
Li, P. S., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2012, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 744, 73
Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Shang, H. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 738, 180
Lithwick, Y., & Goldreich, P. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 562, 279
Lithwick, Y., Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 2007, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 655, 269
Longair, M. S. 2010, High Energy Astrophysics by Malcolm S. Longair. Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN: 9780521756181,
Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703
Lovelace, R. V. E. 1976, [Nature]{}, 262, 649
Lunttila, T., Padoan, P., Juvela, M., & Nordlund, [Å]{}. 2009, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 702, L37
MacCall et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 500
Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125
Maron, J., Chandran, B. D., & Blackman, E. 2004, Physical Review Letters, 92, 045001
Maron, J., & Goldreich, P. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 554, 1175
McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 218, 148
McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 45, 565
Malyshkin, L. & Kulsrud, R. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 549, 402
McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 585, 850
McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1992, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 399, 551
Mestel, L. 1956, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 116, 324
Mestel, L. 1965, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 6, 265
Mestel, L. 1966, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 133, 265
Mestel, L., & Ray, T. P. 1985, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 212, 275
Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., Jr. 1956, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 116, 503
Mininni, P. D. & Pouquet, A. 2009, Phys. Rev. E, 80, 025401
Moffatt, H. K. 1978, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1978. 353 p.,
Monin, A. S., & Iaglom, A. M. 1975, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1975. 882 p.,
Mouschovias, T. C. 1976, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 207, 141
Mouschovias, T. C. 1991, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 373, 169
Mouschovias, T. C., & Spitzer, L., Jr. 1976, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 210, 326
Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M. W. 2006, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 646, 1043
Mouschovias, T. C., & Tassis, K. 2009, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 400, L15
Mouschovias, T. C., & Tassis, K. 2010, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 409, 801
Murray, N., & Rahman, M. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 709, 424
Nakano, T., Nishi, R., & Umebayashi, T. 2002, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 573, 199
Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2007, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 662, 395
Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 740, 36
Nakamura, F., McKee, C. F., Klein, R. I., & Fisher, R. T. 2006, Astrophys. J. Supplement, 164, 477
Nakamura, F., & Umemura, M. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 548, 19
Narayan, R., & Medvedev M. 2001, ApJ, 562, L129
Ng, C. S. & Bhattacharjee, A. 1996, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 465, 845 Norman, M. L., Wilson, J. R., & Barton, R. T. 1980, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 239, 968
Nusser, A., Silk, J., & Babul, A. 2006, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 373, 739
Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 546, 980
Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Kritsuk, A., & Norman, M. L. 2009, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 707, L153
Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Kritsuk, A., & Norman, M. L. 2006, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 653, L125
Papadopoulos, P. P., Thi, W.-F., Miniati, F., & Viti, S. 2011, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 414, 1705
Parker, E. N. 1965, Planetary and Space Science, 13, 9
Parker, E. N. 1979, Oxford, Clarendon Press; New York, Oxford University Press, 1979, 858 p.,
Passot, T., & V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E. 2003, A&A, 398, 845
Perez, J. C., & Boldyrev, S. 2009, Physical Review Letters, 102, 025003
Petschek, H.E. Magnetic field annihilation. The Physics of Solar Flares, AAS-NASA Symposium (NASA SP-50), ed. WH. Hess (Greenbelt, MD: NASA) 425
Piffaretti, R., & Kaastra, J. S. 2006, A&A, 453, 423
Politano, H., Pouquet, A. & Sulem, P. L. 1989, Physics of Fluids B, 1, 2330 Pudritz, R. E., & Kevlahan, N. K.-R. 2012, arXiv:1201.2650
Rechester, A., & Rosenbluth, M. 1978, Phys. Rev. Lett., 40, 38
Reiter, M., Shirley, Y. L., Wu, J., Wootten, A. & Tatematsu, K. 2011, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 740, 40
Retin[ò]{}, A., Sundkvist, D., Vaivads, A., et al. 2007, Nature Physics, 3, 236
Richardson, L. F. 1926, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 110, 709
Romanova, M. M., Ustyugova, G. V., Koldoba, A. V., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2011, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 416, 416
Ruzkowski, M. & Begelman, M.C. 2002, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 581, 223
Santos-Lima, R., Lazarian, A., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Cho, J. 2010, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 714, 442
Santos-Lima, R., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Lazarian, A. 2011, arXiv:1109.3716
Scalo, J., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2004, [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 42, 275
Schekochihin, A. A., Iskakov, A. B., Cowley, S. C., McWilliams, J. C., Proctor, M. R. E., & Yousef, T. A. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 300
Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G. W., Howes, G. G., Quataert, E., & Tatsuno, T. 2009, ApJS, 182, 310
Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S., Duffin, D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2011, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 417, 1054
Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, arXiv:1201.5302
Sellwood, J. A., & Balbus, S. A. 1999, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 511, 660
Shay, M. A. & Drake, J. F., 1998, Geophys. Res. Letters Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 3759-3762
Shay, M. A., Drake, J. F., Denton, R. E., & Biskamp, D. 1998, [J. Geophys. Res.]{}, 103, 9165
Shebalin J.V., Matthaeus W.H., Montgomery D.C., 1983, J. Plasma Phys., 29, 525
Shibata, K., & Tanuma, S. 2001, Earth, Planets, and Space, 53, 473
Schleicher, D. R. G., Banerjee, R., Sur, S., et al. 2010, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 522, A115
Shu, F. H. 1983, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 273, 202
Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 25, 23
Shu, F. H., Galli, D., Lizano, S., & Cai, M. 2006, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 647, 382
Shu, F. H., Li, Z.-Y., & Allen, A. 2004, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 601, 930
Smith, R. & Cox, D. 2001, Astrophys. J. Supplement, 134, 283
Speiser, T. W. 1970, [Plan. Space Sci.]{}, 18, 613
Spitzer, L. 1978, New York Wiley-Interscience, 1978. 333 p.,
Steinacker, J., Pagani, L., Bacmann, A., & Guieu, S. 2010, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 511, A9
Stone, J. M., Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 463, 656
Strauss, H. R. 1988, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 326, 412
bibitem\[Strauss(1986)\][1986PhFl...29.3668S]{} Strauss, H. R. 1986, Physics of Fluids, 29, 3668
Sych, R., Nakariakov, V. M., Karlicky, M., & Anfinogentov, S. 2009, [Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 505, 791
Tafalla, M., Mardones, D., Myers, P. C., et al. 1998, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 504, 900
Troland, T. H., & Heiles, C. 1986, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 301, 339
Uzdensky, D. A. & Kulsrud, R. M. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 062305
Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F. and Schekochihin, A. A. 2010. [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}105, 235002.
Vasyliunas, V. 1972, J. Geophys. Res., 77, 6271
Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Passot, T., & Pouquet, A. 1995, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 441, 702
Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Ostriker, E. C., Passot, T., Gammie, C. F., & Stone, J. M. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 3
V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., Banerjee, R., G[ó]{}mez, G. C., et al. 2011, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 414, 2511
V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., G[ó]{}mez, G. C., Jappsen, A.-K., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Klessen, R. S. 2009, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 707, 1023
Vishniac, E. T., & Cho, J. 2001, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 550, 752
Vishniac, E. & Lazarian, A. 1999, in: Plasma Turbulence and Energetic Particles in Astrophysics; Proceedings of the International Conference, Cracow, Poland, 5-10 September, 1999 eds. M. Ostrowski & R. Schlickeiser, p. 182
Vishniac et al. 2012, preprint
Voigt, L.M. & Fabian, A.C. 2004, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 347, 1130
Webb, G., Zank, G., Kaghashvili, E., & Roux J. 2006, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 651, 211
Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2003, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 592, L33
Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2008, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 673, 942
Yan, H., Lazarian, A., & Draine, B. T. 2004, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 616, 895
Yamada, M., Kulsrud, R., & Ji, H. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 603
Yamada, M., Ren, Y., Ji, H., Breslau, J., Gerhardt, S., Kulsrud, R., & Kuritsyn, A. 2006, Phys. Plasmas, 13, 052119
Yokoi, N., & Hoshino, M. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 111208
Zweibel, E. G. 2002, [Astrophys. J.]{}, 567, 962
Zweibel, E. G., & Yamada, M. 2009, [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.]{}, 47, 291
Zuckerman, B., & Evans, N. J., II 1974, [Astrophys. J. Lett.]{}, 192, L149
[^1]: This makes the problem of the initial or seed magnetic field, that for a long time has worried researchers, rather trivial. Very weak magnetic fields, e.g. generated by Bierman battery (see Lazarian 1992) can be amplified fast in a turbulent plasmas.
[^2]: In supersonic flows compressibility effects induce deviations from the equipartition.
[^3]: Reynolds number $Re\equiv L_fV/\nu=(V/L_f)/(\nu/L^2_f)$ which is the ratio of an eddy turnover rate $\tau^{-1}_{eddy}=V/L_f$ and the viscous dissipation rate $\tau_{dis}^{-1}=\eta/L^2_f$. Therefore large $Re$ correspond to negligible viscous dissipation of large eddies over the cascading time $\tau_{casc}$ which is equal to $\tau_{eddy}$ in Kolmogorov turbulence.
[^4]: The description in terms of interacting wavepackets or modes is also possible with the corresponding wavevectors tending to get more and more perpendicular to the magnetic field as the cascade develops.
[^5]: For compressible MHD turbulence simulations in Beresnyak et al. (2005) and Kowal, Lazarian & Beresnyak (2007) demonstrated that the density spectrum becomes more shallow and isotropic as the Mach number increases.
[^6]: Recent work by Beresnyak & Lazarian (2009a, 2010) shows that present day numerical simulations are unable to reveal the actual inertial range of MHD turbulence making the discussions of the discrepancies of the numerically measured spectrum and the GS95 predictions rather premature. In addition, new higher resolution simulations by Beresnyak (2011) reveal the predicted $-5/3$ spectral slope.
[^7]: Formal mathematical arguments on how and why the frozen-in condition fails may be found in Eyink (2011) (see also Eyink 2007, 2009).
[^8]: Figure \[LV\] presents a cross section of the 3D reconnection layer. A shared component of magnetic field is present in the generic 3D configurations of reconnecting magnetic flux tubes.
[^9]: As discussed in LV99 and in more details in ELV11 the magnetic field wandering, turbulence and magnetic reconnection are very tightly related concepts. Without magnetic reconnection, properties of magnetic turbulence and magnetic field wandering would be very different. For instance, in the absence of fast reconnection, the formation of magnetic knots arising if magnetic fields were not able to reconnect would destroy the self-similar cascade of Alfvenic turbulence. The rates predicted by LV99 are the rates required to make Goldreich-Sridhar model of turbulence self-consistent.
[^10]: The model in LV99 is three dimensional, and it is not clear to what extend it can be applied to 2D turbulence (see discussion in ELV11 and references therein). However, the cases of pure 2D reconnection and 2D turbulence are of little practical importance.
[^11]: It is shown in LV99 that if the reconnection is calculated assuming that the bottle neck is due to Ohmic resistivity, the reconnection rate gets much larger than the Alfven speed. This is due to the effect of 3D turbulent magnetic fluxes getting in contact over many independent patches. The total cumulative rate of reconnection “cutting magnetic field lines” becomes very large and it is the outflow of magnetized plasma from the reconnection region that enters to limit the overall reconnection speed. Naturally, increasing the local reconnection speed of magnetic patches either due to plasma effects or, alternatively, numerical effects in computer simulations does not increase the reconnection speed of the large scale turbulent magnetic fluxes.
[^12]: We expect the effect of field wandering to play the crucial role for the reconnection with non-zero cross-helicity. This wandering should be determined using the theory of strong imbalanced MHD turbulence, for instance, by one in Beresnyak & Lazarian (2008) if higher resolution and longer averaging future testings confirm it. We also expect that similarly as a successful model of imbalanced MHD turbulence must produce GS95 scaling for the case of zero cross helicity, the reconnection in flows with imbalanced turbulence should converge to LV99 predictions for the zero cross helicity. For very high cross helicity field wandering may be small and other, e.g. plasma effects, become important.
[^13]: The latter was a sort of Holy Grail for many researchers studying reconnection.
[^14]: In the case of a dynamically unimportant field the magnetic dissipation and reconnection happens on the scales of the Ohmic diffusion scale and the effects of magnetic field on the turbulent cascade are negligible. However, turbulent motions transfer an appreciable portion of the cascading energy into magnetic energy (see Cho et al. 2009; also §3.1). As a result, the state of intensive turbulence with negligible magnetic field is short-lived.
[^15]: If magnetic reconnection is slow then, as was claimed by Don Cox (private communication), the interstellar medium should behave not like a fluid, but more like felt or Jello.
[^16]: It is important to stress that fast reconnection does not change the helicity of the magnetic flux and therefore it does not solve the problem of helicity in astrophysical dynamos (see Vishniac & Cho 2001). Therefore the simulations where researchers use enhanced many orders of magnitude resistivity in an attempt to mimic effects of turbulence smoothing on magnetic field are in error. However, the transport of magnetic flux and smoothing that does not change helicity are important ingredients of any mean field dynamo that reconnection diffusion takes care of.
[^17]: There is also expansion of the spot arising from the Lyapunov deviation of the flow lines as we discuss in §6.1.
[^18]: The difference of the reconnection diffusion and ambipolar diffusion is that the former is associated with turbulent motions of matter. Therefore, too intensive turbulence may upset the virial balance and instead of magnetic field diffusion, a dispersion of the entire cloud can take place.
[^19]: Richardson diffusion presents an example of [*superdiffusion*]{}, i.e. diffusion process for which $l^2\sim t^\beta$, $\beta>1$. The important consequences of Richardson diffusion have been studied for heat transfer and cosmic ray propagation (see Lazarian 2006, Yan & Lazarian 2008).
[^20]: The Kolmogorov velocity field is Holder continuous, i.e. $|v(r_1)-v(r_2)|\leq C |r_1-r_2|^{1/3}$.
[^21]: This is not only similarity in terms of the spectrum. Cho, Lazarian & Vishniac (2003) showed that in the local system of reference the intermittency of turbulence is also similar to the hydrodynamic one.
[^22]: This regime induces perpendicular “superdiffusion” in terms of cosmic rays and other charged particles streaming along magnetic field lines.
[^23]: Incidentally, in terms of reconnection, Eq. (\[l\_bot\]) expresses the thickness of outflow denoted as $\Delta$ in Figure \[LV\]. Substituting this value in Eq. (\[vrec\]) one recovers the LV99 reconnection rate, i.e. Eq. (\[LV99\]).
[^24]: One can also claim that spontaneous stochasticity of magnetic field in turbulent fluids is an underlying process that governs magnetic reconnection (ELV11). As we mentioned earlier, fast reconnection makes MHD turbulence theory self-consistent.
[^25]: In fact, Lazarian et al. (2004) show that the turbulence in partially ionized gas demonstrates several regimes, including the intermittent “resurrection” of turbulence cascade at scales less that the ambipolar damping scale. These effects make magnetic fields stochastic on scales much less that the naively estimated $l_{min, \|}$ that enters Eq. (\[RR\]).
[^26]: To see the effect the authors had to adopt the Hall term much larger than its value for the adopted parameters of the media.
[^27]: The magnetic Reynolds number, which is the ratio of the magnetic field decay time to the eddy turnover time, is defined using the injection velocity $v_l$ as a characteristic speed instead of the Alfvén speed $V_A$, which is taken in the Lundquist number.
[^28]: In comparison the models with enhanced resistivity operate with the resistivities that are not motivated by the known physics.
[^29]: For highly supersonic turbulence shock formation may somewhat alter the picture and the correlation of magnetic field and density is being observed in supersonic simulations (Burkhart et al. 2009). However, the bulk of the turbulence in warm diffuse media for which the observations are applicable is subsonic (see Burkhart et al. 2012).
[^30]: The predicted spectrum without taking the backreaction of the accelerated particles is $N(E)dE\sim E^{-5/2} dE$. Considerations in Drake et al. (2006) suggest that the spectrum of the particles can get shallower if the backreaction is taken into account.
[^31]: Modeling in Kowal et al. (2011b) showed that the acceleration in 2D and 3D proceed at a different rate, which questions the applicability of results obtained in 2D simulations (see Drake et al. 2010) to the actual astrophysical systems.
[^32]: A similar process takes place in the case of molecular diffusivity in turbulent hydrodynamic flows. The result for the latter flows is well known: in turbulent regime molecular diffusivity is irrelevant for the turbulent transport. Indeed, in the case of high microscopic diffusivity, the turbulence provides mixing down to a scale $l_1$ at which the microscopic diffusivity both, suppresses the cascade and ensures efficient diffusivity of the contaminant. In the case of low microscopic diffusivity, turbulent mixing happens down to a scale $l_2\ll l_1$, which ensures that even low microscopic diffusivity is sufficient to provide efficient diffusion. In both cases the total effective diffusivity of the contaminant is given by the product of the turbulent injection scale and the turbulent velocity.
[^33]: A possible point of confusion is related to the difference of the physical scales involved. If one associates the scale of the reconnection with the thickness of the Sweet–Parker layer, then, indeed, the ambipolar diffusion scale is much larger and therefore the reconnection scale gets irrelevant. However, within the LV99 model of reconnection, the scale of reconnection is associated with the scale of magnetic field wandering. The corresponding scale depends on the turbulent velocity and is not small.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In geometrically symmetric capacitive radio-frequency plasmas driven by two consecutive harmonics a dc self-bias can be generated as a function of the phase shift between the driving frequencies via the Electrical Asymmetry Effect (EAE). Recently the Secondary Electron Asymmetry Effect (SEAE) was discovered (T. Lafleur, P. Chabert and J.P. Booth [*J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{} 135201 (2013)): unequal secondary electron emission coefficients at both electrodes were found to induce an asymmetry in single frequency capacitive plasmas. Here, we investigate the simultaneous presence of both effects, i.e. a dual-frequency plasma driven by two consecutive harmonics with different electrode materials. We find, that the superposition of the EAE and the SEAE is non-linear, i.e. the asymmetries generated by each individual effect do not simply add up. The control ranges of the dc self-bias and the mean ion energy can be enlarged, if both effects are combined.'
author:
- Ihor Korolov
- Aranka Derzsi
- Zoltán Donkó
- Julian Schulze
title: The influence of the secondary electron induced asymmetry on the Electrical Asymmetry Effect in capacitively coupled plasmas
---
Capacitively coupled radio frequency (CCRF) plasmas play a central role in modern plasma processing technologies [@LLBook], for which the control of ion properties, viz. the ion flux, $\Gamma_{\rm i}$, and the mean ion energy, $\langle E_{i} \rangle$, is important. During the past years different strategies have been developed for the independent control of $\Gamma_{\rm i}$ and $\langle E_{i} \rangle$: (i) Discharges driven by two, or multiple (significantly different) frequencies [@Georgieva; @Mussenbrock; @Kawamura; @Boyle; @Kitajima] (ii) hybrid (inductive + capacitive) plasma sources [@Rauf_CI; @Kawamura_rfdc_b; @Schulze_Hybrid], (iii) the use of customized voltage waveforms [@Wendt; @Patterson; @Tailored1; @Tailored4], as well as (iv) discharges operated under the conditions of the Electrical Asymmetry Effect (EAE), where the driving voltage waveform contains the sum of multiple consecutive harmonics [@Heil; @Heil_b; @Donko1; @EAE1exp].
Previous studies have shown that the EAE provides a better separate control of ion properties compared to “classical” dual-frequency discharges, where significantly different frequencies are used and the quality of this separate control is limited by frequency coupling effects as well as the presence of secondary electrons [@Donko_Gamma; @Donko_Gammab]. Both are largely avoided by using the EAE. Considering the simplest case, i.e. two consecutive harmonics, the driving voltage (coupled via a capacitor to the discharge) for the generation of the EAE is: $$\phi(t) = \phi_1 \cos (2\pi f t + \theta) + \phi_2 \cos (4 \pi f t).
\label{eq:EAEVolt}$$
The driving harmonics – with fundamental frequency $f$ and amplitudes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ – are phase locked at an angle $\theta$. Using such a voltage waveform, a dc self-bias is generated as an almost linear function of $\theta$ for $0^\circ \le \theta \le 90^\circ$. The mean ion energy at the electrodes can be changed by a factor of about 2 at nearly constant $\Gamma_{\rm i}$ by tuning $\theta$ [@Heil; @Donko1; @EAE1exp]. Studies of the EAE have been performed for different gases [@EAE1exp; @Chile; @Wang; @Longo; @Hou; @ourCF4], harmonics’ amplitudes [@EAEopt], fundamental frequencies [@EAEFrVar], and numbers of consecutive driving harmonics [@multi; @EPS].
CCRF discharges can be operated in different electron heating modes such as the $\alpha$- and $\gamma$-mode [@BB]. While the former is dominant at low pressures and low voltage amplitudes as well as high driving frequencies, the $\gamma$-mode is present at high pressures, high voltage amplitudes, and/or low driving frequencies. In this mode, most ionization is caused by avalanches launched by electrons emitted from the electrode surfaces, which are accelerated and multiplied by collisions inside the sheaths.
Electron emission from both conducting and insulating surfaces can be initiated by different species: ions, fast neutrals, metastables, as well as photons. The contributions and the specific yields of these species vary for different gases, electrode materials, electrode surface conditions, and for different operating conditions [@Phelps]. Handling all the above species and their processes accurately in simulations is difficult (mostly due to the lack of data). Thus, an [*effective electron yield*]{}, $\gamma$, defined as the ratio of secondary electron current to the ion current at the surface, is typically used. In the following we also adopt this simplified treatment of the secondary electron emission. This effective yield accounts implicitly for the species other than ions as well. Indications have been published that for given materials and surface conditions $\gamma$ depends on the reduced electric field, $E/n$, in argon dc Townsend [@Phelps] and dc glow discharges [@Donko_Appgamma].
The electrodes of rf discharges can be made of different materials that can have quite different secondary electron yields. The effect of these different yields (the “Secondary Electron Asymmetry” effect \[SEAE\]) in single-frequency capacitive discharges has recently been analyzed by Lafleur [*et al.*]{} [@Lafleur2013]. It has been found that a significant electrical asymmetry (a dc self-bias up to $\sim$ 20% of the total driving voltage amplitude) can be generated in case of different (realistic) electron yields at the two electrodes. The observations have been explained by a self-amplifying effect of the larger ion flux at the electrode having the higher secondary yield.
These observations raise the question about the coupling of the asymmetries produced by the EAE and the SEAE. We investigate this topic in argon discharges by kinetic particle simulations based on a one-dimensional (1d3v) bounded plasma Particle-in-Cell (PIC) code complemented by Monte Carlo treatment of collision processes (PIC/MCC[@Birdsall] method). The cross section sets for electron-neutral and ion-neutral collision processes are taken from Ref.\[\]. The discharge is driven by the voltage waveform defined by eq. (\[eq:EAEVolt\]). The dc self bias, $\eta$, is determined in an iterative manner to ensure that the (positive and negative) charged particle fluxes to either of the two electrodes, averaged over one low frequency period, are equal. At the planar, parallel, and infinite electrodes, electrons are reflected with a probability of 20%, and we account for the emission of secondary electrons by using secondary yields per incoming ion at the powered and grounded electrodes, $\gamma_{\rm p}$ and $\gamma_{\rm g}$, respectively. We vary $\gamma$ from 0 to 0.4. Note that $\gamma \sim 0.1$ is typical for metal surfaces, $\gamma \sim 0.4$ corresponds to dielectric or semiconductor electrodes. Simulations are performed for $f$ = 13.56 MHz, $p$ = 50 Pa pressure, and $L$ = 2.5 cm electrode gap. We investigate (i) the SEAE without EAE by simulating a single frequency discharge ($\phi_1 \ne 0\, \rm V$, $\phi_2 = 0\, \rm V$, $\gamma_p \ne \gamma_g$), (ii) the EAE without SEAE in a dual-frequency plasma ($\phi_1= \phi_2$ $\gamma_p = \gamma_g$), and (iii) the simultaneous presence of the EAE and SEAE ($\phi_1= \phi_2$, $\gamma_p \ne \gamma_g$). The normalized dc self bias is defined as $\bar{\eta} = \eta/(\phi_1+\phi_2)$.
The interpretation of the simulation results is performed on the basis of an analytical model of CCRF discharges.[@Heil_b] Here, only its result for the dc self bias, $\eta$, is used in case of identical electrode surface areas: $$\eta \approx - \frac{\phi_{\rm max} + \varepsilon \phi_{\rm min}}{1+\varepsilon} \quad \textnormal{with} \quad \varepsilon
\approx \frac{\overline{n}_{\rm sp}}{\overline{n}_{\rm sg}}
\left( \frac{Q_{\rm mg}}{Q_{\rm mp}} \right)^2.
\label{eq:eta}$$
Here, $\phi_{\rm max}$ and $\phi_{\rm min}$ is the maximum and the minimum of the driving voltage waveform, $\varepsilon = \left| \hat{\phi}_{\rm sg}/\hat{\phi}_{\rm sp} \right|$ is the symmetry parameter defined as the ratio of the maximum sheath voltages at both electrodes, $\hat{\phi}_{\rm sp}$ and $\hat{\phi}_{\rm sg}$. $\overline{n}_{\rm sg}$ and $\overline{n}_{\rm sp}$ is the spatially averaged ion density, while $Q_{\rm mg}$ and $Q_{\rm mp}$ is the maximum (uncompensated) charge in the respective sheath.
![PIC/MCC results for the normalized dc self bias, $\bar{\eta}$ (a), symmetry parameter (b) and ${\overline{n}_{\rm sp}}/{\overline{n}_{\rm sg}}$ (c) as a function of the secondary yields ($f$ = 13.56 MHz, $p$ = 50 Pa, $\theta=0^\circ$). Filled symbols: fixed $\gamma_{\rm g}$ = 0.1, open symbols: fixed $\gamma_{\rm p}$ = 0.1.[]{data-label="fig:bias"}](figure_1.eps){width="38.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:bias\]a shows $\bar{\eta}$ as a function of the secondary electron yield at one electrode, $\gamma_{\rm p,g}$, while the emission coefficient at the other electrode is kept constant, i.e. $\gamma_{\rm g,p}$ = 0.1. Results for different harmonics’ amplitudes are shown for $\theta = 0^\circ$. We have included data for a single frequency discharge with the amplitude $\phi_1$ = 200 V ($\phi_2$ = 0 V), where the self bias is generated due to the SEAE without the presence of the EAE (dashed lines and circles), such as observed by Lafleur [*et al.*]{} [@Lafleur2013]. We find, that no DC self bias is generated for $\gamma_p = \gamma_g$ in single frequency discharges. For $\gamma_{p,g} = 0.4$ and $\gamma_{g,p} = 0.1$ we find $\bar{\eta} \approx \pm$ 20 %. For $\gamma_p = \gamma_g = 0.1$ and using identical harmonics’ amplitudes of 200 V or 100 V, a dc self bias of approximately 20 % is generated via the EAE only. Thus, under the conditions investigated here, the EAE and the SEAE individually lead to $\bar{\eta} \approx 20 \%$. Combining the EAE and the SEAE, i.e. using $\phi_1= \phi_2$ and $\gamma_p \ne \gamma_g$, allows to enhance or reduce $\bar{\eta}$ with respect to the EAE by tuning $\gamma_{p,g}$. This effect is more pronounced at higher voltage amplitudes. Generally, the dc self bias generated by the EAE and SEAE individually will not simply add up, if both effects are present simultaneously, i.e. their superposition is non-linear.
The coupling of the EAE and the SEAE can be understood based on the model, i.e. eq. (\[eq:eta\]): Figures \[fig:bias\]b and c show the symmetry parameter, $\varepsilon$, and the ratio of the mean ion densities, $\overline{n}_{\rm sp}/\overline{n}_{\rm sg}$, in both sheaths, respectively. According to eq. (\[eq:eta\]) a dc self bias will be generated, if $\varepsilon \ne 1$ and/or $\phi_{\rm max} \ne -\phi_{\rm min}$. For the EAE excitation (with equal $\gamma$ values at both electrodes), for our conditions (relatively high pressure) $\varepsilon \approx 1$ and the unequal positive/negative extrema of the applied voltage waveform play the dominant role for establishing $\eta$. In a single frequency discharge ($\phi_{\rm max} = -\phi_{\rm min}$) with unequal $\gamma$ values (SEAE) the deviation of the symmetry parameter from one creates the self bias. If both effects (EAE and SEAE) are present, both $\phi_{\rm max} \ne -\phi_{\rm min}$ and $\varepsilon \ne 1$ will contribute to $\eta$. The SEAE, i.e. $\gamma_p \ne \gamma_g$, causes the ionization rate by secondary electrons to be higher at the electrode, where the $\gamma$-coefficient is higher, compared to the other electrode such as shown in Figure \[fig:xt\]. For low values of $\gamma$ at both electrodes (Figure \[fig:xt\]a) we observe characteristic patterns for an $\alpha$-mode discharge, i.e. ionization at the edge of the expanding sheath dominates. At strongly different $\gamma$ values at both sides of the discharge we observe dominant $\alpha$-ionization at the low-$\gamma$ side, and a dominant $\gamma$-ionization at the high-$\gamma$ side. Thus, e.g., for $\gamma_{\rm p} \textgreater \gamma_{\rm g}$, the ionization by secondary electrons is more effective at the powered electrode (see Figure \[fig:xt\]c), which affects the discharge symmetry, i.e. $\varepsilon$ increases due to an increase of $\overline{n}_{\rm sp}/\overline{n}_{\rm sg}$ such as shown in Figures \[fig:bias\]b and c. The time averaged density distributions for different pairs of the secondary yields are shown in Figure \[fig:xt\]d. At higher voltages the maximum sheath voltage is higher. This further enhances the ionization by secondary electrons at the time of maximum sheath voltage and amplifies the SEAE. $\varepsilon$ is not only determined by the density ratio, but also by $(Q_{\rm mg}/Q_{\rm mp})^2$. For $\theta = 0^\circ$, $(Q_{\rm mg}/Q_{\rm mp})^2 > 1$ due to the charge dynamics [@QDyn]. Its value is, however, nearly constant independent of $\gamma_{p,g}$.
![Spatio-temporal ionization rate in units of $10^{21}$m$^{-3}$s$^{-1}$ \[(a)-(c)\] and time averaged ion and electron density (d) for different pairs of secondary yields ($p$ = 50 Pa, $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ = 100 V, $\theta = 0^\circ$). The powered electrode is situated at $x/L=0$, while $x/L=1$ corresponds to the grounded electrode.[]{data-label="fig:xt"}](figure_2.eps){width="47.00000%"}
![$\bar{\eta}$ as a function of $\theta$ for different pairs of $\gamma_{\rm p}$ and $\gamma_{\rm g}$ ($\phi_1 = \phi_2 $ = 100 V, 200 V) resulting from the PIC simulations (solid lines) and from the analytical model via eq. (\[eq:eta\]) (dashed line) for $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ = 100 V, $\gamma_{\rm p}$ =0.1 and $\gamma_{\rm g}$ = 0.4.[]{data-label="fig:biasphase"}](figure_3.eps){width="35.00000%"}
Next, we illustrate the dependence of $\bar{\eta}$ on $\theta$ (see Figure \[fig:biasphase\]). The solid lines show the simulation results, whereas the dashed line corresponds to the model calculation for a selected case using eq.(\[eq:eta\]). The good agreement between the model and simulation results shows that the model will still be reliable, if both the EAE and the SEAE are present simultaneously. Implementing the SEAE leads to a shift of the control range of $\bar{\eta}$. The shift is not constant for different values of $\theta$ and fixed values of $\gamma_{\rm p,g}$. This shows that the dc self bias generated via the SEAE cannot be simply added to, or subtracted from the self bias generated via the EAE (non-linear coupling). Figure \[fig:eps100\] displays the symmetry parameter as a function of $\theta$. We observe that depending on $\theta$, the SEAE changes the symmetry to a different extent, which can be explained as follows: The dc self bias, $\eta = | \left< \phi_{sg} \right> |- | \left< \phi_{sp} \right> | $, corresponds to the difference of the time averaged sheath voltages and changes as a function of $\theta$. This difference strongly affects the ionization by secondary electrons at each electrode. For instance, if $\gamma_p > \gamma_g$ and $\bar{\eta} < 0$ at $\theta = 0^\circ$, the ionization by secondary electrons at the powered electrode will be enhanced compared to $\bar{\eta} > 0$ at $\theta = 90^\circ$. Thus, $\bar{n}_{sp} > \bar{n}_{sg}$ and $\varepsilon > 1$ at $\theta = 0^\circ$ and $\varepsilon$ decreases as a function of $\theta$. Consequently, the maximum sheath voltages at the powered and at the grounded electrode change as a function of $\theta$.
![$\varepsilon$ as a function of $\theta$ for different pairs of $\gamma_{\rm p}$ and $\gamma_{\rm g}$ ($p$ = 50 Pa, $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ = 100 V).[]{data-label="fig:eps100"}](figure_4.eps){width="35.00000%"}
![$\langle E_i \rangle$ (top) and $\Gamma_i$ (bottom) as a function of $\theta$ for different pairs of $\gamma_{\rm p}$ and $\gamma_{\rm g}$ ($p$ = 50 Pa, $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ = 100 V).[]{data-label="fig:enfl100"}](figure_5.eps){width="43.00000%"}
Finally, we present the dependence of $\langle E_i \rangle$ and $\Gamma_i$ on $\theta$ for different pairs of the secondary yields at both electrodes at $\phi_1 = \phi_2$ = 100 V. Figure \[fig:enfl100\] shows, that the control range for the mean ion energy at one electrode can be enlarged by combining the EAE and the SEAE. However, for $\gamma_{\rm g} \neq \gamma_{\rm p}$ the ion flux does no longer remain constant as a function of $\theta$ due to changes of the ionization dynamics induced by changing $\theta$. Although there is no separate control of ion properties under these conditions, this scenario might be ideal for radio frequency sputtering, where typically different materials are used for both electrodes (substrate and target). $\langle E_i \rangle$ could be minimized at the substrate (low ion flux), while it is maximized at the target at a high ion flux.
In summary, we have investigated the effect of unequal electron yields of the two electrodes of capacitive radio frequency discharges operated under the conditions of the EAE. We find the electrical generation of the dc self bias via the EAE to be significantly enlarged or suppressed via the SEAE, if two electrodes have noticeably different $\gamma$. The EAE and the SEAE couple non-linearly. At such conditions, the control range of $\langle E_i \rangle$ as a function of $\theta$ can be enlarged, while $\Gamma_i$ does no longer remain constant. Such statements are true for the conditions investigated here, but cannot be generalized without further studies covering a wider range of gas pressures. Experimental investigations of the effect are also required.
This work was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA-K-77653, IN-85261, and K-105476).
[35]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present methods to assess whether gamma-ray excesses towards Milky Way dwarf galaxies can be attributed to astrophysical sources rather than to dark matter annihilation. As a case study we focus on Reticulum II, the dwarf which shows the strongest evidence for a gamma-ray signal in Fermi data. Dark matter models and those with curved energy spectra provide good fits to the data, while a simple power law is ruled out at $97.5\%$ confidence. We compare RetII’s spectrum to known classes of gamma-ray sources and find a useful representation in terms of spectral curvature and the energy at which the spectral energy distribution peaks. In this space the blazar classes appear segregated from the confidence region occupied by RetII. Pulsars have similar gamma-ray spectra to RetII but we show that RetII is unlikely to host a pulsar population detectable in gamma rays. Tensions with astrophysical explanations are stronger when analyzing 6.5 years of Pass 7 than with the same amount of Pass 8 data, where the excess is less significant. These methods are applicable to any dwarf galaxy which is a promising dark matter target and shows signs of gamma-ray emission along its line of sight.'
author:
- 'Alex Geringer-Sameth'
- 'Savvas M. Koushiappas'
- 'Matthew G. Walker'
- Vincent Bonnivard
- Céline Combet
- David Maurin
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: Astrophysical explanations of suspected dark matter signals in dwarf galaxies
---
Dark matter is the dominant form of mass in the Universe but has, so far, been characterized only through its gravitational effects on astronomical scales. Its microscopic nature, holding fundamental implications for particle physics and cosmology, has yet to be revealed. Astrophysical searches for the high energy particles produced if dark matter annihilates with its antiparticle are a promising way to discover and characterize weakly interacting massive particles with a mass in the GeV–TeV range [see, e.g. @1996PhR...267..195J; @2000RPPh...63..793B; @2005PhR...405..279B].
Dark matter annihilation ought to take place anywhere in the universe where dark matter particles encounter each other with sufficient frequency. The annihilation products typically result in the generation of gamma rays, which suffer little deflection or absorption on their way to Earth. This motivates a great variety of searches for anomalous gamma-ray emission in different targets [e.g. @2005PhR...405..279B], including the Galactic Center [e.g. @2011PhLB..697..412H; @2014PhRvD..90b3526A; @2015PhRvD..91f3003C], the Galactic halo [e.g. @2010NuPhB.840..284C; @2011PhRvD..83l3516B; @2018arXiv180404132C], Milky Way dwarf galaxies [e.g. @1990Natur.346...39L; @2015PhRvD..91h3535G; @2015PhRvL.115w1301A], galaxy groups and clusters [e.g. @2010JCAP...05..025A; @2012JCAP...07..017A; @2018PhRvL.120j1101L], large scale structure [e.g. @2011MNRAS.416.2247X; @2014PhRvD..90b3514A; @2015PhRvL.114x1301R], and in the isotropic gamma-ray background [e.g. @2010JCAP...04..014A; @2010JCAP...11..041A; @2015JCAP...09..008T].
In searches for dark matter annihilation that gives rise to emission over a continuous energy range (as opposed to a monoenergetic gamma-ray line), conventional astrophysical processes produce gamma rays which compete with the (possibly subdominant) dark matter signal. In this regard, Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies are unique as compared with other targets: they are dark matter dominated systems which contain no known sources of astrophysical emission, making them particularly clean laboratories for dark matter annihilation searches.
In recent years, dwarf searches have benefited tremendously from full-sky observations of the Large Area Telescope on board the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope (Fermi LAT) [@2009ApJ...697.1071A], analysis techniques capable of combining observations of many targets [@2011PhRvL.107x1303G; @2011PhRvL.107x1302A; @2012APh....37...26M; @2013JCAP...03..018S; @2014PhRvD..90k2012A; @2014PhRvD..89d2001A; @2015PhRvD..91h3535G; @2015PhRvL.115w1301A; @2016JCAP...02..039M; @2017PhRvD..95h2001A; @2018ApJ...853..154A], the discovery of new Milky Way satellites [e.g. @2010AdAst2010E..21W; @2013NewAR..57..100B; @2015PhRvD..91f3515H], and the characterization of the dark matter distributions within these systems .
With the increasing sensitivity of this effort, it is important to consider how evidence of annihilation in dwarfs might first present itself. While the first goal is always to detect any gamma-ray excess, when indications of one appear we must be prepared to rigorously evaluate whether it originates from dark matter annihilation. In this paper we consider such “next steps” that can be taken to test a dark matter hypothesis when a signal presents itself.
This work is motivated by the 2015 discovery of Reticulum II (RetII), a nearby Milky Way dwarf galaxy found in photometric data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) [@2015ApJ...805..130K; @2015ApJ...807...50B] and confirmed spectroscopically as a system dynamically dominated by dark matter [@2015ApJ...808..108W; @2015ApJ...808...95S; @2015ApJ...811...62K]. Intriguingly, analysis of 6.5 years of Fermi data reveals a gamma-ray excess between about 2 and 10 GeV significant at the $p=0.0001$ to $0.01$ level, depending on how the background is modeled [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G] ($p$ being the probability that background processes alone can generate such “signal-like” data).
While this finding was confirmed by an independent analysis [@2015JCAP...09..016H] of the same data, known as “Pass 7”, the Fermi-LAT and DES collaborations found a decreased significance, $p=0.05$, for RetII using a reprocessing of the raw LAT data (“Pass 8”) over a similar 6 year baseline [@2015ApJ...809L...4D] (and a background model analogous to the one that yielded $p=0.01$ above). Subsequent analyses, using $\sim6-7$ years of data, also show decreased significance in Pass 8 [@2017ApJ...834..110A; @2018ChPhC..42b5102Z] as compared with Pass 7.
Since these last studies were performed, however, the Pass 8 significance has apparently continued to rise. Recently @2018arXiv180506612L presented a 9-year analysis that closely follows the procedure of the 6-year studies [@2015PhRvL.115w1301A; @2015ApJ...809L...4D; @2017ApJ...834..110A]. They find that RetII steadily grows in significance from three to six to nine years in Pass 8. They give an uncalibrated significance of $TS=13.5$ ($TS$ being twice the log-likelihood ratio between the dark matter annihilation and background-only hypotheses). While they do not attempt to quantify the trials factor due to testing multiple dark matter masses, annihilation channels, and halo profiles, the local significance (assuming $\chi_1^2/2$ statistics) is $p \sim 10^{-4}$ (compare with $p\sim 10^{-6} - 10^{-5}$ in Pass 7 [Fig. 2 in @2015PhRvL.115h1101G]; a trials factor of $\sim3 - 10$ usually suffices for testing multiple masses and channels [@2015PhRvD..91h3535G]). We analyze 6.9 and 10 years of Pass 8 data with the identical method described in [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G] and also observe a rise in significance. The reason for the change in significance between Pass 7 and Pass 8 remains unclear (we discuss consistency in Sec. \[sec:discussion\]). Nonetheless, in both data sets RetII possesses the most significant gamma-ray signal of any dwarf galaxy [@2018arXiv180506612L; @2015PhRvL.115h1101G; @2015PhRvD..91h3535G; @2015JCAP...09..016H].
We take RetII as a case study in the first indication of excess gamma rays from the direction of a dwarf galaxy and consider further hurdles that a dark matter interpretation must overcome. That is, we operate under the assumption that there is a gamma ray source along the direction toward RetII and then seek to characterize this source (we discuss the basis of this assumption in Sec. \[sec:significance\]). We emphasize that a dark matter origin cannot be established as long as there is a plausible astrophysical explanation for the gamma-ray excess. The goal of this work is to rigorously address this possibility.
One strategy is to observe the dwarf at longer wavelengths to try to identify a possible astrophysical counterpart. In a dedicated radio observation, @2017JCAP...07..025R identified two blazar candidates (BL Lacs) among the sources in RetII’s vicinity. As a population, blazars are often associated with gamma-ray emission. However, the distributions of radio, optical, and X-ray fluxes of gamma-ray loud vs. gamma-ray quiet blazars are highly overlapping [e.g. @2015ApJ...810...14A], making the prediction of any individual blazar’s gamma-ray flux quite challenging. At higher frequencies, report a detection of 511 keV emission from the direction of RetII, which the authors suggest may be due to an accreting black hole (microquasar) within RetII . Whether or not this speculative scenario entails gamma ray emission remains to be seen.
In this work we look deeper into the gamma-ray data to assess astrophysical explanations of the excess. Possibilities include a population of gamma-ray emitting objects in the dwarf galaxy itself or a chance alignment with an unrelated, distant gamma-ray source. We begin by quantifying the goodness of fit of dark matter annihilation and astrophysical spectra to the gamma-ray data (Sec. \[sec:GOF\]). Then we consider each of the astrophysical possibilities: we compare the shape of RetII’s energy spectrum to known classes of gamma-ray sources (Sec. \[sec:3fgl\]) and assess whether RetII hosts one or more gamma-ray emitting pulsars (Sec. \[sec:pulsars\]). In a companion paper we evaluate a dark matter annihilation hypothesis for the signal.
Data selection
==============
This work considers both Pass 7 and Pass 8 Fermi-LAT data sets. These are two separate reductions of the raw spacecraft data into reconstructed lists of events along with the associated instrument response functions. To facilitate comparison between them we use data collected during the time when both are available: between Fermi mission weeks 9 and 368 (August 4, 2008 to June 24, 2015; 6.9 years). Pass 7 data is not available after this time. For Pass 7, events and instrument response functions are obtained with version `v9r33p0` of the Fermi Science Tools[^1]. We extract Pass 7 Reprocessed SOURCE class events within $15{^\circ}$ of RetII using `gtselect` with the recommended `zmax=100{^\circ}`. Events must be detected within “good time intervals” found using `gtmktime` with recommended filter `DATA_QUAL==1 && LAT_CONFIG==1` and `roicut=no`. The instrument response (PSF and exposure) in the direction of RetII are obtained by running `gtselect` with a radius of $0.5{^\circ}$, `gtmktime` with the above filter but with `roicut=yes`, `gtltcube` with default options, and `gtpsf` with 17 log-spaced energies between 133.3 MeV and 1.333 TeV, `thetamax=10{^\circ}`, and `ntheta=500`. Pass 8 SOURCE events and instrument responses are found using the same procedure except we use version `v10r0p5` of the Science Tools, the recommended `zmax = 90{^\circ}` in `gtselect`, and `DATA_QUAL>0 && LAT_CONFIG==1` in `gtmktime`. Exposures and PSFs agree with those computed with the latest version `v11r5p3` of the Science Tools at the subpercent level.
We define a region of interest (ROI) as a circle of radius $0.5{^\circ}$ containing events with energies between 0.5 and 300 GeV. Events in the ROI centered on RetII are used to consider various models for the signal. @2015PhRvL.115h1101G adopted 1 GeV as the lower end of the energy range. This work includes energies down to 0.5 GeV in order to explore a variety of dark matter and astrophysical models. Dark matter annihilation spectra have shapes which may be a good fit to the data between 1 and 300 GeV but not at energies below 1 GeV. Reducing the energy threshold to 0.5 GeV allows us to better evaluate various interpretations of the data. Due to the energy-dependent point spread function (PSF) of the Fermi LAT, lowering the energy threshold potentially allows for contamination of an ROI by gamma rays from nearby point sources. However, in the case of RetII such sources can be safely ignored[^2]
Background model and the existence of a source toward RetII
===========================================================
Adopted background model \[sec:bgdef\]
--------------------------------------
For the gamma-ray background in the direction of RetII we adopt the Poisson background model used in [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G]: the number of background events in the RetII ROI is a Poisson variable; background events are distributed isotropically within the $0.5{^\circ}$ ROI and their energies are independent samples from a given energy spectrum. We adopt the background energy spectrum derived by the Fermi collaboration[^3]. It is the sum of an isotropic component[^4] and a diffuse interstellar component[^5]. The diffuse flux is averaged within a circle of radius $1{^\circ}$ centered on RetII (the effect of changing the size of this region is negligible). As shown in [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G] this model is a very good fit to the average background within $10{^\circ}$ of RetII above 0.2 GeV. We denote the expected background flux $dF_b(E) / dEd\Omega$ (flux of background events per energy per solid angle).
Detection significances \[sec:significance\]
--------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, two different ways of modeling the gamma-ray background yield two different detection significances for RetII. We reflect on the meaning of this discrepancy and show that comparing the two background models can yield inferences about the presence of a source in the direction of RetII.
Significance represents the degree to which we can reject a “background-only” null hypothesis as an explanation of the data. The $p$ value is the probability of obtaining the observed data (or data more “signal-like”, as quantified by a test statistic) if the null hypothesis were true. For source detection the hypothesis is of the form: The detected events within the RetII ROI are produced by “background processes” only. Under the background model of Sec. \[sec:bgdef\] the significance of RetII using Pass 7 data is $p \approx 10^{-4}$ (see [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G] and Table \[tab:gof78\] of this paper).
A second background model and resulting significance test is provided by the “empirical background” technique [@2011PhRvL.107x1303G; @2015PhRvD..91h3535G] (see also [@2014PhRvD..89d2001A; @2015PhRvD..91f1302C; @2015PhRvL.115w1301A; @2017ApJ...834..110A] for an analogous “blank sky locations” method). Here, the same test statistic applied to the RetII ROI is applied to random locations within $10{^\circ}$ of RetII, building up the empirical probability distribution of the test statistic under the background hypothesis. The underlying assumption is that whatever background processes are at work near RetII are also at work in the direction of RetII. Then the $p$ value is the fraction of all sampled background ROIs that look more “signal-like” than the RetII ROI (i.e. have a larger value of the test statistic). @2015PhRvL.115h1101G find $p \approx 0.01$ from the Pass 7 data using this method.
If we sharpen up what is meant by “background processes” we will see that the two different significances for RetII come from testing two distinct hypotheses.
The first tested hypothesis is that the background model of Sec. \[sec:bgdef\] with no additional contributions can explain the RetII data. The energy spectrum $dF_b(E) / dEd\Omega$ is based mainly on physical models of the Milky Way’s interstellar medium [@2016ApJS..223...26A] (e.g. cosmic ray interactions with gas), diffuse structures like the Fermi bubbles, and isotropic emission over the whole sky (which also accounts for cosmic ray contamination). Such a fundamentally diffuse process of emission is governed by Poisson statistics, with an energy spectrum changing smoothly from place to place. In particular, the model does not include discrete “bright” point sources, i.e. those with fluxes at or above the level of the diffuse processes.
Obtaining $p\approx10^{-4}$ for this hypothesis means that the emission towards RetII is either due to a rare statistical fluctuation or to the adoption of an incorrect spectral model (this is the usual issue of statistics vs. systematics). If the spectral model is incorrect it can be for two reasons: the presence of a localized “bright” source of gamma rays or the inadequate modeling of the diffuse physical processes.
The last explanation (no additional source but a mismodeling of the diffuse processes) is unlikely for a few reasons. First, the background model is a very good fit overall to the $10{^\circ}$ region surrounding RetII, showing no systematic deviation from the data [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G; @2015ApJ...809L...4D]. Second, the background spectrum has a significantly different shape from the observed RetII spectrum [Fig. 1 of @2015PhRvL.115h1101G], and a good fit cannot be obtained by changing its normalization (e.g. if the amount of gas along the line of sight were underestimated in the model; see also [@Hoof2018]). In fact, there is no place in the sky where the Fermi diffuse model has the shape of the RetII spectrum[^6], which we take as an indication that conventional diffuse processes cannot give rise to such a spectrum. Third, the RetII excess is localized. If the diffuse model were incorrect there would likely be a highly spatially-correlated excess. Furthermore, the diffuse model shows no large variations or complicated behavior near the location of RetII, which is $50{^\circ}$ off the galactic plane. Finally, the RetII signal is undiminished if, instead of SOURCE events, we compute the significance using Pass 7 ULTRACLEAN events, which are a subset of SOURCE events reconstructed with higher quality and suffering a smaller cosmic ray contamination.
With cautious confidence in the diffuse model, the remaining possibilities are either a “bright” source toward RetII or a Poisson fluctuation in the detected events. We can use the results of the hypothesis test based on the empirical background model to explore this further.
Whereas $p\approx 10^{-4}$ is the probability that diffuse processes such as cosmic ray interactions with gas and extragalactic isotropic emission can explain the RetII data, $p\approx 0.01$ is the probability of an excess from [*all mechanisms*]{} besides emission from a dwarf galaxy (i.e. from any cause other than dark matter annihilation within the dwarf). The additional mechanisms in this more inclusive hypothesis are those stated above: the presence of additional gamma-ray sources along the line of sight and systematic deviations from the assumed diffuse model. That this probability of 0.01 is relatively high by particle physics standards means that, for this set of data [*and*]{} using this particular test statistic, we cannot reject the hypothesis that there is no dark matter annihilation taking place in RetII. However, as we show next, we can use this information in a back of the envelope calculation that shows that the RetII data are much more likely to be due to a source than to a background fluctuation.
Consider all the significant-looking sky locations like RetII’s. How many contain “bright” sources (i.e. those with flux above the diffuse level) and how many are Poisson fluctuations of the diffuse processes (assuming they are correctly modeled)? Let ${\mathrm{P}}(F_b)$ be the probability that the brightest source in a random ROI has a flux below the diffuse background level $F_b$. We seek the probability that a given ROI with “RetII-like” gamma-ray data $D$[^7] does not contain a bright source: ${\mathrm{P}}(F_b \mid D)$. This can be rewritten in terms of $p$ values: ${\mathrm{P}}(F_b \mid D) = {\mathrm{P}}(D \mid F_b) {\mathrm{P}}(F_b) / {\mathrm{P}}(D)$, where the two hypothesis tests discussed correspond to ${\mathrm{P}}(D \mid F_b) \approx 10^{-4}$ and ${\mathrm{P}}(D)\approx 0.01$. Since ${\mathrm{P}}(F_b) < 1$ we must have that ${\mathrm{P}}(F_b \mid D) < 0.01$[^8]. In words, the probability of a statistical fluctuation is less than 1% and the probability that there is a source with flux above the diffuse background level is greater than 99%. Given the data, and based only on the observable statistics of the gamma-ray sky, it is over 100 times more likely that the RetII excess arises from an above-background source rather than from a Poisson fluctuation of the diffuse background.
This rough calculation has no bearing on whether or not the emission is caused by dark matter annihilation. Rather, it justifies us taking the simple existence of a source as the [*starting point*]{} for our explorations here. We note that commonly used test statistics [e.g. @1996ApJ...461..396M; @2015PhRvD..91h3535G; @2015PhRvL.115w1301A] are designed to be powerful at rejecting the diffuse model as the null hypothesis, not at distinguishing a dark matter signal from a previously unidentified astrophysical point source. This paper focuses on this second question (see also [@2015JCAP...09..016H; @2015PhRvD..91f1302C; @2015JCAP...05..056L; @2017AJ....153..253M] for progress in incorporating unknown source populations at the level of the likelihood).
Gamma-ray likelihood
====================
The gamma-ray observable ${\mathbf{X}}_\gamma$ is the list of events $i$ with energies $E_i$ and angular separations $\phi_i$ from the center of the ROI. Dividing the events into bins of energy and angular separation we have $n_j$ events in bin $j$. Model parameters (e.g. dark matter particle properties, energy spectrum shape parameters, or those describing RetII’s dark matter halo) are denoted by $\theta$. The expected number of counts in bin $j$ is $\mu_j(\theta)$. For the adopted Poisson background model, the probability (or likelihood) of observing the set ${\mathbf{n}}\equiv (n_1, n_2, \dots)$ given model parameters $\theta$ is simply the product of Poisson distributions: $${\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{n}}\mid \theta) = \exp \left( - \sum_j \mu_j(\theta) \right) \prod_j \frac{\mu_j(\theta)^{n_j}}{n_j !}.
\label{eqn:likelihoodbinned}$$
The expected counts can be divided into source (signal) and background components: $\mu_j(\theta) = B_j + S_j(\theta)$, where $B_j$ and $S_j(\theta)$ are integrals of the differential expected counts $b(E)$ and $s(E,\phi \mid \theta)$ over the $E$ and $\phi$ range of bin $j$.
The differential background $b(E)$ (predicted background events per energy per solid angle) is $$b(E) = \frac{d F_b(E)}{dE d\Omega} \epsilon(E),$$ where $dF_b(E) / dEd\Omega$ is the adopted background flux model of Sec. \[sec:bgdef\] and $\epsilon(E)$ is the Fermi-LAT exposure (effective area $\times$ time) in the direction of RetII.
The differential signal $s(E,\phi \mid \theta)$ for a point source depends on energy and angular separation from RetII and on the model parameters $\theta$: $$s(E,\phi \mid \theta) = \frac{d F(E \mid \theta)}{dE} \epsilon(E) {\mathrm{PSF}}(\phi \mid E),
\label{eqn:signalfluxpoint}$$ where $dF(E \mid \theta)/dE$ is the source photon flux per energy and the $\phi$ dependence is governed entirely by the instrument’s PSF[^9]. We discuss the choice to model RetII as a point source rather than an extended one in Sec. \[sec:DMdef\].
Our statistical tests will be based on an unbinned likelihood. As the size of the bins in $E$ and $\phi$ shrink to zero Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodbinned\] becomes $${\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma \mid \theta) \propto \exp\left( -\int (s+b) dEd\Omega \right) \prod\limits_i (s_i + b_i),
\label{eqn:likelihoodunbinned}$$ where the integral is over the entire ROI (i.e. all energies and angular separations). The product in Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodunbinned\] is over the individual observed events, i.e. $s_i = s(E_i, \phi_i \mid \theta)$.
In the limit of small bins the constant of proportionality in Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodunbinned\] goes to zero. It is convenient to normalize the probability by a term which does not depend on the model parameters $\theta$. A likelihood ratio where the denominator is the probability under the background-only model is a convenient choice. Dividing Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodbinned\] by itself but with all $S_j=0$ yields a finite limit as the bins become infinitesimal (cf. Eq. 22 of [@2015PhRvD..91h3535G]): $$\frac{{\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma \mid \theta)}{{\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma \mid s=0)} = \exp\left( -\int s\, dEd\Omega \right) \prod\limits_i \left(1 + \frac{s_i}{b_i} \right).
\label{eqn:likelihoodratio}$$
Source models \[sec:sourcemodels\]
==================================
We consider two classes of models to describe the gamma ray source toward RetII: phenomenological descriptions of astrophysical sources and dark matter annihilation within RetII.
Astrophysical source models
---------------------------
We model astrophysical sources as point sources with either power law or curved “log parabola” spectra. These two functional forms are used to describe the vast majority of gamma-ray sources in the Fermi Third Source Catalog (3FGL) [@2015ApJS..218...23A]. In the 3FGL each source (unless it is a pulsar) is fit with both a power law and a log parabola spectrum. If the log parabola spectrum is found to be a significantly better fit (difference in test statistic greater than 16) it is adopted as the “spectral type” in the catalog. Of the 3034 sources in the catalog, 2523 are described by a power law spectrum and 395 are assigned log parabola spectra. The remaining 116 sources are pulsars (and the extremely bright blazar 3C 454.3) and are fit with power laws with exponential or superexponential cutoffs. We consider a pulsar interpretation of the RetII signal in Sec. \[sec:pulsars\]. We note that other spectral shapes (e.g. broken power law) may provide better fits to some sources. However, for the purpose of comparing RetII’s spectrum to those of known gamma ray sources we adopt the same spectral models used in the 3FGL.
The power law spectrum has two model parameters, a normalization $F_0$ and a slope $\alpha$, $$\frac{d F(E \mid \theta)}{dE} = F_0 \left( \frac{E}{E_0}\right)^{-\alpha},
\label{eqn:powerlawdef}$$ where $E_0$ is an arbitrary reference energy that we fix to 1 GeV.
The log parabola spectrum has an additional curvature parameter $\beta$: $$\frac{d F(E \mid \theta)}{dE} = F_0 \left( \frac{E}{E_0}\right)^{-\alpha - \beta \log(E/E_0)},
\label{eqn:logparaboladef}$$ where $\log$ is the natural logarithm. In the 3FGL the reference energy, called the pivot energy $E_p$, varies from source to source. Changing the reference energy changes the parameter $\alpha$ [@2012ApJS..199...31N]: ${\alpha(E_p) = \alpha(E_0) + 2\beta \log(E_p/E_0)}$. We convert the $\alpha(E_p)$’s given in the 3FGL to ${\alpha(E_0=1\,{\mathrm{GeV}})}$ for this work.
Dark matter annihilation \[sec:DMdef\]
--------------------------------------
For dark matter annihilation the model parameters are $\theta = (M, {\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}, {\mathrm{ch}}, J)$, with the first three representing the dark matter particle mass, its velocity-averaged annihilation cross section, and the annihilation channel (i.e. Standard Model final state). We treat RetII as a point source of gamma-rays (see below). Therefore, as far as gamma-ray emission is concerned, its dark matter halo is parameterized by a single quantity $J$, the integral over the halo volume of the dark matter density squared divided by the line-of-sight distance squared. The dark matter annihilation flux to be used in Eq. \[eqn:signalfluxpoint\] is given by (e.g. [@2015PhRvD..91h3535G]) $$\frac{d F(E \mid\theta)}{dE} = \frac{{\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}J}{8\pi M^2} \frac{dN_\gamma(E)}{dE},
\label{eqn:signalfluxDM}$$ where $dN_\gamma/dE$ is the number of gamma-rays emitted per annihilation (per energy) for the given final state channel and mass $M$. For $dN_\gamma/dE$ we adopt the spectra computed by @2011JCAP...03..051C, which include electroweak corrections [@2011JCAP...03..019C]. For point-source emission $J$ is exactly degenerate with ${\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}$ in Eq. \[eqn:signalfluxDM\] and we treat ${\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}J$ as a single parameter which normalizes the amplitude of the signal. In this way our results are independent of any particular choice of $J$.
Equations \[eqn:signalfluxpoint\] and \[eqn:signalfluxDM\] represent a point source approximation. To be accurate, $J$ must be replaced with the $J$-profile $dJ(\phi)/d\Omega$ (e.g. [@2015ApJ...801...74G]) and convolved with the PSF as described in [@2015PhRvD..91h3535G]. The $J$-profile is the integral of the square of the dark matter density along the line of sight as a function of the angle $\phi$ from the center of the dwarf. The use of Eqs. \[eqn:signalfluxpoint\] and \[eqn:signalfluxDM\] is justified if the $J$-profile is much narrower than Fermi’s PSF. The 68% containment angle of the gamma-ray PSF for the RetII observation is about $0.5{^\circ}$ at 2 GeV and decreases to $0.2{^\circ}$ at 10 GeV. Interestingly, the median posterior estimate of the 68% containment angle for RetII’s $J$-profile, as measured by @2015ApJ...808L..36B, is roughly $1{^\circ}$, with half the sampled $J$-profiles being more extended. However, $0.5{^\circ}$ corresponds to 260 pc at the distance to RetII (30 kpc), while the halflight radius of RetII is only 58 pc [@2018arXiv180408627M] and the outermost spectroscopically confirmed member star is at a projected distance of 90 pc [@2015ApJ...808..108W]. This means that inferences about the extent of RetII’s dark matter halo strongly depend on assumptions about the halo beyond the radius probed by observations. Thus at the present time no firm conclusions can be made about RetII’s dark matter distribution on angular scales of $0.5{^\circ}$. We note that @2015JCAP...09..016H find that the Pass 7 data do not prefer a departure from the point source assumption for RetII, while @2018arXiv180506612L find a a slight ($\Delta \chi^2 = 1.3$) preference for extension in 9 years of Pass 8.
Goodness of fit of various spectral models \[sec:GOF\]
======================================================
In this section we consider which spectral models are good fits to the gamma-ray data from RetII and which cannot explain the emission.
Method \[sec:GOFmethod\]
------------------------
We use a likelihood ratio to assess the goodness of fit of the various emission models to the RetII data. Under the null hypothesis we wish to test, the emission is governed by a particular spectral model and associated parameters $\theta_0$. For example, $\theta_0$ might be dark matter annihilation with a given mass, channel, and value of ${\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}J$. Or it could be a log parabola model with a specified $F_0$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$.
A powerful test of the null hypothesis is performed by comparing $\theta_0$ to plausible alternatives using a likelihood ratio. We take these alternatives to be any of the spectral models described in Sec. \[sec:sourcemodels\]. The test statistic, a function of the gamma-ray data ${\mathbf{X}}_\gamma$, is (e.g. [@Kendall5th; @casella2002statistical]) $$\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma) = 2 \log \frac{{\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma \mid \hat{\theta})}{{\mathrm{P}}({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma \mid \theta_0)}.
\label{eqn:likelihoodratiotest}$$ In this equation, $\hat{\theta}$ is the model which maximizes the likelihood for the given data set ${\mathbf{X}}_\gamma$. The maximization is performed over all spectral types (dark matter, power law, or log parabola) and all parameters within those types (e.g. mass, channel, $F_0$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, etc.). Large values of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ indicate that the hypothesis $\theta_0$ is a poor fit to the data ${\mathbf{X}}_\gamma$. We use Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodratio\] to compute the likelihood ratio.
Our set of alternative models are not nested, the true values of $\theta$ may lie beyond the boundaries of the parameter space for the log parabola model (see below), and it is unclear whether the number of events in the $0.5{^\circ}$ ROI is large enough to apply Wilks theorem [@wilks1938; @Kendall5th]. We therefore simulate large numbers of fake ROIs to directly construct the sampling distribution of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ under a given hypothesis $\theta_0$ (see [@2016MNRAS.458L..84A] for a possible alternative). Background events are generated using the model of Sec. \[sec:bgdef\] and signal events using the models of Sec. \[sec:sourcemodels\]. The goodness of fit $p$ value for $\theta_0$ is the fraction of realizations with a larger value of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ than obtained for the observed RetII data. We find that, for the best fitting models $\theta_0$, the distribution of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ is not well described by a $\chi^2$ distribution. However, for the 13 best fitting models (11 dark matter, power law, and log parabola) the PDF of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ is fairly well described by a gamma distribution with shape parameter $k\approx3$ and scale parameter $\theta \approx 1.4$, suggesting that a scaled version of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ may be distributed as a $\chi^2$ variable with 6 degrees of freedom[^10].
The maximization of the likelihood is performed over a grid of model parameters (except for the normalizations ${\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}J$ and $F_0$ which can vary continuously). We have chosen the grid to be fine enough so that the results are not sensitive to the discreteness. For the dark matter models the allowed masses run from the mass of the final state particle up to 1 TeV in log-spaced steps where neighboring masses differ by 2%. For the power law spectrum we consider indices $\alpha$ running from 1 to 3 in steps of 0.01 (the range for 3FGL sources is between 1.1 to 5.7). For the log parabola models, $\alpha$ runs from $-1$ to 5 in steps of 0.05 (the range in the 3FGL is -0.54 to 4.6), and $\beta$ runs from 0.05 to 1 in steps of 0.05 (the range in the 3FGL is 0.03 to 1). Though values of $\beta$ greater than 1 are physical, the upper limit of 1 is imposed in order to more easily compare with the 3FGL, where 1 is the maximum allowable $\beta$. Additionally, the log parabola model is meant to model astrophysical sources and it is appropriate to restrict its parameter space to where such sources are expected to lie. We discuss the relaxation of the $\beta <1$ requirement in Sec. \[sec:3fgl\].
Results
-------
We find the best fitting model parameters (those which maximize the likelihood in Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodratio\]) for each spectral class: power law, log parabola, and dark matter for each annihilation channel. We then test whether each of these best fit models is actually a good fit to the RetII data using the likelihood ratio test described above. That is, we set $\theta_0$ to a best fit model, generate fake data ${\mathbf{X}}_\gamma$ under this model to find the distribution of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$, and find what fraction of fake data sets have $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ higher than that observed for RetII. The resulting $p$ values are shown in Table \[tab:gof78\].
[dddddddddd]{}
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
-0.70 & -1.00\^\*& 1.00\^\* & 0.95 & 3.0 &0.80 & 2.5 & 1.3 & 0.73 &0.90\
2.09 &1.99& & & 10.6 & 2.8 & 9.9 & 4.9 & 0.025 &0.16\
& 19.9 & 7.0 & & 0.027\
\
& &\
& &\
& 6.2 & 8.1 & 2.9 & 1.7 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0\
& 6.2 & 8.1 & 6.5 & 3.5 & 0.8 & 0.46 & 0.93 & 0.97\
& 13.9 & 19.5 & 1.1 & 0.63 & 2.7 & 1.5 & 0.70 & 0.89\
& 77.6 & 120.5 & 3.8 & 2.2 & 5.1 & 3.0 & 0.29 & 0.51\
& 34.8 & 55.1 & 1.7 & 0.96 & 5.4 & 3.2 & 0.24 & 0.44\
& 31.5 & 47.9 & 1.5 & 0.81 & 5.4 & 3.2 & 0.24 & 0.44\
& 32.8 & 48.9 & 1.5 & 0.83 & 5.4 & 3.2 & 0.24 & 0.44\
& 180.0\^\* & 195.0 & 11.1 & 4.4 & 5.5 & 3.0 & 0.23 & 0.48\
& 135.3 & 214.3 & 7.8 & 4.6 & 5.6 & 3.2 & 0.23 & 0.45\
& 90.0\^\* & 99.5 & 6.3 & 2.5 & 5.7 & 3.2 & 0.21 & 0.43\
& 100.0\^\* & 124.6 & 7.0 & 3.2 & 5.7 & 3.3 & 0.21 & 0.42\
The best fits (highest $p$ values) are for a source with a log parabola spectrum or dark matter particles annihilating into leptons, followed by annihilation into quarks and gauge bosons. For every dark matter model there is at least one particle mass for which the fit is acceptable.
Power law models, on the other hand, are in tension with the Pass 7 RetII data with $p = 0.025$. Specifically, if there were a power law source in the direction of RetII with spectral index of $\alpha = 2.09$ there is only a 2.5% chance of finding $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ as large is it is measured to be. In other words, RetII appears to have a significantly curved spectrum.
Note that Table \[tab:gof78\] only shows best fitting models, not uncertainties in model parameters. In the next section we discuss constraints on the log parabola model parameters and a companion paper will explore dark matter parameter space (see also Fig. 4 in [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G]).
Figure \[fig:speckstackmodels\] shows the best fitting model spectra and compares them with the observed RetII data. The data points show the empirical spectrum of RetII derived from the observed event counts within $0.25{^\circ}$ of RetII. These are binned in energy (5 bins per decade starting at 0.2 GeV) and error bars show 68% Poisson confidence intervals. The empirical flux is the number of counts divided by the exposure and energy bin width. Model spectra as well as the background spectrum are plotted as curves. Pass 7 and Pass 8 results are shown with their respective best fitting models (we discuss consistency in Sec. \[sec:discussion\]).
![\[fig:speckstackmodels\] Energy spectrum of RetII compared with best fitting models. Data points (same for each row) are the observed spectrum derived from events detected within $0.25{^\circ}$ of RetII along with 68% Poisson error bars. The thin gray curve is the predicted background and dashed curves show the source contribution. Solid colored curves are the sum of background and source. The first three rows are models of dark matter annihilation while the last describes a generic astrophysical source with a curved spectrum. The two columns show results for Pass 7 and Pass 8 data.](specstack2colminimodels_Ret2_eebbtauWWlogparabola_v4.pdf)
Figure \[fig:speckstackannuli\] illustrates the fit as a function of energy and angular separation from RetII. The $0.5{^\circ}$ RetII ROI is divided into four annuli with equal solid angle, which are shown as different rows. The best fitting log parabola and power law models are plotted. In Figs. \[fig:speckstackmodels\] and \[fig:speckstackannuli\] the model spectra (Eqs. \[eqn:powerlawdef\], \[eqn:logparaboladef\], and \[eqn:signalfluxDM\]) are scaled by the PSF integrated within the corresponding annulus in order to compare with data. The energy dependence of the PSF explains why, for example, the power law spectrum is not a straight line.
![\[fig:speckstackannuli\] Same as Fig. \[fig:speckstackmodels\] but showing the fits at varying angular separation from RetII. Different rows correspond to spectra constructed from different annuli. The best fit power law and log parabola source models are compared.](specstack2colminiRbins_Ret2_logparabola_powerlaw_v4.pdf)
Comparison with astrophysical populations
=========================================
\[sec:3fgl\]Sources in the 3FGL
-------------------------------
Among the models meant to describe astrophysical sources, the log parabola spectrum is a perfectly acceptable fit to the data ($p=0.73$ in Pass 7). This motivates a comparison with the various source populations present in the 3FGL. Another likelihood ratio test statistic is used to place constraints on the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters of the log parabola spectrum that can describe the RetII emission. The space of alternative hypotheses (the numerator in Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodratiotest\]) is restricted to include only log parabola spectra with $-1 \leq \alpha \leq 5$, $0 \leq \beta \leq 1$, and any value for $F_0$. To test whether a given set $\alpha, \beta$ is an acceptable fit to the data we maximize the likelihood over the normalization $F_0$ while holding $\alpha$ and $\beta$ fixed. This constrained maximum likelihood value is used as the null hypotheses in the denominator of Eq. \[eqn:likelihoodratiotest\]. With fixed numbers of degrees of freedom in the null and alternative hypotheses, we cautiously make use of the $\chi^2$ approximation to the likelihood ratio [e.g. @Kendall5th]. In this case $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ should be distributed as $\chi^2$ with 2 degrees of freedom and regions of $\alpha, \beta$ space where $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma) > 2.3\, (6.2)$ are ruled out at 68.3% (95.4%) significance.
The contours in Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\] show the resulting confidence intervals. The large black cross shows the best fitting parameters for the Pass 7 RetII data, occurring at the edge of the allowable parameter space at $(\alpha, \beta)=(-0.7,1)$. Solid lines show the 68% and 95% confidence regions for Pass 7 (the large black dashed circle and dashed black contour show the best fit and 68% region for Pass 8; the 95% contour includes the entire figure since $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)<6.2$ for the log parabola model in Pass 8).
To check the coverage of the confidence intervals we simulated $10^4$ fake data sets for each of 20 points along the 68% and 95% contours (using the best fit $F_0$ at that $(\alpha,\beta)$ value). For each fake data set we find the sampling distribution of $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ and directly find the $p$ value for the RetII observation (the fraction of fake data sets with $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ larger than the RetII value). This exact $p$ value is compared with the approximate $p$ value obtained using a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. In these experiments we find the actual $p$ to fall between 0.4 and 0.8 times the approximate $p$ value, indicating that the contours are conservative (i.e. the probability they enclose the true value of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is greater than 68% and 95%). In terms of “sigma values” (where $1\sigma=68.3\%$ and $2\sigma=95.4\%$), the contours correspond to sigma values about $0.1\sigma$ to $0.3\sigma$ higher than stated. This is perhaps expected since the $\chi^2$ approximation should break down when the true parameters are at the boundary of the parameter space (or beyond).
Figure \[fig:logparabola3fgl\] also shows the spectral parameters of 298 sources which are assigned a log parabola spectrum in the 3FGL catalog. Different markers denote different source classes, as described in Table 6 of [@2015ApJS..218...23A]. Extragalactic and unassociated sources are listed in the legend on the left and galactic sources on right.
Of the 395 curved 3FGL sources 114 have one or more analysis flags set, indicating that some aspect of their analysis is problematic (e.g. detection significance or measured flux unstable to changes in the diffuse model, located near a brighter source, poor quality of spectral fit; see [@2015ApJS..218...23A] for details). The majority of these are unassociated sources, have $\beta > 0.25$, and are located very close to the Galactic plane where the source density is high and the diffuse model more uncertain. We remove the 97 sources with $|b|<5{^\circ}$ that have an analysis flag set (other than the flag indicating $\beta=1$). The remaining 17 flagged sources are shown with faded markers in Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\]. This selection removes sources with likely biased parameters that are anyway unlikely to be counterparts of a source at RetII’s location ($b \approx -50{^\circ}$).
Error bars on the individual 3FGL sources are omitted for clarity but we note that the sizes of the errors on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are each highly correlated with the value of $\beta$. For the sources in each of four $\beta$ bins ($\beta \in [0, 0.25]$, $[0.25,0.5]$, $[0.5,0.75]$, $[0.75,1]$) we show the median uncertainty on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as a series of error bars running up the right-hand side of the figure.
The RetII contours are quite large compared to the 3FGL error bars because RetII is detected at much lower significance than these sources. There are a number of unassociated 3FGL sources (empty black circles) within the RetII $2\sigma$ Pass 7 contour, and even several BL Lacs (empty blue diamonds) and active galaxies of uncertain type (filled green circles). The vast majority of sources that can be associated with galactic or extragalactic counterparts, however, have significantly different spectral shape than RetII. In particular, the two blazar classes (BL Lacs and flat spectrum radio quasars) that make up the bulk of associated curved sources populate a relatively well-defined region in $\alpha, \beta$ space with $\beta \lesssim 0.3$. Of the 2918 non-pulsar 3FGL sources, 298 (with $|b|>5{^\circ}$ and no analysis flag) have significant curvature and of these only 5 (40) lie within the 68% (95%) Pass 7 RetII contours. Even with the limited photon counts, the data suggest that RetII may have spectral parameters substantially different from almost all other known gamma-ray sources.
From Eq. \[eqn:logparaboladef\] we see that the maximum of $E^2 dF/dE$ (the spectral energy distribution) occurs at an energy ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ where $\log({E_\mathrm{peak}}/E_0) = (1 - \alpha/2)/\beta$. In Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\] contours of constant ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ (gray dashed lines) are straight lines radiating from $(\alpha,\beta)=(2,0)$, with positive slope if ${E_\mathrm{peak}}< E_0$ and negative slope if ${E_\mathrm{peak}}> E_0$. The degeneracy direction in the $\alpha, \beta$ contours suggests that ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ is what is actually being measured in the data, rather than $\alpha$ and $\beta$ individually. This is verified in Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\_Epeakbeta\], where we reparameterize the log parabola spectra using ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ instead of $\alpha$ and find the best fit within the range $10~{\mathrm{MeV}}< {E_\mathrm{peak}}< 1~{\mathrm{TeV}}$ and $0<\beta<1$ . Representative error bars for 3FGL sources are obtained with the same binning procedure used in Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\] (we use simple error propagation to find the errors on $\log({E_\mathrm{peak}}/E_0)$ and note that for some sources with the lowest measured $\beta$’s the errors on ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ can reach 100%, reflecting the fact that ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ is ill-defined as $\beta\rightarrow 0$). While the data imply a lower limit on RetII’s curvature parameter, they provide a well-constrained measurement of the peak of its spectral energy distribution as expected from, e.g., Fig. \[fig:speckstackmodels\]. It appears that FSRQs radiate most of their gamma-ray energy in photons of systematically lower energy than RetII does.
It is clear from Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\_Epeakbeta\] that curvatures larger than $\beta=1$ will improve the fit. If we relax the constraint from the 3FGL that $\beta \leq 1$, the best fitting $\beta$ increases from 1 to 3.0 in Pass 7 (3.8 in Pass 8), and $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ becomes similar to the best fitting models of Table \[tab:gof78\]. Since ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ and $\beta$ are uncorrelated we measure them each individually, maximizing the likelihood over the other parameter and $F_0$, and assuming that the likelihood ratio is governed by a $\chi^2$ distribution with 1 degree of freedom. We measure $3.1 < {E_\mathrm{peak}}/{\mathrm{GeV}}< 4.5$ and $1.4 < \beta < 5.9$ at 68.3% confidence for the Pass 7 data. For Pass 8 we find $4.0 < {E_\mathrm{peak}}/{\mathrm{GeV}}< 6.4$ and $\beta > 1.6$. As with Pass 7, the likelihood ratio rises rapidly as $\beta$ decreases from its best fit value, but $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ is still less than 1 when $\beta=10$, yielding a one-sided confidence interval on $\beta$. As expected, ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ is constrained rather precisely while the data essentially provide a lower bound on $\beta$.
Pulsars \[sec:pulsars\]
-----------------------
Among the source classes in the 3FGL, pulsars are notable for their significantly curved spectra. About 75% of the pulsars in the 3FGL have a curvature significance greater than $4\sigma$ (as compared with FSRQs (17%), BL Lacs (3%), blazars of uncertain type (3%), supernova remnants (57%), globular clusters (40%), and unassociated sources (17%)). If RetII hosts one or more gamma-ray emitting pulsars that may explain its curved spectrum.
We make an estimate of the pulsar contribution to RetII’s gamma-ray flux by considering the 15 globular clusters in the 3FGL. The gamma-ray emission from globular clusters is likely powered by populations of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) . For each globular cluster, we scale its gamma-ray flux to what it would be at the distance of RetII. We also scale the gamma-ray flux according to the ratio of V-band luminosity $L_V$ of the globular cluster [@1996AJ....112.1487H 2010 edition] to that of RetII [@2015ApJ...805..130K]. In this way each globular cluster provides an estimate of the pulsar emission which might be expected from RetII. As RetII has an old, metal-poor stellar population, similar to globular clusters, the visual luminosity is a proxy for number of stars. The luminosity scaling assumes that the number of MSPs in a system is proportional to the number of stars. However, MSPs are typically found in binary systems, and the stellar encounter rate in globular clusters correlates with both their abundance of X-ray binaries (possible progenitors of MSPs) and their gamma-ray luminosity . Because of its extremely low stellar density compared to globular clusters (hence low encounter rate), RetII likely harbors a far smaller fraction of binary systems than do globular clusters, and therefore a far fewer number of MSPs per unit luminosity. Furthermore, selection bias leads to the globular clusters in the 3FGL having higher gamma-ray luminosities than expected from the scaling based on the population of Milky Way globular clusters (there are 104 gamma-ray quiet globular clusters in the Harris catalog with greater $L_V/D^2$ than the 3FGL globular cluster with the smallest $L_V/D^2$). For these reasons, our globular cluster scaling is conservative and will tend to overestimate the RetII pulsar flux.
![\[fig:GCs\] The pulsar contribution to RetII’s gamma-ray flux compared with the diffuse background level. Each thin curve shows the spectrum of a gamma-ray detected globular cluster scaled according to the distance and luminosity of the globular cluster relative to RetII. Solid lines correspond to globular clusters with power law spectra in the 3FGL, dashed lines to those with log parabola spectra. The thick curve shows the diffuse background. Fluxes are integrated over a region of radius $0.25{^\circ}$ as in Fig. \[fig:speckstackmodels\].](fig_GCs_vs_bgflux_025deg.pdf)
Figure \[fig:GCs\] compares the diffuse background level toward RetII to the estimates of pulsar emission provided by each scaled globular cluster. Fluxes are shown integrated within $0.25{^\circ}$ of RetII (compare with Figs. \[fig:speckstackmodels\] and \[fig:speckstackannuli\]). While the spectral shape of globular cluster emission is often quite similar to what we observe from RetII, the expected flux is too small to explain the RetII signal by over an order of magnitude. We also consider the peak intensity (flux per solid angle) of the scaled globular cluster emission: the maximum value of the PSF multiplied by the point source flux (see Eq. \[eqn:signalfluxpoint\]). Except for Palomar 9, each scaled globular cluster has a gamma-ray intensity an order of magnitude or more below the background estimate in RetII’s direction. Palomar 9’s intensity lies slightly above background at energies above 30 GeV. However, at these energies we expect fewer than a single event to be detected by Fermi. We conclude that it is highly unlikely that a population of MSPs could give rise to an observable gamma-ray signal from RetII.
Another way to see the implausibility of the MSP explanation is to note that the estimated number of MSPs in gamma-ray emitting globular clusters range from about ten to at most a few hundred . This relative handful of MSPs occur in densely packed systems of millions of stars. RetII, with about 1000 solar luminosities, is unlikely to possess a single MSP. In fact, using a sample of globular clusters [*not*]{} selected by gamma-ray luminosity, @2016JCAP...08..018H find the occurrence of MSPs in globular clusters to be about 1 per $10^6$ solar luminosities.
The results of this section, based on simple scaling arguments, are in agreement with the conclusions of @2016ApJ...832L...6W. In that study, the pulsar contribution to dwarf galaxy gamma-ray fluxes is estimated by constructing a gamma-ray luminosity function for isolated Milky Way MSPs and then scaling the Milky Way population down by the ratio of dwarf galaxy to Milky Way stellar mass. The authors find an expected pulsar contribution 1 to 5 orders of magnitude below the diffuse background gamma-ray flux for all ultrafaint dwarf galaxies.
Our arguments do not address the possibility of an MSP unrelated to RetII that happens to lie along the line of sight. The probability of such a coincidence can be estimated with population synthesis simulations . In particular, @2016ApJ...832L...6W predict the flux from foreground pulsars to be similar to the flux from those internal to RetII. Dedicated searches in radio [e.g. @2017JCAP...07..025R] and X-rays may also be able to discover an interloping pulsar.
Discussion \[sec:discussion\]
=============================
Among the types of background gamma-ray sources that might lie along RetII’s line of sight, blazars are perhaps the most likely candidates. This population makes up the majority of associated 3FGL sources at high galactic latitudes. In addition, a large fraction of the unassociated 3FGL sources likely have blazar counterparts [e.g. @2012ApJ...752...61M; @2012ApJ...753...83A; @2016PhRvL.116o1105A; @2015PhR...598....1F]. Generic radio sources [@2003MNRAS.342.1117M; @2012MNRAS.422.1527M] number in the hundreds of thousands, with only a tiny fraction being associated with a gamma-ray source. In contrast, around 30% of the approximately 3000 known blazar candidates appear in the 3FGL . As we have shown, comparing the gamma-ray spectra of blazars with that of a tentative gamma-ray source offers a way of making a distinction between dark matter annihilation and blazar emission. Taken at face value, the high curvature and spectral energy peak of RetII are markedly different from the two main blazar types. In particular, ${E_\mathrm{peak}}$ is measured more robustly than $\beta$ making the separation between RetII and the FSRQs especially clean. The separation between RetII and the BL Lacs is based on the apparently large curvature of RetII, though this separation is less marked than for the FSRQs. This is particularly important as @2017JCAP...07..025R have identified two BL Lac candidates behind RetII. As Fermi increases its exposure (and if there is in fact a source in RetII’s direction), confidence regions in Fig. \[fig:logparabola3fgl\_Epeakbeta\] will shrink, the catalog of gamma-ray loud blazars will expand, and the comparison between RetII and blazar types will come into sharper focus.
In contrast to blazars, our analysis of gamma-ray spectral shape cannot distinguish a dark matter signal from pulsar emission. This spectral similarity has been a central issue in the search for dark matter annihilation at the Galactic Center [e.g. @2011JCAP...03..010A; @2013PhRvD..88h3009H; @2016PhRvL.116e1102B; @2016PhRvL.116e1103L]. Searches in dwarf galaxies appear to avoid the problem (Sec. \[sec:pulsars\], also [@2016ApJ...832L...6W]). Of course, RetII may be a system with a peculiar history [e.g. @2016ApJ...830...93J; @2017arXiv170706871S] and our analogy with globular clusters may break down. Future study of RetII at all wavelengths will help pin down possible gamma-ray sources within (and behind) RetII.
Our discussion in Sec. \[sec:significance\] about the relative probabilities of a statistical fluctuation vs. an additional gamma-ray source in RetII’s direction is based on a well known property of the Fermi sky: sampling random sky locations turns up more “high-significance” locations (i.e. hot pixels) than would be expected from the Poisson statistical fluctuations of the diffuse model (see, e.g. [@2015PhRvD..91h3535G; @2014PhRvD..89d2001A; @2015PhRvD..91f1302C; @2015PhRvL.115w1301A; @2017ApJ...834..110A] in the context of dark matter searches). This phenomenon has been invoked to argue for a millisecond pulsar explanation of the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess [@2015JCAP...05..056L; @2016PhRvL.116e1102B; @2016PhRvL.116e1103L] and, at higher latitudes, to constrain source populations [@2010JCAP...01..005F; @2011ApJ...738..181M; @2014ApJ...796...14C; @2016ApJ...826L..31Z; @2016ApJS..225...18Z; @2016PhRvL.116o1105A; @2017ApJ...839....4D; @2016ApJ...832..117L] as well as dark matter annihilation [@2009JCAP...07..007L; @2010PhRvD..82l3511B; @2015JCAP...09..027F; @2017arXiv171001506Z]. In this work, the task is to understand the origin of one particular hot pixel (i.e. RetII) that is known to host a dark matter halo with a large $J$ value. As the origin of the excess high-significance locations becomes better understood (i.e. via “1-point function” analyses) it will be possible to quantify the probability that a RetII-like observation is caused by a particular class of sources.
Finally, we return to the differences between Pass 7 and Pass 8. There are differences in detection significance and in the best fitting properties of the RetII source when analyzed with the two data sets. The ultimate solution requires finding the probability of jointly obtaining the Pass 7 and Pass 8 results when there either is or is not a source in RetII’s direction. This is beyond the scope of this work. However, our analysis can partially address the consistency question: is there a single RetII energy spectrum consistent with both the Pass 7 and Pass 8 data sets?
Though we analyzed the two data sets independently, in reality they are highly overlapping [e.g. @2015PhRvL.115w1301A]: dividing the events detected within $15{^\circ}$ of RetII into energy bins we find that, over the same 6.9 observation, about 60-70% of events between 1 and 10 GeV found in one data set are also found in the other.
We can obtain a necessary condition for consistency by treating the Pass 7 and Pass 8 data sets as two independent observations of the same object. If there is no single spectrum that is a good fit to both data sets when they are treated independently then the data sets will certainly be inconsistent had their dependence been properly included. The best fitting log parabola model to the combined Pass 7/Pass 8 data set (with all three log parabola parameters completely free) is $\alpha=-8.1$, $\beta=3.5$, ${E_\mathrm{peak}}=4.2\,{\mathrm{GeV}}$, and $F_0 = 1.5\times 10^{-13} \,{{\mathrm{cm}}}^{-2} \sec^{-1} {\mathrm{GeV}}^{-1}$. Taking this model as the null model $\theta_0$ (Sec. \[sec:GOFmethod\]) the goodness of fit test statistic is $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)=1.1$ for the Pass 7 data, and $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)=1.0$ for the Pass 8 data. The distribution for $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ should be $\chi^2$ distributed with 3 degrees of freedom, giving $p\approx 0.8$ for both Pass 7 and Pass 8. When considered independently, the confidence intervals for the log parabola parameters inferred from Pass 7 and 8 are therefore highly overlapping. Correlations between the two data sets will increase the level tension but we conclude that consistency is plausible.
There are also indications of consistency between 6.9 years of Pass 7 the 9-year Pass 8 results of @2018arXiv180506612L. The best fitting dark model reported by [@2018arXiv180506612L] is for dark matter with a mass of 16 GeV annihilating into $\tau$ leptons. While they do not report a best fitting annihilation cross section, this mass fits the 6.9-year data essentially as well as the best fitting masses we find ($M=13.9~{\mathrm{GeV}}$ in Pass 7 and 19.5 GeV in 6.9 years of Pass 8; $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)$ changes by $\sim 0.1$ when shifting these masses to 16 GeV while maximizing with respect to ${\langle {\sigma}v \rangle}J$). As for level of significance, the reported $TS=13.5$ corresponds to $p \approx 10^{-4}$ for the diffuse Poisson background model as mentioned in the introduction. Using Fig. 11 of [@2017ApJ...834..110A], which is based on a blank sky calibration that takes into account a trials factor needed for searching multiple masses, such a $TS$ value corresponds to $p\approx 0.01$. This blank sky method for evaluating significance is approximately analogous to the empirical background sampling method which yielded $p=0.01$ in 6.5 years of Pass 7 data [@2015PhRvL.115h1101G]. Thus the arguments of Sec. \[sec:significance\] may well hold for the 9-year Pass 8 data as well as the 6.5-year Pass 7 data.
Conclusions
===========
We present a series of analyses to follow up on the detection of a gamma-ray signal from the direction of a dwarf galaxy. Our main focus is on assessing whether there is a plausible astrophysical interpretation for the signal. We first quantify the probability that the excess is due to a Poisson fluctuation of diffuse background processes vs. the existence of a previously unknown point source source along the line of sight. We show that comparing the gamma-ray spectrum of the new source to those of known classes of gamma-ray emitters can help rule out a chance alignment with an unrelated background object. Finally, we estimate the level of emission from a population of pulsars within the dwarf which could mimic a dark matter signal.
These analyses are applied to Fermi observations of the Reticulum II dwarf, the most promising dwarf dark matter signal seen so far. We find that a line of sight featuring a gamma-ray excess like RetII’s has high likelihood (probability greater than 99%) of hosting a gamma-ray source with flux above the diffuse background level. We use a simple log parabola parameterization of RetII’s gamma-ray spectrum and compare with known sources in the 3FGL catalog. RetII has a significantly curved energy spectrum, which is a distinctive feature among gamma-ray sources. We find that of the blazar types (which represent the majority of high latitude associated gamma-ray sources), flat spectrum radio quasars emit most of their gamma-ray energy at lower energy (${E_\mathrm{peak}}$) than RetII does. BL Lacs can emit at energies comparable to RetII’s, though they in general have spectral curvatures too low to explain the RetII data. All of these conclusions are stronger when considering 6.9 years of Pass 7 data than the same amount of Pass 8 data, for which the significance of the RetII excess is lower and all confidence regions expand considerably. For any promising dark matter target, not just RetII, these techniques will help to distinguish a dark matter explanation from an astrophysical one.
We acknowledge useful discussions with Kev Abazajian, Gordon Blackadder, Ian Dell’Antonio, Raphael Flauger, Sebastien Fromenteau, Rick Gaitskell, Manoj Kaplinghat, François Lanusse, Sandhya Rao, Pat Scott, Sukhdeep Singh, Louie Strigari, Roberto Trotta, and Aaron Vincent. SMK is supported by DE-SC0017993. MGW is supported by NSF grants AST-1313045 and AST-1412999. .
[^1]: <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/>
[^2]: The nearest source in Fermi’s Third Source Catalog (3FGL) [@2015ApJS..218...23A] is a BL Lac blazar, 1RXS J032521.8-563543, located $2.9{^\circ}$ from RetII. Adopting the spectral model from the 3FGL and the Pass 7 PSF and exposure in the direction of RetII, this source is expected to contribute 0.3 events to the RetII ROI (within uncertainties in the spectral model this can rise to 0.36 events). Other nearby sources (at $3.7{^\circ}$ and $4.4{^\circ}$) contribute significantly fewer events. In contrast, Galactic diffuse and isotropic gamma-ray backgrounds are expected to contribute 140 events to the RetII ROI.
[^3]: <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html>
[^4]: Pass 7: `iso_source_v05.txt`, Pass 8: `iso_P8R2_SOURCE_V6_v06.txt`
[^5]: Pass 7: `gll_iem_v05_rev1.fit`, Pass 8: `gll_iem_v06.fits`
[^6]: We determined this by extracting the spectrum of the Fermi Pass 7 diffuse interstellar emission model within every $0.125{^\circ}\times 0.125{^\circ}$ pixel covering the whole sky and adding it to the isotropic spectral model. At no location does the spectral energy distribution $E^2 dF/dE$ peak above 1 GeV (compare with $\gtrsim 2~{\mathrm{GeV}}$ for RetII; see Secs. \[sec:GOF\] and \[sec:3fgl\]), with 99.8% of the sky having $E^2 dF/dE$ peak below 0.7 GeV (the Pass 8 model gives similar results).
[^7]: More precisely, $D$ is the statement that the test statistic for the ROI is larger than the one observed in RetII.
[^8]: Applying this argument to the actual RetII ROI would take us into Bayesian territory. In that case $P(D)$ is greater than 0.01, but to quantify it we would have to assign degrees of belief to the various particle properties of dark matter and the parameters describing RetII’s dark matter halo.
[^9]: In this work we do not model the finite energy resolution of the LAT ($\Delta E/E \lesssim 0.1$ for $E \gtrsim 0.5\,{\mathrm{GeV}}$) as the spectra we consider are much broader than this.
[^10]: This holds when the true parameters are sufficiently far from the boundary of parameter space. In the case where the null hypothesis is background-only (i.e. $F_0=0$) about 10% the samples have $\lambda({\mathbf{X}}_\gamma)=0$ while the rest are gamma-distributed with $k \approx0.8$ and $\theta \approx 2.3$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface endowed with a Riemannian metric $g$. We consider the flow $\phi$ determined by the motion of a particle under the influence of a magnetic field $\Omega$ and a thermostat with external field ${\bf e}$. We show that if $\phi$ is Anosov, then it has weak stable and unstable foliations of class $C^{1,1}$ if and only if the external field ${\bf e}$ has a global potential $U$, $g_{1}:=e^{-2U}g$ has constant curvature and $e^{-U}\Omega$ is a constant multiple of the area form of $g_1$. We also give necessary and sufficient conditions for just one of the weak foliations to be of class $C^{1,1}$ and we show that the [*combined*]{} effect of a thermostat and a magnetic field can produce an Anosov flow with a weak stable foliation of class $C^{\infty}$ and a weak unstable foliation which is [*not*]{} $C^{1,1}$. Finally we study Anosov thermostats depending quadratically on the velocity and we characterize those with smooth weak foliations. In particular, we show that quasi-fuchsian flows as defined by Ghys in [@Ghy1] can arise in this fashion.'
address: ' Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WB, England'
author:
- 'Gabriel P. Paternain'
title: Regularity of weak foliations for thermostats
---
Introduction
============
Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface endowed with a Riemannian metric $g$ and let $SM$ be its unit sphere bundle. Given $f\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$ and ${\bf e}$ a smooth vector field on $M$ we let $\lambda\in C^{\infty}( SM,\re)$ be the function given by $$\lambda(x,v):=f(x)+\langle {\bf e}(x),iv\rangle$$ where $i$ indicates rotation by $\pi/2$ according to the orientation of the surface. The present paper is concerned with the dynamical system determined by the equation $$\frac{D\dot{\gamma}}{dt}=\la(\gamma,\dot{\ga})\,i\dot{\ga}.
\label{eqgt}$$ This equation defines a flow $\phi$ on $SM$ which reduces to the geodesic flow when ${\bf e}=f=0$. If $\la$ does not depend on $v$, i.e. ${\bf e}=0$, then $\phi$ is the [*magnetic flow*]{} associated with the magnetic field $\Omega:=f\Omega_{a}$, where $\Omega_{a}$ is the area form of $M$. The magnetic flow can also be seen as the Hamiltonian flow of $|v|_{x}^{2}/2$ with respect to the twisted symplectic form $-d\alpha+\pi^{*}\Omega$, where $\pi:TM\to M$ is the canonical projection and $\alpha$ is the contact 1-form of the geodesic flow. If $f=0$, we obtain the [*Gaussian thermostat*]{} (or isokinetic dynamics, cf. [@H]) which is reversible in the sense that the flip $(x,v)\mapsto (x,-v)$ conjugates $\phi_{t}$ with $\phi_{-t}$ (just as in the case of geodesic flows). Gaussian thermostats provide interesting models in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics [@Ga; @GaRu; @Ru1].
Thus the dynamical system governed by (\[eqgt\]) describes the motion of a particle on $M$ under the combined influence of a magnetic field $f\Omega_a$ and a thermostat with external field ${\bf e}$. To avoid cumbersome terminology we will call $\phi$ simply a [*thermostat*]{} and we will keep in mind that a magnetic force may be present. When $f=0$, we will refer to $\phi$ as a Gaussian or [*pure*]{} thermostat.
In the present paper we will study the regularity properties of the weak stable and unstable foliations of [*Anosov*]{} thermostats. Recall that the Anosov property means that $T(SM)$ splits as $T(SM)=E^{0}\oplus E^{u}\oplus E^{s}$ in such a way that there are constants $C>0$ and $0<\rho<1<\eta$ such that $E^{0}$ is spanned by the generating vector field $F$ of the flow, and for all $t>0$ we have $$\|d\phi_{-t}|_{E^{u}}\|\leq C\,\eta^{-t}\;\;\;\;\mbox{\rm
and}\;\;\;\|d\phi_{t}|_{E^{s}}\|\leq C\,\rho^{t}.$$ The subbundles are then invariant and Hölder continuous and have smooth integral manifolds, the stable and unstable manifolds, which define a continuous foliation with smooth leaves. Also, since we are working with surfaces, the [*weak stable*]{} and [*unstable bundles*]{} given by $$E^+=\re F\oplus E^s,$$ $$E^-=\re F\oplus E^u$$ are of class $C^{1,\alpha}$, that is, they are $C^1$ and the transverse derivatives are $\alpha$-Hölder for some $\alpha<1$ depending on the rates of contraction and expansion of the system [@HPS; @Ha]. Moreover, if $\phi$ is [*volume preserving*]{}, the work of S. Hurder and A. Katok [@HK] shows that the weak bundles have transverse derivatives which are Zygmund regular, and thus $\alpha$-Hölder for any $\alpha<1$.
In general, thermostats are not volume preserving and in [@DP2] it is shown that an Anosov thermostat on a surface preserves an absolutely continuous measure if and only if ${\bf e}$ has global potential, i.e., ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$, where $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$. If ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$, it is well known (cf. Section 2) that we can make a time change in $\phi$ so that new flow is the magnetic flow of the metric $e^{-2U}g$ and magnetic field $e^{-U}\Omega$.
The regularity of the strong bundles $E^s$ and $E^u$ for thermostats is now well understood. Recall that the regularity of the strong bundles could change dramatically with time changes while the weak bundles do not change at all. Suppose that there exists a time change so that $E^s\oplus E^u$ is of class $C^1$. Then [@HK Theorem 2.3] implies that the reparametrized flow is a contact Anosov flow and in particular volume preserving. Thus ${\bf e}$ must have a global potential $U$ and the unit sphere bundle of the metric $e^{-2U}g$ must be a contact type hypersurface in the symplectic manifold $(TM,-d\alpha+\pi^{*}e^{-U}\Omega)$. The question of which energy levels of a magnetic flow are of contact type can be decided, at least when $\Omega$ is exact, in terms of Aubry-Mather theory. For details we refer to [@CMP; @P].
If we do not insist on time changes and we just ask when is $E^s\oplus E^u$ of class $C^1$ (or Lipschitz) the situation is even more rigid and it is described in [@P2; @DP1; @DP2]. The final result is as follows: if $\Omega$ is exact, then $E^s\oplus E^u$ is of class $C^1$ if and only if ${\bf e}=\Omega=0$ (i.e. $\phi$ is a geodesic flow); if $\Omega$ is not exact, then $E^s\oplus E^u$ is of class $C^1$ if and only if ${\bf e}=0$, $g$ has constant curvature and $\Omega$ is a constant multiple of the area form.
Thus the only question that remains to be addressed regarding regularity is that of the [*weak*]{} stable and unstable foliations. Here we show:
[**Theorem A.**]{} [*Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat. Then $\phi$ has weak stable and unstable foliations of class $C^{1,1}$ if and only if ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$, $g_{1}:=e^{-2U}g$ has constant curvature and $e^{-U}\Omega$ is a constant multiple of the area form of $g_1$.*]{}
Theorem A is based on results of E. Ghys [@Ghy1; @Ghy2]. Theorem 4.6 in [@Ghy2] asserts that a smooth Anosov flow on a closed 3-manifold with weak stable and unstable foliations of class $C^{1,1}$, is smoothly orbit equivalent to a suspension or to what Ghys calls a [*quasi-fuchsian flow*]{} and which are described in [@Ghy1 Théorème B]. (In our case, since we are working with circles bundles the latter alternative holds.) A quasi-fuchsian flow $\psi$ depends on a pair of points $([g_1],[g_2])$ in Teichmüller space, has smooth weak stable foliation $C^{\infty}$-conjugate to the weak stable foliation of the constant curvature metric $g_1$ and smooth weak unstable foliation $C^{\infty}$-conjugate to the weak unstable foliation of the constant curvature metric $g_2$. Moreover, $\psi$ preserves a volume form if and only if $[g_1]=[g_2]$.
These results of Ghys imply that if a thermostat has weak stable and unstable foliations of class $C^{1,1}$, then the [*Godbillon-Vey invariant*]{} of the foliations must be equal to $4\pi^2\chi(M)$. Following Hurder and Katok [@HK] and Y. Mitsumatsu [@M] we will compute the Godbillon-Vey invariants of a thermostat and show that they are equal to $4\pi^2\chi(M)$ if and only if the conditions in Theorem A hold. What makes the calculation possible is the result proved in [@DP2] that asserts that the weak foliations must be transversal to the vertical fibres of $SM$.
Theorem A is partially motivated by the following surprising result of M. Wojtkowski [@W2 Theorem 5.2]: if $g$ is a metric of negative curvature on $M$ and ${\bf e}$ a vector field with zero divergence (with respect to $g$), then the Gaussian thermostat is Anosov, independently of the size of ${\bf e}$ (thus the orbits of an Anosov thermostat could have very large geodesic curvature). In particular if $g$ has constant negative curvature and ${\bf e}$ is the vector field dual to a harmonic 1-form, the thermostat is Anosov. Theorem A shows that such a flow does not have smooth weak foliations.
Since magnetic flows are volume preserving, [@HK Corollary 3.5] ensures that if one of the weak foliations is of class $C^{1,1}$, then they are [*both*]{} in fact $C^{\infty}$. Thus Theorem A combined with this result implies:
[**Corollary 1.**]{} [*Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov magnetic flow. Then $\phi$ has a weak foliation of class $C^{1,1}$ if and only if $g$ has constant curvature and $\Omega$ is a constant multiple of the area form.*]{}
Since Gaussian thermostats are reversible, a similar conclusion can be obtained for them in spite of the fact that they are not volume preserving:
[**Corollary 2.**]{} [*Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov Gaussian thermostat. Then $\phi$ has a weak foliation of class $C^{1,1}$ if and only if ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$ and $e^{-2U}g$ has constant curvature.*]{}
It is tempting now to speculate that in Theorem A it suffices to assume that just one of the weak foliations is of class $C^{1,1}$. Surprisingly this is not the case. As we will see below, the [*combined*]{} effect of a thermostat and a magnetic field can produce an Anosov flow with a weak stable foliation of class $C^{\infty}$ and a weak unstable foliation which is only $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha<1$ and no more.
In the next result we shall assume for simplicity that ${\bf e}$ is calibrated so that its divergence $\mbox{\rm div} {\bf e}=0$. As we explain in Remark \[zerodiv\] this is no restriction at all if one is interested only in the regularity of the weak foliations.
[**Theorem B.**]{}
*Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat with $\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}=0$. The following are equivalent:*
1. $\phi$ has a weak foliation of class $C^{1,1}$;
2. $\phi$ has a weak foliation of class $C^{\infty}$;
3. $g$ has constant curvature $-c^2$ and there exists $h\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$ such that $h^2+f^2=c^2$ and $${\bf e}=\frac{1}{c^2}i(f\nabla h-h\nabla f).$$
Of course, if both foliations are of class $C^{1,1}$ we must have ${\bf e}=\nabla f=0$ in agreement with Theorem A. Theorem B shows that there are thermostats with a $C^{\infty}$ weak stable foliation, but whose weak unstable foliation is not $C^{1,1}$. Indeed consider a closed hyperbolic surface $(M,g)$ and let $f$ be a small smooth nonconstant function on $M$. We set $h:=\sqrt{1-f^2}$ and $${\bf e}=\frac{i\nabla f}{\sqrt{1-f^2}}.$$ If $f$ is small enough the thermostat associated with $(g,f,{\bf e})$ will be Anosov and by Theorem B its weak stable foliation must be of class $C^{\infty}$. On the other hand, its weak unstable foliation cannot be of class $C^{1,1}$, because otherwise by Theorem A we would have ${\bf e}=\nabla f=0$ which contradicts our choice of $f$.
The results above show that the dissipative quasi-fuchsian flows $\psi$ do not appear as thermostats with $\la(x,v)=f(x)+\langle {\bf e}(x),iv\rangle$, but if we are prepared to consider a more general $\la$ the situation changes. Suppose $q$ is a traceless symmetric 2-tensor which we also view as a function on $SM$. Let $$\la(x,v)=f(x)+\langle {\bf e}(x),iv \rangle+ q_{x}(v,v)$$ and consider the flow $\phi$ on $SM$ defined by (\[eqgt\]). Again, to simplify the exposition we will suppose that $\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}=0$. Let $\delta_{g}$ be the divergence operator with respect to the metric $g$ acting on symmetric 2-tensors. Given a symmetric 2-tensor $p$ we can write $p_{x}(u,v)=\langle A_{x}u,v\rangle$ where $A_{x}:T_{x}M\to T_{x}M$ is a symmetric linear map. Set $\det_{g}p(x):=\det A_{x}$.
[**Theorem C.**]{} [*Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat defined by $\la(x,v)=f(x)+\langle {\bf e}(x),iv \rangle+ q_{x}(v,v)$, where $\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}=0$. Then $\phi$ has weak stable and unstable foliations of class $C^{1,1}$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf e}=0,\\
&\delta_{g}(q-fg)=0,\\
&K_{g}+\mbox{\rm det}_{g} (q+fg)=-h^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_g$ is the curvature of $g$ and $h$ is a non-zero constant.* ]{}
Let $g_{0}$ be a metric with constant curvature $-1$ and let $q$ be a traceless symmetric 2-tensor with $\delta_{g_{0}}q=0$. Such a $q$ is the real part of a holomorphic quadratic differential, so they form a real vector space of dimension $6\,\mbox{\rm genus}(M)-6$. We will see in Section \[C\] that we can find a unique metric $g$ in the conformal class of $g_0$ for which $K_g+\det_{g}(q)=-h^2$ and thus if $q$ is small enough, the thermostat with $\la=q$ is an Anosov flow with $C^\infty$ weak foliations. We will also see that the flow is dissipative unless $q=0$, so we obtain quasi-fuchsian flows $\psi$ which are not volume preserving. We do not know if all the quasi-fuchsian flows can be realized in this way, but it is quite likely that this is the case (see Subsection 6.2).
Preliminaries
=============
Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface, $SM$ the unit sphere bundle and $\pi:SM\to M$ the canonical projection. The latter is in fact a principal $S^{1}$-fibration and we let $V$ be the infinitesimal generator of the action of $S^1$.
Given a unit vector $v\in T_{x}M$, we will denote by $iv$ the unique unit vector orthogonal to $v$ such that $\{v,iv\}$ is an oriented basis of $T_{x}M$. There are two basic 1-forms $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on $SM$ which are defined by the formulas: $$\alpha_{(x,v)}(\xi):=\langle d_{(x,v)}\pi(\xi),v\rangle;$$ $$\beta_{(x,v)}(\xi):=\langle d_{(x,v)}\pi(\xi),iv\rangle.$$ The form $\alpha$ is the canonical contact form of $SM$ whose Reeb vector field is the geodesic vector field $X$. A basic theorem in 2-dimensional Riemannian geometry asserts that there exists a unique 1-form $\psi$ on $SM$ (the connection form) such that $\psi(V)=1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& d\alpha=\psi\wedge \beta\label{riem1}\\ & d\beta=-\psi\wedge
\alpha\label{riem2}\\ & d\psi=-(K\circ\pi)\,\alpha\wedge\beta
\label{riem3}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the Gaussian curvature of $M$. In fact, the form $\psi$ is given by $$\psi_{(x,v)}(\xi)=\left\langle \frac{DZ}{dt}(0),iv\right\rangle,$$ where $Z:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\to SM$ is any curve with $Z(0)=(x,v)$ and $\dot{Z}(0)=\xi$ and $\frac{DZ}{dt}$ is the covariant derivative of $Z$ along the curve $\pi\circ Z$.
For later use it is convenient to introduce the vector field $H$ uniquely defined by the conditions $\beta(H)=1$ and $\alpha(H)=\psi(H)=0$. The vector fields $X,H$ and $V$ are dual to $\alpha,\beta$ and $\psi$ and as a consequence of (\[riem1\]–\[riem3\]) they satisfy the commutation relations $$\label{comm}
[V,X]=H,\quad [V,H]=-X,\quad [X,H]=KV.$$ Equations (\[riem1\]–\[riem3\]) also imply that the vector fields $X,H$ and $V$ preserve the volume form $\alpha\wedge d\alpha$ and hence the Liouville measure. Note that the flow of $H$ is given by $R^{-1}\circ g_t\circ R$, where $R(x,v)=(x,iv)$ and $g_t$ is the geodesic flow.
Let $\lambda$ be an arbitrary smooth function on $SM$. For several of the results that we will describe below we will not need $\la$ to be a polynomial of degree $\leq 2$ in the velocities as in the Introduction. We may still consider a thermostat $\phi$ defined by (\[eqgt\]) and it is easy to check that $$F=X+\lambda V$$ is the generating vector field of $\phi$.
Now let $\Theta:=-\alpha\wedge d\alpha=\alpha\wedge\beta\wedge\psi$. This volume form generates the Liouville measure $d\mu$ of $SM$.
We have: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{F}\Theta &=V(\la)\Theta;\label{lie1}\\
L_{H}\Theta &=0;\label{lie2}\\
L_{V}\Theta &=0.\label{lie3}\end{aligned}$$
\[lied\]
Note that for any vector field $Y$, $L_{Y}\Theta=d(i_{Y}\Theta)$. Since $i_{V}\Theta=\alpha\wedge\beta=\pi^*\Omega_{a}$, where $\Omega_{a}$ is the area form of $M$, we see that $L_{V}\Theta=0$. Similarly, $L_{X}\Theta=L_{H}\Theta=0$. Finally $L_{F}\Theta=L_{X}\Theta+L_{\la V}\Theta=d(i_{\la V}\Theta)=
V(\la)\Theta$.
Time changes
------------
Let $\ga(s)$ be a unit speed solution of $$\frac{D\gamma'}{ds}=\la(\gamma,\ga')\,i\ga'
\label{termito}$$ where $\la(x,v)=f(x)+\langle {\bf e}(x),iv\rangle+q_{x}(v,v)$. Let $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$ and $$t(s):=\int_{s_0}^s e^{-U(\ga(\tau))}\,d\tau.$$
Let $\ga_1(t):=\ga(s(t))$ and $g_1:=e^{-2U}g$. Then $\ga_1(t)$ is a unit speed solution of the thermostat determined by the quadruple $(g_1,e^{U}f,e^{2U}({\bf e}+\nabla U),e^{-U}q)$. (Here $\nabla U$ is the gradient of $U$ with respect to the metric $g$.) \[repa\]
It is immediate to check that $\ga_1$ has speed one with respect to $g_1$. Recall that the connection of $g_1$ is given by $$D^{1}_{X}Y=D_{X}Y-dU(X)Y-dU(Y)X+g(X,Y)\nabla U.$$ Let us indicate derivatives with respect to $t$ with a dot and derivatives with respect to $s$ with a prime. Then we have $$\frac{D^{1}\dot{\ga}_{1}}{dt}=\ddot{s}\ga'+\dot{s}^2\frac{D\ga'}{ds}-2\dot{s}^2\langle \nabla U,\ga'\rangle
\ga'+\dot{s}^2\nabla U.$$ Using that $\dot{s}=e^{U}$ and (\[termito\]) we obtain: $$\frac{D^{1}\dot{\ga}_{1}}{dt}=e^{2U}(fi\ga'+\langle {\bf e}+\nabla U,i\ga'\rangle i\ga'
+q(i\ga',i\ga')i\ga')$$ and the lemma follows.
[Note that we may always choose $U$ so that $\mbox{\rm div}({\bf e}+\nabla U)=0$. Since the divergence of $e^{2U}({\bf e}+\nabla U)$ with respect to the metric $g_1$ is also zero, the lemma ensures that given a thermostat determined by $(g,f,{\bf e},q)$ we may always perform a smooth time change so that the reparametrized flow is the flow of a thermostat whose external field has zero divergence.]{} \[zerodiv\]
Properties of Anosov thermostats
--------------------------------
In this subsection we collect some properties of Anosov thermostats $\phi$ for $\la$ arbitrary. A result of E. Ghys [@Ghy] ensures that $\phi$ is topologically conjugate to the geodesic flow of a metric of constant negative curvature and thus $\phi$ is transitive and topologically mixing. This fact is used in the proof of Lemma \[trans\] below.
Recall the definition of the weak stable and unstable bundles: $$E^+=\re F\oplus E^s,$$ $$E^-=\re F\oplus E^u.$$
[@DP2] For any $(x,v)\in SM$, $V(x,v)\notin E^{\pm}(x,v)$. \[trans\]
The lemma implies that there exist unique functions $r^{\pm}$ on $SM$ such that $$H+r^+ V\in E^+,$$ $$H+r^- V\in E^-.$$ Note that the Anosov property implies that $r^+\neq r^-$ everywhere. Below we will need to use that the functions $r^{\pm}$ satisfy a Riccati type equation along the flow. Note that $r^{\pm}$ are as smooth as the bundles $E^\pm$ (i.e. $C^{1,\alpha}$).
[@DP2] Let $r=r^{\pm}$. Then $$F(r-V(\la))+r(r-V(\la))+\K=0,$$ where ${\mathbb K}:=K-H(\la)+\la^2+F(V(\la))$. \[riccati\]
Later on we will need the following integrated version of this equation:
We have: $$\int_{SM}\{(r-V(\la))^2+\la^2\}\,d\mu=-4\pi^2\chi(M)+\int_{SM}[V(\la)]^2\,d\mu.$$ \[riccint\]
Since $L_{F}\Theta=V(\la)\Theta$ an easy consequence of the Stokes’ theorem shows that $$\int_{SM}F(r)\,d\mu=-\int_{SM}rV(\la)\,d\mu$$ hence integrating the equation in Lemma \[riccati\] we obtain $$-\int_{SM}rV(\la)\,d\mu+\int_{SM}(r-V(\la))r\,d\mu=
-\int_{SM}(K+\la^2-H(\la))\,d\mu.$$ Since $H$ preserves the Liouville measure $$\int_{SM}H(\la)\,d\mu=0,$$ and by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem $$\int_{SM}K\,d\mu=4\pi^{2}\chi(M),$$ so the lemma follows.
We conclude this subsection with the following simple lemma which follows right away from Lemma \[riccati\]. Note that $r^{+}-r^{-}$ is function of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ which never vanishes and without loss of generality we may assume it is always positive.
$$F(\log(r^{+}-r^{-}))=V(\la)-(r^{+}+r^{-}).$$ \[vol\]
The Godbillon-Vey invariant
===========================
We briefly recall the definition of the Godbillon-Vey class and the Godbillon-Vey invariant. Let $X$ be a smooth manifold and ${\mathcal F}$ a codimension-one foliation with $C^{\infty}$ leaves and transversally $C^2$. We suppose that the normal bundle to ${\mathcal F}$ is oriented so that there is a 1-form $\tau$ whose kernel coincides with $T{\mathcal F}$. By the Frobenius theorem there exists a 1-form $\eta$ of class $C^1$ such that $d\tau=\eta\wedge\tau$. The continuous 3-form $\eta\wedge d\eta$ is closed and its cohomology class $GV({\mathcal F})\in H^3(X,\re)$, called the [*Godbillon-Vey class*]{}, is an invariant of diffeomorphism and foliated concordance. When $X$ is a closed oriented 3-manifold, one can also define the [*Godbillon-Vey invariant*]{} $$gv({\mathcal F}):=\int_{X}\eta\wedge d\eta.$$
Hurder and Katok [@HK] proved that if $\mathcal F$ is a foliation which is transversally only $C^{1,\alpha}$ for $\alpha>1/2$, then there is a natural, well-defined Godbillon-Vey invariant $gv({\mathcal F})$, which extends the previous definition for $\mathcal F$ transversally $C^2$.
The next proposition is the natural generalization to thermostats of the Mitsumatsu formula for geodesic flows, see [@HK Proposition 9.1] and [@M].
Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat with $\lambda$ arbitrary. Let $\mathcal F$ be one of the weak foliations and suppose it is of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1/2$. Then $$gv({\mathcal F})=4\pi^{2}\chi(M)-3\int_{SM}([V(\la)]^2+[V(r)]^2)\,d\mu
+2\int_{SM}V(r)(V^2(\la)-2\la)\,d\mu$$ where $r$ is the unique function of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that $H+rV\in T{\mathcal F}$. \[godveyg\]
[Note that if $\phi$ is a magnetic flow, it is volume preserving and hence by [@HK Theorem 3.1] the weak foliations of $\phi$ are of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ for [*any*]{} $\alpha<1$ and hence $gv({\mathcal F})$ is well defined. The Godbillon-Vey invariant is also well defined under an appropriate pinching condition. Let $\eta_s$ be a unit vector field spanning $E^s$ and let $\eta_u$ be a unit vector field spanning $E^u$. Define $\la_s$ and $\la_u$ by the equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\la_{s}(x,v,t):=\log|d\phi_{t}(\eta_{s}(x,v))|,\\
&\la_{u}(x,v,t):=-\log|d\phi_{t}(\eta_{u}(x,v))|.\end{aligned}$$ We say that $\phi$ is $\tau$-[*pinched*]{} if for all $t$ and $(x,v)$ we have $$\frac{1}{\tau}\la_s(x,v,t)\leq\la_{u}(x,v,t)\leq \tau \la_{s}(x,v,t).$$ This condition does not depend on time changes (cf. [@Ghy1 Section 3.3]). Note also that $\phi$ is 1-pinched if and only if $\phi$ preserves a volume form. If $\phi$ is $\tau$-pinched with $\tau<2$, then Corollary 1.8 in [@Ha] ensures that the weak foliations are $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1/2$. Thus any thermostat which is $C^1$-close to a volume preserving flow will have a well defined Godbillon-Vey invariant. ]{}
We shall calculate $gv({\mathcal F})$ as if $\mathcal F$ were transversally of class $C^2$. This is really no restriction as we can always approximate the 1-form $\eta$ by a sequence of $C^1$ forms $\eta_n$ which converge to $\eta$ in the $C^{\alpha}$-topology as in the proof of Proposition 9.1 in [@HK]. In fact, the definition of the extension of the Godbillon-Vey invariant in [@HK] to $C^{1,\alpha}$ foliations with $\alpha>1/2$ is so that the required continuity holds.
By Lemma \[trans\], $V$ is transversal to $\mathcal F$ and hence the 1-form $$\tau:=-\la\alpha-r\beta+\psi$$ vanishes on $T{\mathcal F}$ and takes the value 1 on $V$. Hence we may take $\eta$ to be the 1-form given by $$\eta:=-i_{V}d\tau.$$ Using the identities (\[riem1\]–\[riem3\]) we calculate: $$\eta=-(r-V(\la))\alpha+(\la+V(r))\beta.$$ Finally we compute $$\eta\wedge d\eta=
\{-(\la+V(r))^2-(r-V(\la))^2+(r-V(\la))V(\la+V(r))$$ $$-(\la+V(r))V(r-V(\la))\}
\alpha\wedge\beta\wedge\psi$$ thus $$gv({\mathcal F})=\int_{SM}\{-(\la+V(r))^2-(r-V(\la))^2+(r-V(\la))V(\la+V(r))$$ $$-(\la+V(r))V(r-V(\la))\}\,d\mu.$$ Using the fact that $V$ preserves $\mu$ we can rewrite the last integral as $$gv({\mathcal F})=\int_{SM}\{-(\la+V(r))^2-(r-V(\la))^2-2(\la+V(r))V(r-V(\la))\}\,d\mu.$$ Expanding and simplifying we get $$gv({\mathcal F})=\int_{SM}\{-\la^2-(r-V(\la))^2-3[V(r)]^2
-4\la V(r)+2V^2(\la)(\la+V(r))\}\,d\mu.$$ Using again that $V$ preserves $\mu$ we have $$\int_{SM}\la V^2(\la)\,d\mu=-\int_{SM}[V(\la)]^2\,d\mu$$ which implies $$gv({\mathcal F})=\int_{SM}\{-\la^2-(r-V(\la))^2-3[V(r)]^2
+2V(r)(V^2(\la)-2\la)-2[V(\la)]^2\}\,d\mu$$ and the proposition follows from Lemma \[riccint\].
We will now rewrite the formula in the proposition using a bit of Fourier analysis. Let $L^2(SM)$ be the space of square integrable functions with respect to the Liouville measure of $SM$. The space $L^{2}(SM)$ decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum of subspaces $\sum H_{n}$, $n\in\Z$, such that on $H_{n}$, $-i\,V$ is $n$ times the identity operator (cf. [@GK]). Given $\la\in C^{\infty}(SM)$ we can expand it as follows: $$\la=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} Q_{k}$$ where $Q_k$ are smooth functions such that $Q_{k}\in H_{-k}\oplus H_{k}$. Set $P_{0}:=Q_{0}$ and for $k\geq 1$ set $$P_{k}:=\frac{-(k^2+2)}{3k^2}V(Q_{k}).$$
Under the same hypothesis as in Proposition \[godveyg\] we have $$gv({\mathcal F})=4\pi^2\chi(M)-3\int_{SM}\left[V\left(r+\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}P_k\right)\right]^2\,d\mu$$ $$+3\sum_{k=3}^{\infty}\left[\left(\frac{k^{2}+2}{3}\right)^2-k^2\right]\int_{SM} Q_{k}^2\,d\mu.$$ \[godveyg2\]
In terms of the $L^2$-inner product, Proposition \[godveyg\] gives $$gv({\mathcal F})=4\pi^2\chi(M)-3\left(||V(\la)||^2+||V(r)||^2\right)+2\langle V(r),V^2(\la)-2\la\rangle.$$ Now observe the identities $$V^2(Q_{k})=-k^2 Q_{k},$$ $$||V(Q_{k})||^2=k^2||Q_{k}||^2,$$ $$V^{2}(\la)-2\la=-\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(2+k^2)Q_{k}.$$ Using that elements in $H_{-k}\oplus H_{k}$ are orthogonal to elements in $H_{-l}\oplus H_{l}$ for $k\neq l$ it is now straightforward to check that the identity claimed in the proposition holds.
We now specialize Proposition \[godveyg2\] to the case that we are interested in, i.e., when $\lambda=f+V(\theta)+q$, where $\theta$ is the 1-form dual to the external field $E$ and $q\in H_{-2}\oplus H_{2}$.
Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat defined by $\lambda=f+V(\theta)+q$. Let $\mathcal F$ be one of the weak foliations and suppose it is of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1/2$. Then $$gv({\mathcal F})=4\pi^{2}\chi(M)-3\int_{SM}[V(r+\theta-V(q)/2)]^2\,d\mu$$ where $r$ is the unique function of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that $H+rV\in T{\mathcal F}$. \[godveyt\]
It suffices to note that since $Q_{1}=V(\theta)$ and $Q_{2}=q$, then $$P_{1}=-V(V(\theta))=\theta$$ and $$P_{2}=-V(q)/2.$$
Proof of Theorem A
==================
Suppose first that ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$, $g_{1}:=e^{-2U}g$ has constant curvature and $e^{-U}\Omega$ is a constant multiple of the area form of $g_1$. On account of Lemma \[repa\] we can make a smooth time change to the flow $\phi$ so that the reparametrized flow is the magnetic flow $\psi$ of the constant curvature metric $g_1$ and magnetic field given by a constant multiple of the area form of $g_1$. Hence the flow $\psi$ is algebraic and thus it has smooth weak foliations. Consequently, $\phi$ has also smooth weak foliations.
Suppose now that $\phi$ has both weak foliations of class $C^{1,1}$. By [@Ghy2 Theorem 4.6] we can perform a smooth time change on $\phi$ so that the new flow is smoothly conjugate to a quasi-fuchsian flow as defined in [@Ghy1]. Since the Godbillon-Vey invariant of the weak foliations of a quasi-fuchsian flow equals $4\pi^2\chi(M)$ and the Godbillon-Vey invariant does not change under conjugacies we conclude that for our thermostat $\phi$ we must have $$gv^{\pm}=4\pi^2\chi(M).$$ By Corollary \[godveyt\] this implies that $$V(r^{\pm}+\theta)=0.$$ If we let $h^{\pm}=r^{\pm}+\theta$, we can think of $h^{\pm}$ as smooth functions defined on $M$. By Lemma \[vol\] we have $$\theta=F(\log(h^{+}-h^{-}))+h^{+}+h^{-}.$$ But if $g$ is a smooth function on $M$, then $F(g\circ\pi)=dg$ and the last equality implies right away that $h^{+}+h^{-}=0$ and $$\theta=F(\log(h^{+}-h^{-})).$$ Thus $\theta$ is an exact 1-form (i.e. ${\bf e}=-\nabla U$ for some smooth function $U$) and by Lemma \[repa\] we may perform a time change so that we just have to deal with a magnetic flow whose functions $r^{\pm}$ satisfy $V(r^{\pm})=0$. Again, the equality in Lemma \[vol\] tells us that $r^{+}+r^{-}=0$ and $F(\log(2r^{+}))=0$ and thus $r^{\pm}$ are constant functions. If we now input this information into the Riccati type equation from Lemma \[riccati\] we obtain $$H(f\circ\pi)=r^2+K+f^2$$ which implies that $f$ and $K$ are constant functions as desired.
Proof of Theorem B
==================
We first characterize the thermostats for which the Godbillon-Vey invariant is maximal.
Let $M$ be a closed oriented surface and let $\phi$ be an Anosov thermostat with $\mbox{\rm div}E=0$. Suppose the weak foliations are of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1/2$. Then there is a weak foliation with $gv=4\pi^2\chi(M)$ if and only if $g$ has constant curvature $-c^2$ and there exists $h\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$ such that $h^2+f^2=c^2$ and $${\bf e}=\frac{1}{c^2}i(f\nabla h-h\nabla f).$$
\[gve\]
To prove this proposition we need some preparations. Following V. Guillemin and D. Kazhdan in [@GK] we introduce the following first order differential operators:
$$\eta_{+}:=(X-i\,H)/2$$ and $$\eta_{-}:=(X+i\,H)/2.$$
Let $L^2(SM)$ be the space of square integrable functions with respect to the Liouville measure of $SM$. We now summarize some of the main properties of these operators (cf. [@GK]).
1. $L^{2}(SM)$ decomposes into an orthogonal direct sum of subspaces $\sum H_{n}$, $n\in\Z$, such that on $H_{n}$, $-i\,V$ is $n$ times the identity operator;
2. $\eta_{+}$ extends to a densely defined operator from $H_{n}$ to $H_{n+1}$ for all $n$. Moreover, its transpose is $-\eta_{-}$;
3. let $C_{n}^{\infty}(SM)=H_{n}\cap C^{\infty}(SM)$. The operators $\eta_{\pm}:C^{\infty}_{n}\to C^{\infty}_{n\pm 1}$ are first order elliptic differential operators.
Given a smooth 1-form $\theta$ we can decompose $\theta$ as $$\theta=\theta_{-1}+\theta_{1}$$ where $$2\theta_{-1}=\theta+i V(\theta),$$ $$2\theta_{1}=\theta-i V(\theta).$$ Clearly $\theta_{\pm 1}\in H_{\pm 1}$. Note that $\overline{\eta_{+}\theta_{-1}}=\eta_{-}\theta_{1}$.
The following easy lemma will be useful later on.
The form $\theta$ is closed if and only if $\Im \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=0$. The form $\theta$ is coclosed if and only if $\Re \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=0$. Also, $\theta$ is closed if and only $V(\theta)$ coclosed (and hence $\theta$ is coclosed if and only if $V(\theta)$ is closed since $V^2(\theta)=-\theta$). \[util\]
Note that $4\Re \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=X(\theta)+HV(\theta)$ and that $4\Im \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=H(\theta)-XV(\theta)$. Let ${\bf e}$ be the vector field dual to $\theta$. Then $\theta_{x}(v)=\langle {\bf e}(x),v\rangle$ and $V(\theta)=\langle {\bf e}(x),iv\rangle$. We now compute $$X(\theta)(x,v)=\langle \nabla_{v}{\bf e},v\rangle.$$ Using the expression for the flow of $H$ given in Section 2 we also get $$H(\theta)(x,v)=\langle \nabla_{iv}{\bf e},v\rangle.$$ Thus $$X(\theta)+HV(\theta)=\langle \nabla_{v}{\bf e},v\rangle+\langle \nabla_{iv}{\bf e},iv\rangle
=\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}$$ and $$H(\theta)-XV(\theta)=\langle \nabla_{iv}{\bf e},v\rangle-\langle \nabla_{v}{\bf e},iv\rangle
=-d\theta(v,iv).$$
[*Proof of Proposition \[gve\].*]{} Suppose first there is a weak foliation with $gv=4\pi^2\chi(M)$. By Corollary \[godveyt\] there exists a function $h\in C^{1}(M,\re)$ such that $r=h\circ\pi-\theta$ is a solution of the Riccati type equation of Lemma \[riccati\] (in what follows we write $h$ also for $h\circ\pi$ and similarly for $f$ and $K$). Thus $$F(h)+h(h-\theta)+K-H(f+V(\theta))+(f+V(\theta))^2-F(\theta)=0.$$ Using that $F=X+(f+V(\theta))V$ and that $V(h)=0$ we obtain $$X(h)-h\theta-H(f)+fV(\theta)+K+h^2+f^2-(X(\theta)+HV(\theta))=0$$ and since $\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}=0$, $ 4\Re \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=X(\theta)+HV(\theta)=0$ and therefore $$X(h)-h\theta-H(f)+fV(\theta)+K+h^2+f^2=0.
\label{simplr}$$ Now observe that $X(h)-h\theta-H(f)-fV(\theta)\in H_{-1}\oplus H_{1}$ and $K+h^2+f^2\in H_{0}$, so equation (\[simplr\]) is equivalent to the pair of equations $$\begin{aligned}
& X(h)-h\theta-H(f)+fV(\theta)=0,\label{imp}\\
& K+h^2+f^2=0.\label{curv}\end{aligned}$$ Consider the complex valued function $p:=h+if$ and let $\omega:= X(h)-h\theta-H(f)+fV(\theta)$. A simple calculation shows that $$\eta_{-}(p)-\theta_{-1}p=(\omega
+iV(\omega))/2=\omega_{-1}.$$ It follows that equation (\[imp\]) which is just $\omega=0$, is equivalent to $$\eta_{-}(p)-\theta_{-1}p=0.
\label{cf}$$ Since $\eta_{\pm}$ are elliptic operators, equation (\[cf\]) tells us that $h\in C^{\infty}(M,\re)$.
If $p$ is a solution of (\[cf\]) then $$\eta_{+}\eta_{-}(|p|^2)=|\eta_{+}(p)+\theta_{1}p|^2+2|p|^2\Re \eta_{-}\theta_{1}.$$
This is an easy calculation in which one uses that $\overline{\eta_{-}p}=\eta_{+}\overline{p}$ and that $\eta_{+}\eta_{-}=\eta_{-}\eta_{+}$ on $H_0$. We omit the details.
Since we are assuming that $\mbox{\rm div}{\bf e}=0$, Lemma \[util\] tells us that $\Re \eta_{-}\theta_{1}=0$ and therefore, on account of the last lemma $$\eta_{+}\eta_{-}(|p|^2)=|\eta_{+}(p)+\theta_{1}p|^2\geq 0.$$ Since $\eta_{+}\eta_{-}$ on $H_{0}$ is nothing but the Laplace-Beltrami operator in disguise, the last inequality implies that $|p|^2$ must be a constant function on $M$ and $$\eta_{+}(p)+\theta_{1}p=0.
\label{cfc}$$ The fact that $|p|^2$ is constant, combined with (\[curv\]) shows that the metric $g$ must have constant curvature, let us say, $-c^2$. If we now combine equations (\[cf\]) and (\[cfc\]) we obtain: $$X(p)-ipV(\theta)=0$$ which is equivalent to $$X(h)+fV(\theta)=0$$ and $$X(f)-hV(\theta)=0.$$ Solving these equations for $\theta$ we arrive at $$c^2\theta=fH(h)-hH(f)$$ which shows that the conditions in the proposition are necessary to have a maximal Godbillon-Vey invariant.
To show that the conditions are also sufficient we only need to observe that if the metric has constant curvature $-c^2$ and $h$ is a smooth function such that $h^2+f^2=c^2$ and $$c^2\theta=fH(h)-hH(f)$$ then $h$ and $f$ satisfy the pair of equations (\[imp\]) and (\[curv\]) and thus if we let $r=h-\theta$, then $r$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function which satisfies the Riccati type equation of Lemma \[riccati\]. It follows that the smooth vector fields $F$ and $H+rV$ span a two dimensional bundle invariant under the Anosov thermostat. This bundle can only be one of the weak bundles which shows that there is a $C^{\infty}$ weak foliation which has $gv=4\pi^2\chi(M)$ by Corollary \[godveyt\].
Proof of Theorem B
------------------
Let us show that (1) implies (3) and let $\mathcal F$ be a weak foliation of class $C^{1,1}$. By [@Ghy2 Theorem 4.1], $\mathcal F$ is transversally projective and thus $\mathcal F$ is $C^{1}$-conjugate to the weak foliation of a geodesic flow of constant negative curvature (see pages 178 and 179 in [@Ghy2]). As in the proof of Theorem A we can conclude that $gv({\mathcal F})=4\pi^2\chi(M)$ and Proposition (\[gve\]) implies that (3) holds. On the other hand (3) implies (2): it suffices to check that the argument given at the end of the proof of Proposition (\[gve\]) shows that if (3) holds then there is a weak bundle which is $C^{\infty}$. Since (2) obviously implies (1), the proof of Theorem B is now complete.
Proof of Theorem C and complements {#C}
==================================
Proof of Theorem C
------------------
Suppose that $\phi$ has both weak foliations of class $C^{1,1}$. We now argue as in the proof of Theorem A and note that the presence of $q$ does not really affect the argument that shows that $\theta$ is exact. By [@Ghy2 Theorem 4.6] we can perform a smooth time change on $\phi$ so that the new flow is smoothly conjugate to a quasi-fuchsian flow as defined in [@Ghy1]. Since the Godbillon-Vey invariant of the weak foliations of a quasi-fuchsian flow equals $4\pi^2\chi(M)$ and the Godbillon-Vey invariant does not change under conjugacies we conclude that for our thermostat $\phi$ we must have $$gv^{\pm}=4\pi^2\chi(M).$$ By Corollary \[godveyt\] this implies that $$V(r^{\pm}+\theta-V(q)/2)=0.$$ If we let $h^{\pm}=r^{\pm}+\theta-V(q)/2$, we can think of $h^{\pm}$ as smooth functions defined on $M$. Note that $V(\la)=-\theta+V(q)$ and hence by Lemma \[vol\] we have $$\theta=F(\log(h^{+}-h^{-}))+h^{+}+h^{-}.$$ The last equality implies right away that $h^{+}+h^{-}=0$ and $$\theta=F(\log(h^{+}-h^{-})).$$ Thus $\theta$ is an exact 1-form and since we are assuming that it is coclosed, it must vanish identically. It follows that $h^{\pm}$ must be constant functions.
Let us now use that $r=h+V(q)/2$, where $h=h^{\pm}$ is a constant, is a solution of the Riccati type equation of Lemma \[riccati\] with $\la=f+q$. We obtain: $$F(h-V(q)/2)+(h+V(q)/2)(h-V(q)/2)+K-H(f+q)+(f+q)^2+F(V(q))=0$$ where $F=X+(f+q)V$. Using that $h$ is a constant and $V^2(q)=-4q$ we derive: $$XV(q)/2-H(f+q)+K+h^2+f^2-q^2-[V(q)]^2/4=0.
\label{simplr2}$$ Now observe that $XV(q)/2-H(f+q)\in H_{-1}\oplus H_{1}$ and $K+h^2+f^2-q^2-[V(q)]^2/4\in H_{0}$, so equation (\[simplr2\]) is equivalent to the pair of equations $$\begin{aligned}
& XV(q)/2-H(f+q)=0,\label{imp2}\\
& K+h^2+f^2-q^2-[V(q)]^2/4=0.\label{curv2}\end{aligned}$$
It is straightforward to check that $$\mbox{\rm det}_{g}(q+fg)=f^2-q^2-[V(q)]^2/4$$ and thus equation (\[curv2\]) can be rewritten as $$K+h^2+\mbox{\rm det}_{g}(q+fg)=0.$$ To understand equation (\[imp2\]) we will use the following easy lemma.
Let $q$ be a symmetric 2-tensor which we also view as a function on $SM$. Then $\delta_{g}q\,|_{SM}=X(q)+HV(q)/2$. \[ldiv\]
By definition of $\delta_g$: $$\delta_{g}q(x,v)=(\nabla_{v}q)(v,v)+(\nabla_{iv}q)(iv,v).$$ Let $\ga$ be the geodesic with initial conditions $(x,v)$. Then $$X(q)(x,v)=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}q_{\ga(t)}(\dot{\ga}(t),\dot{\ga}(t))
=(\nabla_{v}q)(v,v).$$ Note that $$V(q)(x,v)=2\,q_{x}(iv,v)$$ hence using the expression for the flow of $H$ given in Section 2 we also get $$HV(q)(x,v)=2(\nabla_{iv}q)(iv,v).$$
By applying $V$ we see that equation (\[imp2\]) is equivalent to $$X(q-f)+HV(q)/2=0$$ and thus the lemma implies that (\[imp2\]) is equivalent to $$\delta_{g}(q-fg)=0.$$ Summarizing, we have shown that (\[imp2\]) and (\[curv2\]) are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{g}(q-fg)=0, \label{div2}\\
&K_{g}+h^2+\mbox{\rm det}_{g} (q+fg)=0. \label{curvu}\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the equations listed in Theorem C are necessary for having weak foliations of class $C^{1,1}$. To show that they are sufficient we note that if we let $r^{\pm}=\pm h+V(q)/2$, then $r^{\pm}$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function which satisfies the Riccati type equation of Lemma \[riccati\]. It follows that the smooth vector fields $F$ and $H+r^{\pm}V$ span a two dimensional bundle invariant under the Anosov thermostat. This bundle can only be one of the weak bundles which shows that the weak foliations are $C^{\infty}$ (with $gv=4\pi^2\chi(M)$ by Corollary \[godveyt\]). This finishes the proof of Theorem C.
The space of solutions when $f=0$
---------------------------------
In this subsection we consider the solutions of the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{g}(q)=0, \label{div2a}\\
&K_{g}+h^2+\mbox{\rm det}_{g} (q)=0, \label{curvua}\end{aligned}$$ which arise from Theorem C when ${\bf e}=f=0$.
Given a $C^{\infty}$ metric $g$ on $M$, its conformal class contains a unique metric $g_0$ with constant curvature $-1$. The metric $g_0$ determines a complex structure and the equation $\delta_{g}(q)=0$ simply says that $q$ is the real part of a holomorphic quadratic differential. Write $g=e^{2u}\,g_0$ and note that $$\mbox{\rm det}_{g} (q)=e^{-4u}\,\mbox{\rm det}_{g_{0}} (q).$$ The curvature $K_g$ can be expressed in terms of $u$ as $$K_g=e^{-2u}(\Delta_{g_0}u-1),$$ where $\Delta_{g_{0}}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric $g_0$ (with the sign chosen so that it is non-negative). Thus equation (\[curvua\]) can be written as: $$\label{eqU}
\Delta_{g_{0}}u=1-h^{2}e^{2u}-e^{-2u}\,\mbox{\rm det}_{g_{0}}(q).$$ We now explain why (\[eqU\]) has a unique smooth solution $u$ for each $h$ and $q$ fixed. Since $h^2>0$ and $\mbox{\rm det}_{g_{0}}(q)\leq 0$ (recall that $q$ has trace zero) we can find constants $u_{-}\leq u_{+}$ such that $$1-h^{2}e^{2u_{-}}-e^{-2u_{-}}\,\mbox{\rm det}_{g_{0}}(q)\geq 0,$$ $$1-h^{2}e^{2u_{+}}-e^{-2u_{+}}\,\mbox{\rm det}_{g_{0}}(q)\leq 0.$$ It is well known that under these conditions (cf. [@KW1; @KW2]) the semi-linear elliptic equation (\[eqU\]) admits a $C^{\infty}$ solution $u$ with $u_{-}\leq u\leq u_{+}$ which must be unique by a maximum principle argument.
For each nonzero $h$, let $\mathcal S_h$ be the space of solutions of (\[div2a\]) and (\[curvua\]). The discussion above shows that $\mathcal S_h$ is parametrized by pairs $(g_0,q)$ where $g_0$ is a metric of constant curvature $-1$ and $q$ is the real part of a quadratic differential of the complex structure determined by $g_0$. Of course, the diffeomorphism group $\mathcal D$ of $M$ and its identity component $\mathcal D_{0}$ act on $\mathcal S_{h}$.
Ultimately we are interested in the flow $\phi$ up to smooth time changes and smooth conjugacy. Having this in mind, we note that we only need to consider $\mathcal S_1$. Indeed, if $(g,q,h)$ is a solution of (\[div2a\]) and (\[curvua\]) then $(h^2\,g,h\,q,1)$ is also a solution and the corresponding thermostats are the same up to a constant time change (cf. Lemma \[repa\]).
Given $(g,q)\in \mathcal S_1$, we let $r^\pm=\pm 1+V(q)/2$. The smooth 2-dimensional bundles spanned by $F$ and $H+r^{\pm}V$ give rise to two smooth transversal foliations $\mathcal F^{\pm}$. The foliations are invariant under the thermostat $\phi$ defined by $(g,q)$. By the results of Ghys [@Ghy2], each $\mathcal F^{\pm}$ is smoothly conjugate to the weak foliation of the geodesic flow of a metric $g_{\pm}$ of constant curvature $-1$. Let $\mathcal T$ denote the Teichmüller space of the surface $M$ and note that each $g_{\pm}$ determines an element $[g_{\pm}]\in \mathcal T$. Thus the map $\mathcal S_{1}\ni (g,q)\mapsto ([g_{+}],[g_{-}])\in \mathcal T\times\mathcal T$ induces a map $$G:{\mathcal S}_{1}/{\mathcal D}_{0}\to \mathcal T\times\mathcal T$$ and since ${\mathcal S}_{1}/{\mathcal D}_{0}$ can be naturally identified with $T(\mathcal T)$, the tangent bundle of $\mathcal T$, we get a map $$G:T(\mathcal T)\to \mathcal T\times\mathcal T.$$ We do not really know that much about $G$. It clearly maps the zero section of $T(\mathcal T)$ onto the diagonal of $\mathcal T\times\mathcal T$ and it is easy to see that if $G([g_{0}],q)=([g_{+}],[g_{-}])$, then $G([g_{0}],-q)=([g_{-}],[g_{+}])$.
[**Question.**]{} Is $G$ a diffeomorphism?
In the next subsection we will see that $G$ also takes values outside the diagonal of $\mathcal T\times\mathcal T$.
Entropy production
------------------
Consider the thermostat $\phi$ determined by an arbitrary function $\la\in C^{\infty}(SM)$. The next result is taken from [@DP3] and we include a proof for completeness sake.
Let $p\in C^{\infty}(SM)$ be such that $X(p)+HV(p)/k=0$ for some positive integer $k$, and suppose $$K-H(\la)+\la^{2}[(k+1)^{2}/(2k+1)]<0.$$ Then there exists $u\in C^{\infty}(SM)$ such that $F(u)=p$ if and only if $p=0$. \[kten\]
We will use the following identity proved in [@DP2 Equation (13)]. Given $u\in C^{\infty}(SM)$ we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{id1}
2\int_{SM} Hu\, VFu\,d\mu
&=\int_{SM}(Fu)^2\,d\mu+\int_{SM}(Hu)^2\,d\mu\\
&-\int_{SM}(K-H(\lambda)+\lambda^2)(Vu)^2\,d\mu.\notag\end{aligned}$$
Using that $X(p)+HV(p)/k=0$ and that $H$ and $X$ preserve the Liouville measure we obtain: $$\int_{SM}Hu\, V(p)\,d\mu=-\int_{SM}u\,HV(p)\,d\mu
=k\int_{SM}u\,X(p)\,d\mu=-k\int_{SM}X(u)\,p\,d\mu.$$ Since $X(u)=p-\la V(u)$ we derive $$\int_{SM} Hu\,
VFu\,d\mu=-k\int_{SM}p^{2}\,d\mu+k\int_{SM}\la\,V(u)\,p\,d\mu.$$ Combining the last equality with (\[id1\]) yields $$(2k+1)\int_{SM}p^{2}\,d\mu-2k\int_{SM}\la V(u)\,p\,d\mu$$ $$+\int_{SM}(Hu)^2\,d\mu
-\int_{SM}(K-H(\lambda)+\lambda^2)(Vu)^2\,d\mu=0.$$ We may rewrite this equality as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{SM}\left(\sqrt{2k+1}\,p-\frac{k\la\,V(u)}{\sqrt{2k+1}}\right)^2\,d\mu
\\&-\int_{SM}\left(K-H(\la)+\la^{2}\frac{(k+1)^{2}}{2k+1}\right)(V(u))^2\,d\mu
+\int_{SM}(Hu)^2\,d\mu=0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this equality with the hypotheses we obtain $Hu=Vu=0$ which implies right away that $u$ must be constant.
[If $p(x,v)=q_{x}(v,\dots,v)$ where $q$ is a symmetric $k$-tensor, then the condition $X(p)+HV(p)/k=0$ is just saying that $q$ has zero divergence (cf. proof of Lemma \[ldiv\]). For such a $p$ and $k=1$ it suffices to assume that $\phi$ is Anosov [@DP2]. It is unknown if the Anosov hypothesis is enough for $k\geq 2$. The problem is open even for geodesic flows. We refer to [@SU] for partial results in this direction when $k=2$.]{}
We now note that if $p\in H_{-k}\oplus H_{k}$, $k\geq 2$, then $X(p)+HV(p)/k=0$ is equivalent to saying that $\eta_{-}p_{k}=0$, where $p=p_{-k}+p_{k}$ and $$p+iV(p)/k=2p_{-k},$$ $$p-iV(p)/k=2p_{k}.$$ But the kernel of the elliptic operator $\eta_{-}$ in $C_{k}^{\infty}(SM)$ is a finite dimensional vector space which can be identified with the space of holomorphic sections of the $k$-th power of the canonical line bundle. By the Riemann-Roch theorem, this space has complex dimension $(2k-1)(\mbox{\rm genus}(M)-1)$ (for $k=2$ we get the holomorphic quadratic differentials).
Suppose $\phi$ is Anosov and let $\rho$ be the SRB measure. [*The entropy production*]{} of the state $\rho$ is given by $$e_{\phi}(\rho):=-\int \Div F\,d\rho=-\sum\,\mbox{\rm Lyapunov exponents}$$ where $\Div F$ is the divergence of $F$ with respect to any volume form in $SM$. Recall that $V(\la)$ is the divergence of $F$ with respect to $\Theta$.
D. Ruelle [@Ru0] has shown that $e_{\phi}(\rho)\geq 0$ and it is not hard to see (cf. [@DP2]) that $e_{\phi}(\rho)=0$ if and only if there is a smooth solution $u$ to the cohomological equation $F(u)=V(\la)$. Equivalently $\phi$ is volume preserving if and only if $e_{\phi}(\rho)=0$. Theorem \[kten\] gives a large class of thermostats with positive entropy production just by taking $\la=\Re(p_{k})$, where $\eta_{-}p_{k}=0$. In this case $V(\la)=\Re (ikp_{k})$. Note that $\phi$ is reversible if $k$ is odd so we get lots of new examples to which the Fluctuation Theorem of G. Gallavotti and E.G.D. Cohen applies [@GC; @GC1; @Ga0; @G].
Let $(g,q)\in\mathcal S_1$ be a pair as in the previous subsection. Then $V(q)$ is the real part of the restriction to $SM$ of a holomorphic quadratic differential. If $q$ is small enough then $\phi$ is an Anosov flow and by Theorem \[kten\], $\phi$ is volume preserving if and only if $q=0$. This shows that the map $G$ above is interesting and that dissipative quasi-fuchsian flows do appear as thermostats associated with quadratic differentials as claimed in the Introduction.
[aa]{}
G. Contreras, L. Macarini, G.P. Paternain, [*Periodic orbits for exact magnetic flows on surfaces,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. [**8**]{} (2004) 361–387.
N.S. Dairbekov, G.P. Paternain, [*Longitudinal KAM-cocycles and action spectra of magnetic flows,*]{} Math. Res. Lett. [**12**]{} (2005) 719–730.
N.S. Dairbekov, G.P. Paternain, [*Entropy production in Gaussian thermostats,*]{} to appear in Commun. Math. Phys.
N.S. Dairbekov, G.P. Paternain, [*Entropy production in thermostats II,*]{} in preparation.
G. Gallavotti, [*Reversible Anosov diffeomorphisms and large deviations,*]{} Math. Phys. Electronic J. [**1**]{} (1995) 1–12.
G. Gallavotti, [*New methods in nonequilibrium gases and fluids,*]{} Open Sys. Information Dynamics [**6**]{} (1999) 101–136.
G. Gallavotti, E.G.D. Cohen, [*Dynamical ensembles in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics,*]{} Phys. Rev. Letters [**74**]{} (1995) 2694–2697.
G. Gallavotti, E.G.D. Cohen, [*Dynamical ensembles in stationary states,*]{} J. Statist. Phys. [**80**]{} (1995) 931–970.
G. Gallavotti, D. Ruelle, [*SRB states and nonequilibrium statistical mechanics close to equilibrium,*]{} Commun. Math. Phys. [**190**]{} (1997) 279–281.
G. Gentile, [*Large deviation rule for Anosov flows,*]{} Forum Math. [**10**]{} (1998) 89–118.
E. Ghys, [*Flots d’Anosov sur les $3$-variétés fibrées en cercles,*]{} Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems [**4**]{} (1984) 67–80.
E. Ghys, [*Déformations de flots d’Anosov et de grupes fuchsiens,*]{} Ann. Inst. Fourier, [**42**]{} (1992) 209–247.
E. Ghys, [*Rigidité différentiable des grupes fuchsiens,*]{} Publ. Math. IHES [**78**]{} (1993) 163–185.
V. Guillemin, D. Kazhdan, [*Some inverse spectral results for negatively curved 2-manifolds,*]{} Topology [**19**]{} (1980) 301–312.
B. Hasselblatt, [*Regularity of the Anosov splitting and of horospheric foliations,*]{} Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems [**14**]{} (1994) 645–666.
M. Hirsch, C. Pugh, M. Shub, [*Invariant manifolds,*]{} Springer Lecture Notes [**583**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1977.
W.G. Hoover, [*Molecular Dynamics,*]{} Lecture Notes in Phys. [**258**]{}, Springer, 1986.
S. Hurder, A. Katok, [*Differentiability, rigidity and Godbillon-Vey classes for Anosov flows*]{}, Publ. Math. IHES [**72**]{} (1990) 5–61.
J.L. Kazdan, F.W. Warner, [*Curvature functions for compact $2$-manifolds,*]{} Ann. of Math. [**99**]{} (1974) 14–47.
J.L. Kazdan, F.W. Warner, [*Remarks on some quasilinear elliptic equations,*]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**28**]{} (1975) 567–597.
Y. Mitsumatsu, [*A relation between the topological invariance of the Godbillon-Vey invariant and the differentiability of the Anosov foliations,*]{} in [*Foliations*]{}, Advances Studies in Pure Math. [**5**]{}, University of Tokio Press, 1985.
G.P. Paternain, [*On the regularity of the Anosov splitting for twisted geodesic flows,*]{} Math. Res. Lett. [**4**]{} (1997) 871–888.
G.P. Paternain, [*The longitudinal KAM-cocycle of a magnetic flow,*]{} Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**139**]{} (2005) 307–316.
V.A. Sharafutdinov, G. Uhlmann, [*On deformation boundary rigidity and spectral rigidity of Riemannian surfaces with no focal points*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**56**]{} (2000) 93–110.
D. Ruelle, [*Positivity of entropy production in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics,*]{} J. Statist. Phys. [**85**]{} (1996) 1–23.
D. Ruelle, [*Smooth dynamics and new theoretical ideas in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics,*]{} J. Statist. Phys. [**95**]{} (1999) 393–468.
M.P. Wojtkowski, [*W-flows on Weyl manifolds and Gaussian thermostats,*]{} J. Math. Pures Appl. [**79**]{} (2000) 953–974.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a solution for a fundamental problem in computational harmonic analysis, namely, the construction of a multiresolution analysis with directional components. We will do so by constructing subdivision schemes which provide a means to incorporate directionality into the data and thus the limit function. We develop a new type of non-stationary bivariate subdivision schemes, which allow to adapt the subdivision process depending on directionality constraints during its performance, and we derive a complete characterization of those masks for which these adaptive directional subdivision schemes converge. In addition, we present several numerical examples to illustrate how this scheme works. Secondly, we describe a fast decomposition associated with a sparse directional representation system for two dimensional data, where we focus on the recently introduced sparse directional representation system of shearlets. In fact, we show that the introduced adaptive directional subdivision schemes can be used as a framework for deriving a shearlet multiresolution analysis with finitely supported filters, thereby leading to a fast shearlet decomposition.'
address:
- 'Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA'
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Justus–Liebig–University Gie[ß]{}en, 35392 Gie[ß]{}en, Germany'
author:
- Gitta Kutyniok
- Tomas Sauer
date: 'October 13, 2007'
title: |
Adaptive Directional Subdivision Schemes and\
Shearlet Multiresolution Analysis
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Efficient and economical representations of anisotropic structures are essential in various areas in applied mathematics. The nature of the problems we face can be divided into two types, namely when the anisotropic structure is given explicitly and when it is given implicitly. The analysis of images and higher dimensional data with respect to directional features shall serve as an example of an explicitly given anisotropic structure, whereas the solution of hyperbolic partial differential equations often exhibits the phenomenon of shocks which can be interpreted as an implicit anisotropic structure.
It is well known that wavelets are perfectly suited for providing efficient representations in the sense of sparsity for problems with a dominant isotropic regularity, at the same time being associated with a multiresolution analysis which is the key ingredient for a fast decomposition algorithm. However, when dealing with anisotropic phenomena wavelets do not perform equally well. In fact, it can be proven that wavelets do not provide optimally sparse representations.
In contrast to earlier approaches such as directional wavelets [@antoine], complex wavelets [@kingsbury], ridgelets [@CD99], and contourlets [@DV05], the curvelets introduced by Candès and Donoho precisely satisfy this need, in the sense of resolving the wavefront set [@CD05b] and the curvelet representation being optimally sparse for objects with $C^2$-singularities [@CD04]. Also there already exist some first results on applying curvelets to hyperbolic partial differential equations by Candès and Demanet [@CD05]. However, one drawback is the lack of a multiresolution analysis associated with curvelets, and, in particular, a fast decomposition algorithm in the time domain. This raises the question about the existence of a representation system with analyzing properties as good as curvelets, but being equipped with a more “wavelet-like” structure in the sense of being associated with a multiresolution analysis. In fact, the discrete counterpart would then lead to finitely supported filters that allow for a mathematically justified discrete fast decomposition of discrete data. We anticipate such a representation to combine the favorable computational properties of wavelets with the main additional property to provide a means to resolve anisotropic structures efficiently.
In this paper we give a complete, positive answer to the question of the existence of such a system by introducing subdivision schemes for the recently introduced concept of shearlets, thus constructing an associated multiresolution analysis which indeed leads to a fast discrete decomposition algorithm. The directional representation system of [*shearlets*]{} [@GKL06] stands out for the following reason. They do not only precisely resolve the wavefront set [@KL06] and provide optimally sparse representations [@GL06], but shearlet systems are generated by one single function which is dilated by a parabolic scaling and a shear matrix and translated in the time domain, hence form an affine system. We might even interpret the system of shearlets as being generated by a strongly continuous, irreducible, square-integrable representation of a certain group, the shearlet group [@DKMSST06]. This rich mathematical structure enables, for instance, the application of coorbit theory to study smoothness spaces – so-called shearlet coorbit spaces – associated with the decay of the shearlet coefficients [@DKST07]. We would further like to mention that one attempt to associate shearlets with a so-called generalized multiresolution analysis can be found in [@LLKW05]. However, this structure did not yield a fast decomposition due to the fact that the filters are not compactly supported and even infinitely many filters have to be employed.
Our approach to derive a multiresolution analysis associated with shearlets and to provide a feasible fast shearlet decomposition comprises the introduction of a new class of non-stationary bivariate subdivision schemes which incorporate directionality in a particular way. Subdivision schemes provide a mathematical method to refine given coarse data while providing characterization results to ensure convergence to a continuous function, say. Moreover, such schemes automatically provide *refinable functions* which are the basis for any multiresolution analysis as nestedness of the different levels of resolution is equivalent to the refinability of the underlying “basis” function. Homogeneous stationary subdivision schemes have been studied extensively over the last 20 years; for an elaborate survey we refer the reader to [@CavarettaDahmenMicchelli91]. Recently, algebraic methods have been introduced as a means to derive characterizations of convergence and approximation order in a very natural way for multivariate subdivision (cf. [@Sauer02b]). On the other hand, also the conditions of homogeneity and stationarity have been released by various authors, leading to subdivision schemes where the refinement rule varies with the level of iteration or the location of refinement. However, the gain in generality always comes with the prize of a loss of structure so that there is comparatively little known about these generalizations (see, e.g., [@CD96; @CC04]). In particular, no subdivision schemes were known so far which provide a means to adapt the subdivision process depending on directionality constraints during its performance while still ensuring convergence. The development of such subdivision schemes will be important both for construction of a shearlet multiresolution analysis as well as for opening the research area of methods for data refinement to incorporate anisotropic structures.
We will show in this paper that such an adaptive directional subdivision scheme can be constructed and it will indeed lead to a shearlet multiresolution analysis and a fast shearlet decomposition. Our approach to derive a non-stationary bivariate adaptive directional subdivision scheme is based on the idea to iteratively apply two subdivision schemes each of which is associated with a different direction. The two individual subdivision schemes can employ two different finitely supported filters while their respective dilation matrices are taken from the theory of shearlet systems. We would also like to mention at this point that the most natural “directional” operation, the rotation, can not be employed, since its action does not provide a refinement of a lattice. In contract to this observation, products of parabolic scaling and shear matrices do indeed satisfy this desirable property. The constructed subdivision scheme provides the opportunity to adaptively change the orientation of the data during the subdivision process, since in each iteration one of both single subdivision schemes can be applied. In this sense, we can visualize the subdivision process as a binary tree, in which the direction of the finer data is dependent on the branch we choose. However, for convergence we certainly need to study each branch of the tree, which requires an appropriate definition of convergence. Our first key result shows that, provided the adaptive directional subdivision scheme converges, we obtain associated generalized refinement equations (Theorem \[T:RefEq\]). These will become essential for deriving a shearlet multiresolution analysis. As a main result we then provide a complete characterization of those masks which lead to convergent adaptive directional subdivision schemes (Theorem \[T:Convergence\]) in terms of algebraic and spectral properties of the associated filters. In the proof we will make use of ideal theoretic methods which come in handy to extract “the zero at $-1$” of the two masks.
For the construction of a shearlet multiresolution analysis we employ the fact that each wavelet multiresolution analysis is associated with a convergent subdivision scheme [@Dau92]. We introduce scaling spaces based on the previously constructed directional subdivision schemes, and then prove that these indeed provide a multiresolution analysis structure (Theorem \[T:ShearletMRA\]) due to the refinement equations mentioned above. This multiresolution analysis will then provide us in a very natural way with a mathematically justified discrete fast shearlet decomposition of discrete data which is stated as Algorithm \[algo:FSD\]. Also here we encounter a binary tree structure, since the decomposition will be dependent on the different directions which were encoded in a binary tree structure of the subdivision process. For the construction of a shearlet multiresolution analysis and a fast shearlet decomposition, we focus on the situation of interpolatory masks. The non-interpolatory case is beyond the scope of this paper and will be studied in a forthcoming paper.
The outline of the paper is the following. In Section \[sec:refinement\] we briefly introduce discrete shearlet systems. We further study which directions can be attained by the action of the associated dilation matrices on $\ZZ^2$. The new type of subdivision schemes, which we baptize [*adaptive directional subdivision schemes*]{}, are introduced in Section \[sec:adaptive\]. In Section \[sec:convergence\] we provide a complete characterization of convergence for those schemes along with the necessary ideal theoretic background. Some numerical experiments on the refinement of data employing this new type of subdivision schemes are provided in Section \[sec:numerics\]. We then show how the previously derived adaptive directional subdivision schemes can be used as a framework for deriving a [*shearlet multiresolution analysis*]{} with finitely supported filters (Section \[sec:shearletMRA\]). In Section \[sec:FSD\] we employ these results to provide a [*fast shearlet decomposition*]{}.
Refinement of $\Z^2$ by Anisotropic Scaling and Shearing {#sec:refinement}
========================================================
Shearlet Dilation Matrices {#sec:shearlet}
--------------------------
Our approach towards directional refinement of the lattice $\Z^2$ and, later on, adaptive directional subdivision schemes is inspired by the recently introduced discrete shearlet transform [@GKL06], since this transform is able to precisely detect directions of singularities (cf. [@KL06]) which we will take advantage of. In order to provide a thorough motivation for our construction, allow us to first briefly review the idea of shearlets.
Each shearlet system forms an affine system, i.e., consists of dilations and translations of one single generating function $\psi
\in L^2(\R^2)$, a so-called [*shearlet*]{}. As dilation matrices, products of anisotropic parabolic scaling matrices and shear matrices – which coined the name “shearlets” – are employed. In order to define a shearlet system, let $A_a$, $a > 0$, and $S_s$, $s
\in \R$, which are defined by $$A_a = \begin{pmatrix}
a & 0\\ 0 & \sqrt{a}
\end{pmatrix}
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
S_s = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & -s\\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ denote a [*parabolic scaling matrix*]{} and a [*shear matrix*]{}, respectively. Then the [*shearlet system*]{} associated with a shearlet $\psi \in L^2(\R^2)$ is given by $$\label{eq:shearlet}
\{ \psi_{jkm}(x) := 2^{-\frac32j} \psi(S_{-k} A_{4^{-j}} x - m) :
j,k \in \Z,\,m \in \Z^2\}.$$ The three parameters $j,k,m$ are interpreted in the following way: $j$ provides the scale, and $k$ and $m$ detect the direction and position of singularities, respectively. It is easy to construct shearlets such that forms a Parseval frame for $L^2(\R^2)$, for instance, by choosing $\hat{\psi}(\xi_1,\xi_2)=\hat{\psi_1}(\xi_1)
\hat{\psi_2}(\xi_2/\xi_1)$, where $\psi_1 \in L^2(\RR)$ is a discrete wavelet, i.e., $\sum_{j \in \ZZ} |\hat{\psi}_1(4^j \o)|^2 =
1$ for $\o \in \RR$, satisfying $\hat{\psi}_1 \in C^\infty(\RR)$ and $\supp \, \hat{\psi}_1 \subset [-1,-\frac14] \cup [\frac14,1]$, and $\psi_2 \in L^2(\RR)$ is a bump function satisfying $\hat{\psi}_2
\in C^\infty(\RR)$, $\supp \,\hat{\psi}_2 \subset [-1,1]$, and $\sum_{k \in \ZZ} |\hat{\psi}_2(k+\o)|^2 = 1$ for $\o \in \RR$ (cf. [@GKL06]). The associated [*Shearlet Transform*]{} $\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}_\psi$ is then defined on $L^2(\RR^2)$ by $$\mathcal{S}\mathcal{H}_\psi f (j,k,m) = {\left\langlef,\psi_{jkm}\right\rangle}.$$
In order to provide an equal treatment of the direction of the $x$- and $y$-axis, the frequency plane is split into the cone $$C = \{(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2: \, |\xi_1| \ge \tfrac 14, \, |\tfrac{\xi_2}{\xi_1}| \le 1\},$$ its by $90^0$ rotated copy, and the square centered at the origin of side length $\frac12$. The Shearlet Transform acts on $C$ and its copy as described above, while the choice of $\psi$ has to be adapted appropriately. The center square can be filled in such a way that this system also forms a Parseval frame. The shearlet system in $C$ and its copy is usually referred to as [*shearlets on the cone*]{}, see [@GKL06]. The associated tiling of the frequency plane is illustrated in Figure \[fig:ShearletsOnCone\].
![The tiling of the frequency domain induced by the shearlets on the cone.[]{data-label="fig:ShearletsOnCone"}](ShearletsOnCone.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![The tiling of the frequency domain induced by the shearlets on the cone.[]{data-label="fig:ShearletsOnCone"}](ShearletsOnCone.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}
The refinement matrices interesting to us for deriving a directional refinement of the lattice $\ZZ^2$ are the dilation matrices used in for $j=1$, i.e., the matrices $$M_{k}:=S_{-k} A_{\frac14}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & k\\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac14 & 0\\ 0 & \frac12
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac14 & \frac12k\\ 0 & \frac12
\end{pmatrix},
\quad k \in \Z.$$ Following the philosophy of the shearlets on the cone, also the matrices $$\widetilde{M}_{k}:=
\begin{pmatrix} \frac12 & 0 \\
\\ \frac12 k & \frac14 \end{pmatrix},$$ which serve as dilation matrices for the rotated copy of $C$, will be employed as refinement matrices. The matrices $M_{k}$ and $\widetilde{M}_{k}$ not only provide the possibility to map a line to various directions, but moreover possess the property of refining the lattice $\Z^2$ equally at each level as it is shown in the following result.
\[prop:matrixrefinement\] The following conditions hold.
1. For all $j,k \in \ZZ$, we have $$M_{k} \in \mbox{GL}_2(\R) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
M_{k}(4^{-j} \Z \times 2^{-j} \Z) = 4^{-(j+1)} \Z \times 2^{-(j+1)}
\Z.$$
2. For all $j,k \in \ZZ$, we have $$\widetilde{M}_{k} \in \mbox{GL}_2(\R) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\widetilde{M}_{k}(2^{-j} \Z \times 4^{-j} \Z) = 2^{-(j+1)} \Z \times
4^{-(j+1)} \Z.$$
\(i) The first claim is obvious. To prove the second claim, let $j,k
\in \Z$ and $m=(m_1,m_2) \in \Z^2$. Then $$M_{k}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-j} m_1\\2^{-j} m_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(j+1)} m_1 + 2^{-(j+1)}k m_2\\2^{-(j+1)} m_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(j+1)} (m_1 + 2^{j+1}k m_2)\\2^{-(j+1)} m_2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which implies $M_{k}(4^{-j} \Z \times 2^{-j} \Z) \subseteq
4^{-(j+1)} \Z \times 2^{-(j+1)} \Z$.
Now let $n=(n_1,n_2) \in \Z^2$. Then choosing $m = (m_1,m_2) \in
\Z^2$ as $m_1=n_1-2^{j+1}kn_2$ and $m_2 = n_2$ yields $$M_{k}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-j} m_1\\2^{-j} m_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(j+1)} (n_1-2^{j+1}kn_2 + 2^{j+1}k n_2)\\2^{-(j+1)} n_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(j+1)}n_1\\2^{-(j+1)}n_2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus $M_{k}(4^{-j} \Z \times 2^{-j} \Z) \supseteq 4^{-(j+1)} \Z \times 2^{-(j+1)} \Z$, which proves the claim.
\(ii) This follows by using similar arguments as in part (i).
Thus, when applying a sequence of matrices $M_{k_1}, \ldots,
M_{k_n}$ iteratively to the lattice $\Z^2$, at the $j$th level the points $\{(4^{-j}(m_1+\ell \frac14),2^{-j}(m_2+\frac12)) : \ell \in
\{1,2,3\}\}$ are added to the lattice $4^{-j} \Z \times 2^{-j} \Z$. This is true for an arbitrary choice of integers $k_j \in \ZZ$, $1
\le j \le n$. Moreover, at each level this map is bijective.
A similar result holds for the matrices $\widetilde{M}_k$, $k \in
\ZZ$.
Feasible Directions {#sec:feasible}
-------------------
Let us now delve deeper into the explicit construction of the refinement by using the splitting idea of the shearlets on the cone. The overall aim is to provide a way of refinement such that the points on the $y$-axis – or any other line through the origin – can be moved to an arbitrary line through the origin during the refinement process. This immediately forces the refinement scheme to provide different strategies for refinement. We will see how this is can be achieved by using the matrices $M_{\eps}$ and $\widetilde{M}_{\eps}$ even only for $\eps =-1,0,1$. In the sequel we will only focus on the matrices $M_{\eps}$, $\eps=-1,0,1$, since the others can be treated simultaneously.
In the very first step of the refinement, we apply $M_{\eps}$ to $\Z^2$ for $\eps=-1,0,1$. Application of $\eps=0$ does not change any directions, $\eps=1$ maps the $y$-axis to the angle bisector in the first and third quadrant of the plane, and $\eps=-1$ has the same effect on the second and fourth quadrant. From now on, we consider the two cases $\eps \in \{0,-1\}$ or $\eps \in \{0,1\}$ separately. Focusing on the second case, in each step we not only derive the refinement from a coarser scale $4^{-j} \Z \times 2^{-j}
\Z$ to a finer scale $4^{-(j+1)} \Z \times 2^{-(j+1)} \Z$, but also have two different ways to achieve this, either by applying $M_0$ or by applying $M_1$. Hence, at the $n$th level we have applied a product of the form $M_{\eps_n} \ldots M_{\eps_1}$ to $\ZZ^2$, where $\eps_j \in \{0,1\}$ for each $1 \le j \le n$. For $\eps \in
\{0,-1\}$, one can proceed in exactly the same way which we will, however, not work out in detail in this paper.
From now on, we will use the abbreviation $E_n = \{0,1\}^n$, $n \in
\NN$, for the index sets and will also denote by $$E = \bigcup_{n \in \NN} E_n$$ the set of all finite $0$-$1$–sequences and by $E_\infty =
\{0,1\}^\NN$ the space of all infinite sequences. Note that $E$ is canonically embedded in $E_\infty$ by the mapping $$E \ni \eps \mapsto \eps^* = \left( \eps,0,0,\dots \right) \in
E_\infty.$$
The main question to ask at this point concerns the possible directions this procedure allows us to map the points on the $y$-axis to. For this analysis, we restrict our attention to the first quadrant of the plane, since the same refinements occur in the third quadrant only in an origin-symmetric way.
We first notice that the sequence of $n$ matrices $M_\eps$ we choose is completely determined by the associated sequence $\eps \in E_n$. Hence this refinement scheme has the structure of a binary tree as illustrated in Figure \[fig:binary\].
(250,190)(0,0) (0,90)[$\ZZ^2$]{} (15,100)[(1,1)[45]{}]{} (15,90)[(1,-1)[45]{}]{} (65,140)[$M_0 \ZZ^2$]{} (65,40)[$M_1 \ZZ^2$]{} (95,150)[(2,1)[45]{}]{} (95,140)[(2,-1)[45]{}]{} (95,50)[(2,1)[45]{}]{} (95,40)[(2,-1)[45]{}]{} (145,170)[$M_0 M_0 \ZZ^2, \quad
\eps=(0,0)$]{} (145,113)[$M_0 M_1 \ZZ^2, \quad \eps=(1,0)$]{} (145,70)[$M_1 M_0 \ZZ^2, \quad \eps=(0,1)$]{} (145,13)[$M_1
M_1 \ZZ^2, \quad \eps=(1,1)$]{}
The directions which might be obtained employing this refinement scheme are encoded in this binary tree in a special though natural way. To explore this relation, we first compute the product of the matrices which is applied to achieve the refinement at level $n$. Interestingly, the following binary number appears therein.
For $\eps \in E_n$, $n \in \NN$, we define $$\left( \eps \right)_2 = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^j
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad M_\eps = M_{\eps_n} \cdot \ldots \cdot
M_{\eps_1}.$$
Using this notion we obtain the following form for a refinement matrix $M_\eps$.
\[lemma:productsofM\] Let $n \in \N$ and $\eps \in E_n$. Then we have $$M_\eps =
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
We will prove this lemma by induction. For $n=1$, the claim obviously holds. Now suppose that the claim is true for some $n \in
\N$. Let $\eps = \left( \eps',\eps_{n+1} \right) \in E_{n+1}$, $\eps' \in E_n$. We have to distinguish between $\eps_{n+1} = 0$, hence $\left( \eps \right)_2 = \left( \eps' \right)_2$, with $$M_\eps = M_{\left( \eps',\eps_{n+1} \right)} =
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-1}& 0\\
0 & 2^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, \left( \eps' \right)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(n+1)}& \frac12 \, 4^{-n} \, (\eps')_2 \\
0 & 2^{-(n+1)}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $\eps_{n+1} = 1$, i.e., $(\eps)_2 = \left( \eps' \right)_2 +
2^{n+1}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
M_\eps & = &
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-1}& 2^{-1}\\
0 & 2^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps')_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(n+1)}& \frac12 \left( 4^{-n} (\eps')_2 + 2^{-n}
\right) \\
0 & 2^{-(n+1)}
\end{pmatrix}\\
& = & \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(n+1)}& \frac12 \, 4^{-n} \, \left( (\eps')_2+2^{n} \right) \\
0 & 2^{-(n+1)}
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-(n+1)}& \frac12 \, 4^{-n} \, (\eps)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-(n+1)}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ which advances the induction hypothesis.
Let $L$ be a line through the origin and $\eps \in E_n$, $n \in \N$. Then $s(L,\eps)$ denotes the slope of $M_{\eps}L$, which is again a line through the origin. We further write $s(L)$ for the slope of $L$.
The next result computes the values of the slopes $s(L,\eps)$.
Let $L$ be a line through the origin and $\eps \in E_n$, $n \in \N$. Then the following relations between $s(L,\eps)$, $\eps$ and the original $L$ hold.
1. If $L$ is a line through the origin with $s(L) \in (0,\infty)$, then $$s(L,\eps) = \frac{2^{n}}{\frac{1}{s(L)}+2(\eps)_2}.$$
2. If $L = \{0\} \times \R$, i.e., $s(L) = \infty$, then $$s(L,\eps) = \frac{2^{n-1}}{(\eps)_2},$$ where we set $2^{n-1}/0 := \infty$.
3. If $L = \R \times \{0\}$, i.e., $s(L) = 0$, then $$s(L,\eps) = 0.$$
\(i) We consider the point $(1,s(L)) \in L$. Using Lemma \[lemma:productsofM\], we compute $$M_{\eps}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
s(L)
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
s(L)
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n} (1+2\,s(L)\,(\eps)_2) \\
2^{-n}s(L)
\end{pmatrix}$$ Hence, the slope of the line $M_{\eps}L$ equals $$\frac{4^{n}\,s(L)}{2^{n}(1+2\,s(L)\,(\eps)_2)}
= \frac{2^{n}\,s(L)}{1+2\,s(L)\,(\eps)_2} =
\frac{2^{n}}{\frac{1}{s(L)}+2\,(\eps)_2}.$$
\(ii) Here we consider the point $(0,1) \in L=\{0\} \times \R$. Again employing Lemma \[lemma:productsofM\], we obtain $$M_{\eps}
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
1
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
1
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps)_2 \\
2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus $$s(L,\eps) = \frac{4^{n}}{2^{n+1}(\eps)_2}
= \frac{2^n}{2 \,(\eps)_2}.$$
\(iii) is easily verified by noting that the point $(1,0)$ is mapped to $$M_{\eps}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n}& 4^{-n} \, 2 \, (\eps)_2 \\
0 & 2^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{-n} \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ so that the slope remains zero.
Our main result in this section will show that indeed the points on an arbitrary line through the origin of slope $\neq 0$ can be moved arbitrarily close to prescribed lines through the origin during the refinement process.
\[theo:possibledirections\] Let $L$ be a line through the origin with $s(L) \in (0,\infty]$. Then, for each $t \in
[\frac12,\infty]$ and $\delta > 0$, there exists some $n \in \NN$ and $\eps \in E_n$ such that $$|s(L,\eps)-t| < \delta.$$
Suppose $L$ is a line through the origin with $s(L) \in (0,\infty)$. The case $s(L) = \infty$ can be dealt with in a similar way.
For given $t \in (\frac12,\infty)$ and $\delta > 0$, due to the denseness of rational numbers there exists some $n \in \NN$ and $\eps \in E_n$ such that $$\left| \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^{j-n+1} - \frac{1}{t}\right| <
\frac{\delta}{t(t+\delta)} =: \t{\delta}.$$ Indeed, $\eps$ can be chosen as a truncation of the binary expansion of $1/t$. Note that without loss of generality we can assume that $$\frac{1}{2^n s(L)} < \t{\delta},$$ since we can always enlarge $n$. Using these relations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
|s(L,\eps)-t|
= \left|\frac{2^{n}}{\frac{1}{s(L)}+2(\eps)_2} - t\right| } \\[1ex]
& = & \left|\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2^n s(L)}+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \,
2^{j-n+1}} - t\right| = \left|\frac{1-t(\frac{1}{2^n
s(L)}+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^{j-n+1})}{\frac{1}{2^n s(L)}
+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^{j-n+1}}\right| \\[1ex]
& \le & t \left|\frac{\frac{1}{t}-\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \,
2^{j-n+1} -\frac{1}{2^n s(L)}}{\frac{1}{t}-\t{\delta}}\right| \le
\left|\frac{t^2\t{\delta}}{1-t\t{\delta}}\right| = \delta.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for the last equality we used $\t{\delta} < \frac{1}{t}$.
Now let $\eps \in E_\infty$ be defined by $\eps_j = 0$ for all $j
\ge j_0$ for some $j_0 \in \NN$, and let $M > 0$. Then there exists some $n \in \NN$ such that $$\frac{1}{2^n s(L)}+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^{j-n+1} < \frac{1}{M}
\quad \mbox{for all }n \ge n_0,$$ which implies $$s(L,(\eps_1 \ldots \eps_n)) = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2^n s(L)}+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \eps_{j+1} \, 2^{j-n+1}} > M,$$ hence $\lim_{n \to \infty} s(L,(\eps_1 \ldots \eps_n)) = \infty$.
Finally, let $\eps \in E_\infty$ be defined by $\eps_j = 1$ for all $j \ge j_0$ for some $j_0 \in \NN$. Then, for all $n \in \NN$, $$s(L,(\eps_1 \ldots \eps_n))
= \frac{2^{n}}{\frac{1}{s(L)}+\sum_{j=1}^{n} \eps_{j} \, 2^j} =
\frac{2^{n}}{\frac{1}{s(L)}+2^{n+1}-2-\sum_{j=1}^{j_0-1} (1-\eps_{j})
\, 2^j}$$ and hence, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} s(L,(\eps_1 \ldots \eps_n))
= \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2^{n} s(L)}+2-\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}
-\frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{j=1}^{j_0-1} (1-\eps_{j}) \, 2^{j}} =
\frac12. \qedhere$$
Thus only employing $M_0$ and $M_1$ we can move any line arbitrarily close to any line of slope $\in [\frac12,\infty]$. This shows the range of directions we might attain (compare Figure \[fig:SplittingOfPlane\]). However, we would like to mention that the change of orientation of the data induced by the subdivision scheme (see Definition \[def:adaptivesubdivision\]) is also affected by directionality of the masks.
\[theo:possibledirections2\] Let $L$ be a line through the origin with $s \in (0,\infty]$. Then, for each $t \in [-\frac12,-\infty]$ and $\delta > 0$, there exists some $n \in \NN$ and $\eps \in E_n$ such that $$|s(L,\eps)-t| < \delta.$$
Similar results as Theorems \[theo:possibledirections\] and \[theo:possibledirections2\] also hold for the matrices $\t{M}_\eps$, $\eps \in \{-1,0,1\}$. We omit to also state these results for the sake of brevity, since they are similar to the previous theorems.
A Directional Refinement of the Lattice $\Z^2$ {#sec:refinementoflattice}
----------------------------------------------
The results in the preceding section point out how to refine $\Z^2$ in a directional way such that all possible directions can be attained. Dependent on whether we intend to map say the $y$-axis to a line with a slope contained in $[\frac12,\infty]$, $[-\frac12,-\infty]$, or $[-\frac12,\frac12]$, we choose to refine by using the matrices $M_0,M_1$, $M_{-1},M_0$, or $\t{M}_{-1},\t{M}_{0},\t{M}_{1}$, respectively. Once the type of matrices is chosen, we iterate depending on the angle we would like to attain by using Theorem \[theo:possibledirections\], Theorem \[theo:possibledirections2\], or the corresponding result for the matrices $\t{M}_\eps$, $\eps \in \{-1,0,1\}$. For an illustration of the different areas of lines through the origin which can be attained during the refinement process dependent on the chosen matrices we refer to Figure \[fig:SplittingOfPlane\].
(300,180)(0,0) (70,0)[![This figure shows the different areas of lines through the origin which can be attained during the refinement process depending on the choice of $M_\eps$ and $\widetilde{M}_\eps$ and $\eps \in
\{-1,0,1\}$.[]{data-label="fig:SplittingOfPlane"}](Areas1.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![This figure shows the different areas of lines through the origin which can be attained during the refinement process depending on the choice of $M_\eps$ and $\widetilde{M}_\eps$ and $\eps \in
\{-1,0,1\}$.[]{data-label="fig:SplittingOfPlane"}](Areas1.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ]{} (230,150)[(-1,-1)[40]{}]{} (235,155)[$M_\eps \mbox{ with
} \eps=0,1$]{} (235,140)[(cf. Theorem \[theo:possibledirections\])]{} (250,108)[(-1,0)[50]{}]{} (255,104)[$\mbox{Slope } \frac12$]{} (80,150)[(1,-1)[40]{}]{} (-20,155)[$M_\eps \mbox{ with }
\eps=-1,0$]{} (-20,140)[(cf. Theorem \[theo:possibledirections2\])]{} (230,65)[(-2,1)[40]{}]{} (235,55)[$\t{M}_\eps \mbox{ with } \eps=-1,0,1$]{}
From now on we will focus entirely on the matrices $M_0$ and $M_1$. All following results can be derived in a similar way for $M_{-1},M_0$ and for $\t{M}_{-1},\t{M}_{0},\t{M}_{1}$.
Adaptive Directional Subdivision {#sec:adaptive}
================================
In this section, we finally arrive at the announced definition of a new type of subdivision schemes, based on the interaction of *two* “normal” stationary subdivision schemes, which we will study in the sequel. To that end, we choose two *masks* $a_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, i.e., *finitely supported* sequences $a_\eps \in \ell_{00} \left( \Z^2 \right)$ as well as the expanding scaling matrices $W_\eps = M_\eps^{-1}$, $\eps
\in \{0,1\}$. These matrices can be given explicitly as $$\label{eq:W0andW1}
W_0 =
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & 0 \\ 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad W_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -4 \\ 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix},$$ and again we set $W_\eps = W_{\eps_n} \cdots W_{\eps_1}$, $\eps \in
E_n$. Also note that $$W_1 = W_0 \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\, W_0.$$ Such a decomposition also exists for the iterated matrices $W_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}^n$, $n \in \N$.
To formulate the next auxiliary result, we also define for $\eps \in
E_n$ the dyadic number $$\left[ \eps \right]_2 = .\eps_1 \ldots \eps_n := \sum_{j=1}^n \eps_j
\, 2^{-j} \in [0,1].$$ With this notation at hand, we obtain the following counterpiece of Lemma \[lemma:productsofM\].
\[lemma:productsofW\] For $n \in \N_0$ and $\eps \in E_n$, we have $$W_\eps = W_{\eps_n} \cdots W_{\eps_1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n} & -4^{n} \, 2 \, [\eps]_2 \\
0 & 2^{n}
\end{pmatrix}
= U_\eps \, W_0^n = W_0^n V_\eps,$$ where $$U_\eps =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2^{n+1} \left[ \eps \right]_2 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
V_\eps =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2 \left[ \eps \right]_2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ hence $U_\eps = V_\eps^{2^n}$.
The proof is again of inductive nature and relies on noting that $$W_0 W_\eps =
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & 0 \\ 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n} & -4^{n} \, 2 \, [\eps]_2 \\
0 & 2^{n+1}
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n+1} & -4^{n+1} \, 2 \, \left[ \left( \eps,0 \right) \right]_2 \\
0 & 2^{n+2}
\end{pmatrix}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
W_1 W_\eps & = &
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -4 \\ 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n} & -4^{n} \, 2 \, [\eps]_2 \\
0 & 2^{n}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n+1} & -4^{n+1} \left( 2 \, [\eps]_2 + 2^{-n} \right) \\
0 & 2^{n+1}
\end{pmatrix} \\
& = &
\begin{pmatrix}
4^{n+1} & -4^{n+1} \, 2 \, \left[ \left( \eps,1 \right) \right]_2 \\
0 & 2^{n+1}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$W_\eps =
\begin{pmatrix}
2^{2n} & -2^{2n+1} [\eps]_2 \\ 0 & 2^n
\end{pmatrix}
= W_0^n \,
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2 [\eps]_2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2^{n+1} [\eps]_2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \, W_0.$$ Since for $x \in \R$ $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -x \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^k
=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -k x \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ also the final claim follows.
Note that $V_{(0,\dots,0)}$, $V_{(1,0,\dots,0)}$, and all $U_\eps$ are *unimodular* matrices, i.e., they have an inverse in $\Z^{2
\times 2}$. A particular role will be played by the two matrices $$V =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad U = V^2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ which satisfy $$\label{eq:UVProps}
W_1 = U W_0 = W_0 V, \qquad \mbox{i.e.} \qquad
W_1 = U^{-1} W_1 V \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
W_0 = U W_0 V^{-1}.$$
The associated subdivision schemes are now defined as follows. The term [*adaptive*]{} refers to the tree-like structure, which provides various branches for subdivision, whereas the term [*directional*]{} refers to the directional structure which comes from the shearing process contained in the dilation matrices $W_\eps$, $\eps \in E$.
\[def:adaptivesubdivision\] Let $a_\eps \in \ell_{00}(\ZZ^2)$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$ be two masks, that is, two *finitely supported sequences*, and let $W_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$ be defined as in . Then the associated [*adaptive directional subdivision scheme of order $n$*]{} is defined by $$S_\eps = S_{\eps_n} \cdots S_{\eps_1}, \qquad \eps \in E_n, \qquad n
\in \NN,$$ where, for $\eta \in \{0,1\}$, $$S_\eta c := S_{a_\eta,W_\eta} c
:= \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a_\eta \left( \cdot - W_\eta \, \alpha
\right) \, c \left( \alpha \right), \quad c \in \ell_\infty \left( \ZZ^2 \right),$$
Note that both the mask as well as the scaling matrix of these subdivision schemes depend on the index $\eps$. Moreover, we wish to remark that these schemes can clearly be computed in a tree–like fashion by setting $$S_\eps c = S_{(\eps',\eps_n)} c = S_{\eps_n} S_{\eps'} = \sum_{\beta \in
\Z^2} a_{\eps_n} \left( \cdot - W_{\eps_n}
\beta \right) \, S_{\eps'} c (\beta),
\qquad \eps' \in E_{n-1}.$$
Adaptive directional subdivision schemes can be considered subdivision schemes of their own, however, with a different scaling matrix. This is easily seen by means of the following example: for $\alpha \in \Z^2$ we have [$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\left( \eps_1,\eps_2 \right)} c & = &
S_{\eps_2} S_{\eps_1} c
= \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} a_{\eps_2} \left( \cdot - W_{\eps_2} \beta
\right) \left( S_{\eps_1} c \right) (\beta) \\
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} a_{\eps_2} \left( \cdot - W_{\eps_2}
\beta \right)
\sum_{\gamma \in \Z^2} a_{\eps_1} \left( \beta - W_{\eps_1} \gamma
\right) \, c (\gamma) \\
& = & \sum_{\gamma \in \Z^2} \left[ \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2}
a_{\eps_2} \left( \cdot - W_{\eps_2} \beta - W_{\eps_2}
W_{\eps_1} \gamma \right) \, a_{\eps_1} (\beta) \right]
\, c (\gamma) \\
& =: & \sum_{\gamma \in \Z^2} a_{\left( \eps_1,\eps_2 \right)}
\left( \cdot - W_{\left( \eps_1,\eps_2 \right)} \gamma \right)
\, c (\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ ]{} An inductive application of this argument immediately gives the next result.
\[lemma:IterMasks\] For $\eps \in E_n$, the subdivision scheme $S_\eps$ acts as $$S_\eps c \, (\alpha) = \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2}
a_\eps \left( \alpha - W_\eps \beta \right) \, c (\beta), \qquad
\alpha \in \Z^2,$$ where the coefficient sequences $a_{\eps}$ are recursively defined as $a_{\eps} = a_{\left( \eps',\eps_n \right)}
= S_{\eps_n} a_{\eps'}$.
To get a better understanding of the geometry of adaptive directional subdivision, we write $a_1$ as $a_1 = \widetilde a_0
\left( U \cdot \right)$ which is always possible since $U$ is unimodular. It then follows from repeated applications of (\[eq:UVProps\]) that [$$\begin{aligned}
S_{a_1,W_1} c & = &
\sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a_1 \left( \cdot - W_1 \alpha \right)
\, c (\alpha)\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \widetilde a_0
\left( U \cdot - U W_1 U^{-1} U \alpha \right) \, c (\alpha) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \widetilde a_0 \left( U \cdot -
U W_1 V^{-2} \alpha \right) \, c \left( U^{-1} \alpha \right)\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \widetilde a_0 \left( U \cdot - U W_0 V^{-1} \alpha
\right) \, c \left( U^{-1} \alpha \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \widetilde a_0 \left( U \cdot - W_0 \alpha
\right) \,
c \left( U^{-1} \alpha \right)\\
& = & \left( S_{\widetilde a_0,W_0} c \left( U^{-1} \cdot \right) \right)
\left( U \cdot \right).\end{aligned}$$ ]{} This identity can be rewritten in terms of dilation operators as $$S_1 = D_U \, \widetilde S_0 \, D_{U^{-1}} = D_U \, \widetilde S_0 \, D_U^{-1},
\mbox{ hence} \quad
S_{(1,\dots,1)} = D_U \, \widetilde S_{(0,\dots,0)} \, D_U^{-1},$$ and enables us to implement the subdivision scheme $S_1$ in terms of $\widetilde S_0$ and the shear operator $D_U$. Moreover, it explains the geometry of the scheme $S_1$: first, a shearing by $U^{-1}$ is applied to the data sequence, then the subdivision operator refines the data in the sheared direction with a higher resolution than the data in the non–sheared direction, so that the additional application of the shearing by $U$ does not fully compensate the initial one. In summary, this process leads to limit functions which are sheared versions of the limit function of $S_0$ and the amount of shearing is determined by when and how often $S_1$ is applied in the process. We remark that this geometry is very much in the spirit of the Continuous Shearlet Transform, which can be regarded as applying a shearing operator, an anisotropic 2-D Wavelet Transform, and again a shearing operator [@KS07].
Convergence {#sec:convergence}
===========
In this section, we shall study convergence of the previously introduced adaptive directional subdivision schemes. To that end, we introduce the *projection operators* $P_n \;:\; E_\infty \to
E_n$, $n \in \NN$, which extract the initial segment of order $n$ from a sequence: $P_n \eps = \left( \eps_1,\dots,\eps_n \right)$.
\[def:convergence\] The adaptive directional subdivision scheme is said to be *convergent in $C \left( \R^2 \right)$*, if, for any $\eps \in E_\infty$, there exists a nonzero uniformly continuous function $f_\eps \in C \left( \R^2 \right)$ such that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sup_{\alpha \in \Z^2}
\left| f_\eps \left( W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \alpha \right) -
S_{P_n \eps} \delta (\alpha) \right|
= 0.$$ Note that this is equivalent to $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \sup_{\alpha \in \Z^2}
\left| f_\eps \left( W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \alpha \right) -
a_{P_n \eps} (\alpha) \right| = 0.$$
Since any sequence $c \in \ell \left( \Z^2 \right)$ can be trivially written as $$c = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c(\alpha) \, \delta \left( \cdot - \alpha
\right), \qquad \delta (\alpha) := \delta_{\alpha,0},$$ and since the subdivision operator is linear, we immediately obtain the following convolution style representation of the limit function.
If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme converges for some $\eps \in E_\infty$ then the limit function takes the form $$f_\eps * c =
\sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c(\alpha) \, f_\eps \left( \cdot - \alpha \right).$$
Basic Properties
----------------
This definition of convergence has an immediate consequence: If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme is a convergent one, then, in particular, $a_0$ and $a_1$ must define convergent adaptive directional subdivision schemes, which follows by simply choosing $\eps = (0,0,\dots)$ and $\eps = (1,1,\dots)$, respectively. Consequently, they must both preserve constants.
\[lemma:subdivisionconvergent\] If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme is convergent, then $$\label{eq:ConSumRule0}
\sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} a_\eps \left( \alpha + W_\eps \beta \right)
= 1, \qquad \alpha \in \Z^2, \qquad \eps \in \{0,1\}.$$
An alternative but equivalent definition of convergence of a adaptive directional subdivision scheme can be given in terms of function spaces instead of sequence spaces by means of test functions.
A function $g \in C \left( \R^2 \right)$ is called a *test function*, if it is compactly supported and its integer translates form a stable partition of unity, that is,
1. $\sum_\alpha g \left( \cdot - \alpha \right) = 1$,
2. there exist constants $0 < A < B < \infty$ such that for any $c \in \ell_\infty$ $$A \, \left\| c \right\|_\infty \le \left\| g * c \right\|_\infty \le
B \| c \|_\infty, \qquad g*c := \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c(\alpha)
\, g \left( \cdot - \alpha \right).$$
The most prominent examples for test functions are the tensor product B–Splines so that there even exist *refinable* test functions of arbitrary regularity. With the help of test functions, convergence can be described as follows.
\[T:AlterConvDesc\] The adaptive directional subdivision scheme converges if and only if for any $\eps \in E_\infty$ there exists a nonzero uniformly continuous function $f_\eps$ such that $$\label{eq:AlterConvDesc}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \left\| f_\eps - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps}
\delta \right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \right) \right\|_\infty = 0$$
1. for some test function $g$.
2. for any test function $g$.
For classical subdivision, this result is due to Dahmen and Micchelli [@DahmenMicchelli97] and we just show how it can be extended in a straightforward way to adaptive directional subdivision. To that end, let $g$ be any test function and recall that for any *uniformly continuous* function $f$ and any expanding matrix $M$ the “quasi-interpolant” $$g * \sigma_{M} f = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} f \left( M \, \alpha
\right) \, g (\cdot - \alpha),$$ with the *sampling operator* $\sigma_{M} := \left( f { \left( M \, \alpha \right) } \;:\;
\alpha \in \Z^2 \right)$, satisfies $$\left\| f - g * \sigma_{M^{-1}} f \left( M \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty \le C_g
\, \omega \left( f, \left\| M^{-1} \right\| \right),$$ where $$\omega \left( f,\delta \right) := \sup_{x \in \R^2} \sup_{\| x-y \|_\infty
\le \delta} \left| f(x) - f(y) \right|,$$ denotes the modulus of continuity of $f$. Recall that $\omega \left( f,\delta \right) \to 0$ for $\delta \to 0$ as long as $f$ is uniformly continuous. Now, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\| f_\eps - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps}
\delta \right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
} \\
& \le & \left\| f_\eps - \left( g * \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}}
f_\eps \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| g * \left( \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f_\eps - S_{P_n
\eps} \delta \right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot
\right) \right\|_\infty \\
& = & \left\| f_\eps - \left( g * \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}}
f_\eps \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| g * \left( \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f_\eps - S_{P_n
\eps} \delta \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& \le & C_g \,
\omega \left( f, \left\| W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \right\| \right) +
B \, \left\| \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f_\eps - S_{P_n
\eps} \delta \right\|_\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\| \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f_\eps - S_{P_n
\eps} \delta \right\|_\infty
\le A^{-1} \left\| g * \left( \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}}
f_\eps - S_{P_n \eps} \delta \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot
\right) \right\|_\infty
} \\
& \le & A^{-1} \left( \left\| f_\eps - \left( g *
\sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f_\eps \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| f_\eps - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps} \delta \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot
\right) \right\|_\infty \right) \\
& \le & A^{-1} \left( C_g \,
\omega \left( f, \left\| W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \right\| \right) +
\left\| f_\eps - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps} \delta \right)
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot
\right) \right\|_\infty \right)
\end{aligned}$$ which verifies the equivalence. Since therefore convergence of the adaptive directional subdivision scheme is equivalent to holding for an arbitrary test function, this property holds for one particular test function if and only if it holds for any test function.
\[T:RefEq\] If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme converges, then the limit functions $f_\eps$, $\eps \in E_\infty$, satisfy the *refinement equation* $$\label{eq:RefEq}
f_\eps = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a_{\eps_1} (\alpha) \,
f_{\widehat \eps} \left( W_{\eps_1} \cdot - \alpha \right),
\qquad \widehat\eps := \left( \eps_2,\eps_3,\dots \right).$$
We define the *transition operator* $$T_\eps f = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a_\eps (\alpha) \, f \left(
W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right), \qquad f \in C \left( \R^2 \right),
\; \eps \in \{0,1\}$$ and note that, for $c \in \ell_\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left( T_\eps f \right) * c
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} T_\eps f \left( \cdot - \alpha
\right) \, c (\alpha)
= \sum_{\alpha,\beta \in \Z^2} a_\eps (\beta) \, c (\alpha)
f \left( W_\eps \cdot - W_\eps \alpha - \beta \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} \left( \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a_\eps
\left( \beta - W_\eps \alpha \right) \, c(\alpha) \right)
\, f \left( W_\eps \cdot - \beta \right)
= \left( f * S_\eps c \right) \left( W_\eps \cdot \right).
\end{aligned}$$ By iteration, we then find for $\eps \in \{0,1\}^n$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( f * S_\eps c \right) \left( W_\eps \cdot \right)
& = & \left( f * S_{\eps_n} \cdots S_{\eps_1} c \right)
\left( W_{\eps_n} \cdot \ldots \cdot W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right) \\
& = & \left( T_{\eps_n} f * S_{\eps_{n-1}} \cdots
S_{\eps_1} c \right)
\left( W_{\eps_{n-1}} \cdot \ldots \cdot W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right)
= \ldots = \left( T_\eps f * c \right)
\end{aligned}$$ where $$T_\eps f = T_{\eps_1} \cdots T_{\eps_n} f, \qquad \eps
\in \{0,1\}^n.$$ Since, for $n \in \N$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
T_{\eps_1} f_{\widehat \eps}
= T_{\eps_1} f_{\widehat \eps} * \delta
= \left( f_{\widehat \eps} * S_{\eps_1} \delta \right)
\left( W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right) } \\
& = & \left[ \left( f_{\widehat \eps} - \left( g * S_{P_{n-1}
\widehat \eps} \delta \right) \left( W_{P_{n-1} \widehat
\eps}
\right) \right) * S_{\eps_1} \delta \right]
\left( W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right)\\
&& + \left[ \left( g * S_{P_{n-1} \widehat \eps} \delta \right)
\left(
W_{P_{n-1} \widehat \eps} \right) * S_{\eps_1} \delta \right]
\left( W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right)
\\
& = & \left[ \left( f_{\widehat \eps} - \left( g * S_{P_{n-1}
\widehat \eps} \delta \right)
\left( W_{P_{n-1} \widehat \eps}
\right) \right) * S_{\eps_1} \delta \right]
\left( W_{\eps_1} \cdot \right) + \left( g * S_{P_n \eps} \delta
\right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right),
\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left\| T_{\eps_1} f_{\widehat \eps} - f_\eps
\right\|_\infty}\\
& \le &
\left\| \left( f_{\widehat \eps} - \left( g * S_{P_{n-1} \widehat
\eps} \right) \left( W_{P_{n-1} \widehat \eps} \right)
\right) * S_{\eps_1} \delta \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| f_{\eps} - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps} \delta
\right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& \le & \left\| S_{\eps_1} \right\| \,
\left\| f_{\widehat \eps} - \left( g * S_{P_{n-1} \widehat
\eps} \right) \left( W_{P_{n-1} \widehat \eps} \right)
\right\|_\infty
+ \left\| f_{\eps} - \left( g * S_{P_n \eps} \delta
\right) \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
\end{aligned}$$ and the right hand side of this inequality converges to zero for $n \to \infty$ while the left hand side is independent of $n$. Thus $T_{\eps_1} f_{\widehat \eps} = f_\eps$ which is (\[eq:RefEq\]).
An Algebraic Description, Sum Rules and Polynomial Reproduction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we give a more detailed description of the necessary condition (\[eq:ConSumRule0\]) from Lemma \[lemma:subdivisionconvergent\] in algebraic terms. To that end, we recall the definition of the *symbol* of a mask $a$, defined as $$a^* (z) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a(\alpha) \, z^\alpha, \qquad z \in
\C_*^2 = \left( \C \setminus \{0\} \right)^2,$$ as well as the *subsymbols* $$a_{\eps,\eta}^* (z) = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} a \left( \eta + W_\eps
\alpha \right) \, z^\alpha, \qquad \eta \in H_\eps := W_\eps^T \,
\left[ 0,1 \right)^2 \cap \Z^2, \qquad \eps \in \{0,1\}.$$ The symbol can be “reconstructed” from the subsymbols by the well–known formula $$a^* (z) = \sum_{\eta \in H_\eps} z^\eta \, a_{\eps,\eta}^* \left(
z^{W_\eps} \right), \qquad \eps \in \{0,1\},$$ from which the following result follows immediately, cf. [@Sauer02b].
The mask $a_\eps$ satisfies (\[eq:ConSumRule0\]), the *sum rule of order $0$*, if and only if $$a^* (z) = 0, \qquad z \in \left\{ e^{-2\pi i W_\eps^{-T} \eta} \;:\;
\eta \in H_\eps \setminus \{0\} \right\}.$$
For a more algebraic description, we need the notion of a *quotient ideal*. Recall that an ideal in $\Lambda$, the ring of *Laurent polynomials* in two variables, is a subset of $\Lambda$ that is closed under addition and multiplication by arbitrary Laurent polynomials. The *quotient ideal* of two Laurent ideals $I,J$, is defined as $$I : J := \left\{ f \in \Lambda \;:\; f \cdot J \subseteq I \right\}$$ and has the almost obvious property that $I \subseteq I : J$. For any matrix $X \in \Z^{2 \times 2}$, with column vectors $x_1,x_2$ we finally define the ideal $$\left\langle z^X - 1 \right\rangle := \left\langle z^{x_1} -
1,z^{x_2} - 1 \right\rangle := \left\{ f_1 (z) \left( z^{x_1} - 1
\right) + f_2 (z) \left( z^{x_2} - 1
\right) \;:\; f_1, f_2 \in \Lambda \right\}$$ and its special case $\left\langle z - 1 \right\rangle :=
\left\langle z^I - 1 \right\rangle$. Then we have the following result from [@MoellerSauer04].
\[T:QuotId\] The mask $a_\eps$ satisfies (\[eq:ConSumRule0\]), the *sum rule of order $0$*, if and only if $$a^* \in \left\langle
z^{W_\eps} - 1 \right\rangle : \left\langle z - 1 \right\rangle.$$
To conveniently formulate an important consequence of this theorem, we introduce the vectors $$\left[ z^X - 1 \right] = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
z^{x_1} - 1 \\ z^{x_2} - 1
\end{array}
\right], \qquad X = \left[ x_1,x_2 \right] \in \ZZ^{2 \times 2}.$$ With this notation we have the following result.
\[C:QIdRep\] If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme converges, then there exist *matrix valued masks* $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$ such that $$\label{eq:QIdRep}
\left[ z-1 \right] \, a_{\eps}^* (z) = B_\eps^* (z) \, \left[
z^{W_\eps} - 1 \right], \qquad \eps \in \{0,1\}.$$
Any convergent subdivision must satisfy the sum rule of order $0$ for $a_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, and so, by Theorem \[T:QuotId\], it follows for $\eps \in \{0,1\}$ and $j=1,2$ that $$\left( z_j - 1 \right) \, a_\eps^* (z)
= b_{j1}^* (z) \, \left( z^{\left( W_\eps \right)_1} - 1 \right)
+ b_{j2}^* (z) \, \left( z^{\left( W_\eps \right)_2} - 1 \right).$$ Written in matrix form, this is what has been claimed.
The matrix masks $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, from (\[eq:QIdRep\]) are called *representation masks* of $a_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, respectively.
Recall that the computation of the representation masks $B_\eps$ can be performed by *reduction*, a multivariate generalization of division with remainder, see [@CoxLittleOShea92; @Sauer01] for the term order and homogeneous versions of this process, respectively. Therefore, the symbolic determination of $B_\eps$ can easily be done with the help of practically any Computer Algebra system that supports constructive polynomial ideal theory.
Note however, that the representation masks are *not* unique to the appearance of *syzygies* of $\left[ z^{W_\eps} - 1 \right]$, not even if an H–representation, cf. [@MoellerSauer00], is chosen where – in the case of $W_0$ – we have the “minimal degree” requirements that $$\deg b_{11} = \deg b_{21} = \deg a_0 - 3, \quad
\deg b_{12} = \deg b_{22} = \deg a_0 - 1,$$ see also [@Sauer02].
We continue by giving explicit bases of the quotient ideals for our specific choice of $W_\eps$. This is easy for $W_0$ as all entries in this matrix are nonnegative, and indeed it is not difficult to see that $$\begin{aligned}
I_0 & := & \left\langle z^{W_0} - 1
\right\rangle : \left\langle z-1 \right\rangle
= \left\langle z_1^4 - 1, z_2^2 - 1 \right\rangle :
\left\langle z-1 \right\rangle \\
& = & \left\langle \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_2 + 1
\right)\right\rangle + \left\langle z_1^4 - 1 \right\rangle
+ \left\langle z_2^2 - 1 \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, the graded homogeneous leading terms of the above ideal basis are $z_1^3 z_2$, $z_1^4$ and $z_2^2$ so that the quotient space is spanned exactly by the seven monomials $$1, z_1, z_2, z_1^2, z_1 z_2, z_1^3, z_1^2 z_2,$$ and their number coincides with the number of joint zeros of $I_0$. Hence, by the same reasoning as in [@MoellerSauer04; @Sauer02] they even form a graded Gröbner basis, hence an H–basis of the ideal $I_0$. Recall that a subset $H$ of an ideal $I$ is called an *H–basis*, if any polynomial $f \in I$ can be written in the form $$f = \sum_{h \in H} f_h \, h, \qquad \deg f \ge \deg f_h + \deg h,$$ where $\deg$ denotes, as usual, the *total degree* of a polynomial. We will also use $\Pi_n$ for the vector space of all polynomials of total degree at most $n$.
The situation for $I_1 = \left\langle z^{W_1} - 1 \right\rangle$ appears to be a little bit more intricate due to the appearance of a negative entry in $W_1$. Here it is helpful to recall that $W_1 = U
W_0$, $U =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -2 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$, to define $y = z^U = \left( z_1, z_1^{-2} z_2 \right)$, hence also $z = y^{U^{-1}} = \left( y_1, y_1^2 y_2 \right)$ and to realize that $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 & = & \left\langle z^{W_1} - 1 \right\rangle : \left\langle z - 1
\right\rangle
= \left\langle z^{U W_0} - 1 \right\rangle : \left\langle z - 1
\right\rangle
= \left\langle y^{W_0} - 1 \right\rangle : \left\langle y^{U^{-1}} - 1
\right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle y^{U^{-1}} - 1 \right\rangle
& = & \left\langle y_1 - 1, y_1^2 y_2 - 1 \right\rangle
= \left\langle y_1 - 1, y_1^2 y_2 - \left( y_1 y_2 + y_2\right)
\left( y_1 - 1 \right) - 1 \right\rangle \\
& = & \left\langle y_1 - 1, y_2 - 1 \right\rangle
= \left\langle y - 1 \right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ we thus obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 & = & \left\langle y^{W_0} - 1 \right\rangle : \left\langle y - 1
\right\rangle\\
& = & \left\langle \left( y_1^3 + y_1^2 + y_1 + 1 \right) \left( y_2 + 1
\right)\right\rangle + \left\langle y_1^4 - 1 \right\rangle
+ \left\langle y_2^2 - 1 \right\rangle \\
& = & \left\langle \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_2
+ z_1^2 \right)\right\rangle + \left\langle z_1^4 - 1 \right\rangle
+ \left\langle z_2^2 - z_1^4 \right\rangle
$$ To arrive at the somewhat surprising observation that in fact $I_1 =
I_0$, we add $z_1^4 - 1$ to the third basis element, $z_2^2 -
z_1^4$, yielding $z_2^2 - 1$ again, and subtract $\left( z_1 + 1
\right) \left( z_1^4 - 1 \right)$ from the first basis element which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_2 + z_1^2 \right)
- \left( z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_1^4 - 1 \right) } \\
& = & \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) z_2 +
z_1^5 + z_1^4 + z_1^3 + z_1^2 - z_1^5 - z_1^4 + z_1 + 1 \\
& = & \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_2 + 1
\right)\end{aligned}$$ and therefore to the following result.
\[T:QuotIdBasis\] The two quotient ideals $I_\eps = \left\langle z^{W_\eps} - 1
\right\rangle : \langle z-1 \rangle$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, coincide and have the H–basis representation $$\label{eq:QuotIdBasis}
I := I_0 = I_1
= \left\langle \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right) \left( z_2 + 1
\right)\right\rangle + \left\langle z_1^4 - 1 \right\rangle
+ \left\langle z_2^2 - 1 \right\rangle.$$
The fact that $I_0 = I_1$ may appear a little bit surprising at first view, since it implies that, for any finitely supported mask $a$, we have $$\sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} a \left( \alpha + W_0 \beta \right) = 1,
\quad \alpha \in \ZZ^2 \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad \sum_{\beta \in
\ZZ^2} a \left( \alpha + W_1 \beta \right) = 1, \quad \alpha \in
\ZZ^2.$$ Hence the necessary “sum rule” condition with respect to $W_0$ is equivalent to the one with respect to $W_1$. However, if we write $W_1 = W_0 V$ with the unimodular matrix $V =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$, then a simple change of the summation variable indeed gives for any $\alpha \in \ZZ^2$ $$\sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} a \left( \alpha + W_1 \beta \right) =
\sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} a \left( \alpha + W_0 V \beta \right)
= \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} a \left( \alpha + W_0 \beta \right),$$ and confirms (\[eq:QuotIdBasis\]).
Moreover, note that Theorem \[T:QuotIdBasis\] gives a way to *parameterize* the ideal of all admissible polynomial masks. Indeed, for any $n \in \NN$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
I \cap \Pi_d & = & p (z) \, \left( z_1^4-1 \right) + q (z) \,
\left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z + 1 \right) \left( z_2 + 1 \right)
+ r(z) \, \left( z_2^2 - 1 \right), \\
& & \qquad \mbox{with }\deg p \le n-4, \, \deg q \le n-4, \mbox{ and }\deg r \le n-2.\end{aligned}$$ For a polynomial of this form, the decomposition with respect to $W_0$, i.e., the matrix polynomial $B_0$, becomes $$\label{eq:B0Compute}
B_0^* (z) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\left( z_1 - 1 \right) \, p(z) + \left( z_2 + 1 \right) \, q(z)
& \left( z_1 - 1 \right) \, r(z) \\
\left( z_2 - 1 \right) \, p(z) & \left( z_1^3 + z_1^2 + z_1 + 1 \right)
\, q(z) + \left( z_2 - 1 \right) \, r(z).
\end{pmatrix}$$ Since the two Laurent ideals $I_0$ and $I_1$ coincide, the decomposition of $a_1^*$ into $B_1^*$ takes exactly the same form as $B_0^*$ in (\[eq:B0Compute\]).
Next, we rephrase the identity (\[eq:QIdRep\]) by means of the *backwards difference operator* $\nabla$, defined for a sequence $a$ as $$\nabla a :=
\begin{pmatrix}
a \left( \cdot - \eta_1 \right) - a (\cdot) \\ a \left( \cdot -
\eta_2 \right) - a (\cdot)
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\left( \nabla a \right)^* (z) = \left[ z - 1 \right] \, a^* (z),$$ where $\eta_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}
$ and $\eta_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
$ denote the unit multiindices in $\Z^2$. Since, in addition, any finitely supported matrix sequence $B$ satisfies $$\left( S_{B,W_\eps} c \right)^* (z) = B^* (z) \, c \left( z^{W_\eps}
\right), \quad c \in \nabla \ell_\infty(\ZZ^2), \; \eps \in \{0,1\},$$ where $$S_{B,W_\eps} c := \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} B \left( \cdot - W_\eps \, \alpha
\right) \, c \left( \alpha \right),$$ our quotient ideal representation (\[eq:QIdRep\]) can equivalently be written in terms of the difference operator as $$\nabla S_{a_\eps,W_\eps} = S_{B_\eps,W_\eps} \nabla, \qquad \eps \in \{0,1\}.$$
We end this section by recalling that quotient ideal containment also characterizes the order of *polynomial reproduction* provided by the two masks and thus the subdivision scheme. Recall that a mask $a$ provides polynomial reproduction of order $n$, if the leading forms of all polynomial sequences are reproduced by the scheme: $$S_a \Pi_k = \Pi_k, \quad k = 0,\dots,n, \qquad \Pi_k := \left\{
\sum_{|\gamma| \le k}
a_\gamma \, \alpha^\gamma \;:\; \alpha \in \ZZ^2 \right\}.$$ Polynomial reproduction is essential for the smoothness of the refinable limit function [@CavarettaDahmenMicchelli91] as well as for the approximation order of the associated wavelet construction. With the methods from [@MoellerSauer04; @Sauer02] we can now easily describe polynomial reproduction.
The directional subdivision scheme preserves polynomials of degree $n$, i.e., $S_\eps \Pi_k = \Pi_k$, $\eps \in E$, $k=0,\dots,n$, if and only if $$a_\eps \in I^{n+1} = \left( \left\langle z^{W_0} - 1 \right\rangle :
\left\langle z - 1 \right\rangle \right)^{n+1}
= \left\langle z^{W_0} - 1 \right\rangle^{n+1} : \left\langle z - 1
\right\rangle^{n+1}.$$
A Characterization of Convergence
---------------------------------
Finally, we will give a characterization of convergence of the adaptive directional subdivision scheme, like usually in terms of a (restricted joint) spectral radius. In this subsection, the adaptive directional subdivision scheme both for masks $a_0$ and $a_1$ as well as for their associated matrix sequences $B_0$ and $B_1$ will come into play. To distinguish both, for the first, we again employ the notation $S_\eps$, $\eps \in E$, whereas the second adaptive directional subdivision scheme will be denoted by $S^B_{\eps}$, $\eps \in E$. Now, given two matrix masks $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, their *restricted joint spectral radius* is defined as $$\rho \left( B_0, B_1 \,|\, \nabla \right)
= \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{\eps \in \{0,1\}^n} \sup_{c \in
\nabla \ell_\infty} \left\| S^B_{\eps} c \right\|_\infty^{1/n}.$$ The joint spectral radius is called “restricted” since the supremum is not taken over all $2$–vector valued sequences but only over the proper subset $\nabla \ell_\infty$, see [@CharinaContiSauer04; @Sauer06b]. The main result of this paragraph is now as follows.
\[T:Convergence\] The adaptive directional subdivision scheme based on the masks $a_\eps$, $\eps \in
\{0,1\}$ converges if and only if $a_\eps^* (z) \in I$ and the representation masks $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, satisfy $\rho \left( B_0, B_1 \,|\, \nabla \right) < 1$.
We will split the lengthy proof of Theorem \[T:Convergence\] into several partial results, beginning with the sufficiency of the spectral radius condition. To that end, we will show that, starting with a particular test function $g$, the sequence $g * S_{P_n \eps} c$ converges to a limit function for any choice of $\eps \in E_\infty$ and any $c \in \ell_\infty$. Indeed, we choose the test function $g$ to be $W_0$–refinable with respect to a mask $b$, that is $$\label{eq:choicetest}
g = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b(\alpha) \, g \left( W_0 \cdot - \alpha
\right).$$ Such functions can be easily shown to exist, even with an arbitrary order of smoothness: pick any cardinal B–spline $\phi = M \left(
\cdot \,|\, 0,\dots,N \right)$ with refinement mask $h$, then a double application of the refinement equation with respect to the first variable shows that the tensor product function $$g(x,y) = \left[ \left( \phi * \phi \right) \otimes \phi \right]
(x,y) = \left( \phi * \phi \right) (x) \, \phi(y) =: \psi(x) \,
\phi(y)$$ is $W_0$–refinable with respect to the mask $b = S_{h,2} h \otimes h$, where $S_{h,2}$ denotes the subdivision scheme with mask $h$ and dilation 2. The following lemma states a more general process.
\[lemma:maskgeneration1\] Let $b_1, b_2 \in \ell(\ZZ)$ be $2$-refinable masks, and let the mask $\tilde{b}_1$ be defined by $\tilde{b}_1(m) = S_{b_1,2} b_1(m)= \sum_{k \in \ZZ} b_1(k) b_1(m-2k)$. Then the mask $a_0=\tilde{b}_1 \otimes b_2$ is $W_0$-refinable, and $a_1 = a_0(U
\cdot)$ is $W_1$-refinable.
Let $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ be univariate functions which are $2$-refinable with respect to $b_1, b_2$, respectively, i.e., $$\varphi_i = \sum_{k \in \Z} b_i(k) \varphi(2 \cdot - k), \quad i=1, 2.$$ We claim that the function $f$ defined by $$f = \varphi_1 \otimes \varphi_2$$ is $W_0$-refinable with respect to $a_0$. Indeed, for $x = (x_1,x_2)
\in \RR^2$, we obtain [$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} (\tilde{b}_1 \otimes b_2)(\alpha) f(W_0 x - \alpha)}\\
& = & \left[\sum_{\alpha_1 \in \Z} \left(\sum_{k \in \ZZ}
b_1(\alpha_1-2k)b_1(k)\right)
\varphi_1(4 x_1 - \alpha_1)\right] \left[\sum_{\alpha_2 \in \Z} b_2(\alpha_2) \varphi_2(2 x_2 - \alpha_2)\right]\\
& = & \left[\sum_{k \in \Z} b_1(k) \sum_{\alpha_1 \in \ZZ}
b_1(\alpha_1)
\varphi_1(4 x_1 - 2 k -\alpha_1)\right] \varphi_2(x_2)\\
& = & \left[\sum_{k \in \Z} b_1(k) \varphi_1(2 x_1 - k)\right] \varphi_2(x_2)\\
& = & f(x).\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The claim concerning $W_1$-refinability of $a_1$ follows from Lemma \[lemma:relationrefinability\].
There also exists a canonical $W_1$–refinable function associated to $g$.
\[lemma:relationrefinability\] If $g_0 = g$ is $W_0$–refinable with respect to the mask $b_0 = b$, then $g_1 = g_0 \left( U \cdot \right)$ is $W_1$–refinable with respect to the mask $b_1 = b_0 \left( U \cdot \right)$.
Setting $g_1 = g_0 \left( U \cdot \right)$ and thus $g_0 = g_1 \left(
U^{-1} \cdot \right)$, we find for $x \in \R^2$ that $$\begin{aligned}
g_1 (x) & = & g_0 (Ux)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b_0 (\alpha) \, g_0 \left( W_0 U x - \alpha
\right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b_0 (\alpha) \, g_0 \left( W_0 V^2 x - \alpha
\right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b_0 (\alpha) \, g_1 \left( U^{-1} W_1 V x -
U^{-1} \alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b_0 \left( U \alpha \right) \,
g_1 \left( W_1 x - \alpha \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} b_1 (\alpha) \, g_1 \left( W_1 x - \alpha
\right),
\end{aligned}$$ hence $g_1$ is $W_1$–refinable with respect to $b_1$.
The next two observation are again of a more algebraic nature.
\[L:NullFactMask\] Suppose that a mask $a$ satisfies $S_{a,W_\eps} c = 0$ for all *constant* sequences $c$ and some $\eps \in \{0,1\}$. Then there exists a $1 \times 2$ matrix mask $B$ such that $S_{a,W_\eps} = S_{B,W_\eps} \nabla$.
Again we refer to [@MoellerSauer04; @Sauer02] where it has been shown that $S_{a,W_\eps} c = 0$ for all constant sequences $c$ if and only if $a^* (z) \in \left\langle z^{W_\eps} - 1 \right\rangle$ which is in turn equivalent to the existence of a representation $$a^* (z) = b_1^* (z) \left( z^{\left( W_\eps \right)_1} - 1 \right)
+ b_2^* (z) \left( z^{\left( W_\eps \right)_2} - 1 \right)
= B^* (z) \, \left[ z^{W_\eps} - 1 \right],$$ which is nothing but $S_{a,W_\eps} = S_{B,W_\eps} \nabla$.
\[L:NullFactFunc\] Suppose that a compactly supported function $f$ satisfies $f * c = 0$ for all constant sequences, then there exists a compactly supported, continuous $1 \times 2$ matrix function $G$ such that $f * c = G * \nabla c$ for all $c \in \ell_\infty \left( \Z^2 \right)$.
For any $x \in [0,1]^2$ we consider the sequence $f_x = \left( f(x+\alpha)
\;:\; \alpha \in \Z^2 \right)$. Since $f$ is compactly supported, any such sequence $f_x$, $x \in [0,1]^2$ has finite support and since $f$ is continuous, the map $x \mapsto f_x$ is a continuous one.
By assumption, $f_x * c = 0$ for any $x$ and any constant sequence $c$, hence, with the scaling matrix $I$, the same methods as above yield that $f_x^* \in \left\langle z^I - 1 \right\rangle = \left\langle z - 1
\right\rangle$. Consequently, we have that $$f_x^* (z) = g_{x,1}^* (z) \, \left( z_1 - 1 \right) + g_{x,2}^* (z) \,
\left( z_2 - 1 \right)
= G_x^* (z) \, \left[ z - 1 \right]$$ where, like $f_x$ and $f_x^* (z)$, also $G_x^* (z)$ depend continuously on $x$ as they can be obtained by applying the orthogonal reduction process from [@Sauer01]. Therefore, the function $G$, defined as $$G (x + \alpha) = G_x (\alpha), \qquad x \in [0,1]^2, \quad \alpha \in \Z^2$$ has the properties claimed in the statement of the lemma.
Now we are in position to prove the sufficiency of the spectral radius condition which we state as a separate proposition.
\[P:Convergence<=\] The adaptive directional subdivision scheme based on the masks $a_\eps$, $\eps \in
\{0,1\}$ converges, if $a_\eps^* (z) \in I$ and the representation masks $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, satisfy $\rho \left( B_0, B_1 \,|\, \nabla \right) < 1$.
For any $\theta \in \left( 0,1-\rho \right)$, there exists, by standard properties of the (joint) spectral radius, a constant $C > 0$ such that $$\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \nabla c \right\|_\infty \le
C \left( \rho + \theta \right)^n = C \sigma^n,
\qquad n \in \N, \quad \eps \in
E_\infty, \quad c \in \ell_\infty \left( \ZZ^2 \right),$$ where $0 < \sigma := \rho + \theta < 1$.
Now, let $\eps \in E_\infty$ be given and suppose first that $\eps_n = 0$. Then, by the refinability of the test function $g$ from and Lemma \[L:NullFactMask\] which ensures the existence of a finitely supported matrix mask $F$ such that $S_0 - S_{b,W_0} = S_{F,W_0} \nabla$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\| g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) -
g * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty } \\
& = & \hspace*{-0.2cm} \left\| g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot
\right) - g * S_{b,W_0} S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n} \eps}
\cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& = & \left\| g * \left( S_0 - S_{b,W_0} \right) S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c
\right\|_\infty \\
& \le & \hspace*{-0.2cm} B_g \, \left\| \left( S_0 - S_{b,W_0} \right)
S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \right\|_\infty
= B_g \, \left\| S_{F,W_0} \nabla S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \right\|_\infty \\
& = & B_g \, \left\| S_{F,W_0} S_{P_{n-1} \eps}^B \nabla c \right\|_\infty
\le B_g \, \left\| S_{F,W_0} \right\| \, C \, \sigma^{n-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ If on the other hand $\eps_n = 1$, by using the function $g_1 = g(U\,\cdot)$ (cf. Lemma \[lemma:relationrefinability\]) we pass to the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\| g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) -
g * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty } \\
& \le & \left\| \left( g - g_1 \right) * S_{P_n \eps} c
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| \left( g - g_1 \right) * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c
\left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& & \qquad + \left\| g_1 * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps}
\cdot \right)
- g_1 * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps}
\cdot \right) \right\|_\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ For the first two terms we now make use of Lemma \[L:NullFactFunc\] to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\| \left( g - g_1 \right) * S_{P_n \eps} c
\left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty } \\
& = & \left\| \left( g - g_1 \right) * S_{P_n \eps} c \right\|_\infty
= \left\| G * \nabla S_{P_n \eps} c \right\|_\infty
= \left\| G * S_{P_n \eps}^B \nabla c \right\|_\infty
\le B_G \, C \, \sigma^n
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left\| \left( g - g_1 \right) * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c
\left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \le B_G \, C \,
\sigma^{n-1},$$ respectively, while the third term can now be estimated as above again. In summary, we obtain that there exists a constant $D > 0$ such that $$\left\| g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right) -
g * S_{P_{n-1} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n-1} \eps} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty \le D \, \sigma^{n-1}$$ so that for $m \in \N$ $$\left\| g * S_{P_{n+m} \eps} c \left( W_{P_{n+m} \eps} \cdot
\right) - g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n \eps} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty \le D \, \frac{\sigma^n}{1-\sigma}.$$ In other words, the sequence $g * S_{P_n \eps} c \left( W_{P_n
\eps} \cdot \right)$ is a Cauchy sequence of continuous functions and thus must converge to a limit function for $n \to \infty$. Convergence of the subdivision scheme then follows by standard means.
The proof of the converse statement of Proposition \[P:Convergence<=\] is based on the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \, \nabla \delta \right\|_\infty & = &
\left\| \nabla S_{P_n \eps} \, \delta \right\|_\infty = \left\|
\begin{pmatrix}
S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot - \eta_1 \right) -
S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot \right) \\
S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot - \eta_2 \right) -
S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot \right)
\end{pmatrix}
\right\|_\infty \\
& = & \max_{j=1,2} \left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta
\left( \cdot - \eta_j
\right) - S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& \le & \max_{j=1,2} \left(
\left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta \left( \cdot - \eta_j \right)
- \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f \left( \cdot - \eta_j \right)
\right\|_\infty \hspace*{-0.2cm}
+ \left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta - \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f
\right\|_\infty \right. \\
& & \qquad \left.
+ \left\| \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f \left( \cdot - \eta_j
\right)
- \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f \left( \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty
\right),\end{aligned}$$ hence, $$\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \, \nabla \delta \right\|_\infty \le \max_{j=1,2} \left(
2 \left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta - \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f
\right\|_\infty
+ \left\| \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f \left( \cdot - \eta_j
\right)
- \sigma_{W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}} f \left( \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty
\right).$$ If we assume that the subdivision scheme converges with uniformly continuous limit function, then the right hand side converges to zero, hence also $\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \, \nabla c \right\|_\infty \to 0$ for $n \to \infty$ and any $c \in \ell_\infty \left( \ZZ^2 \right)$. This, however, is not sufficient for our purposes. To show that the restricted spectral radius of $\rho \left( B_0,B_1 \,|\, \nabla
\right)$ is less than one, we have to show that $$\label{eq:S_BEstToShow}
\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \, \nabla c \right\|_\infty \le C \,
\theta_n \, \left\|
\nabla c \right\|_\infty, \qquad \lim_{n \to \infty} \theta_n = 0,$$ which will be prepared in the next lemmas. Here we follow the outline of a proof from [@CavarettaDahmenMicchelli91] and show that there exists a constant $C > 0$ such that $$\left\| \nabla S_{P_n \eps} c \right\|_\infty \le C \, \theta_n \,
\left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty, \qquad \lim_{n \to \infty} \theta_n = 0,$$ from which (\[eq:S\_BEstToShow\]) follows immediately. We begin with an estimate on the limit function $f_\eps$.
\[L:Conv=>SR1\] If $a_0$ and $a_1$ define a convergent subdivision scheme, then there exists a constant $C_1 > 0$ such that for any $\eps \in E_\infty$ and any $c \in \ell_\infty \left( \ZZ^2 \right)$ $$\left| f_\eps * c (x) - f_\eps * c (y) \right| \le
C_1 \, \omega \left( f_\eps, \delta \right) \,
\left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty, \qquad
\left\| x - y \right\| \le \delta < 1.$$
Since, according to Lemma \[lemma:subdivisionconvergent\], convergence implies the preservation of constant sequences by the subdivision scheme, we also have that $$1 = f_\eps * 1 = \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} f_\eps (\cdot - \alpha)$$ and thus, for any $c \in \ell_\infty$, any $w \in \R$ and any $x,y \in \R^2$ with $\left\| x - y \right\| \le \delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left| f_\eps * c (x) - f_\eps * c (y) \right|
& = & \left| \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \left( f_\eps (x-\alpha) -
f_\eps (y-\alpha) \right) \left( c(\alpha) - w \right) \right| \\
& \le & \# \Omega_{x,y} \,\cdot\, \omega \left( f_\eps, \delta \right) \,\cdot\,
\max_{\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}} \left| c(\alpha) - w \right|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Omega_{x,y} = \left\{ \alpha \in \Z^2 \;:\; f_\eps (x-\alpha) \neq 0
\right\} \cup \left\{ \alpha \in \Z^2 \;:\; f_\eps (y-\alpha) \neq 0
\right\}.$$ Since $f_\eps$ is finitely supported, we have that $\# \Omega_{x,y}
< \infty$. Specifically, if we assume that $f_\eps$ is supported on $[-N,N]^2$, then $\# \Omega_{x,y} \le \left( 2N+2 \right)^2$ as long as $\delta < 1$. Choosing $$w = \frac12 \left( \max_{\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}} c(\alpha) +
\min_{\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}} c(\alpha) \right),$$ it follows for any $\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}$ that $$\left| c(\alpha) - w \right| \le
\frac12 \left| \max_{\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}} c(\alpha) +
\min_{\alpha \in \Omega_{x,y}} c(\alpha) \right|
\le \frac12 \, \# \Omega_{x,y} \left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty,$$ hence, $$\left| f_\eps * c \, (x) - f_\eps * c \, (y) \right| \le
\frac12 \left( 2N+2 \right)^4 \, \omega \left( f_\eps, \delta \right) \,
\left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty$$ as claimed.
The next result concerns the difference between the subdivision scheme and the limit function.
\[L:Conv=>SR2\] If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme based on the masks $a_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, then there exists a constant $C_2 > 0$ such that, for any $n \in \N$, we have $$\left\| S_{P_n \eps} c - f_\eps * c \left(
W_{P_n \eps}^{-1}
\cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \le C_2 \,
\left\| S_{P_n \eps}
\delta - f_\eps \left( W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty \, \left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty.$$
We fix $n$, set, for abbreviation, $\widehat \eps = P_n \eps$, and assume again that $f_\eps$ as well as $a_0$ and $a_1$ are supported on $[-N,N]^2$. Again, we make use of the fact that $S_{\widehat
\eps}$ and $f_\eps$ preserve constant data and obtain, for any $\alpha \in \Z^2$ and $w \in \R$, that $$S_{\widehat \eps} c (\alpha) - f_\eps * c \left(
W_{\widehat \eps}^{-1} \alpha \right)
= \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} \left( a_{\widehat \eps}
\left( \alpha - W_{\widehat \eps} \beta \right) - f_\eps
\left( W_{\widehat \eps}^{-1} \alpha - \beta \right) \right)
\left( c(\beta) - w \right).$$ Since $$\Omega_{\alpha,\widehat \eps} = \left\{ \alpha \in \Z^2 \;:\;
a_{\widehat \eps} \left( \alpha - W_{\widehat \eps} \beta \right)
\neq 0 \right\} \cup \left\{ \alpha \in \Z^2 \;:\;
f_\eps \left( W_{\widehat \eps}^{-1} \alpha - \beta \right)
\neq 0 \right\}$$ again satisfies $\# \Omega_{\alpha,\widehat \eps} \le \left( 2N+2
\right)^2$, the same judicious choice of $w$ as above leads to the estimate $$\left| S_{\widehat \eps} c (\alpha) - f_\eps * c \left(
W_{\widehat \eps}^{-1} \alpha \right) \right|
\le \left( 2N+2 \right)^4 \, \sup_{\alpha \in \Z^2} \left|
a_{\widehat \eps} \left( \alpha \right) - f_\eps
\left( W_{\widehat \eps}^{-1} \alpha \right) \right| \,
\left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty,$$ from which the claim follows immediately.
Now it is easy to complete the proof of the converse statement for convergence which we formulate in the following way.
If the adaptive directional subdivision scheme based on the masks $a_\eps$, $\eps \in
\{0,1\}$ converges then $a_\eps^* (z) \in I$ and the representation masks $B_\eps$, $\eps \in \{0,1\}$, satisfy $\rho \left( B_0, B_1 \,|\, \nabla \right) < 1$.
In Lemma \[lemma:subdivisionconvergent\], it has already been shown that convergence implies $a_\eps^* (z) \in I$. Moreover, Lemma \[L:Conv=>SR1\] and Lemma \[L:Conv=>SR2\] allow us to conclude with $C = \max \{C_1,C_2\}$ that, for any $c \in \ell_\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| S^B_{P_n \eps} \nabla c \right\|_\infty & = &
\left\| \nabla S_{P_n \eps} c \right\|_\infty\\
& \le & \left\| \nabla \left( S_{P_n} c - f_\eps * c \left(
W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \cdot \right) \right) \right\|_\infty +
\left\| \nabla f_\eps * c \left(
W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \cdot \right) \right\|_\infty \\
& \le & 2 C \left( \left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta - f_\eps
\left( W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty + \omega \left( f_\eps,
\left\| W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \right\| \right) \right)
\left\| \nabla c \right\|_\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ and since $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \left\| S_{P_n \eps} \delta - f_\eps
\left( W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \cdot \right)
\right\|_\infty + \omega \left( f_\eps,
\left\| W_{P_n \eps}^{-1} \right\| \right) = 0$$ by convergence of the adaptive directional subdivision scheme and uniform continuity of the limit function, our prove is complete.
Numerical Experiments {#sec:numerics}
=====================
In this section we present some numerical experiments which illustrate the ability of the developed class of subdivision schemes to adaptively change the orientation of the data.
First, we recall that there exist a general way to construct masks, which are refinable with respect to the dilation matrices $W_0$ and $W_1$, compare Lemma \[lemma:maskgeneration1\]. Now let the mask $b \in \ell(\ZZ)$ be chosen by $b(-3) =
-\frac{1}{16} = b(3)$, $b(-1)= \frac{9}{16} = b(1)$, $b(0)=1$ and $b(m) = 0$ otherwise, which coincides with the mask studied by Deslauriers and Dubuc [@DD89]. We remark that this mask yields a 2-interpolatory subdivision scheme (compare also Section \[sec:shearletMRA\]). By Lemma \[lemma:maskgeneration1\], we know that $a_0 =
\tilde{b} \otimes b$ is $W_0$-refinable, and $a_1 = a_0(U \cdot)$ is $W_1$-refinable.
In Figure \[fig:line\] we illustrate the refinement of the matrix $$\label{eq:C1}
C_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$
(300,250)(0,0) (-5,140)[![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line1.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line1.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,130)[(a)]{} (160,140) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line2.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line2.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,130)[(b)]{} (-5,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line3.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line3.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,0)[(c)]{} (160,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line4.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_1$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:line"}](line4.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,0)[(d)]{}
and in Figure \[fig:cross\] we subdivide the data given by $$\label{eq:C2}
C_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & \frac12 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac12 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac12 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac12 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In both figures we employ different iterations of the subdivision schemes $S_0$ and $S_1$. As can clearly be seen, the application of $S_1$ increases the angle the resulting images is sheared in the $x$-direction, where the angle depends on the particular path in the binary tree (see Figure \[fig:binary\]) we choose.
(300,250)(0,0) (-5,140)[![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross1.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross1.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,130)[(a)]{} (160,140) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross2.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross2.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,130)[(b)]{} (-5,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross3.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross3.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,0)[(c)]{} (160,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross4.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of the matrix $C_2$ defined in after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps =
(0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps = (0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps = (0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:cross"}](cross4.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,0)[(d)]{}
Shearlet Multiresolution Analysis {#sec:shearletMRA}
=================================
In this section we will show how the adaptive directional subdivision schemes developed in the previous sections can be applied to derive a shearlet multiresolution analysis. For the sake of simplicity, in the computation of “dual functions” we will restrict ourselves to interpolatory subdivision schemes in this paper. Our idea is inspired by similar ideas for the construction of a fast wavelet decomposition from interpolatory subdivision schemes [@Don92]. The construction of a shearlet multiresolution analysis associated with general adaptive directional subdivision schemes is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be studied in a forthcoming paper.
Before constructing the scaling spaces we first need to discuss whether there exist masks $a_0$ and $a_1$ such that the subdivision schemes $S_0$ and $S_1$ are both interpolatory, respectively, which immediately implies that $S_\eps$ is interpolatory for each $\eps
\in E_\infty$. To that end, we proceed by using a tensor product approach. Recall that a mask $a_0$ leads to an interpolatory subdivision scheme $S_0$ provided that $$\label{eq:interpolatory0}
a_0(W_0\alpha) = \delta_{\alpha,0}\quad \mbox{for all }\alpha \in
\ZZ^2,$$ likewise does a mask $a_1$ lead to an interpolatory subdivision scheme $S_1$ provided that $$\label{eq:interpolatory1}
a_1(W_1\alpha) = \delta_{\alpha,0}\quad \mbox{for all }\alpha \in
\ZZ^2.$$ There exists a canonical way to define $a_1$ by means of the matrix $U$ as indicated by the following lemma (compare also Lemma \[lemma:maskgeneration1\]).
\[lemma:maskgeneration\] Let $b_1, b_2 \in \ell(\ZZ)$ be masks which satisfy $b_i(2m)=\delta_{m,0}$ for all $m \in \ZZ$, $i=1,2$ and let the mask $\tilde{b}_1$ be defined by $\tilde{b}_1(m) =
S_{b_1,2}b_1 (m)= \sum_{k \in \ZZ} b_1(k) b_1(m-2k)$. Then the mask $\tilde{b}_1
\otimes b_2$ satisfies , and the mask $(\tilde{b}_1 \otimes b_2)(U \, \cdot)$ satisfies .
Given some $\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2) \in \ZZ^2$, we obtain $$(\tilde{b}_1 \otimes b_2)(W_0 \alpha)
= \sum_{k \in \ZZ} b_1(k) b_1(4\alpha_1-2k) \cdot \delta_{2\alpha_2,0}
= \sum_{k \in \ZZ} b_1(k) \delta_{2\alpha_1-k,0} \cdot \delta_{\alpha_2,0}
= \delta_{\alpha,0}.$$ A similar computation shows $(\tilde{b} \otimes b)(U W_1 \alpha) = \delta_{\alpha,0}$.
Suppose we have chosen masks $a_0$ and $a_1$ so that the subdivision scheme $S_\eps$ is interpolatory and converges for each $\eps \in E_\infty$. To define the scaling functions, recall that we wrote $ \eps^* = \left( \eps,0,0\dots \right) $ for the canonical embedding of $E$ into $E_\infty$; the image of this embedding operation, $$E^* = \left\{ \eps^* \;:\; \eps \in E \right\} \subset E_\infty$$ thus consists of all infinite $0$-$1$–sequences which contain only a finite number of nonzero components. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that the subdivision scheme $S_\epsilon$ converges for all $\eps \in E^*$ if and only if $a_0$ defines a convergent subdivision scheme and hence the functions $$\left\{ f_\eps \;:\; \eps \in E^* \right\} = \left\{ f_{\eps^*}
\;:\; \eps \in
E \right\}$$ which will be needed to build the MRA can be ensured to exist by requiring the existence of an appropriate solution of the refinement equation associated to $a_0$. This is a much weaker condition, of course, than convergence of the $S_\eps$ for any $\eps \in
E_\infty$.
The *shearlet scaling spaces* are defined as $$V_0 = \span \left\{ f_{\eps^*} \left(
\cdot - \alpha \right) \;:\; \alpha \in \Z^2, \, \eps \in E \right\}$$ and $$V_n = \sum_{\eps \in \{0,1\}^n} V_\eps, \; n \ge 1,$$ where $$V_\eps = \span \left\{ f \left( W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right)
\;:\; \alpha \in \Z^2, \, f \in V_0 \right\} \quad \mbox{for all } \eps \in E.$$
Indeed this choice of scaling spaces provides a multiresolution analysis, which is the focus of the following theorem. The main ingredient in the proof is – as it should be – the refinement equation .
\[T:ShearletMRA\] The spaces $(V_n)_{n \ge 0}$ create a multiresolution analysis. In particular,
1. the spaces $V_n$, $n \ge 0$ are translation invariant,
2. $V_n \subseteq V_{n+1}$ for all $n \ge 0$, and
3. for each $n \in \NN$, we have $f \in V_n \Leftrightarrow f(W_\eps \, \cdot) \in V_{n+1}$ for each $\eps \in \{0,1\}$.
Statement (i) follows immediately from the definition of $V_n$, which is a translational completion.
To verify the nestedness property (ii), we consider an arbitrary “basis element” $f \in V_n$ of the form $$\label{eq:basiselement}
f = f_{\eta^*} \left( W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right), \qquad \eps
\in E_n, \quad \eta = \left( \eta_1,\widehat \eta \right) \in E, \quad \alpha \in \ZZ^2,$$ and make use of the refinement equation (\[eq:RefEq\]) to verify that $$f = \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} a_{\eta_1} (\beta) \, f_{{\widehat \eta}^*}
\left( W_{\eta_1} (W_\eps \cdot - \alpha) - \beta \right)
= \sum_{\beta \in \Z^2} a_{\eta_1} (\beta - W_{\eta_1} \alpha) \, f_{{\widehat \eta}^*}
\left( W_{\eps'} \cdot - \beta \right),$$ with $\eps' = \left( \eps,\eta_1 \right) \in E_{n+1}$, hence $f \in V_{\eps'} \subseteq V_{n+1}$.
To verify (iii) we again consider a function element $f \in V_n$ of the form . One implication follows from $$f \left( W_\tau \, \cdot \, \right)
= f_{\eta^*} \left( W_{(\tau,\eps)}\,\cdot - \alpha \right), \qquad
\tau \in \{0,1\},$$ the other one can be deduced in a similar way by considering $f \in V_{n+1}$ and showing that this yields $f \left( W_\tau^{-1} \cdot \,
\right) \in V_n$ for any $\tau \in \{0,1\}$.
Notice that for each fixed $\eps \in E$, the set of functions $f_{\eps^*} \left(\cdot - \alpha \right)$, $\alpha \in \Z^2$, can be interpreted as being derived from $\delta_\alpha$ by refining with the subdivision scheme $S_{\eps}$. Since $S_{\eps}$ is interpolatory, this set of functions is linearly independent.
Some of the scaling functions which generate $V_0$ are plotted in Figure \[fig:delta\]. The different orientations due to the application of the adaptive directional subdivision scheme to the Dirac delta $\delta_0$ is evident. This fact forces the associated shearlet spaces to also comprise directionality, hence to react to directional behavior of the data.
(300,250)(0,0) (-5,140)[ ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta1.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta1.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,130)[(a)]{} (160,140) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta2.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta2.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,130)[(b)]{} (-5,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta3.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta3.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (60,0)[(c)]{} (160,10) [ ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta4.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![This figure shows the refinement of $\delta_0$ after applying $S_\eps$ with (a) $\eps = (0,0,0,0,0)$, (b) $\eps =
(0,0,0,1,0)$, (c) $\eps = (0,1,0,0,0)$, and (d) $\eps =
(0,1,1,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta4.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ]{} (225,0)[(d)]{}
Fast Shearlet Decomposition {#sec:FSD}
===========================
Let $\cP_n$, $n \in \NN_0$, denote a sequence of projections from $V_{n+1}$ to $V_n$, respectively, and define the *shearlet spaces* as $H_n = \left( \cP_n - I \right) V_{n+1}$, $n \in \NN_0$, hence as an appropriate complement of $V_n$ in $V_{n+1}$. In classical MRA, $\cP$ is chosen as an orthogonal projection, but following the approach from [@Faber09], we can also use interpolation as a projection, provided that the subdivision schemes were interpolatory.
Refinable Functions
-------------------
In order to establish the shearlet decomposition, we require the following two observations.
\[lem:help1\] For all $\eps \in E$ and $c \in \ell(\ZZ^2)$, we have $$\sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_\eps^{-1} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_0^{-n} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( U_\eps \left( W_0^n \cdot
- \alpha \right) \right).$$
Since all the matrices $U_\eps$, $\eps \in E$, are unimodular, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_\eps^{-1} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right)
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_0^{-n} U_\eps^{-1} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( W_\eps \cdot - \alpha \right)\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_0^{-n} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( U_\eps \left( U_\eps^{-1} W_\eps \cdot
- \alpha \right) \right)\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \Z^2} c\left( W_0^{-n} \alpha
\right) \, f_0 \left( U_\eps \left( W_0^n \cdot
- \alpha \right) \right).\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
To formulate the next result, we denote by $r : E \to E$ the *reversal* operator for sequences, which maps $\eps =
\left( \eps_1,\dots,\eps_n \right)$ to $r(\eps) := r\left(
\eps_1,\dots,\eps_n \right) := \left( \eps_n,\dots,\eps_1 \right)$. Moreover, we will write $0_k = P_k 0^*$ for the zero sequence in $E_k$, $k \in \NN$. We can now derive the following crucial relationship between refinable functions and subdivision.
\[lem:help2\] For $0 \le k \le n$, $\eps = (\eta,\tau) \in E$, $\eta \in E_k$ and $c \in \ell(\ZZ^2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_\eta c(\alpha) f_{\widehat{\tau}^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)}
W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality we can assume that $\tau = (0)$. Then, for $\eps = \left( \eps_1,\widehat \eps \right)$, the refinement equation gives [ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right) } \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2}
a_{\eps_1} \left( \beta \right)
f_{\widehat{\eps^*}} \left( W_{\eps_1} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha
\right) - \beta \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha,\beta \in \ZZ^2} a_{\eps_1} \left( \beta - W_{\eps_1}
\alpha \right) \, c(\alpha) \,
f_{\widehat{\eps^*}} \left( W_{r \left(\eps_1,0_{n-k} \right)}
\cdot - \beta \right)
\\
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} \left( S_{\eps_1} c \right)
\left( \beta \right)
\, f_{\widehat{\eps^*}} \left( W_{r \left(\eps_1,0_{n-k} \right)}
\cdot - \beta \right) \\
\end{aligned}$$]{} This is the initial step for the inductive proof that for $j \le k$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemhelp2pf1}
\lefteqn{\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)}\\ \nonumber
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} S_{\left( \eps_1,\dots,
\eps_j \right)} c
\left( \beta \right)
\, f_{\left( \eps_{j+1},\dots,\eps_k \right)^*}
\left( W_{r \left(\eps_1,\dots,\eps_j,0_{n-k}\right)} \cdot - \beta
\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, applying the refinement equation once more to , we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right) } \\
& = & \hspace*{-0.3cm} \sum_{\alpha, \beta \in \ZZ^2} S_{\left( \eps_1,\dots,
\eps_j \right)} c ( \beta )
a_{\eps_{j+1}} (\alpha)
\, f_{\left( \eps_{j+2},\dots,\eps_k \right)^*}
\left( W_{\eps_{j+1}} \left( W_{r \left(\eps_1,\dots,\eps_j,0_{n-k}
\right)} \cdot - \beta \right) - \alpha \right) \\
& = & \hspace*{-0.3cm} \sum_{\alpha, \beta \in \ZZ^2} a_{\eps_{j+1}}
\left( \alpha - W_{\eps_{j+1}} \beta \right) \, S_{\left( \eps_1,\dots,
\eps_j \right)} c \left( \beta \right) \, f_{\left( \eps_{j+2},\dots,
\eps_k \right)^*} \, \left( W_{r \left(\eps_1,\dots,\eps_{j+1},0_{n-k}
\right)} \cdot - \alpha \right)
\end{aligned}$$ which advances the induction hypothesis in . Specifically, for $j = k$ this identity gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} S_\eps c (\beta) \, f_0 \left(
W_{r \left(\eps,0_{n-k} \right)} \cdot - \beta \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} S_\eps c (\beta) \, f_0 \left( U_{r \left(
\eps,0_{n-k} \right)}
W_0^n \cdot - \beta \right)\\
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} S_\eps c \left( U_{r \left( \eps,0_{n-k} \right)}
\beta \right) \, f_0 \left( U_{r \left( \eps, 0_{n-k} \right)}
\left( W_0^n \cdot - \beta \right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since for any $\eta \in E_k$ $$\begin{aligned}
-2^{n+1} \left[ r \left( \eta,0_{n-k} \right) \right]_2
& = & -2^{n+1} \, 2^{-n+k} \sum_{j=1}^k \eta_{k-j} 2^{-j}\\
& = & -2^{k+1} \sum_{j=1}^k r(\eta)_j 2^{-j}\\
& = & -2^{k+1} \left[ r(\eta) \right]_2,
\end{aligned}$$ we finally get the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)
& = & \sum_{\beta \in \ZZ^2} S_\eps c \left( U_{r \left( \eps \right)}
\beta \right) \, f_0 \left( U_{r \left( \eps \right)}
\left( W_0^n \cdot - \beta \right) \right)\\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_\eps c(\alpha) f_0 \left( W_{r(\eps)}
W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right),
\end{aligned}$$ which proves the claim.
Now suppose we are given some data from a finely sampled function on the grid $W_0^{-n} \ZZ = 4^{-n} \ZZ \times 2^{-n} \ZZ$, say. The key idea for the decomposition of this data, dependent on different directions, is stated in the following result which is the backbone of the MRA based fast discrete shearlet decomposition. We would like to mention that it relies on the fact that the masks $a_0$ and $a_1$ are chosen to be interpolatory and thus give us an explicit expression for $\cP_n - I$.
The wavelet part of such a decomposition is, as usual, related to the representatives of the quotient groups $\Gamma_\eps := \ZZ^2 /
W_{r(\eps)} \ZZ^2$, $\eps \in E$. Since for $\eps \in E_n$ we have $\det W_0 = \det W_1 = 8^n$, all such quotient groups consist of a number of elements that depends only on the length of $\eps$; we will denote by $\Gamma_\eps^*$ a selection of $8^n-1$ representatives for $\Gamma_\eps \setminus \{ [0] \}$. In the sequel, we will make use of the notation $D_M c = c(M\cdot)$, $M$ being some 2$\times$2-matrix.
\[theo:decomposition\] For $c \in \ell(\ZZ^2)$, $\eps = \left( \eta,\tau \right) \in E$, $\eta \in
E_k$ and $n \ge k$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lefteqn{ \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c( \alpha ) \,
f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha \right) \, f_{\eps^*}
\left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right) } \\
\label{eq:DecompForm}
& & + \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eta}^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2}
\left( c - S_\eta D_{W_{r(\eta)}} c \right) \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha +
\gamma \right) \, f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right) - \gamma \right).\end{aligned}$$
The decomposition is based on the prediction–correction method which has become standard for interpolation based wavelet decomposition, in particular in connection with the so–called “lazy wavelet” and the associated “lifting schemes” [@Swe96].
We subsample the data $c \in \ell \left( \ZZ^2 \right)$ to obtain $c' = D_{W_{r(\eta)}}c$ and make use of Lemma \[lem:help2\] to obtain that $$\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c' (\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
\alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_{\eta} c' (\alpha) \, f_{\widehat \tau^*}
\left( W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right).$$ This identity is then decomposed with respect to $\Gamma_{\eta}$ giving the *prediction* $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c' (\alpha) \, f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-k}
\cdot - \alpha \right) } \\
& = & \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eta}} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_{\eta}
c' \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha + \gamma \right) \, f_{\tau^*} \left(
W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot - W_{r(\eta)} \alpha - \gamma \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_{\eta} c' \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha
\right) \, f_{\widehat \tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot -
W_{r(\eta)} \alpha \right) \\
& & + \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eta}^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_{\eta}
c' \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha + \gamma \right) \, f_{\tau^*} \left(
W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot - W_{r(\eta)} \alpha - \gamma \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c \left( \alpha \right) \, f_{\tau^*} \left(
W_{r(\eta)} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right) \right) \\
& & + \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eta}^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} S_{\eta}
c' \left( W_{r(\eta)} \alpha + \gamma \right) \, f_{\tau^*} \left(
W_{r(\eta)} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right) - \gamma \right)
\end{aligned}$$ since the subdivision schemes were supposed to be interpolatory. Comparing this with the decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)}
W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right) \hspace*{-0.05cm}
& \hspace*{-0.4cm} = \hspace*{-0.4cm}& \hspace*{-0.05cm}\sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\eta} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha)
\, f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} W_0^{n-k} \cdot - W_{r(\eta)} \alpha
- \gamma \right)\\
\hspace*{-0.05cm}& \hspace*{-0.4cm}= \hspace*{-0.4cm}& \hspace*{-0.05cm}\sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha)
\, f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right)
\right)\\
&& + \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\eta^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha)
\, f_{\tau^*} \left( W_{r(\eta)} \left( W_0^{n-k} \cdot - \alpha \right)
- \gamma \right)
\end{aligned}$$ we have to apply precisely the *correction* from .
For the special case $\eta = \eps_1$ and thus $\tau =
\widehat \eps$, Theorem \[theo:decomposition\] simplifies into the following form.
\[cor:decomposition\] For $c \in \ell \left( \ZZ^2 \right)$, $\eps \in E$ and $n \in \NN$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lefteqn{ \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c( \alpha ) \,
f_{\widehat \eps^*} \left( W_{\eps_1} W_0^{n-1} \cdot - \alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c \left( W_{\eps_1} \alpha \right) \,
f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-1} \cdot - \alpha \right) } \\
\label{eq:DecompForm1Step}
& & + \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eps_1}^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2}
\left( c - S_{\eps_1} D_{W_{\eps_1}} c \right) \left( W_{\eps_1} \alpha +
\gamma \right) \, f_{\widehat \eps^*} \left( W_{\eps_1} \left( W_0^{n-1} \cdot -
\alpha \right) - \gamma \right).
\end{aligned}$$
The decomposition is the shearlet decomposition associated with the shearlet MRA: The function on the left hand side belongs to $V_n$ and is written as the sum of a function in $V_{n-1}$ and correction terms from $V_n$ that vanish at $W_{\eps_1} \ZZ^2$ – the *shearlets* in the interpolatory MRA.
Decomposition Algorithm
-----------------------
The *fast shearlet decomposition* is now based on an iterative application of , where each step can be understood as filtering by means of a filter bank. To that end, we have to interpret the initial sequence $c \in \ell \left( \ZZ^2
\right)$ appropriately. Denoting by $g_\eps := f_0 \left( U_\eps
\cdot \right)$ the “sheared” version of the refinable function $f_0$, we form the quasi-interpolants $$\label{eq:shearMRAquasi}
q_{\eps,n} :=
g_\eps * (D_{U_\eps}c) \left( W_0^n \cdot \right) = \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c
\left( U_\eps \alpha \right) \, g_\eps \left( W_0^n \cdot - \alpha \right)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_0 \left( U_\eps W_0^n \cdot - \alpha
\right).$$ These are precisely the functions which appear on the left hand side of and . It is worthwhile to note that all the functions $q_{\eps,n}$ are relying on the same initial data $c \in \ell \left( \ZZ^2 \right)$.
The interpretation of is rather easy now if we take into account that $f_0$ was assumed to be the limit function of an interpolatory scheme, hence cardinal: $f_0 \left( \alpha
\right) = \delta_{0,\alpha}$, $\alpha \in \ZZ^2$. Hence, since $$\label{eq:q_nepsinterp}
q_{\eps,n} (x)
= \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c(\alpha) \, f_0 \left( W_\eps x -
\alpha \right), \qquad x \in \R^2,$$ we can substitute $x = W_\eps^{-1} \alpha = M_\eps \alpha$ and use the cardinality of $f_0$ to find that $q_{\eps,n} \left( M_\eps
\alpha \right) = c(\alpha)$ or $q_{\eps,n} \left( W_0^{-n} \alpha
\right) = c \left( U_\eps \alpha \right)$, respectively. The latter tells us that we should interpret the sequence $c$ as a function sampled at the grid $W_0^{-n} \ZZ^2$, while the parameter $\eps$ determines how this data is sheared and which thus are the directions “preferred” by the wavelet decomposition.
For the fast decomposition we now start with $c \in \ell \left(
\ZZ^2 \right)$, interpret it as in , and decompose it in two ways, namely, for $\eps \in E_1$, into $$q_{\eps,n} = \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} c_\eps \left( \alpha \right) \,
f_{\eps^*} \left( W_0^{n-1} \cdot - \alpha \right) + \sum_{\gamma
\in \Gamma_{\eps}^*} \sum_{\alpha \in \ZZ^2} d_{\eps,\gamma} \left(
\alpha \right) \, f_0 \left( W_{\eps} \left( W_0^{n-1} \cdot -
\alpha \right) - \gamma \right),$$ where the coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
c_\eps & = & D_{W_\eps}c \\
d_{\eps,\gamma} & = & \left( c - S_{\eps} D_{W_{\eps}} c \right) \left( W_{\eps} \cdot +
\gamma \right)\end{aligned}$$ are obtained by filtering the original sequence $c$ in [*both*]{} cases. This is the fundamental property of this decomposition algorithm: even if we decompose *two different* functions, $q_{\eps,n}$ with $\eps \in E_1$, we have to filter *only one* data vector to obtain the new set of scaling coefficients $\left\{
c_\eps \;:\; \eps \in E_1 \right\}$ and shearlet coefficients $\left\{ d_{\eps,\gamma} \;:\; \eps \in E_1, \gamma \in
\Gamma_{\eps}^* \right\}$.
In the next step, the sequences $c_\eps$ and the associated functions $q_{(\eps,\eta),n-1}$ are decomposed in precisely the same way, making use of Corollary \[cor:decomposition\] again. Like above, we filter $c_0$ twice to obtain new, further downsampled sequences $c_{(0,0)}$ and $c_{(0,1)}$ together with the respective shearlet coefficients $d_{(0,0),\gamma}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_0^*$ and $d_{(0,1),\gamma}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_1^*$. In exactly the same way we obtain $c_{(1,0)}$ and $c_{(1,1)}$ as well as $d_{(1,0),\gamma}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_0^*$ and $d_{(1,1),\gamma}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_1^*$ by filtering $c_1$. These first two steps of decomposition are illustrated in Figure \[fig:decomposition\]. 0.25mm
(460,180)(0,0) (220,150)[(-2,-1)[105]{}]{} (230,150)[(2,-1)[105]{}]{} (220,160)[$c = c_{()^*}$]{} (60,80)[$c_{(0)^*} \oplus
d_{(0)^*,\gamma}$]{} (300,80)[$c_{(0)} \oplus d_{(1)^*,\gamma}$]{} (70,70)[(-1,-2)[25]{}]{} (80,70)[(3,-2)[80]{}]{} (310,70)[(-1,-2)[25]{}]{} (320,70)[(3,-2)[80]{}]{} (0,0)[$c_{(0,0)^*} \oplus d_{(0,0)^*,\gamma}$]{} (120,0)[$c_{(0,1)^*} \oplus d_{(0,1)^*,\gamma}$]{} (240,0)[$c_{(1,0)^*} \oplus d_{(1,0)^*,\gamma}$]{} (360,0)[$c_{(1,1)^*} \oplus d_{(1,1)^*,\gamma}$]{}
It can already be seen from Figure \[fig:decomposition\] that – like the subdivision scheme – the shearlet decomposition becomes a binary tree labeled by the directional indices $\eps$. Indeed, in general we obtain the new coefficients by the following simple filtering.
\[algo:FSD\] Let $c_\eps$ for some $\eps \in E$ be given. Then the next level of scaling and shearlet coefficients are computed as $$\begin{array}{rcl}
c_{(\eps,\eta)} & = & D_{W_\eta} c_\eps, \\
d_{(\eps,\eta),\gamma} & = & \left( c_\eps - S_{\eta} D_{W_{\eta}} c_\eps \right)
\left( W_{\eta} \cdot + \gamma \right),
\end{array}
\qquad \eta \in E_1, \quad \gamma \in \Gamma_{\eta}^*.$$ Eventually, this process ends up with coarsest level scaling coefficients $c_\eps$, $\eps \in E_n$, and shearlet coefficients $d_{\eps,\gamma}$, $\eps \in E_k$, $k \le n$, $\gamma \in
\Gamma_{\eps_k}^*$ which describe the deviation from the coarse data.
Indeed, it is now easily seen that such a decomposition must recognize “sheared” and thus directional components of two dimensional data since relates, for $\eps \in
E$, the data $D_{W_\eps} c$ with the function $g_\eps$ and the respective shearlet coefficients must be large where the prediction by the subdivision scheme is inaccurate, i.e., at directional singularities. Thus, the “recipe” is to consider the shearlet coefficients $$d_{P_k \eps, \gamma}, \qquad k = 1,\dots,n, \:\eps \in E_n, \:
\gamma \in \Gamma_{\eps_k}^*.$$ A precise analysis of this nevertheless fundamental aspect of directional edge detection is beyond the scope of this paper where we just want to give the framework for adaptive directional detections. It should also be clear that the adaptive directional approach is not tied to interpolatory schemes, in fact, any perfect reconstruction filter bank can be used as long as the projection and its complement can be expressed properly. We plan to address these questions as well as the numerical implementations in a further paper, however.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The first author would like to thank Ingrid Daubechies for very inspiring discussions, and Wolfgang Dahmen for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. She especially thanks PACM at Princeton University for its hospitality and support during her visit.
[10]{}
J-P. Antoine, R. Murenzi, and P. Vandergheynst, Directional wavelets revisited: Cauchy wavelets and symmetry detection in patterns, [*Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal.*]{} [**5**]{} (1999), 314–345.
E. J. Candès and L. Demanet, [*The curvelet representation of wave propagators is optimally sparse*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**58**]{} (2005), 1472–1528.
E. J. Candès and D. L. Donoho, [*Ridgelets: a key to higher-dimensional intermittency?,*]{} [ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A.]{} [**357**]{} (1999), 2495–2509.
, [*New tight frames of curvelets and optimal representations of objects with $C^2$ singularities*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **56** (2004), 219–266.
, [*Continuous curvelet transform: I. Resolution of the wavefront set*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. [**19**]{} (2005), 162–197.
A. S. Cavaretta, W. Dahmen, and C. A. Micchelli, [*Stationary Subdivision,*]{} Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. [**93**]{} 1991.
M. Charina and C. Conti, [*Convergence of multivariate non-stationary vector subdivision schemes*]{}, Appl. Numer. Math. [**49**]{} (2004), 343–354.
M. Charina, C. Conti, and T. Sauer, [*[$L_p$]{}–convergence of subdivision schemes: joint spectral radius versus restricted spectral radius*]{}, in Approximation theory XI (Gatlinburg, TN, 2004), M. Neamtu and L. L. Schumaker, eds., Nashboro Press, Nashville, TN (2005), 129–150.
A. Cohen and N. Dyn, [*Nonstationary subdivision schemes and multiresolution analysis*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**27**]{} (1996), 1745–1769.
D. Cox, J. Little, and D. O’Shea, [*Ideals, Varieties and Algorithms*]{}, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer–Verlag, 1992.
S. Dahlke, G. Kutyniok, P. Maass, C. Sagiv, H.-G. Stark, and G. Teschke, [*The Uncertainty Principle Associated with the Continuous Shearlet Transform,*]{} Int. J. Wavelets Multiresolut. Inf. Process., to appear.
S. Dahlke, G. Kutyniok, G. Steidl, and G. Teschke, [*Shearlet Coorbit Spaces and associated Banach Frames*]{}, preprint (2007).
W. Dahmen and C. A. Micchelli, [*Biorthogonal wavelet expansion*]{}, Constr. Approx. **13** (1997), 294–328.
I. Daubechies, [*Ten Lectures on Wavelets*]{}, SIAM, Philadelphia (1992).
G. Deslauriers and S. Dubuc, [*Symmetric iterative interpolation processes*]{}, Constr. Approx. [**5**]{} (1989), 49–68.
M. N. Do and M. Vetterli, [*The contourlet transform: an efficient directional multiresolution image representation*]{}, IEEE Trans. Image Process. [**14**]{} (2005), 2091–2106.
D. L. Donoho, [*Interpolating wavelet transforms*]{}, Technical Report, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, 1992.
G. Faber, *[Ü]{}ber stetige [F]{}unktionen*, Math. Ann. **66** (1909), 81–94.
K. Guo, G. Kutyniok, and D. Labate, [*Sparse Multidimensional Representations using Anisotropic Dilation und Shear Operators,*]{} in Wavelets und Splines (Athens, GA, 2005), G. Chen und M. J. Lai, eds., Nashboro Press, Nashville, TN (2006), 189–201.
K. Guo and D. Labate, [*Optimally sparse multidimensional representations using shearlets,*]{} SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**39**]{} (2007), 298–318.
N. Kingsbury, Complex wavelets for shift invariant analysis and filtering of signals, [*Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal.*]{} [**10**]{}(3) (2001), 234–253.
G. Kutyniok and D. Labate, [*Resolution of the Wavefront Set using Continuous Shearlets,*]{} preprint (2006).
G. Kutyniok and T. Sauer, [*From Wavelets to Shearlets and back again*]{}, in Approximation Theory XII (San Antonio, TX, 2007), C. K. Chui, M. Neamtu, and L. Schumaker, eds., Nashboro Press, Nashville, TN, to appear.
D. Labate, W-Q. Lim, G. Kutyniok, and G. Weiss, [*Sparse multidimensional representation using shearlets,*]{} in Wavelets XI (San Diego, CA, 2005), M. Papadakis, A. F. Laine und M. A. Unser, eds., SPIE Proc. [*5914*]{}, SPIE, Bellingham, WA (2005), 254–262.
H. M. M[ö]{}ller and T. Sauer, *[H]{}–bases for polynomial interpolation and system solving*, Adv. Comp. Math. **12** (2000), 335–362.
, *Multivariate refinable functions of high approximation order via quotient ideals of [L]{}aurent polynomials*, Adv. Comp. Math. **20** (2004), 205–228.
T. Sauer, *Gr[ö]{}bner bases, [H]{}–bases and interpolation*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **353** (2001), 2293–2308.
, *Polynomial interpolation, ideals and approximation order of refinable functions*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **130** (2002), 3335–3347.
, *Stationary vector subdivision – quotient ideals, differences and approximation power*, Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A. Mat. **96** (2002), 257–277.
, *Differentiability of multivariate refinable functions and factorization*, Adv. Comp. Math. **25** (2006), 211–235.
W. Sweldens, [*The lifting scheme: a custom-design construction of biorthogonal wavelets*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. [**3**]{} (1996), 186–200.
[^1]: The first author was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Heisenberg-Fellowship KU 1446/8-1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The scaling properties of correlation functions of non-scalar fields (constructed from velocity derivatives) in isotropic hydrodynamic turbulence are characterized by a set of universal exponents. It is explained that these exponents also characterize the rate of decay of the effects of anisotropic forcing in developed turbulence. This set has never been measured in either numerical or laboratory experiments. These exponents are important for the general theory of turbulence, but also for modeling anisotropic flows. We propose in this letter how to measure these exponents using existing data bases of direct numerical simulations and by designing new laboratory experiments.'
author:
- 'Victor L’vov and Itamar Procaccia [^1]'
title: The Universal Scaling Exponents of Anisotropy in Turbulence and their Measurement
---
.\#1[[**\#1**]{}]{}
Fundamental studies of turbulence tend to stress the model of isotropic, homogeneous turbulence, and most theories and experiments since Kolmogorov’s seminal work of 1941 [@41Kol] considered the universal (anomalous) exponents that characterize the isotropic characteristics of turbulent flows (see for example [@Fri; @94Nel] for recent reviews). In fact, most turbulent flows are not forced isotropically, and moreover even in isotropic flows there are important fields that are constructed from velocity derivatives that transform under rotation as vectors or tensors rather than scalars. It has been known for quite a while that the second-order structure function (that depends on one separation vector) becomes more and more istotropic as the the separation scale goes down (see below). Moreover, the rate of this isotropization process is governed by a universal exponent [@67Lum; @84NN; @94GLLP; @95FL]. In recent papers [@95FGLP; @96LPP] it was pointed out that this exponent is one of an infinite family of universal anomalous scaling exponents that were never considered in experiments and numerical simulations. Moreover, it was shown that in the context of passive scalar convection the anomalous scaling exponents that characterize the scaling properties of anisotropic fields also govern the rate of isotropization of the properties of the flow in the cascade process down to smaller and smaller scales [@95FGLP]. In this Letter we show that the same connection between the exponents of tensor fields and the exponents governing the rate of isotropization exists also in Navier-Stokes turbulence. This demonstration follows from the assumption of “weak universality" of hydrodynamic turbulence that is discussed in [@96LP]. Theoretically the exponents discussed here are related to the appearance of the inner, viscous scale $\eta$ as a renormalization scale in addition to the more commonly known appearance of the outer, integral scale of turbulence $L$ [@95LP-2; @95LP-3; @96LPP]. In addition to being of fundamental interest these universal properties are also of importance in modeling realistic flows which are not isotropic. In this Letter we also propose how to measure these universal exponents in numerical and in physical experiments. We will focus here on stationary, space homogeneous turbulence which is however not necessarily isotropic.
The simplest statistical quantity that is built from the fundamental velocity field $\B.u(\B.r,t)$ that displays important contributions from anisotropy is the second-order structure functions of velocity differences $\B.w(\B.r_0|\B.r,t)\equiv \B.u(\B.r,t)-\B.u(\B.r_0,t)$: $$S_2(\B.R) \equiv \left < |\B.w(\B.r_0|\B.r,t)|^2\right> \ , \quad
\B.R\equiv \B.r-\B.r_0 \ .\label{S2}$$ where $\left<\dots\right>$ stands for a suitably defined ensemble average. Due to space and time homogeneity $S_2$ is a time independent function of the vector $\B.R$. In isotropic turbulence the scaling properties of $S_2(R)$ were widely discussed [@Fri; @94Nel; @75MY] $$\tilde S_2(R) \simeq (\bar\epsilon R)^{2/3} \left({R \over L}\right)^{\delta}
\ , \label{Sscalar}$$ where $\bar\epsilon$ is the mean energy flux per unit time per unit mass, and $\delta$ is the deviation of the scaling exponent $\zeta_2$ of the structure function from the Kolmogorov 1941 (K41) prediction $\zeta_2\equiv 2/3-\delta$. In anisotropic turbulence $S_2(\B.R)$ depends on the direction of $\B.R$, and we can decompose it into spherical harmonics according to the “multipole expansion" $$\begin{aligned}
S_2(\B.R) &=&
\sum_{l=0}^\infty S_{2,\ell} ( \B.R) \ , \label{multipole}\\
S_{2,\ell} ( \B.R) &=& \sum_{m=-l}^l Y_{lm} ( \hat\B.R)
\int S_2(R\hat{\bbox {\xi}})
Y_{lm} ( \hat {\bbox {\xi}}) d \hat{\bbox {\xi}} \ , \label{psil}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\bbox{\xi}}$ is a unit vector. In a scale invariant situation every component $S_{2,\ell}$ scales like $$S_{2,\ell}(\B.R)\sim \left (\bar\epsilon R\right )^{2/3} \left({R\over
L}\right)^{\delta_{\ell}}
\propto R^{\beta_{\ell}}\ , \label{scale}$$ where $\delta_{\ell}\equiv \beta_{\ell}-2/3$. Comparing with Eq.(\[Sscalar\]) we recognize that in this notation $\delta=\delta_0$. The full spectrum of exponents $\beta_{\ell}$ was found analytically [@95FGLP; @95CFKL] in the context of Kraichnan’s model of passive scalar convection[@94Kra]. For Navier-Stokes turbulence $\beta_2$ can be computed using perturbation theory [@94GLLP; @95FL] (which disregards the nonperturbative effects leading to anomalous scaling [@95LP-3]) with the result $\beta_2=
4/3$. The corresponding result for $\beta_0\equiv \zeta_2$ is 2/3, which experimentally is known to be of the order of 0.7 [@87MS; @93BCTBM]. The theory indicates that such deviations from the naive predictions stem from non-perturbative effects. It is likely that the perturbative result for the exponent $\beta_2$ holds to a similar accuracy. The large difference between $\beta_2$ and $\beta_0$ explains why isotropic scaling may be observed in anisotropic experiments; the contribution of $S_{2,2}$ to $S_2$ peels off rather quickly when $R\ll L$. We do not possess any numerical estimates for the higher order values of $\beta_{\ell}$, but we expect them to be all positive and increasing with $\ell$.
In the context of passive scalar convection we demonstated that the very same exponents $\beta_{\ell}$ have an important role in the context of [*isotropic*]{} turbulence when we considered statistical quantities that depend on more than two coordinates[@95FGLP]. We point out here that the same is true for Navier-Stokes turbulence. Consider for example the correlation function of four velocity differences $${ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2) \equiv
\left<|{\bf w}({\bf r}_0|{\bf r}_1)|^2|{\bf w}({\bf r}_0|{\bf
r}_2)|^2\right> \ , \label{S4}$$ where $\B.R_1=\B.r_1-\B.r_0$ and $\B.R_2=\B.r_2-\B.r_0$. As usual we assume that this, and all other correlators, are scale invariant. Mathematically this means that they are all homogeneous functions of their arguments as long as these are in the “inertial range". In other words ${ S}_4(\lambda\B.R_1,\lambda\B.R_2) =\lambda^{\zeta_4} {
S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2)$ where $\zeta_4$ is the scaling exponents of the 4’th order structure function: $\left<|{\bf w}({\bf r}_0|{\bf
r}_1)|^4\right>\propto R_1^{\zeta_4}$. In isotropic turbulence ${
S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2)$ depends on the separations $R_1, R_2$ and on the angle $\theta_{1,2}$ between these two vectors. We are interested in the limit $R_1\ll R_2$, but $R_1$ and $R_2$ are both in the inertial interval. It was shown in [@95LP-3; @96LP] that in this limit the leading dependence of ${ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2) $ on $R_1$ and $R_2$ is independent of $\theta_{1,2}$ and that it scales like $${ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2) \propto \left({R_1\over
R_2}\right)^{\zeta_2}R_2^{\zeta_4} \ ,
\quad R_1\ll R_2\ . \label{fuse}$$ In order the extract the sub-leading dependence on $\B.R_1$ we use a mulitpole decomposition of ${ S}_4$ in a way similar to (\[psil\]): $$\begin{aligned}
{ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2) &=&
\sum_{l=0}^\infty S_{4,\ell} ( \B.R_1,\B.R_2) \ , \label{mult2}\\
{ S}_{4,\ell} ( \B.R_1,\B.R_2) &=& \sum_{m=-l}^l Y_{lm} ( \hat\B.R_1)
\int S_2(R_1\hat{\bbox {\xi}},\B.R_2)
Y_{lm} ( \hat {\bbox {\xi}}) d \hat{\bbox {\xi}} \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The generalization of (\[fuse\]) to the anisotropic contributions is $${ S}_{4,\ell}(\B.R_1,\B.R_2) \propto \left({R_1\over
R_2}\right)^{\beta_{\ell}}R_2^{\zeta_4},
\quad R_1\ll R_2\ .\label{fusean}$$ Note that there are two statements made here. The first is that the over-all exponent for this quantity is $\zeta_4$. This directly follows from the property of scale invariance. The second statement is that the scaling exponents characterizing the $R_1$-dependence of ${ S}_{4,\ell}$ are the scaling exponents of ${ S}_{2,\ell}$. This result follows from the assumption of “weak universality" used in the derivation of the fusion rules in [@96LP]. Physically it is equivalent to the statement that the measured scaling exponents of the structure functions in turbulence are independent of the precise driving mecahnism at the outer scale of turbulence $L$. The existence of $R_2$-scale eddies and their effect on the statistics of the much smaller $R_1$ eddies is similar to the existence of $L$-scale eddies and their effect on the scaling exponents in the inertial range. The velocity difference measured at points $\B.r_1$ and $\B.r_0$ is effected by the large eddies characterizing the velocity difference across $\B.R_2$ in a way that is similar to the effect of the boundary conditions at $L$ on the velocity difference measured in $S_2$. Similarly the exponents $\beta_{\ell}$ characterize the rate of isotropization of $S_4$ as a function of $\B.R_1$. We stress that this isotropization is relevant in isotropic turbulence since we have in this function a built-in direction $\B.R_2$. When $R_1$ is of the order of $R_2$ the dependence on the angle $\theta_{1,2}$ is all important. When $R_1$ decreases this dependence weakens at a rated determined by the exponents $\beta_{\ell}-\beta_0$.
Next in order of complication we consider $S_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2,\B.R_0)$ defined as $${ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2,\B.R_0) \equiv
\left<|{\bf w}({\bf r}_0|{\bf r}_1)|^2|{\bf w}({\bf r}'_0|{\bf
r}_2)|^2\right> \ , \label{S4RRR}$$ where $\B.R_0=\B.r'_0-\B.r_0$. This is a function of three separation and the three angles $\theta_{1,0}$, $\theta_{2,0}$ and $\theta_{1,2}$. As before represent this function as a double multipole-expansion with respect to the directions of $\B.R_1$ and $\B.R_2$: $${ S}_4(\B.R_1,\B.R_2,\B.R_0) = \sum_{\ell_1,\ell_2}
S_{4,\ell_1,\ell_2}(\B.R_1,\B.R_2,\B.R_0)
\ . \label{doubmul}$$ In the limit $R_1,R_2 \ll R_0$ these functions exhibit a universal scaling form similar to (\[fusean\]) $$S_{4,\ell_1,\ell_2}(\B.R_1,\B.R_2,\B.R_0)\propto
\left({R_1\over R_0}\right)^{\beta_{\ell_1}}\left({R_2\over R_0}\right)^
{\beta_{\ell_2}}R_0^{\zeta_4} \ .
\label{fuse2}$$
Finally we discuss correlations of anisotropic local fields constructed from velocity derivatives. These can be obtained by a limiting procedure starting from the fusion of two points in the vicinity of $\B.r_0$ as in (\[fusean\]) or in the vicinity of $\B.r_0$ and $\B.r'_0$ as in (\[fuse2\]). As shown in [@96LPP] the simplest representatives of such fields contain a product of two derivatives $\partial_\alpha u_\beta \partial_\gamma u_\delta$. Higher tensorial fields are obtained by taking additional derivatives from this field. To get clean scaling behaviour we need to decompose these fields to combinations that give irreducible representations of the rotations and inversion group O(3). Every irreducible representation is characterized by an index $\ell$, has a dimension $(2\ell+1)$, and the $(2\ell+1)$ fields that form its basis transform like the spherical harmonic $Y_{\ell,m}$. The low orders representations are constructed with the help of the strain tensor $s_{\alpha\beta}=[\partial u_\alpha / \partial r_\beta+\partial
u_\beta / \partial r_\alpha]/2$ and the vorticity field $\B.\omega_\alpha=\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \partial u_\beta /
\partial r_\gamma$ (where $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is the fully antisymmetric pseudo-tensor). There are two scalar fields, $O^{(1)}_0\equiv\omega_\alpha\omega_\alpha$ and $O^{(2)}_0\equiv
s^2=s_{\alpha\beta}s_{\beta\alpha}$ each of which is a basis for one-dimensional irreducible representation with $\ell=0$. The pseudo-vector $O^\alpha_1\equiv s_{\alpha\beta}\omega_\beta$ is a three-dimensional basis for an irreducible representation with $\ell=1$. There exist three traceless tensor fields each of which is a five-dimensional basis belonging to $\ell=2$ and taking care of $3\!\times\!5=15$ components. An example is $$O_2^{(1)\alpha\beta}(\B.r)=s_{\alpha\gamma}(\B.r)
s_{\gamma\beta}(\B.r)-\delta_{\alpha\beta}
s^2(\B.r)/3 \ . \label{O2}$$ In addition we have one 3-rank pseudo tensor corresponding to $\ell=3$ and one 4-rank tensor corresponding to $\ell=4$. The last two fields exhaust the remaining $7+9$ components [@96LPP]. We note that all the tensor fields $\B.O_\ell$ are dimensionally identical. However, dimensional analysis misses the point, and fields that transform differently under the symmetry group have different scaling exponents. The correlation functions $\left < \B.O_\ell(\B.r+\B.R)
\B.O_{\ell'}(\B.r)\right >$ all have different scaling exponents depending on $\ell$ and $\ell'$: $$\B.K_{\ell\ell'}(\B.R)\equiv \left < \B.O^{(n)}_\ell(\B.r+\B.R)
\B.O^{(n')}_{\ell'}(\B.r)\right >
\propto R^{-\mu_{\ell\ell'}} \ ,\label{OO}$$ independent of $n$ and $n'$. In particular the prediction is that the three correlation functions involving the scalar fields $s^2$ and $\omega^2$ have the same scaling exponents known as the “intermittency exponent" $\mu$. Similarly the six correlations involving $\B.O_2$ have the same exponent (different from $\mu$). Note that the rank of $\B.K_{\ell\ell'}$ is the sum of the ranks of the tensors in the correlation.
At this point we want to discuss how to set up possible experiments to measure the new universal exponents $\beta_{\ell}$. Given a direct numerical simulation with anisotropic forcing, the most straightforward way it to simply compute $S_{2,\ell}(\B.R)$ from the definitions (\[S2\]) and (\[psil\]) and then to plot log-log plots of $S_{2,\ell}$ vs. $R$, or even better, following the ideas [@93BCTBM] of “extended self-similarity", of $S_{2,\ell}$ vs. $S_{2,\ell=0}$. It is impossible to follow this route in standard laboratory experiments since the detailed angular information is not usually available. One can estimate the exponent $\beta_2$ in anisotropic flows by measuring for example the longitudinal and transverse components of the second order structure function, and form a combination that vanishes in isotropic flows. Such a combination scales with $R$ and the leading contribution is $R^{\beta_2}$. This type of measurement was performed, see for example [@94SV] and discussed in detail by Nelkin [@94Nel]. The experimental evidence is that the numerical value of $\beta_2$ is indeed rather close to 4/3. Our point in this Letter is that the very same exponents $\beta_\ell$ play an important role also in isotropic flows.
In laboratory (and also in atmospheric) experiments it is difficult to resolve the dissipative scales, and the direct measurements of the local fields $O_{\ell}(\B.r)$ is quite hard. Accordingly we will suggest experiments that are based on finite differences in the inertial range instead of gradients. Consider an experiment with a mean flow (like a wind tunnel or an atmospheric boundary layer). Assign the direction of the mean flow to the $x$-coordinate. The minimal experimental set up calls for two local probes (like hot wires) positioned at $\B.r_0=(0,0,0)$ and $\B.r_1=(0,\Delta,0)$, separated by a distance $\Delta$ in the $y$-direction which is orthogonal to the mean flow. Under the standard Taylor hypothesis differences in time are interpreted as differences along the longitudinal $x$-direction. This means that one can measure the longitudinal projections $a u_x(x,0,0)$ and $b u_x(x,\Delta,0)$. The coefficients $a$ and $b$ were introduced in recognition of the fact that in realistic experiments the two probes cannot be perfectly calibrated. Define now the longitudinal and transverse velocity differences $$\begin{aligned}
w_{||}(x,\Delta)&\equiv& u_x(x+\Delta,0,0)-u_x(x,0,0)\ , \\
w_{\perp}(x,\Delta) &\equiv& u_x(x,\Delta,0)- u_x(x,0,0)\ . \label{lon}\end{aligned}$$ Next one can measure the longitudinal and transverse structure functions for $\Delta$-separations $$S_{2||}(\Delta)\equiv \langle w^2_{||}(x,\Delta) \rangle,\quad
S_{2\perp}(\Delta)\equiv
\langle w^2_{\perp}(x,\Delta) \rangle \ . \label{Slon}$$ In isotropic conditions these two quantities are related [@75MY] by $$S_{2\perp}(\Delta) = S_{2||}(\Delta)+\Delta dS_{2||}(\Delta)/2d\Delta \ ,
\label{relat}$$ and one can use this relation to assess the degree of isotropy on the scale $\Delta$. Next we introduce the normalized squared of velocity differences in which the calibration constants are eliminated: $$W^2_{||} (x,\Delta)\equiv {w^2_{||}(x,\Delta)\over S_{2||}(\Delta)}\ , \quad
W^2_{\perp} (x,\Delta)\equiv {w^2_{||}(x,\Delta)\over S_{2\perp}(\Delta)} \ .
\label{W2}$$ Finally we define two fields $\Psi_{\pm}$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{+}(x,\Delta)&\equiv& W^2_{\perp} (x,\Delta)+W^2_{||} (x,\Delta)-2\ ,
\nonumber\\
\Psi_{-}(x,\Delta)&\equiv& W^2_{\perp} (x,\Delta)-W^2_{||} (x,\Delta) \ .
\label{psi}\end{aligned}$$ These fields have zero mean by construction, and we propose to measure their correlations $K_{++}(R)$, $K_{--}(R)$ and $K_{+-}(R)$ across a scale $R$ such that $\eta <\Delta <R <L$. The theoretical prediction is that the leading scaling form is $$\begin{aligned}
K_{++}(R)&\equiv& \left <\Psi_{+}(x+R,\Delta)
\Psi_{+}(x,\Delta) \right> \propto
R^{-\mu_{++}}\ ,\label{++}\\
K_{+-}(R)&\equiv& \left <\Psi_{+}(x+R,\Delta)
\Psi_{-}(x,\Delta) \right> \propto
R^{-\mu_{+-}}\ ,\label{+-}\\
K_{--}(R)&\equiv& \left <\Psi_{-}(x+R,\Delta)
\Psi_{-}(x,\Delta) \right> \propto
R^{-\mu_{--}}\ , \label{--}\end{aligned}$$ where the exponents are $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{++}&=&2\beta_0-\zeta_4 \ , \quad \beta_0\equiv \zeta_2\ ,
\nonumber \\
\mu_{+-}&=&\beta_0+\beta_2-\zeta_4\ , \quad
\mu_{--}=2\beta_2-\zeta_4 \ .\end{aligned}$$ The reason for this prediction is that the field $\Psi_{+}$ has a large projection on the zero’th spherical harmonic $Y_{0,m}$, whereas the field $\Psi_-$ has no such projection by construction. Moreover the field $\Psi_-$ also has no projection on $Y_{1,m}$. It does have projections on $Y_{2,m}$ and higher order spherical harmonics. Thus the leading scaling exponents appearing in correlations of $\Psi_-$ is $\beta_2$, whereas the leading scaling exponent appearing in correlations of $\Psi_+$ is $\beta_0$, and Eqs.(\[++\])-(\[–\]) follow directly from (\[fuse2\]). Note that the correlations in (\[++\])-(\[–\]) are all dimensionally identical; yet we predict very different scaling exponents. This is just another way to explore the breakdown of dimensional analysis in fully developed turbulence. Using known experimental data [@87MS; @93BCTBM] $\zeta_2\simeq 0.7$, $\zeta_4\simeq 1.2$ and our guess that $\beta_2\simeq 4/3$ we expect: $$\mu_{++}\simeq 0.2,~~ \mu_{--}\simeq 1.4-1.5 , ~~
\mu_{+-}={\mu_{++}+\mu_{--}\over 2}
\ . \label{mus}$$ The last relation is asymptotically (in Re) exact. Note however that for a finite extent of the inertial interval sub-leading scaling contributions may be important and have to be carefully assessed. Nevertheless, the wide disparity between these scaling exponents promises a worthwhile experiment even if the inertial range is of the order of one decade.
Direct numerical simulations offer additional ways to examine the correlation function $\B.K_{\ell\ell'}(\B.R)$ (\[OO\]) of the anisotropic local fields. It was pointed to us by R. Benzi [@Ben] that in numerical simulations the correlation function of gradient fields have a scaling range that is too short. Indeed, even the correlation function of the scalar dissipation $\epsilon(\B.r)=2\nu
s^2(\B.r)$ is not readily available. It was suggested that a better scaling behaviour is exhibited by integrals of the dissipation field over balls of radius $R$. The calculation is achieved by first considering $$\epsilon_R(\B.r_0) = {3\over 4\pi R^3}\int_{|\B.r-\B.r_0|\le
R}d\B.r~\epsilon(\B.r) \ ,
\label{eR}$$ from which one computes the time and space average $$\left< \hat\epsilon^2_R \right > \equiv \left<
\left[\epsilon_R(\B.r_0)-\bar\epsilon\right]^2\right>
\ . \label{e2R}$$ For $R$ in the inertial interval $$\left< \hat\epsilon^2_R \right > = C_\mu K_{\epsilon\epsilon}(R)\propto
R^{-\mu} \ ,
\label{bla}$$ where $C_\mu \simeq 1$ and $K_{\epsilon\epsilon}(R)=\left<[\epsilon(\B.r_0+\B.R)-\bar\epsilon][\epsilon
(\B.r_0)-\bar\epsilon] \right> $. Following the same idea [@Ben] instead of computing in simulations the correlations $\B.K_{\ell\ell'} (\B.R)$ we can measure the mean value of the product of two $R$-ball integrated fields $$\B.O_{\ell,R}(\B.r_0) = {3\over 4\pi R^3}\int_{|\B.r-\B.r_0|\le
R}d\B.r~\B.O_{\ell}(\B.r) \ . \label{OlR}$$ Accordingly $$\left< \B.O_{\ell,R}(\B.r_0) \B.O_{\ell',R}(\B.r_0)\right> = C_{\ell\ell'}
\B.K_{\ell\ell'}(\B.R)\propto
R^{-\mu_{\ell\ell'}} \ .
\label{wow}$$ It should be stressed here that we did not offer yet any numerical estimates for $\mu_{\ell\ell'}$. The reason is deep: the local fields pick up a dissipative scale when the gradient is computed. In Navier-Stokes turbulence there is a multiplicity of dissipative scales that have non-trivial dependencies on the inertial-range separation distances which the relevant correlation function depends on. The full discussion of this issue will be available elsewhere [@96LP-4]. Here we will just present theoretical prediction without derivation. They are: $$\mu_{\ell\ell'} =2-\zeta_6+\beta_\ell+\beta_{\ell'}-2\beta_0 \ . \label{pred}$$ For $\ell=\ell'=0$ we recover the well known “bridge relation" which followed from the Kolmogorov refined similarity hypothesis, $\mu=2-\zeta_6$. The predictions for non-zero $\ell$ are novel and await confirmation. We stress that such a measurement can give information about $\beta_1$ which is associated with the pseudo-vector field $s_{\alpha\beta}\omega_\beta$. This exponent is not available from the rate of isotropization of $S_2(\B.R)$. It can be seen if the flow field does not have inversion symmetry but one needs to form a nonsymmetric second-order correlation function like $$\left<u_\alpha(\B.r+\B.R)u_\beta(\B.r)\right
>-\left<u_\alpha(\B.r-\B.R)u_\beta(\B.r)\right >\propto
R^{\beta_1} \ .$$ Since this object is manifestly odd in $\B.R$ it vanishes when there exists inversion symmetry. Otherwise its leading scaling exponent is $\beta_1$. This exponent is related to the existence of the flux of helicity and standard K41 arguments lead to the value $\beta_1=1$, see for example [@81KL]. This holds probably to the same accuracy as other K41 arguments. The correlation functions discussed above allow the measurement of this exponent in the presence of inversion symmetry. Even thought $\B.K_{\ell\ell'}$ will vanish for $\ell$ even and $\ell'$ odd, the correlation $\B.K_{11}$ is non-zero in any case.
In summary we presented briefly the ideas that related the infinite set of universal exponents characterizing the rate of isotropization of the simple second-order structure function under non-isotropic forcing with the same set of exponents that determines the scaling behaviour of correlation functions of tensorial anisotropic local fields in isotropic turbulence. The central role that these exponents play warrants their measurement in laboratory and numerical experiments. We thus offered some simple ways to measure the low order exponents $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ in realistic experiments. We presented an estimate of the numerical values of these two exponents. The calculation of these exponents from first principles is a different task that is outside the scope of this Letter. .5cm
[**Acknowledgments**]{} This paper was motivated by discussions with Roberto Benzi, to whom we offer thanks. We profitted from discussion with Evgeni Podivilov and Victor Steinberg. This work has been supported in part by the US-Israel Bi-National Science Foundation, the German-Israeli Foundation and the Naftali and Anna Backenroth-Bronicki Fund for Research in Chaos and Complexity.
[99]{}
A.N. Kolmogorov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, [**30**]{}, 229 (1941)
U. Frisch. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
M. Nelkin. , [**43**]{},143 (1994).
J.L. Lumley, Phys. Fluids [**10**]{}, 855 (1967)
M. Nelkin and T. Nakano in [*Turbulence and Chaotic Phenomena in Fluids*]{}, ed. T. Tatsumi (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984)
S. Grossmann, D. Lohse, V. L’vov and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 432 (1994)
G. Falkovich V.S. L’vov, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals", [**5**]{}, 1855 (1995)
A.L. Fairhall, O. Gat, V.S. L’vov and I. Procaccia Phys. Rev. E, April (1996). In press.
V.S L’vov, E. Podivilov and I. Procaccia, “Scaling Behaviour in Turbulence is Doubly Anomalous", Phys. Rev. Lett, submitted
V. L’vov and I. Procaccia “Fusion Rules in Turbulent Systems with Flux Equilibrium", Phys. Rev. Lett. In press.
V.S. L’vov and I. Procaccia, Phys.Rev. E [**52**]{}, 3858 (1995).
V. S. L’vov and I. Procaccia, “Exact Resummations in the Theory of Hydrodynamic Turbulence: III. Scenarios for Anomalous Scaling and Intermittency", Phys. Rev E, in press. e-print chao-dyn/9507007 at xyz.lanl.gov
A.S. Monin and A.M.Yaglom, [*Statistical Fluid Mechanics*]{} vol.2 (MIT, Cambridge 1975).
M. Chertkov, G. Falkovich, I. Kolokolov and V. Lebedev, Phys. Rev. E, [**52**]{}, 4924 (1995)
R.H. Kraichnan Phys.Rev. Lett., [**72**]{} 1016 (1994).
C. Meneveau and K.R. Sreenivasan, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. [**2**]{}, 49 (1987).
R. Benzi, S. Ciliberto, R. Tripiccione, C. Baudet, F. Massaioli and S. Succi, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, R29 (1993).
S. G. Saddoughi and S,V. Verravalli, J. Fluid Mech. [**268**]{}, 333 (1994).
R. Benzi, private communication, December 1995.
V. S. L’vov and I. Procaccia, “Exact Resummations in the Theory of Hydrodynamic Turbulence: IV. Fusion Rules and the Multiplicity of Viscous Scales", Phys.Rev E, to be published.
E. Kuznetsov and V.S. L’vov, Physica [**D2**]{}, 203 (1981).
[^1]: Department of Chemical Physics, The Weizmann Inst. of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Andrzej Dbrowski, Tomasz Jdrzejak and Lucjan Szymaszkiewicz'
title: 'Critical $L$-values for some quadratic twists of Gross curves'
---
Let $K=\Bbb Q(\sqrt{-q})$, where $q$ is a prime congruent to $3$ modulo $4$. Let $A=A(q)$ denote the Gross curve [@Gr]. Let $E=A^{(-\beta)}$ denote its quadratic twist, with $\beta=\sqrt{-q}$. The curve $E$ has the nice explicit equation (see [@CL], equation (1.2))
$$\label{e:01}
y^2 = x^3 - 2^{-4}3^{-1}(j({\mathcal O}_K)^{1/3}x + 2^{-5}3^{-3}(j({\mathcal O}_K) - (12)^3)^{1/2},$$
where it is understood that, in this equation, we take the real cube root of $j({\mathcal O}_K)$, and the square root of $j({\mathcal O}_K) - (12)^3$ lying in the upper half complex plane. Thus $E$ is defined over the Hilbert class field $H$ of $K$. Below we use Magma [@BCP] to calculate the values $L(E/H,1)$ for all such $q$’s up to some reasonable ranges (different for $q\equiv 7 \, \text{mod} \, 8$ and $q\equiv 3 \, \text{mod} \, 8$). All these values are non-zero, and using the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, we can calculate hypothetical orders of $\sza(E/H)$ in these cases. Our calculations extend those given in [@CC] for the case $q=7$.
The case $q\equiv 7 \, \text{mod} \, 8$
=======================================
In this case we know, by a recent result of J. Coates and Y. Li ([@CL], Theorem 1.3), that $L(E/H,1) \not=0$. In the table below we calculate numerically these values for all such $q$ up to $4663$.
Now let us say a few words about the Magma implementation. The starting source for us was the article by M. Watkins [@Wa], which gives some numerical examples (or rather hints) how to compute Grossencharacters and critical L-values (sections 5.4 and 6.1 deals with $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-23})$, but of course we need to keep track of the effect of twisting). But it was not enough for us to write an algorithm calculating $L(E/H,1)$. Watkins [@Wat] corrected our algorithm (or better, he wrote a new one) and tested for $q=23$ and $79$. It was a starting point for us to make extensive numerical calculations. The algorithm uses the fact that $L$-series of an elliptic curve over $H$ splits into factors corresponding to Grossencharacters twisted by Hilbert characters and its conjugates (so it uses the classical Hecke-Deuring theory linking elliptic curves with $CM$ to Grossencharacters, with keeping track of the effect of twisting). Here are some more details. Assuming $2{\mathcal O}_K = {\mathfrak p}{\mathfrak p}^{\star}$, and choosing the sign of $\sqrt{-q}$ so that $\text{ord}_{\mathfrak p}((1-\beta))>0$, we can check that $E/H$ has good reduction outside the primes of $H$ lying above $\mathfrak p$ (see [@CL]). Moreover, the Deuring Grossencharacter $\psi_{E/H}$ of $E/H$ is then equal to $\rho \circ N_{H/K}$, where $\rho$ is the Grossencharacter of $K$ with conductor $\mathfrak p^2$ defined by $$\rho(\mathfrak a) = \alpha, \quad \mathfrak a^h = \alpha\mathcal O_K, \quad
\alpha \equiv 1 \, \text{mod} \, \mathfrak p^2.$$ The algorithm computes the values $L(\rho\chi,1)$, where $\chi$ runs over the characters of the ideal class group of $K$. Now thanks to the above formula and Deuring’s theory it follows that $L(E/H,1)$ will be given by the product of all the $L(\rho\chi,1)$’s and their complex conjugates.
Now we know by Iwasawa theory that the Tate-Shafarevich group $\sza(E/H)$ is finite because $L(E/H,1) \not=0$. Below we will write down an explicit conjectural formula for the order of $\sza(E/H)$. Let $h$ denote the class number of $K$, $m=\frac{q-1}4 - \frac h 2$, and let $\Omega(q)$ be a period defined in [@Gr]:
$$\Omega(q) = \frac 1 { (2 \pi)^m \cdot q^{\frac h 2} }
\prod_{ \substack{0<c<q \\ \left(\frac c q\right)=1} }
\Gamma \left(\frac c q \right).$$ The prime $2$ splits in $K$, and we write $2{\mathcal O}_K = {\mathfrak p}{\mathfrak p}^{\star}$, where we have chosen the sign of $\beta=\sqrt{-q}$ so that $\text{ord}_{\mathfrak p}((1-\beta))>0$. Then $E$ is the quadratic twist of the Gross curve $A/H$ by $H(\sqrt{-\beta})/H$. Let $\{v_1,...,v_r\}$ be the set of primes of $H$ lying above $\mathfrak p$, so that $r=h/j$, where $j$ is the exact order of the class of $\mathfrak p$ in the ideal class group of $K$. It turned out that there are exactly $18$ primes $q \leq 4663$ congruent to $7$ modulo $8$, for which $r > 1$.
$\#(\sza(E/H)) = L(E/H,1) 2^{h+6-2r} / (\Omega(q)^2\sqrt{q})$.
One easily checks that in case $q=7$, the formula from Conjecture 1 is equivalent to (2.11) from [@CC]. The above conjecture agrees with the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for $E/H$. In particular, the set of bad primes of $E/H$ is precisely $\{v_1,...,v_r\}$, and the factor $2^{-2r}$ in the above formula takes account of the fact that the Tamagawa factor at each of these primes is $4$.
John Coates informed one of us (A. D.) that one should be able to use the Iwasawa theory being developed in [@CKLT] to prove the above conjecture.
Below we use Conjecture 1 to calculate $\#(\sza(E/H))$ (i.e. the analytic order of $\sza(E/H)$) for all primes $q$ congruent to $7$ modulo $8$ up to $4663$.
[|r|r|r|r|]{} & & &\
\
7 & 1 & 0.30903153751765917103 & 1\
23 & 3 & 0.79196294535428296044 & 1\
31 & 3 & 0.35288571505654851763 & 1\
47 & 5 & 3.25049251883301426121 & 3\
71 & 7 & 0.10920125590289049507 & 1\
79 & 5 & 0.02577591231345318312 & 1\
103 & 5 & 0.84244014254446144514 & 13\
127 & 5 & 0.33138747507581642444 & 17\
151 & 7 & 0.00899919291175804982 & 5\
167 & 11 & 338.84342541058916626822 & 2049\
191 & 13 & 0.07538843930533773444 & 81\
199 & 9 & 0.00178784908116291475 & 9\
223 & 7 & 0.66858391145992740299 & 289\
239 & 15 & 0.02401256252449269664 & 311\
263 & 13 & 0.24799355777337639904 & 1767\
271 & 11 & 0.00495300516895988511 & 127\
311 & 19 & 0.08289319536914465106 & 12559\
359 & 19 & 0.00008262935013341212 & 2057\
367 & 9 & 0.02393861560648477609 & 1679\
383 & 17 & 1058.78512825720370837609 & 9090067\
431 & 21 & 5.38876192180481196261 & 2039928\
439 & 15 & 0.00002907103487183395 & 1279\
463 & 7 & 0.08500423491817571054 & 11663\
479 & 25 & 1483.07868786791841546796 & 1746287691\
487 & 7 & 0.14694723669623207042 & 22807\
503 & 21 & 260759.24737728583571680044 & 2880463783\
599 & 25 & 0.00000001076991986883 & 162285\
607 & 13 & 0.10795424186869623536 & 884605\
631 & 13 & 0.00004385443164140780 & 44425\
647 & 23 & 0.00000607641351529086 & 4925391\
719 & 31 & 0.00530561250904147645 & 31646320057\
727 & 13 & 0.00299892234779012135 & 1113693\
743 & 21 & 1498.05565627050935641062 & 332146468299\
751 & 15 & 0.00000000896688802629 & 10512\
823 & 9 & 0.00102716234866514602 & 469855\
839 & 33 & 0.12347121525795507868 & 9315485111867\
863 & 21 & 4.28771850132666368851 & 240267975371\
887 & 29 & 19477038.03896518654448808873 & 30785347392739103\
911 & 31 & 0.00000312260876667640 & 98895319091\
919 & 19 & 0.00000000001480555834 & 36741\
967 & 11 & 0.09804744238584120050 & 67762715\
983 & 27 & 80292384.19994893868777292158 & 238138622744502833\
991 & 17 & 0.00004920969572684842 & 91561037\
1031 & 35 & 0.06252031110591168794 & 1595084268489133\
1039 & 23 & 0.00000369632068956271 & 1196802971\
1063 & 19 & 1.67498940035011217030 & 54030361471\
1087 & 9 & 0.00390824946108466869 & 22866381\
1103 & 23 & 0.00000572944338432493 & 80104082513\
1151 & 41 & 0.16613607401358903141 & 1320694330164429335\
1223 & 35 & 0.00194039562173745137 & 9307326019643999\
1231 & 27 & 0.00000000093497039710 & 3758406353\
1279 & 23 & 0.00000000287686176036 & 1814619877\
1303 & 11 & 0.00021448455521015721 & 157522307\
1319 & 45 & 28941477.30398577348268950039 & 494146202273056454638285\
1327 & 15 & 0.00028916732527519815 & 1982319913\
1367 & 25 & 28601.01936469536020713962 & 1839953001047559952\
1399 & 27 & 0.00000001208663958591 & 210925423356\
1423 & 9 & 0.01738234231379547068 & 1715895524\
1439 & 39 & 0.00000006661042814296 & 30644209290657623\
1447 & 23 & 0.00013884708802240947 & 811815992737\
1471 & 23 & 0.00000000029882112555 & 5374292551\
1487 & 37 & 6576514753.03121783833652353519 & 10937565775616401748256581\
1511 & 49 & 0.00055060129228412947 & 25127641761490803096975\
1543 & 19 & 0.00176400518665963757 & 1034981247929\
1559 & 51 & 0.87726903612746376846 & 2738379667079823194690949\
1567 & 15 & 0.20108355789279651145 & 1575131870837\
1583 & 33 & 0.13269489544044152769 & 15757834130321482863\
1607 & 27 & 0.55194730530618115640 & 349749435110817399\
1663 & 17 & 0.00119021469463015769 & 513229201123\
1759 & 27 & 0.00000000101913474126 & 1344751145077\
1783 & 17 & 0.00024486558886747311 & 1885276250643\
1823 & 45 & 9746102.85279061269213579273 & 1808382408390942813565214784\
1831 & 19 & 0.00000000000009270267 & 880904745\
1847 & 43 & 1207965.54129407491879223532 & 4921203932360352431818054853\
1871 & 45 & 0.00000467957783395582 & 211817576664143143791049\
1879 & 27 & 0.00000055405311625279 & 359706350854836\
1951 & 33 & 0.00000000000191765783 & 71833637298811\
1999 & 27 & 0.00000000047804213103 & 21632373948999\
2039 & 45 & 0.00000000367413120950 & 7999274603520740597625\
2063 & 45 & 2766645.80955923764536501056 & 1341376803998421383216338486800\
2087 & 35 & 164.98809160497598617071 & 7549276579545660794505221\
2111 & 49 & 0.00109168602722010353 & 4327178311989716140475456427\
2143 & 13 & 0.01476049903300890724 & 12322652032019\
2207 & 39 & 8356.57170711443065175664 & 5015914871462321771139549955\
2239 & 35 & 0.00000000000004393777 & 11915930073079139\
2287 & 29 & 0.00766729713419227393 & 6824315445622624657\
2311 & 29 & 0.00000000187662881760 & 20015174351579955\
2351 & 63 & 552470425.54422669425872718713 & 2816977737852577527309898650097367443659\
2383 & 29 & 0.00002630161314175636 & 1162866812268136121\
2399 & 59 & 0.04141467915645522162 & 13235014758527507066087807686368973\
2423 & 33 & 250.16970151756207630008 & 281045797696507991427800573\
2447 & 37 & 23.82978667301734246096 & 2092852385170614860214887843\
2503 & 21 & 0.02648336374331768867 & 100742172570243491\
2543 & 35 & 382.95959917323265302185 & 10157978602722623458338530496\
2551 & 41 & 0.00000000000008248960 & 60637243039930628065\
2591 & 57 & 0.00000000000238017737 & 336275233499026658311829296679\
2647 & 15 & 0.03372248437933683851 & 6798505360748663\
2663 & 43 & 822.32375569716777860250 & 76481720773755781866561562664447\
2671 & 23 & 0.00000000000003162935 & 66697260897735\
2687 & 51 & 194688424.12336279094797547720 & 17321740551070983627343715625416872652\
2711 & 53 & 0.37421143332764690649 & 38629854923911845038305204026873649\
2719 & 41 & 0.00000000000083400226 & 1406443138529321307393\
2767 & 21 & 0.31592061458094422698 & 3800789493866165232\
2791 & 39 & 0.00000000000054815909 & 897017319101036106209\
2879 & 57 & 0.00000013893708474299 & 10273597469646245008601935022410689\
2887 & 25 & 0.00000727449204224937 & 4682281660959493201\
2903 & 59 & 469211113283732.46988840553969223592 & 400977393247118763374214959073343661518898573\
2927 & 31 & 64.29980720973840221765 & 27260274502712067357277082151\
2999 & 73 & 360.95151202061450399689 & 3943185992249268695560714545947130529724467545\
3023 & 47 & 511953545751.66177107863339231208 & 6789457020754215256411685440174304374421\
3079 & 41 & 0.00000000023207164115 & 2141735462113012348434191\
3119 & 69 & 0.00602643768003535676 & 1049324059291363104640660260593606354947228\
3167 & 53 & 260425057231369.09972689242486572823 & 179940200099564565183145128420460525695159379\
3191 & 69 & 14.95753417523273502334 & 628315606611285122323089495662377335179881369\
3271 & 27 & 0.00000001241846857681 & 243743805808037264960\
3319 & 41 & 0.00000000000000931719 & 33642982599580090033407\
3343 & 19 & 1.58620548101554534230 & 202212319807498314139\
3359 & 69 & 1.67365772978370467795 & 4049500549734207136741889632539175584626802773\
3391 & 37 & 0.00000000047269143915 & 3101068731835541701552139\
3407 & 57 & 28819363.52788452185843622630 & 14560069825940266325266106631738472810251876\
3463 & 19 & 13.77281385527310381528 & 8436425008239920177883\
3511 & 41 & 0.00000000001434615685 & 11283089506997160477570507\
3527 & 65 & 7976156006.93765520950738207851 & 177909675370561108532941247559470051694366241471\
3559 & 45 & 0.00000000000454262476 & 2360984303797804985269627200\
3583 & 29 & 0.03920861329093863272 & 5633558142934297942544477\
3607 & 19 & 36.90684229826591202567 & 6563789114878102952373\
3623 & 45 & 26.02198199101404503659 & 1367770373787759276795854320370634923\
3631 & 43 & 0.00000000000255623850 & 427172018608825201653180173\
3671 & 81 & 68467807.61967835918310312766 & 117843219225119087861773569889261690958967498129448976645\
3719 & 67 & 0.00000000387780125945 & 2100976923197097618349171255793507783224063\
3727 & 31 & 0.00004718946253999069 & 2444912707864422958673293\
3767 & 39 & 0.14327587591455739687 & 19175435293484578149783919131747899\
3823 & 29 & 0.00002507286357856734 & 112417612198200717861969\
3847 & 23 & 0.00001533345082846095 & 862130992415445336857\
3863 & 61 & 15711737.48318757316819605069 & 538394367773173591693084396367727593976141647921\
3911 & 83 & 0.00000000001135189188 & 14499327197980399167915624859957367185588546363629\
3919 & 39 & 0.00000000044261630153 & 3669196191866220345463135468\
3943 & 27 & 0.00000000002095427812 & 24733668567484868147\
3967 & 33 & 159215.22350765659455009473 & 1699553443719169549240379327572\
4007 & 57 & 0.91990088235951608333 & 24479483802292931184510605398988563448578689\
4079 & 85 & 0.00000127446973332763 & 321963672249515003702405195900159942517697859377925616\
4111 & 39 & 0.00000000000002095214 & 33609809857361575194185877\
4127 & 49 & 264235.35416434781417718265 & 8507300729794243618442185373646968515974841\
4159 & 31 & 0.00000000108677317318 & 8139478924692126488523677\
4231 & 51 & 0.00000000799222631822 & 4299570633402618922705497439694423\
4271 & 65 & 0.00000290128128404136 & 28283186967833318171568219977944584501489867447\
4327 & 19 & 0.00017450275228592056 & 1066852592208273415311\
4391 & 79 & 0.00001251482541320985 & 111218267845699128837861765031864433022917071402312905\
4423 & 33 & 1.13324073727367674386 & 572395522360267105755996447652\
4447 & 17 & 0.00000077492121857457 & 39872685366747226231\
4463 & 55 & 115564.52263908769265426894 & 72780887497608197802303423424278364999654385253\
4519 & 29 & 0.00000000000000004313 & 3597009679993991314033\
4567 & 33 & 0.00000017729987000499 & 1945455740103468168767260495\
4583 & 61 & 551441731499.78356036276104299918 & 1438973413788257170719455133810181008462888610212680883\
4591 & 49 & 0.00000000000000079237 & 16108217968515978652127771698061\
4639 & 51 & 0.00000000000000004301 & 101877348949955205680678906825472\
4663 & 33 & 0.00001145384710376496 & 1169504442816257396334162500\
The case $q \equiv 3 \, \text{mod} \, 8$
========================================
In this case the curve $E$ defined by the equation (1) is also defined over $H$. Here the prime $2$ is inert in $K$, and the curve $E$ will always have good reduction outside the set of the primes of $H$ lying above $2$ (assuming $q>3$). The Deuring Grossencharacter $\psi_{E/H}$ of $E/H$ is then equal to $\rho \circ N_{H/K}$, where $\rho$ is the Grossencharacter of $K$ with conductor $4\mathcal O_K$ defined by $$\rho(\mathfrak a) = \alpha, \quad \mathfrak a^h = \alpha\mathcal O_K, \quad
\alpha \equiv 1 \, \text{mod} \, 4\mathcal O_K.$$ The algorithm computes the values $L(\rho\chi,1)$, where $\chi$ runs over the characters of the ideal class group of $K$. Again, thanks to the above formula and Deuring’s theory it follows that $L(E/H,1)$ will be given by the product of all the $L(\rho\chi,1)$’s and their complex conjugates.
Our numerical calculations (given in the table below) lead to the following conjecture (see [@CL], Conjecture 1.5).
For all primes $q$ with $q\equiv 3 \, \text{mod} \, 8$, we have $L(E/H,1)\not=0$.
As it is remarked in ([@CL], p. 2), in contrast to the proof of Theorem 1.3 there, the authors see no way at present for attacking such a conjecture using Iwasawa theory.
In this case, we propose the following conjectural formula for the order of $\sza(E/H)$. Now, the Tamagawa factor at each prime of bad reduction is $1$, and the following conjecture agrees with the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for $E/H$.
$\#(\sza(E/H)) = L(E/H,1) 2^{2h} / (\Omega(q)^2\sqrt{q})$.
Below we use Conjecture 3 to calculate $\#(\sza(E/H))$ (i.e. the analytic order of $\sza(E/H)$) for all primes $q$ congruent to $3$ modulo $8$ up to $11131$.
[|r|r|r|r|]{} & & &\
\
11 & 1 & 1.73845792121760807790 & 1\
19 & 1 & 1.00717576250064706853 & 1\
43 & 1 & 1.27416027648354776885 & 2\
59 & 3 & 3.27291981598555587930 & 5\
67 & 1 & 1.22243364144817892444 & 3\
83 & 3 & 0.03764760689032642372 & 1\
107 & 3 & 1.03936693115122887083 & 9\
131 & 5 & 0.00697158270425921776 & 2\
139 & 3 & 0.06083483360363034315 & 3\
163 & 1 & 1.23339224060989144293 & 10\
179 & 5 & 0.06195226194655516123 & 17\
211 & 3 & 0.00822152771334987023 & 3\
227 & 5 & 101.51957725718817748183 & 1524\
251 & 7 & 0.32436912039697336340 & 343\
283 & 3 & 0.66685505848109321080 & 53\
307 & 3 & 0.78609012909015461469 & 73\
331 & 3 & 0.14907707956876846359 & 49\
347 & 5 & 0.08080910761305406985 & 250\
379 & 3 & 0.33390038219003027566 & 117\
419 & 9 & 1.67741166405082133222 & 40225\
443 & 5 & 0.00285060561331757659 & 156\
467 & 7 & 0.35140804797178265726 & 8190\
491 & 9 & 0.01884246766690787210 & 11387\
499 & 3 & 0.46414182882437918271 & 395\
523 & 5 & 0.02170338307342622816 & 242\
547 & 3 & 0.41073019842431356261 & 316\
563 & 9 & 2217.38322210227025102910 & 7489893\
571 & 5 & 0.29829944260019244950 & 1956\
587 & 7 & 0.25898213029907196441 & 31143\
619 & 5 & 0.00509394359043077170 & 479\
643 & 3 & 0.60354061296945788027 & 893\
659 & 11 & 1.79783553470780040531 & 4006249\
683 & 5 & 0.00159958302432158035 & 1447\
691 & 5 & 0.10350577224179846609 & 4018\
739 & 5 & 0.10706905313737192318 & 4561\
787 & 5 & 0.01395924800465447269 & 1425\
811 & 7 & 0.17939743855163310334 & 60156\
827 & 7 & 154.81828584920445528361 & 7220288\
859 & 7 & 0.00003489503731419296 & 1202\
883 & 3 & 1.46744585216089836663 & 4031\
907 & 3 & 0.59650901915093688786 & 2888\
947 & 5 & 0.03074953029629406725 & 62879\
971 & 15 & 0.04674641781017625752 & 846868715\
1019 & 13 & 0.23524712311785247652 & 481254336\
1051 & 5 & 0.15568884564868710538 & 48000\
1091 & 17 & 0.00217725207751161362 & 4271088999\
1123 & 5 & 0.07364280939031303020 & 23322\
1163 & 7 & 0.37473402025732946137 & 6435488\
1171 & 7 & 0.00082674907382398778 & 33427\
1187 & 9 & 8.57806631683350786688 & 196575884\
1259 & 15 & 0.04793034848358401730 & 23807653018\
1283 & 11 & 8.90099754034007899869 & 2309889447\
1291 & 9 & 0.00241815361075660441 & 1270411\
1307 & 11 & 16150.89301909056086676059 & 186585360146\
1427 & 15 & 1.56491207854150961696 & 208776957205\
1451 & 13 & 5.78796172237250084560 & 198287772553\
1459 & 11 & 0.02184103208570492546 & 81647642\
1483 & 7 & 3.19082650762232731055 & 6018956\
1499 & 13 & 0.00107052328295353035 & 3762443612\
1523 & 7 & 13.14472327791761386093 & 432126977\
1531 & 11 & 0.00934308869252333838 & 91517708\
1571 & 17 & 77374.81778094942048006157 & 4227257131159937\
1579 & 9 & 0.04967065171792227175 & 18842731\
1619 & 15 & 0.01588367050528775720 & 287671778919\
1627 & 7 & 1.14234502669777570952 & 8445329\
1667 & 13 & 3015.72287790923136695989 & 5415661616355\
1699 & 11 & 0.00000951105549164743 & 7161466\
1723 & 5 & 0.59636225379566621680 & 627691\
1747 & 5 & 0.63250816243545283913 & 545202\
1787 & 7 & 0.85334738271374115107 & 618910949\
1811 & 23 & 0.06992899432395535990 & 16061273092160342\
1867 & 5 & 2.38591921224867532372 & 6297927\
1907 & 13 & 6.99689763033106016118 & 3165747533075\
1931 & 21 & 90.38028537368310596632 & 258729934559477369\
1979 & 23 & 4142.79431454502235459380 & 21986676642147049263\
1987 & 7 & 0.00236988066983797578 & 2280430\
2003 & 9 & 0.01742633984133732059 & 2517289989\
2011 & 7 & 0.00053306208627154529 & 2638203\
2027 & 11 & 0.14670352596641644330 & 58540694152\
2083 & 7 & 0.05598543472754948453 & 4585113\
2099 & 19 & 0.03659270303763838186 & 2787484250243039\
2131 & 13 & 0.08176766229504099310 & 89178286597\
2179 & 7 & 0.00000665857111220152 & 527657\
2203 & 5 & 1.91715188964021586919 & 15965226\
2243 & 15 & 455169.94065435589748159377 & 81753149480991824\
2251 & 7 & 0.02300309205779565400 & 64040332\
2267 & 11 & 7.28105312585640396026 & 4870756173147\
2339 & 19 & 0.97878697785561566356 & 59954610410365278\
2347 & 5 & 1.60476528633349239697 & 7286700\
2371 & 13 & 0.00000800495831506833 & 3115285126\
2411 & 23 & 504.85388397709402086354 & 362000857310467738783\
2459 & 19 & 0.93923549011641697155 & 117489182977955129\
2467 & 7 & 0.09990402861216668317 & 100745543\
2531 & 17 & 0.00014747927341115960 & 306040338160927\
2539 & 11 & 0.00011234010687514967 & 3085577520\
2579 & 21 & 15539.25782562482093805923 & 758227028237459575815\
2659 & 13 & 0.14349748145910982056 & 1922642144666\
2683 & 5 & 0.35221319600572141285 & 14543262\
2699 & 15 & 0.00003740841184509724 & 50729716969650\
2707 & 7 & 0.17461587946412744900 & 348539119\
2731 & 11 & 0.00000353700779516742 & 321349458\
2803 & 9 & 0.78284831007160905719 & 6224866339\
2819 & 21 & 0.27671024228777928761 & 20477277172589698869\
2843 & 15 & 10.14431840386199781185 & 4022140478178599\
2851 & 11 & 0.00056503632880051287 & 11870467976\
2939 & 29 & 0.00624713894355604616 & 105268137875003312953547\
2963 & 13 & 1.32077115136644560933 & 319550765817053\
2971 & 11 & 0.03190494829015117475 & 324491996326\
3011 & 21 & 0.26180404016133656775 & 33950238559165464896\
3019 & 7 & 0.04312030585447679517 & 1802300809\
3067 & 7 & 0.50159638459199363857 & 383973387\
3083 & 13 & 66.44365839794315801657 & 15879087340845386\
3163 & 9 & 0.00000102202290136419 & 76089107\
3187 & 7 & 0.21740590516706865825 & 569775265\
3203 & 11 & 7.58674726638825494993 & 378391105040096\
3251 & 31 & 1.49283692874036018378 & 208144942072228395025506250\
3259 & 9 & 0.01121435077834574673 & 21243653932\
3299 & 27 & 0.00000054505993369606 & 403911133854039617472\
3307 & 9 & 5.24935939959546086799 & 190357002279\
3323 & 17 & 7353.12213893642943109960 & 56954453746238785334\
3331 & 15 & 0.00013628808312750543 & 12824146340774\
3347 & 11 & 0.00693687813140206147 & 15997504388590\
3371 & 21 & 0.00000905587936280291 & 1798520024157799359\
3467 & 19 & 0.14118916689423367305 & 2179702892746704617\
3491 & 23 & 1521.81323914654475213527 & 2216917282043791853812677\
3499 & 11 & 0.00000048245603947392 & 12562962745\
3539 & 23 & 0.00000000024192865064 & 502868601762633637\
3547 & 9 & 0.51723990155998270507 & 64134211184\
3571 & 15 & 0.00001877157784780692 & 5298557564473\
3643 & 9 & 0.19035162141447944342 & 196656106527\
3659 & 29 & 0.52058334069619626047 & 224345918498470661616572059\
3691 & 13 & 0.00010142020688338228 & 2190791538023\
3739 & 11 & 0.00021638831563001181 & 281259932931\
3779 & 31 & 8.11514180382761610358 & 29319627255957776379402310856\
3803 & 15 & 617.93079127720341400907 & 6125701430298575603\
3851 & 25 & 0.60046598691752433358 & 1242978436326110671361250\
3907 & 7 & 0.03397552970283538243 & 1708500805\
3923 & 23 & 0.06601853781292555224 & 16160511049152622462466\
3931 & 11 & 0.00034265756041784101 & 281879748512\
3947 & 17 & 1.75074743805447665390 & 28850358440768828838\
4003 & 13 & 0.00530457688125282635 & 13618654340552\
4019 & 19 & 14.89793441535627886639 & 10201728430786087533096\
4027 & 9 & 0.06278002336060817839 & 27507874104\
4051 & 11 & 0.00000004836198044776 & 32711170970\
4091 & 33 & 0.00015048845055910840 & 13119103199363816872272275835\
4099 & 15 & 0.00009653216942583305 & 135256029258383\
4139 & 19 & 0.00018105359839238306 & 80074451508066303468\
4211 & 23 & 0.00001204796805032161 & 4490981695211565226634\
4219 & 15 & 0.03461154251357343869 & 12962166563665575\
4243 & 9 & 0.00066320718752067075 & 4758420837\
4259 & 35 & 0.32159852619627858305 & 16759504772930116391482641893012\
4283 & 21 & 8773.29312623157893512197 & 1535643789741168641279699\
4339 & 17 & 0.00136435844805308578 & 41415425722868069\
4363 & 9 & 0.00169672983900952063 & 12072493829\
4451 & 29 & 0.52221992024973798611 & 57243468904104560776219171927\
4483 & 9 & 345.39066341572129604016 & 90594797052049\
4507 & 13 & 50.23492940730687592262 & 8000361069297882\
4523 & 21 & 0.47925191687294653824 & 12696689618269479222463\
4547 & 17 & 0.00237327326500158548 & 3365011327793496632\
4603 & 7 & 0.67370851258063680284 & 37507414772\
4643 & 13 & 0.05750243316638869235 & 143101155917879067\
4651 & 17 & 0.00001544101918254929 & 15235214493740502\
4691 & 21 & 0.00000333535197828509 & 2621016573927853606584\
4723 & 9 & 0.95386187065080598582 & 5224661311515\
4787 & 25 & 196299950.09431612703528249287 & 1407786352476914766515861602276\
4931 & 35 & 0.00000002277116284325 & 448007986303112905715567652356\
4987 & 9 & 0.08774530421699530811 & 1780109232599\
5003 & 15 & 10706.38070422879767696786 & 34395116945398635220139\
5011 & 21 & 0.00050859723642713633 & 91159910603652230720\
5051 & 29 & 8.49904519468908134660 & 1141170772780262770088006751376\
5059 & 19 & 0.00156551345932179882 & 9867629103745428509\
5099 & 39 & 0.20398131340164447660 & 1184616873402209140039591463547587231\
5107 & 7 & 0.41759384988925603185 & 40655661145\
5147 & 19 & 9.89685243132721839321 & 110480338090747788980762\
5171 & 35 & 0.36860175091251048590 & 7458685927940450075817149649785164\
5179 & 11 & 0.00241753460843546585 & 432857713333757\
5227 & 15 & 0.02590550552009961454 & 28726219588915216\
5323 & 15 & 0.63466138387854294475 & 101661479910418479\
5347 & 13 & 48.38774889967386398841 & 60377540719495011\
5387 & 23 & 46969768.16794671957479225493 & 59861891852089030100409766615\
5419 & 13 & 0.00155877501356795214 & 3346444025253455\
5443 & 9 & 0.00772315292672455124 & 259851370654\
5483 & 17 & 0.00000850543167234778 & 12838230594323889723\
5507 & 23 & 1196283.61113816912742549060 & 308977010562437453037385949809\
5531 & 23 & 0.00787997073850461781 & 114928716348176366112944426\
5563 & 15 & 0.17610681503569755604 & 289650044515887808\
5651 & 31 & 0.00001430611962530720 & 1053842731936249031364945295419\
5659 & 19 & 0.00000095193065835809 & 2612065297147014949\
5683 & 11 & 44.34550258638220009604 & 12037895727172693\
5779 & 13 & 0.00020942032710240135 & 1281689314164362\
5827 & 15 & 0.00301443397675326391 & 76300991821550264\
5843 & 25 & 5443491913.33884952923429281132 & 965194290530223430718350605440606\
5851 & 21 & 0.00045098763594953089 & 4466493231539670036837\
5867 & 21 & 2.55857313302494265980 & 6273825474355118152363875\
5923 & 7 & 0.58161114692979764321 & 287690477472\
5939 & 35 & 603122.99403995879567858207 & 1661965438061076810127871901025304745853\
5987 & 15 & 110.46116247014125681999 & 13865640754944135873431\
6011 & 27 & 4.86492240549697162717 & 87216830057513280930236553759140\
6043 & 9 & 0.00721258251692584701 & 635377400757\
6067 & 15 & 0.00083214765715847858 & 66156492166979308\
6091 & 15 & 0.00004657801554426414 & 37563167157316048\
6131 & 31 & 0.47402035862479912750 & 10588808624066473635049652220685900\
6163 & 11 & 0.00109962773126547504 & 212505143679808\
6203 & 17 & 16956.91608309776740115902 & 17758388633281304578194836\
6211 & 15 & 0.00006166346655870246 & 143325584038005751\
6299 & 43 & 2.05775857985552601858 & 1388856212566707742241274725107204020014609\
6323 & 21 & 0.15649673018585925176 & 5097012104044281804792939\
6379 & 17 & 0.00000844841271024925 & 2826990910532861162\
6427 & 9 & 0.04949970413006985692 & 3642618058167\
6451 & 17 & 0.00000000015961944529 & 4513598851205200\
6491 & 31 & 0.00000661570599992748 & 26061044582689107840212347433528\
6547 & 11 & 0.00049212375667197424 & 28027440443663\
6563 & 23 & 331287.05252863171559172025 & 875165582628365469003240470630\
6571 & 15 & 0.00113860246370370679 & 6769437817419744845\
6619 & 13 & 0.01464489531673771186 & 228222213173218843\
6659 & 23 & 0.00004608564886020156 & 3960701905118801624128927055\
6691 & 21 & 0.00076792513778405932 & 44437713772698490604378\
6763 & 9 & 0.02842453885205402194 & 12452915791145\
6779 & 39 & 4.86957703804081099214 & 69700200603218027480784056371040211086176\
6803 & 19 & 3887.42979178406639019887 & 18785753293448529197999195649\
6827 & 17 & 14.01183337740201353984 & 3988442850286746357347994\
6883 & 9 & 0.00267729911739092469 & 8323175699073\
6899 & 35 & 0.00001267331994634709 & 216639728383074935163216743914068125\
6907 & 17 & 0.00034176219626136351 & 7191713364116285807\
6947 & 29 & 9807687.61625312683632853546 & 1396721892374430002050625825823542808\
6971 & 45 & 144.95259877715406861536 & 16300433495176531353395464824906912329257404117\
7019 & 43 & 0.00006851095988046843 & 419823130126477043502027992927631092428380\
7027 & 11 & 0.00126334189165518431 & 372846808979421\
7043 & 23 & 79.57658531732701207353 & 42967244325677025460819829585\
7187 & 25 & 1941.80715024988578872060 & 111790555942583682538467190725164\
7211 & 35 & 0.00000013542177935543 & 92297726998496877729409205982930880\
7219 & 15 & 0.00005574430738945572 & 1293006824668014040\
7243 & 13 & 12.33651259315172930941 & 1756240279022402156\
7283 & 25 & 2.49002172917008268374 & 10685692353679063484178785461948\
7307 & 25 & 62171.26156087145465015128 & 1419081250825229997211797415503825\
7331 & 33 & 0.00000000032502361559 & 219455139795728684736426909205613\
7411 & 25 & 0.00015095236624874787 & 283024230782339795658408815\
7451 & 35 & 93950.78490910382748157143 & 1553319522388195483106386505386846710579688\
7459 & 15 & 0.00003036649237987241 & 2337968558206904465\
7499 & 33 & 0.00000135124978504196 & 60792334311439101075808649223338741\
7507 & 11 & 0.00010611225020431393 & 506903678439547\
7523 & 35 & 33522.02988333545407545411 & 15470691108260141377130066889443447728251\
7547 & 15 & 0.60032452144273867428 & 258920923898858718493581\
7603 & 11 & 0.00653892833763582491 & 1434870589808453\
7643 & 29 & 179270.99125915725948310242 & 2288294534095276709215678772272550333\
7691 & 43 & 1936270.78489178696965784529 & 3624801748457692072742156116148403862768295124739\
7699 & 27 & 0.00000699702201774193 & 2304258410337272194320291613\
7723 & 9 & 0.01895970678708005242 & 46425972727345\
7867 & 11 & 1.61910857940903382775 & 969216189901440388\
7883 & 17 & 0.23552172495493403317 & 28080473969786372085402707\
7907 & 21 & 0.00175081994226267973 & 568887022906905104307160000\
7963 & 13 & 0.00002874140087673655 & 1773163400695878\
8011 & 25 & 0.00000000000000681929 & 5972318120577118158596\
8059 & 21 & 0.00000000008523807585 & 384252254712642261955\
8123 & 21 & 2383.30719868549773975742 & 18940429636369330011648211950850\
8147 & 37 & 12176247.61615672604210432982 & 108543217201536511344104411121816314211436357\
8171 & 21 & 0.00001153050501312074 & 43709209245428902074487555857\
8179 & 25 & 0.00000000000408693701 & 245379074777785127542855\
8219 & 35 & 0.00003219371470307854 & 320575044136527674847638735156405728284\
8243 & 21 & 0.00003184119831052584 & 169936812859198942971657899\
8291 & 47 & 13.82276752176918097863 & 144216236301930044357917532496691060210143449492929\
8363 & 35 & 232.06334304127124142727 & 15312049368913584760165020656408258883985\
8387 & 21 & 1545.33342862710955449647 & 646162618485014801463564772032\
8419 & 19 & 0.00000012646740535682 & 7680287320591089475912\
8443 & 11 & 1.17893537822797473748 & 35478826850611232\
8467 & 15 & 0.00021223474007323571 & 1265829019458818985\
8539 & 17 & 0.00000478356805956157 & 2275177608844149620235\
8563 & 9 & 2.03683466086338426663 & 5420212257148597\
8627 & 21 & 3853.12162724028605983782 & 198171648305412280420765428378075\
8699 & 35 & 0.00002481823232900755 & 11240439275853225767486298164708391703500\
8707 & 15 & 0.05248611135357774651 & 544957212659766295149\
8731 & 17 & 0.00003500145787893966 & 1576791412901313685993\
8747 & 21 & 484018.07264403016140460258 & 288450573402627146790548293522904\
8779 & 15 & 0.00000030582300865004 & 3039062315648643705\
8803 & 9 & 0.01552030193111727803 & 126149700575776\
8819 & 49 & 4034780.63025405890013810127 & 23921217585664253728980536953688630289914216264814750750\
8867 & 27 & 2.17002992458273671577 & 128281233388318287503394675078625248\
8923 & 19 & 159.33124314583988814840 & 14174087757188097620330473\
8963 & 29 & 1985418.83735640580162530103 & 1118129255137682166151656920634902507171\
8971 & 19 & 0.00000000983100532208 & 2258409802656205931201\
9011 & 33 & 0.00335393090412302635 & 3045909543390800207752459587622105801155\
9043 & 15 & 0.10664966467865754486 & 247161131467830177656\
9059 & 39 & 13.77046293947696022352 & 1591196881664881653149442733268746342271235079\
9067 & 9 & 0.00731970822333483793 & 111048528074239\
9091 & 21 & 0.00000000236926748020 & 236934738121647151313216\
9187 & 21 & 32.52092107710830419611 & 366682928077533301738876375\
9203 & 31 & 1023606763.23245034828055208642 & 10450577199144964797897931682954499342069972\
9227 & 25 & 0.03059726342701622948 & 61065081813711319346093946656236\
9283 & 11 & 0.00312668644337035262 & 114634424721388682\
9323 & 29 & 158279113.16389204676979182791 & 198428451440095157640040934380936648153653\
9371 & 49 & 0.00000000381610952189 & 9868042349887290226589618012608800982902276255554\
9403 & 11 & 0.00062444568609082732 & 9557020329789716\
9419 & 35 & 0.00004080832458224277 & 7755628001204338180900900374435880983024\
9467 & 41 & 85262.97994248194021607026 & 712735551990570229824239164893859490851236314718\
9491 & 45 & 1.93118062921922617356 & 699904157096559596488802074953836695863315457589115\
9539 & 55 & 0.00000011262029208767 & 1854017230259878781685683081695866642830423627047547360\
9547 & 13 & 4.55503594583652426666 & 636512933633007687775\
9587 & 23 & 100123.63380876703245300853 & 36563316420884623249966367262977278\
9619 & 19 & 0.00000012220071093949 & 5176494409557611828238\
9643 & 11 & 0.00824565865962835292 & 516445608289196035\
9739 & 13 & 0.00000131331766917028 & 3753135247337182744\
9787 & 11 & 0.26005393619869399226 & 362054016521593344\
9803 & 37 & 5930542264.64370531353643671288 & 3056997114849536281991895391097536748139790872620\
9811 & 21 & 0.00000000057298287826 & 127050303874152535296768\
9851 & 45 & 0.00000000000000654205 & 18104457473462858976938437755791606152672401\
9859 & 21 & 0.00000242965527955730 & 28849640043711849588277760\
9883 & 17 & 3.13476671971555114510 & 242746734273754376709691\
9907 & 15 & 0.00104023793825974741 & 106327569146508318840\
9923 & 25 & 0.00000242632276300466 & 2387019558186614148757292853595\
9931 & 23 & 0.00000000000063190232 & 807612994249556860279774\
10067 & 21 & 518.08680600795693371589 & 342288622319158792879184584048129\
10091 & 39 & 0.00000478306284603539 & 33197255379943602421429579685905522266248888\
10099 & 25 & 0.00000000001780723538 & 52822827121201782525001225\
10139 & 55 & 73803.78400959271904263740 & 33150521228939817885342694776696740143379123299513891375082064\
10163 & 39 & 67991.83407099603855149887 & 440513245214192270403084087547571959843972111425\
10211 & 43 & 36.21163226407725524787 & 2018436122269325072524514224058369879912299468812420\
10243 & 15 & 0.08816299542047442521 & 1839984519589335519209\
10259 & 43 & 652.29068417959804070259 & 718692371932632451954249149920382743582780046485373\
10267 & 15 & 0.00014937068406596087 & 382939450567034881777\
10331 & 55 & 0.00062202944015487748 & 6664989351016927856864678973892159602391574133103405618788\
10427 & 31 & 43.44997691536163284782 & 2845156404392349071355292880344541653644\
10459 & 15 & 0.00028151807209305816 & 4605303213234756184743\
10499 & 41 & 507989.87585259730539676742 & 36955062681702947421893940479768814784946674217168545\
10531 & 27 & 0.00000000000146797238 & 3351769586174993494323439275\
10627 & 9 & 0.00017318804748393473 & 398694874516979\
10651 & 15 & 0.00011268583573677928 & 12553194111400362264301\
10667 & 39 & 25506036465736.67223882308179488976 & 44811079267440631723932527212656541784290245322216891\
10691 & 45 & 3520.56248376976938840747 & 232694011311673350014283799021469164888464834922982077\
10723 & 15 & 0.00000092340639534283 & 21063173152441592413\
10739 & 37 & 0.00000000004343365251 & 63654774159741723864112646151198426204132\
10771 & 21 & 0.00006625182262625102 & 6376645704546135373491729472\
10859 & 45 & 0.00001929088385542839 & 144220156391029884341565008365356176802926959516032\
10867 & 23 & 0.00238767061834684639 & 10525038031112725310622398635\
10883 & 23 & 515416.17141491515842049134 & 87346650878073993681932895672040241977\
10891 & 19 & 0.00000016242472588156 & 11884817420032518255654205\
10939 & 27 & 0.00000000901518555777 & 384273411889144154980660519291\
10979 & 35 & 0.00368603736420883092 & 3439622056704005260743458738409400370601464092\
10987 & 11 & 0.00349823665853601300 & 20844399361215150\
11003 & 27 & 2285808.76686708228105121178 & 215352519101955536146438795127413473169151\
11027 & 27 & 1.79342141479218417410 & 1218295757801391198254967804816697855\
11059 & 25 & 0.00000017029649146888 & 339791808371879703974813638561\
11083 & 15 & 0.00029395864104112152 & 69130942815185383643\
11131 & 25 & 0.00000000011466927704 & 779081246955355170396973552\
After all the calculations were finished, John Coates informed us that for $q$ congruent to $3$ modulo $8$, one should actually take the square root of the $j(\mathcal O_K) - 12^3$ with negative imaginary part to get the appropriate quadratic twist of the Gross curve $A$ (see the formula (2.2) of the paper by Buhler and Gross [@BG]). Hence, we should work with the conjugate of the equation (1) under the Galois group of $H$ over $\Bbb Q$. We have checked for a few small $q$ congruent to $3$ modulo $8$, that the $L$-values, torsion parts and Tamagawa numbers of the two conjugate curves are the same. As a consequence, the analytic orders of Tate-Shafarevich groups of these curves are the same. John Coates expects that Tate-Shafarevich groups of these curves are actually isomorphic, but all is not totally clear theoretically.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We primary thank John Coates for suggesting the problem to us, and for very inspiring correspondence. We would like to thank Mark Watkins [@Wat], who sent us a new algorithm allowing to make great progress in our calculations of the values $L(E/H,1)$.
[999]{}
W. Bosma, J. Cannon, C. Playoust, [*The Magma algebra system. I. The user language*]{}, Computational algebra and number theory (London, 1993), J. Symbolic Comput. [**24**]{} (1997), 235-265
J. Buhler, B. Gross, [*Arithmetic on elliptic curves with complex multiplication. II*]{}, Invent. math. [**79**]{} (1985), 11-29
J. Choi, J. Coates, [*Iwasawa theory of quadratic twists of $X_0(49)$*]{}, Acta Mathematica Sinica (English Series) [**34**]{} (2017), 19-28
J. Coates, Y. Kezuka, Y. Li, Y. Tian, [*On the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture for certain elliptic curves with complex multiplication*]{} (in preparation)
J. Coates, Y. Li, [*Non-vanishing theorems for central $L$-values of some elliptic curves with complex multiplication*]{}, arXiv:1811.07595v2 \[math.NT\] 5 Dec 2018
B. Gross, [*Arithmetic on elliptic curves with complex multiplication*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**776**]{}, Springer Verlag 1980
M. Watkins, [*Computing with Hecke Grössencharacters*]{}, Publications matématiques de Besancon [**2011**]{} (2011), 119-135
M. Watkins, Letter to A. Dbrowski (September 26, 2017)
Institute of Mathematics, University of Szczecin, Wielkopolska 15, 70-451 Szczecin, Poland; E-mail addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For each positive integer $k$, let $\mathscr{A}_k$ be the set of all positive integers $n$ such that $\gcd(n, F_n) = k$, where $F_n$ denotes the $n$th Fibonacci number.
We prove that the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ exists and is equal to $$\sum_{d = 1}^\infty \frac{\mu(d)}{\lcm(dk, z(dk))}$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function and $z(m)$ denotes the least positive integer $n$ such that $m$ divides $F_n$. We also give an effective criterion to establish when the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ is zero and we show that this is the case if and only if $\mathscr{A}_k$ is empty.
address:
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Università di Torino\
via Carlo Alberto 10\
10123 Torino, Italy
- |
Institut de Math[é]{}matiques de Bordeaux\
Universit[é]{} de Bordeaux\
351 Cours de la Lib[é]{}ration\
33405 Talence, France
author:
- Carlo Sanna
- Emanuele Tron
title: 'The density of numbers $n$ having a prescribed G.C.D. with the $n$th Fibonacci number'
---
Introduction
============
Let $(u_n)_{n \geq 1}$ be a nondegenerate linear recurrence with integral values. The arithmetic relations between $u_n$ and $n$ are a topic which has attracted the attention of several researchers, especially in recent years. For instance, the set of positive integers $n$ such that $u_n$ is divisible by $n$ has been studied by Alba González, Luca, Pomerance, and Shparlinski [@MR2928495], under the mild hypothesis that the characteristic polynomial of $(u_n)_{n \geq 1}$ has only simple roots; and by André-Jeannin [@MR1131414], Luca and Tron [@MR3409327], Somer [@MR1271392], and Sanna [@MR3606950], when $(u_n)_{n \geq 1}$ is a Lucas sequence. A problem in a sense dual to this is that of understanding when $n$ is coprime to $u_n$. In this respect, Sanna [@San2_preprint Theorem 1.1] recently proved the following result.
The set of positive integers $n$ such that $\gcd(n,u_n)=1$ has a positive asymptotic density, unless $(u_n / n)_{n \geq 1}$ is a linear recurrence.
In this paper, we focus on the linear recurrence of Fibonacci numbers $(F_n)_{n \geq 1}$, defined as usual by $F_1 = F_2 = 1$ and $F_{n + 2} = F_{n+1} + F_n$ for all integers $n \geq 1$. For each positive integer $k$, define the set $$\mathscr{A}_k := \{n \geq 1 : \gcd(n, F_n) = k\} .$$ Leonetti and Sanna [@LS_preprint Theorems 1.1 and 1.3] proved the following:
If $\mathscr{B} := \{k \geq 1 : \mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing\}$ then its counting function satisfies $$\#\mathscr{B}(x) \gg \frac{x}{\log x} ,$$ for all $x \geq 2$. Furthermore, $\mathscr{B}$ has zero asymptotic density.
Let $z(m)$ be the *rank of appearance*, or *entry point*, of a positive integer $m$ in the sequence of Fibonacci numbers, that is, the smallest positive integer $n$ such that $m$ divides $F_n$. It is well known that $z(m)$ exists. Set also $\ell(m) := \lcm(m, z(m))$.
Our first result establishes the existence of the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ and provides an effective criterion to check whether this asymptotic density is positive.
\[thm:exists\] For each positive integer $k$, the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ exists. Moreover, $\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{A}_k) > 0$ if and only if $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $k = \gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})$.
Our second result is an explicit formula for the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$.
\[thm:main\] For each positive integer $k$, we have $$\label{equ:main}
\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{A}_k) = \sum_{d = 1}^\infty \frac{\mu(d)}{\ell(dk)} ,$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
Throughout, we reserve the letters $p$ and $q$ for prime numbers. For a set of positive integers $\mathscr{S}$, we put $\mathscr{S}(x) := \mathscr{S} \cap [1,x]$ for all $x \geq 1$, and we recall that the asymptotic density $\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{S})$ of $\mathscr{S}$ is defined as the limit of the ratio $\#\mathscr{S}(x) / x$, as $x \to +\infty$, whenever this exists. As usual, $\mu(n)$, $\tau(n)$, and $P(n)$, denote the Möbius function, the number of divisors of a positive integer $n$, and the greatest prime factor of an integer $n > 1$, respectively. We employ the Landau–Bachmann “Big Oh” and “little oh” notations $O$ and $o$, as well as the associated Vinogradov symbol $\ll$.
Preliminaries
=============
The next lemma summarizes some basic properties of $\ell$, $z$, and the Fibonacci numbers, which we will implicitly use later without further mention.
\[lem:basic\] For all positive integers $m$, $n$ and all prime numbers $p$, we have:
(i) $m \mid F_n$ if and only if $z(m) \mid n$.
(ii) $z(\lcm(m, n)) = \lcm(z(m), z(n))$.
(iii) $z(p) \mid p - \left(\frac{p}{5}\right)$, where $\left(\frac{p}{5}\right)$ is a Legendre symbol.
(iv) $\nu_p(F_n) \geq \nu_p(n)$ whenever $z(p) \mid n$.
(v) $m \mid \gcd(n, F_n)$ if and only if $\ell(m) \mid n$.
(vi) $\ell(\lcm(m, n)) = \lcm(\ell(m), \ell(n))$.
(vii) $\ell(p) = p z(p)$ for $p \neq 5$, while $\ell(5) = 5$.
Facts (i)–(iii) are well-known (see, e.g., [@MR3141741]). Fact (iv) follows quickly from the formulas for $\nu_p(F_n)$ given by Lengyel [@MR1337793]. Finally, (v)–(vii) are easy consequences of (i)–(iii) and the definition of $\ell$.
Now we state an easy criterion to establish if $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$ [@LS_preprint Lemma 2.2(iii)].
\[lem:Aknonempty\] $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $k = \gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})$, for all integers $k \geq 1$.
If $\mathscr{S}$ is a set of positive integers, we define its *set of nonmultiples* as $$\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{S}) := \{n \geq 1 : s \nmid n \text{ for all } s \in \mathscr{S} \} .$$ Sets of nonmultiples, or more precisely their complement *sets of multiples* $$\mathscr{M}(\mathscr{S}) := \{n \geq 1 : s \mid n \text{ for some } s \in \mathscr{S} \} ,$$ have been studied by several authors, we refer the reader to [@MR1414678] for a systematic treatment of this topic. We shall need only the following result.
\[lem:thinset\] If $\mathscr{S}$ is a set of positive integers such that $$\sum_{s \in \mathscr{S}} \frac1{s} < +\infty ,$$ then $\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{S})$ has an asymptotic density. Moreover, if $1 \notin \mathscr{S}$ then $\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{S})) > 0$.
The part about the existence of $\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{S}))$ is due to Erd[ő]{}s [@MR1574879], while the second assertion follows easily from the inequality $$\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{S})) \geq \prod_{s \in \mathscr{S}} \left(1 - \frac1{s}\right)$$ proved by Heilbronn [@Hei37] and Rohrbach [@MR1581555].
For any $\gamma > 0$, let us define $$\mathscr{Q}_\gamma := \{p : z(p) \leq p^{\gamma}\} .$$ The following is a well-known lemma, which belongs to the folklore.
\[lem:Qgamma\] For all $x,\gamma > 0$, we have $\#\mathscr{Q}_\gamma(x) \ll x^{2 \gamma}$.
It is enough noting that $$2^{\#\mathscr{Q}_\gamma(x)} \leq \prod_{p \in \mathscr{Q}_\gamma(x)} p \mid \prod_{n \leq x^{\gamma}} F_n \leq 2^{\sum_{n \leq x^{\gamma}} n} = 2^{O(x^{2\gamma})} ,$$ where we employed the inequality $F_n \leq 2^n$, valid for all positive integers $n$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:exists\]
===============================
We begin by showing that $\mathscr{A}_k$ is a scaled set of nonmultiples.
\[lem:AandL\] For each positive integer $k$ such that $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$, we have $$\mathscr{A}_k = \left\{\ell(k)m : m \in \mathscr{N}(\mathscr{L}_k) \right\} ,$$ where $$\mathscr{L}_k := \{p : p \mid k\} \cup \{\ell(kp) / \ell(k) : p \nmid k\} .$$
We know that $n \in \mathscr{A}_k$ implies $\ell(k) \mid n$. Hence, it is enough to prove that $\ell(k)m \in \mathscr{A}_k$, for some positive integer $m$, if and only if $m \in \mathscr{N}(\mathscr{L}_k)$.
Clearly, $\ell(k)m \in \mathscr{A}_k$ for some positive integer $m$, if and only if $$\label{equ:vpgcd0}
\nu_p(\gcd(\ell(k)m, F_{\ell(k)m})) = \nu_p(k)$$ for all prime numbers $p$.
Let $p$ be a prime number dividing $k$. Then, for all positive integer $m$, we have $z(p) \mid \ell(k)m$ and consequently $\nu_p(F_{\ell(k)m}) \geq \nu_p(\ell(k)m)$, so that $$\label{equ:vpgcd1}
\nu_p(\gcd(\ell(k)m, F_{\ell(k)m})) = \nu_p(\ell(k)m) = \nu_p(\ell(k)) + \nu_p(m) .$$ In particular, recalling that $k = \gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})$ since $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$ and thanks to Lemma \[lem:Aknonempty\], for $m = 1$ we get $$\nu_p(k) = \nu_p(\gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})) = \nu_p(\ell(k)) ,$$ which together with (\[equ:vpgcd1\]) gives $$\label{equ:vpgcd2}
\nu_p(\gcd(\ell(k)m, F_{\ell(k)m})) = \nu_p(k) + \nu_p(m) .$$ Therefore, (\[equ:vpgcd0\]) holds if and only if $p \nmid m$.
Now let $p$ be a prime number not dividing $k$. Then (\[equ:vpgcd0\]) holds if and only if $$p \nmid \gcd(\ell(k)m, F_{\ell(k)m}) .$$ That is, $\ell(p) \nmid \ell(k) m$, which in turn is equivalent to $$\frac{\ell(kp)}{\ell(k)} = \frac{\lcm(\ell(k), \ell(p))}{\ell(k)} \nmid m ,$$ since $p$ and $k$ are relatively prime.
Summarizing, we have found that $\ell(k)m \in \mathscr{A}_k$, for some positive integer $m$, if and only if $p \nmid m$ for all prime numbers $p$ dividing $k$, and $\ell(kq)/\ell(k) \nmid m$ for all prime numbers $q$ not dividing $k$, that is, $m \in \mathscr{N}(\mathscr{L}_k)$.
Now we show that the series of the reciprocals of the $\ell(n)$’s converges. The methods employed are somehow similar to those used to prove the result of [@MR2740727]. (See also [@MR3125150] for a wide generalization of that result.)
\[lem:convergence\] The series $$\sum_{n = 1}^\infty \frac1{\ell(n)}$$ converges.
Let $n > 1$ be an integer and put $p := P(n)$. Clearly, $\lcm(n, z(p))$ is divisible by $\ell(p)$. Hence, we can write $\lcm(n, z(p)) = \ell(p) m$, where $m$ is a positive integer such that $P(m) \leq p + 1$. Also, if $p$ and $\lcm(n, z(p))$ are known then $n$ can be chosen in at most $\tau(z(p))$ ways. Therefore, $$\sum_{n = 2}^\infty \frac1{\ell(n)} \leq \sum_{n = 2}^\infty \frac1{\lcm(n, z(P(n)))} \ll \sum_{p} \frac{\tau(z(p))}{p z(p)}\sum_{P(m) \leq p + 1} \frac1{m} ,$$ where we also used the fact that $\ell(p) \gg p z(p)$ for each prime number $p$. By Mertens’ formula [@MR1342300 Chapter I.1, Theorem 11], we have $$\sum_{P(m) \leq p + 1} \frac1{m} \leq \prod_{q \leq p + 1} \left(1 - \frac1{q}\right)^{-1} \ll \log p ,$$ for all prime numbers $p$. Put $\beta := 3/4$ and $\gamma := 1/3$. It is well known [@MR1342300 Chapter I.5, Corollary 1.1] that $\tau(n) \ll_\varepsilon n^\varepsilon$ for any fixed $\varepsilon > 0$. Hence, $\tau(z(p))\log p \ll p^{1 - \beta}$ for all prime numbers $p$. Thus we have found that $$\label{equ:conv1}
\sum_{n = 1}^\infty \frac1{\ell(n)} \ll \sum_{p} \frac{\tau(z(p)) \log p}{p z(p)} \ll \sum_{p} \frac1{p^{\beta} z(p)} .$$ On the one hand, by partial summation and by Lemma \[lem:Qgamma\], we have $$\label{equ:conv2}
\sum_{p \in \mathscr{Q}_\gamma} \frac1{p^{\beta} z(p)} \leq \sum_{p \in \mathscr{Q}_\gamma} \frac1{p^{\beta}} = \left. \frac{\#\mathscr{Q}_\gamma(t)}{t^{\beta}}\right|_{t = 2}^{+\infty} + \beta\int_2^{+\infty} \frac{\#\mathscr{Q}_\gamma(t)}{t^{\beta + 1}}\,\mathrm{d}t \ll 1 ,$$ since $\beta > 2\gamma$. On the other hand, by the definition of $\mathscr{Q}_\gamma$, we have $$\label{equ:conv3}
\sum_{p \notin \mathscr{Q}_\gamma} \frac1{p^{\beta} z(p)} < \sum_{p} \frac1{p^{\beta + \gamma}} \ll 1 ,$$ since $\beta + \gamma > 1$. Hence, putting together (\[equ:conv1\]), (\[equ:conv2\]), and (\[equ:conv3\]), we get the claim.
Now we are ready for the proof of Theorem \[thm:exists\]. If $k$ is a positive integer such that $\mathscr{A}_k = \varnothing$ then, obviously, the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ exists and is equal to zero. So we can assume $\mathscr{A}_k \neq \varnothing$, which in turn, by Lemma \[lem:Aknonempty\], implies that $k = \gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})$. Thanks to Lemma \[lem:convergence\], we have $$\sum_{n \in \mathscr{L}_k} \frac1{n} \ll \sum_{p} \frac1{\ell(kp)} \leq \sum_{p} \frac1{\ell(p)} < +\infty ,$$ while clearly $1 \notin \mathscr{L}_k$. Hence, Lemma \[lem:thinset\] tell us that $\mathscr{N}(\mathscr{L}_k)$ has a positive asymptotic density. Finally, by Lemma \[lem:AandL\] we conclude that the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{A}_k$ exists and it is positive.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
=============================
We begin by introducing a family of sets. For each positive integer $k$, let $\mathscr{B}_k$ be the set of positive integers $n$ such that:
(i) $k \mid \gcd(n, F_n)$;
(ii) if $p \mid \gcd(n, F_n)$ for some prime number $p$, then $p \mid k$.
The essential part of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is the following formula for the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{B}_k$.
\[lem:Bkdens\] For all positive integers $k$, the asymptotic density of $\mathscr{B}_k$ exists and $$\label{equ:densBk}
\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{B}_k) = \sum_{(d,k) = 1} \frac{\mu(d)}{\ell(dk)} ,$$ where the series is absolutely convergent.
For all positive integers $n$ and $d$, let us define $$\varrho(n, d) := \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } d \mid F_n, \\ 0 & \text{ if } d \nmid F_n .\end{cases}$$ Note that $\varrho$ is multiplicative in its second argument, that is, $$\varrho(n, de) = \varrho(n, d) \varrho(n, e)$$ for all relatively prime positive integers $d$ and $e$, and all positive integers $n$.
It is easy to see that $n \in \mathscr{B}_k$ if and only if $\ell(k) \mid n$ and $\varrho(n, p) = 0$ for all prime numbers $p$ dividing $n$ but not dividing $k$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:count1}
\#\mathscr{B}_k(x) &= \sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ \ell(k) \,\mid\, n}} \prod_{\substack{p \,\mid\, n \\ p \,\nmid\, k}} (1 - \varrho(n, p)) = \sum_{\substack{n \leq x \\ \ell(k) \,\mid\, n}} \sum_{\substack{d \,\mid\, n \\ (d, k) = 1}} \mu(d) \varrho(n, d) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{\substack{d \leq x \\ (d, k) = 1}} \mu(d) \sum_{\substack{m \leq x/d \\ \ell(k) \,\mid\, dm}} \varrho(dm, d) ,\end{aligned}$$ for all $x > 0$. Moreover, given a positive integer $d$ which is relatively prime with $k$, we have that $\varrho(dm, d) = 1$ and $\ell(k) \mid dm$ if and only if $\lcm(z(d), \ell(k)) \mid dm$, which in turn is equivalent to $m$ being divisible by $$\frac{\lcm(d, \lcm(z(d), \ell(k)))}{d} = \frac{\lcm(\ell(d), \ell(k))}{d} = \frac{\ell(dk)}{d} ,$$ since $d$ and $k$ are relatively prime. Hence, $$\sum_{\substack{m \leq x/d \\ \ell(k) \,\mid\, dm}} \varrho(dm, d) = \sum_{\substack{m \leq x / d \\ \ell(dk)/d \,\mid\, m}} 1 = \left\lfloor\frac{x}{\ell(dk)}\right\rfloor ,$$ for all $x > 0$, which together with (\[equ:count1\]) implies that $$\label{equ:count2}
\#\mathscr{B}_k(x) = \sum_{\substack{d \leq x \\ (d, k) = 1}} \mu(d) \left\lfloor \frac{x}{\ell(dk)}\right\rfloor = x \sum_{\substack{d \leq x \\ (d, k) = 1}} \frac{\mu(d)}{\ell(dk)} - R(x) ,$$ for all $x > 0$, where $$R(x) := \sum_{\substack{d \leq x \\ (d, k) = 1}} \mu(d) \left\{ \frac{x}{\ell(dk)}\right\} .$$
Now, thanks to Lemma \[lem:convergence\], we have $$\sum_{(d,k) = 1} \frac{|\mu(d)|}{\ell(dk)} \leq \sum_{d = 1}^{\infty} \frac1{\ell(d)} < +\infty .$$ Hence, the series in (\[equ:densBk\]) is absolutely convergent.
It remains only to prove that $R(x) = o(x)$ as $x \to +\infty$, and then the desired result follows from (\[equ:count2\]). We have $$\begin{aligned}
|R(x)| &\leq \sum_{d \leq x} |\mu(d)|\left\{\frac{x}{\ell(dk)}\right\} = O\!\left(x^{1/2}\right) + \sum_{x^{1/2} \leq d \leq x} |\mu(d)|\left\{\frac{x}{\ell(dk)}\right\} \\
&\leq O\!\left(x^{1/2}\right) + x \sum_{d \,\geq\, x^{1/2}} \frac1{\ell(d)} = o(x) ,\end{aligned}$$ as $x \to +\infty$, since by Lemma \[lem:convergence\] the last series is the tail of a convergent series and hence converges to $0$ as $x \rightarrow +\infty$. The proof is complete.
At this point, by the definition of $\mathscr{B}_k$ and by the inclusion-exclusion principle, it follows easily that $$\#\mathscr{A}_k(x) = \sum_{d \,\mid\, k} \mu(d) \, \#\mathscr{B}_{dk}(x) ,$$ for all $x > 0$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:Bkdens\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:last}
\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{A}_k) &= \sum_{d \,\mid\, k} \mu(d) \, \mathbf{d}(\mathscr{B}_{dk}) = \sum_{d \,\mid\, k} \mu(d) \sum_{(e, dk) = 1} \frac{\mu(e)}{\ell(dek)} \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{d \,\mid\, k} \sum_{(e, k) = 1} \frac{\mu(de)}{\ell(dek)} = \sum_{f = 1}^\infty \frac{\mu(f)}{\ell(fk)} , \end{aligned}$$ since every squarefree positive integer $f$ can be written in a unique way as $f = de$, where $d$ and $e$ are squarefree positive integers such that $d \mid k$ and $\gcd(e, k) = 1$. Also note that the rearrangement of the series in (\[equ:last\]) is justified by absolute convergence. The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is complete.
As a consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\], note that if $\mathscr{A}_k=\varnothing$ (or equivalently if $k = \gcd(\ell(k), F_{\ell(k)})$, by Lemma \[lem:Aknonempty\]) then the series in (\[equ:main\]) evaluates to $0$, which is not obvious a priori.
Generalization to Lucas sequences
=================================
In order to simplify the exposition, we chose to give our results for the sequence of Fibonacci numbers. However, they can be easily generalized to every nondegenerate Lucas sequence. We recall that a Lucas sequence is an integral linear recurrence $(u_n)_{n \geq 0}$ satifying $u_0 = 0$, $u_1 = 1$, and $u_n = a_1 u_{n - 1} + a_2 u_{n - 2}$, for all integers $n \geq 2$, where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are relatively prime integers; while “nondegenerate” means that $a_1 a_2 \neq 0$ and that the ratio of the roots of the characteristic polinomial $f_u(X) := X^2 - a_1 X - a_2$ is not a root of unity.
To prove this generalization, there is just a minor complication that must be handled: The rank of appearance $z_u(m)$ of a positive integer $m$ in the Lucas sequence $(u_n)_{n \geq 0}$, that is, the smallest positive integer $n$ such that $m$ divides $u_n$, exists if and only if $m$ is relatively prime with $a_2$. Therefore, the arguments involving $z(m)$ must be adapted to $z_u(m)$ considering only the positive integers $m$ which are relatively prime with $a_2$. Except for that, everything works the same, since $z_u(m)$ and $\ell_u(m) := \lcm(m, z_u(m))$ satisfy the same properties of $z(m)$ and $\ell(m)$. Note only that Lemma \[lem:basic\](iii) must be replaced by: $$z_u(p) \mid p - (-1)^{p-1}\left(\tfrac{\Delta_u}{p}\right),$$ for all prime numbers $p$ not dividing $a_2$, where $\Delta_u := a_1^2 + 4a_2$ is the discriminant of $f_u(X)$. Also, the analog of Lemma \[lem:basic\](iv), that is, $\nu_p(u_n) \geq \nu_p(n)$ whenever $z_u(p) \mid n$, can be proved, for example, by using the formula for the $p$-adic valuations of the terms of a Lucas sequence given in [@MR3512829].
With these changes, the following generalization can be proved.
Let $(u_n)_{n \geq 0}$ be a nondegenerate Lucas sequence satisfying the recurrence $u_n = a_1 u_{n - 1} + a_2 u_{n - 2}$ for all integers $n \geq 2$, where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are relatively prime integers. Furthermore, for each positive integer $k$, define the set $$\mathscr{A}_{u,k} := \{n \geq 1 : \gcd(n, u_n) = k\} .$$ Then $\mathscr{A}_{u,k} \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $\gcd(k, a_2) = 1$ and $k = \gcd(\ell_u(k), u_{\ell_u(k)})$. In such a case, $\mathscr{A}_{u,k}$ has an asymptotic density which is given by $$\mathbf{d}(\mathscr{A}_{u,k}) = \sum_{(d, a_2) = 1} \frac{\mu(d)}{\ell_u(d k)} ,$$ where the series is absolutely convergent.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors thank the anonymous referee for carefully reading the paper and for suggesting a much simpler proof of Lemma \[lem:convergence\], instead of our original one which was based on arguments similar to those of [@MR1836921 Theorem 5].
[10]{} J. J. Alba González, F. Luca, C. Pomerance, and I. E. Shparlinski, *On numbers [$n$]{} dividing the [$n$]{}th term of a linear recurrence*, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) **55** (2012), no. 2, 271–289.
R. André-Jeannin, *Divisibility of generalized [F]{}ibonacci and [L]{}ucas numbers by their subscripts*, Fibonacci Quart. **29** (1991), no. 4, 364–366.
C. Ballot and F. Luca, *On the sumset of the primes and a linear recurrence*, Acta Arith. **161** (2013), no. 1, 33–46.
P. Erd[ő]{}s, *On the density of the abundant numbers*, J. London Math. Soc. **9** (1934), no. 4, 278.
J. B. Friedlander, C. Pomerance, and I. E. Shparlinski, *Period of the power generator and small values of [C]{}armichael’s function*, Math. Comp. **70** (2001), no. 236, 1591–1605.
R. R. Hall, *Sets of multiples*, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 118, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
H. A. Heilbronn, *On an inequality in the elementary theory of numbers*, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **33** (1937), 207–209.
K. S. E. Lee, *On the sum of a prime and a [F]{}ibonacci number*, Int. J. Number Theory **6** (2010), no. 7, 1669–1676.
T. Lengyel, *The order of the [F]{}ibonacci and [L]{}ucas numbers*, Fibonacci Quart. **33** (1995), no. 3, 234–239.
P. Leonetti and C. Sanna, *On the greatest common divisor of $n$ and the $n$th [F]{}ibonacci number*, Rocky Mountain J. Math. (to appear).
F. Luca and E. Tron, *The distribution of self-[F]{}ibonacci divisors*, Advances in the theory of numbers, Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 77, Fields Inst. Res. Math. Sci., Toronto, ON, 2015, pp. 149–158.
M. Renault, *The period, rank, and order of the [$(a,b)$]{}-[F]{}ibonacci sequence [${\rm mod}\, m$]{}*, Math. Mag. **86** (2013), no. 5, 372–380.
H. Rohrbach, *Beweis einer zahlentheoretischen [U]{}ngleichung*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **177** (1937), 193–196.
C. Sanna, *On numbers [$n$]{} dividing the [$n$]{}th term of a [L]{}ucas sequence*, Int. J. Number Theory **13** (2017), no. 3, 725–734.
C. Sanna, *On numbers $n$ relatively prime to the $n$th term of a linear recurrence*, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (online ready) <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-017-0514-8>
C. Sanna, *The [$p$]{}-adic valuation of [L]{}ucas sequences*, Fibonacci Quart. **54** (2016), no. 2, 118–124.
L. Somer, *Divisibility of terms in [L]{}ucas sequences by their subscripts*, Applications of [F]{}ibonacci numbers, [V]{}ol. 5 ([S]{}t. [A]{}ndrews, 1992), Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1993, pp. 515–525.
G. Tenenbaum, *Introduction to analytic and probabilistic number theory*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 46, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the spectral properties of the UV ($\lambda\lambda$2650-3050 Å) and optical ($\lambda\lambda$4000-5500 Å) emission features in a sample of 293 type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) database. We explore different correlations between their emission line properties, as well as the correlations with the other emission lines from the spectral range. We find several interesting correlations and we can outline the most interesting results as follows. (i) There is a kinematical connection between the UV and optical lines, indicating that the UV and optical lines originate from the outer part of the broad line region, so-called intermediate line region; (ii) The unexplained anticorrelations of the optical (EW Fe II$_{opt}$) vsersus EW \[\] 5007 Å and EW Fe II$_{opt}$ versus FWHM H$\beta$ have not been detected for the UV lines; (iii) The significant averaged redshift in the UV lines, which is not present in optical , indicates an inflow in the UV emitting clouds, and probably their asymmetric distribution. (iv) Also, we confirm the anticorrelation between the intensity ratio of the optical and UV lines and FWHM of H$\beta$, and we find the anticorrelations of this ratio with the widths of 2800 Å, optical and UV . This indicates a very important role for the column density and microturbulence in the emitting gas. We discuss the starburst activity in high–density regions of young AGNs as a possible explanation of the detected optical correlations and intensity line ratios of the UV and optical lines.'
author:
- 'Jelena Kovačevi'' c-Dojčinović'
- 'Luka Č. Popovi'' c'
title: The connections between the UV and optical emission lines in type 1 AGNs
---
Introduction
============
The spectral properties of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) depend on the physical conditions and geometry of emitting regions that radiate in a wide wavelength range. Among a large diversity of the spectral features in AGN spectra, iron lines are one of the most intriguing because there are numerous open questions about their nature [see, e.g., @co2000]. They can be very intense in the UV and optical part around $\lambda$2800 Å and H$\beta$. The mechanism of their excitation, the explanation of the observed strength, the place of the emission region in an AGN structure, and some correlations observed between and some other spectral properties are still a matter of debate [for detailed review see @ko2010].
It is widely accepted that the iron is mostly produced by the Type Ia supernovae after explosions of long-lived, intermediate-mass binaries. Therefore, it is expected that the ratio of Fe to some elements (O, N, Mg) that are produced in explosions of short-lived, massive stars (primarily Type II supernovae), could be a cosmological metallicity indicator, due to their different enrichment timescales [@ve2003]; that is the iron lines may serve to constrain the age of an AGN and its host galaxy [see e.g. @do2011; @dr2011 and references therein].
To understand the nature and evolution of AGNs, efforts have been made to investigate the correlations between the spectral properties in different AGN spectral bands and to determine the physics that is behind the detected correlations [see e.g. @bg92; @w99; @cr02; @sh03; @y04; @g04; @w06; @wa09; @lu09; @ko2010; @pk11; @ma12; @gr2015 etc.]. Some correlations between the optical and other spectral properties in AGNs have been reported, but the physical explanation is unknown [see @bg92; @ko2010]. Some of these correlations, for example, are part of Eigenvector 1 of @bg92 [for a review see @ko2010; @pk11 and references therein]. Among them, the most interesting are the anticorrelations of the equivalent widths (EW) optical lines with the EW \[O III\] and H$\beta$ width. However, it is difficult to determine the physics that is behind these correlations because choosing a sample of AGNs using different spectral criteria (continuum luminosity, \[\] strength, FWHM H$\beta$ etc.) can give different correlations between spectral properties, and in some cases even the opposite in different subsamples [@y04; @g04; @lu09; @su09; @pk11]. As an example, a significant difference is seen between the correlations in spectral properties for objects divided by FWHM of H$\beta$ [@su09; @ko2010]. However, it seems that more relevant is to consider AGNs with different \[\] 5007 Å to narrow H$\beta$ ratios ($\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta}_{NLR}$), because this may give an additional information about the starburst (SB) fraction in AGNs [see @pk11], which is probably related to the AGN evolution [@lt06; @m09; @sa10; @pk11]. In an early phase of their evolution, AGNs are probably composite objects, which consist of SBs (star-forming regions) and the central AGN engine. The influence of SBs on the spectral properties becomes weaker in a later phase of the AGN evolution [@m09].
The origin of the iron lines is also very intriguing question. The mechanism of their excitation, the explanation of the observed strength, and the place of emission region in an AGN structure are still a matter of debate.
Several authors have shown that a classical photoionization model cannot sufficiently explain the observed UV and optical emission strengths, and that additional processes must be included [@co1980; @jo1987; @sp1998; @sp2003; @co2000; @ve2003; @ba04; @bv2008; @sa2011 etc.]. There are some indications that microturbulence may have a significant influence on the strength [@ne1983; @ve2003; @sp2003; @ba04; @bv2008; @sa2011]. @ba04 showed that a photoionization model may reproduce well the observed shape and the EW of the UV 2200-2800 bump, but only if a microturbulent gas motion is taken into account. The strength is also controlled by the column density as well [@jo1987; @ve2004; @fe2009; @sa2011] and that the strong emission is connected with high density emitting regions [@jo1991; @ba1996; @law1997; @ku2000; @gr1996; @ha2013; @cl2013].
It seems that there are significant differences in the physics of the UV and optical emission region: the optical and UV lines correlate differently with some physical properties. The $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ ratio depends on column density [@jo1987; @sa2011] and microturbulence [@ve2003]. Classical photoionization models, assuming a symmetric distribution of emitters, fail to account for this ratio. They cannot explain the larger-than-predicted ratios of $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ emission. @sa2011 suggested that this failure may be caused by some alternative heating mechanisms for the optical , as for example, heating by shocks or a wrong assumption that the emission is isotropic [see @fe2009]. If the clouds are distributed asymmetrically, the observed $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ ratio may be reproduced [@fe2009]. Moreover, [@fe2009] showed that the UV emission is emitted less isotropically than the optical lines, and that the predicted emission ratios from the shielded face are in a good agreement with observations. This asymmetrical distribution is based on the fact that the optical lines are, on average, slightly redshifted, indicating an inflow in the emitting region [@hu2008b]. However, [@su12] demonstrated that this redshift is not significant and should be taken with caution.
In several previous papers [see @po2009; @ko2010; @pk11; @sh2012; @po2013], we investigated the optical lines and their spectral properties in AGNs. Here, we extend our investigation to the UV part of AGN spectra. The aim of this work is to investigate relationships between the optical and UV emission in order to understand the physics of their emission regions. For this purpose, we model the lines in the UV and optical bands, and fit the observed spectra with the model. After that, we explore the correlations between the spectral properties of the optical and UV lines, and the correlations between them and the and H$\beta$ lines. The flux ratios of the considered lines, which may be indicators of the some physical conditions, are analyzed, as well as the possible connection of starburst activity with some unexplained correlations of the iron lines.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section §2 we describe the sample selection, spectra decomposition, and method of analysis. The results of the performed correlations and our analysis are given in Section §3, and discussed in Section §4. Finally, in Section §5, we outline our conclusions.
The sample and analysis
=======================
The AGN sample
--------------
For this investigation we use the spectra from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), Data Release 7 [see @ab2009]. The SDSS uses the 2.5 m telescope at the Apache Point Observatory, a pair of spectrographs fed by optical fibers and 120-megapixel CCD camera. Data Release 7 (DR7) is the seventh major data release and provides $\sim$ 120,000 QSO spectra.
In order to investigate the correlations between the properties of the emission lines in the UV and the optical band of AGN spectra, we chose the sample with the appropriate redshift range to cover the lines that are appropriate for this research. We focus on the following multiplets: 27, 28, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 48, and 49 (in the optical band, near H$\beta$) and 60, 61, 62, and 63 (in the UV band, near 2800 Å). The lines that overlap with UV/optical iron lines, and H$\beta$, have complex shapes, i.e. they consist of several line components that arise in different emission line regions. Therefore, their components are used for comparison with the kinematic and physical properties of the UV/optical lines, in order to investigate the emission region.
To obtain the sample of AGN spectra from the SDSS database, we use SQL (Structural Query Language) search. The final sample of spectra is chosen using the following criteria.
1. A Type 1 AGNs (i.e. a broad line AGNs), classified as a QSO in the SDSS spectral classification.
2. A relatively high signal to noise ratio ($\mathrm{S/N}>25$).
3. A good pixel quality.
4. The redshift within the $0.407\leq z\leq 0.643$ range in order to cover both the optical lines around H$\beta$ and UV lines around 2800 Å.
5. A high redshift confidence (zConf$>$0.95).
6. The presence of the broad H$\beta$ and 2800 Å (their equivalent widths should be larger than zero).
7. There is no any absorption in the and UV lines.
Our sample contains 293 AGN spectra, which are used for this investigation.
The correction for Galactic extinction is made by using the standard Galactic-type law (@se1979 for the UV, @ho1983 for optical-IR) and Galactic extinction coefficients given by @sc1998, which are available from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database[^1].
The luminosity and redshift distributions for the final sample are given in Fig \[0\]. As it can be seen, the redshift distribution is approximately uniform (between 0.4 and 0.65), but majority of the objects ($\sim$ 75 %) have luminosity in a very narrow range: 44.5$<$log($\lambda$L$_{5100}$)$<$45. Luminosities were calculated using the formula given in @b306, with adopted cosmological parameters of $\Omega_M$ = 0.27, $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.73, $\Omega_k$ = 0, and Hubble constant $\mathrm{H_o=71\ \rm kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$. The luminosity of the continuum is taken to be an average value in the interval of $\lambda\lambda$ 5100-5105 Å.
We also consider the $\mathrm{[O III]_{5007}/H\beta_{NLR}}$ ratio, since it may give some indication of the SB activity in the central part of AGN [see @pk11] assuming that $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)<0.5}$ indicates SB-dominant objects, and the $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)>0.5}$ indicates AGN-dominant objects. We found only 46 objects with $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)<0.5}$, which is not statistically significant in the sample. Therefore, we did not perform correlations for each subsample, but only plot them with different notations in figures where difference between their properties is easily shown. In this way, we try to see whether AGN evolution (which is probably related with the presence/absence of the starburst regions) has any influence on these spectral correlations.
The broad line and continuum model in the spectral range $\lambda\lambda$ 2650-5500 Å
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use a model that consists of the UV-optical continuum, the templates, and complex shapes of broad lines. The model is applied within a wide spectral range from 2650 Å to 5500 Å. We explore the UV lines ($\lambda\lambda$ 2650-3050 Å), which are in the 2800 Å spectral range, and the optical lines ($\lambda\lambda$ 4000-5500 Å) which are in the Balmer lines (H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, H$\delta$) spectral range.
### The line and continuum model in the optical ($\lambda\lambda$ 4000-5500 Å) range
To fit the optical emission lines, the optical continuum is estimated using the continuum windows given in @ku2002. The points of the continuum level are interpolated and the continuum is subtracted. After that, emission lines in the $\lambda\lambda$ 4000-5500 Å range are fitted with a model of multi-Gaussian functions [@po2004], where each Gaussian is assumed to represent emission from one emission region. The width and shift of each Gaussian reflects the kinematical properties of an emission region [see @ko2010 and references therein].
All narrow lines from the spectra are assumed to have the same velocity dispersion and velocity shift, because it is assumed that they are originating in the same emission region, the Narrow Line Region (NLR). Consequently, parameters of the widths and shifts of the narrow lines are taken to be the same for the \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 Å, \[\] $\lambda$4363 Å lines, as well as for the narrow components of the Balmer lines. The \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 Å lines are fit with an additional component that describes the asymmetry in the wings of these lines [see @ko2010]. The ratio of the \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007 Å has been taken as 1:3 [see @dim07].
The H$\beta$ line is fit with three Gaussians: one represents the emission from the NLR, and other two represent the emission from the Broad Line Region (BLR)– the Gaussian that fits the line core of H$\beta$ is assumed to be emission from the outer part of the BLR (Intermediate Line Region - ILR) and one that fits the line wings is assumed to be emission coming from the deeper layers of the BLR, closer to the black hole (Very Broad Line Region - VBLR). Therefore, the H$\beta$ line is decomposed into three Gaussian components: NLR, ILR, and VBLR [@br1994; @co1996; @po2004; @il2006; @bo2006; @bo2009; @hu2008b; @ko2010; @zh2011; @hu2012 etc.]. The H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$ lines are fitted in the same way as H$\beta$, assuming that their components have the same widths and shifts as the corresponding components of H$\beta$ (see Fig. \[1\]). The intensities of the NLR, ILR, and VBLR components are taken to be the free parameters for all Balmer lines.
The $\lambda$4686 Å line is fitted with one broad Gaussian. The numerous optical iron lines in the $\lambda\lambda$ 4000-5500 Å range are fitted with template given by @ko2010, and extended for the lines near $\sim\lambda$4200 Å [@po2013; @sh2012][^2]. The ${\chi}^2$ minimization routine is applied to obtain the best fit [@po2004]. An example of the best fit in the optical part of spectra is shown in Fig. \[1\].
### The UV Balmer pseudocontinuum
In order to fit the lines in the UV range ($\lambda\lambda$ 2650-3050 Å), first one needs to model the UV Balmer pseudocontinuum. The UV Balmer pseudocontinuum consists of the power law and the bump at 3000 Å, which represents the sum of the blended, broad, high-order Balmer lines and the Balmer continuum. We fit simultaneously the power law and the Balmer continuum (together with high order Balmer lines), using the model described in @ko2014. This model consists of the function given in @gr1982 for the Balmer continuum, in the case of a partially optically thick cloud, but with one degree of freedom less: for the intensity of the Balmer continuum, which is calculated using the prominent Balmer lines in the spectra. In this way, the less uncertain estimation of the Balmer continuum is achieved.
The Balmer continuum intensity at the Balmer edge ($\lambda$ = 3646 Å) is equal to the sum of the intensities of all high order Balmer lines at the same wavelength ($\lambda$ = 3646 Å). The broad component of each Balmer line is roughly described with only one Gaussian, which has the same width and shift for all Balmer lines, and their relative intensities are taken from the literature or calculated [see @ko2014]. Then, if the width, shift, and intensity of only one broad Balmer line (e.g. H$\beta$) are obtained from the fit and the sum of the fluxes of all high-order Balmer lines that contribute to the Balmer edge have been calculated, then we can obtain the intensity of the Balmer continuum at the Balmer edge. The model is applied for the uniform temperature T$_{e}$=15 000 K and optical depth at the Balmer edge fixed at: $\tau_{BC}$=1 [see @ku2007]. Using this model, the pseudocontinuum is fitted with four free parameters: the width, shift and intensity of the one of prominent Balmer line (in our case H$\beta$ or H$\gamma$), and the exponent of the power law.
To apply the Balmer continuum model, it is important to have a clean profile of strong broad Balmer lines without any contamination from lines that overlap with them (optical and \[O III\]), as well as without the narrow component of Balmer lines. We used the fitted data in the optical range to subtract the narrow components and satellite lines, and to obtain the broad Balmer line profile. Then, we applied the same procedure for fitting the UV-pseudocontinuum as described in @ko2014. An example of the UV-pseudocontinuum fit is shown in Fig \[2\].
Because it is very important to correctly subtract the Balmer continuum in order to measure well the equivalent widths (EWs) of the UV lines, the applicability of the model is tested using the total sample of 293 AGNs chosen for this investigation. We measured the difference between the observed flux and calculated flux (Balmer continuum + power law), and results are presented in @ko2014, Section 3. We found that the discrepancy between the observed and calculated flux in the UV (at $\sim$2650 Å) is smaller than 10% for 92% of the sample. This means that for the majority of the objects from the sample, the EWs are probably measured well. The other 8% of objects, with uncertain continuum determination, do not affect the final result.
### The model of the line spectra in the UV ($\lambda\lambda$ 2650-3050 Å) range
After determination and subtraction of the UV-pseudocontinuum, the 2800 Å line and template are simultaneously fit.
Note that the 2800 Å line is the resonant doublet $\lambda\lambda$ 2795, 2803 Å, where two lines of the doublet cannot be resolved because of their very large widths. The doublet is observed in the spectra of the Type 1 AGNs as a broad, single line. It is very difficult to find an appropriate model to fit the components of the doublet because their relative intensities are not fixed, i.e. their flux ratio depends on optical depth in the line. In general, one can expect a doublet ratio from optically thick gas to be approximately in the range $\lambda$2795/$\lambda$2803$\approx$2:1 to 1:1 [@la1997]. Additionally, it is not possible to get an unique Gaussian decomposition because two broad doublet components overlap with central wavelength difference ($\sim\Delta\lambda\approx$ 8 Å). In order to make the fitting procedure more simple, we fit the doublet as a single 2800 Å line with two Gaussians: one that fits the core and one that fits the wings of the 2800 Å line. In this way, Doppler widths of the Gaussians that fit the core and wings of the single 2800 Å line overestimate the Doppler widths of the doublet components for $\approx$ 260 km s$^{-1}$ ($\sim$8 Å separation). Because the widths of the lines are generally one order of magnitude larger than this value, we assume that it is in the range of the error-bars.
### The UV line emission model
The numerous UV lines are fitted with the model described in @po2003. In this model, the strongest UV lines, within $\lambda\lambda$ 2650-3050 Å range, are divided into 4 multiplets: 60 ($\lambda\lambda$ 2907-2979 Å), 61 ($\lambda\lambda$ 2861-2917 Å), and additionally with 62 and 63 which overlap at $\lambda\lambda$ 2709-2749 Å. The lines are fitted with 4 parameters of the intensity, for each multiplet. Within one multiplet group, the relative intensities of the lines are fixed using the line strength from NIST[^3] [see @po2003]. It has been assumed that all UV lines in this range are originating in the same emission region and consequently to have the same Doppler width and shift. Therefore, the UV template consists of 6 free parameters in the fitting procedure (4 parameters of intensity, width and shift).
The list of the lines and multiplets of the UV template, as well as the transitions and relative intensities within each multiplet, are given in Table \[tbl-1\]. The most intensive line within each multiplet is scaled to the unit intensity.
In Fig \[3\], the multiplet transitions that are included in the template are presented as the Grotrian diagram and shown as a spectrum. The examples of the fitted emission lines ( and UV Fe II) in the UV range are shown in Fig \[4\]. As it can be seen in Fig. \[4\], there is a significant difference between the intensity of UV Fe II multiplets for different AGN spectra.
The line parameters
-------------------
In order to investigate the spectral properties, we obtain the equivalent widths (EWs) of all considered lines and their components. EWs have been measured with respect to the continuum below the lines, after subtraction of all satellite lines. In the case of the UV lines, the intensity of Balmer continuum is estimated first. After that, the Balmer continuum is subtracted and the EWs of the UV lines (Mg II, UV) are measured with respect to the power law continuum component below the lines.
We measure the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of broad lines, i.e. Balmer lines (H$\beta$, H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$) and the line. For the Balmer lines, the FWHM is measured for broad component (ILR + VBLR component), after subtraction of the narrow component. Since line has no a narrow component, we measure the FWHM for the whole line ( core + wings). The illustrations of determination of the FWHM for H$\beta$ and are shown in Fig \[4a\].
Results
=======
Kinematics of the emission regions
----------------------------------
Kinematical properties of the lines (widths and shifts) reflect the motion of the emitting gas. The width of the line (or the line component) depends on random or gravitational bounded motion of the emitting gas, while the shift is caused by the systemic motion of the gas in an emission region. Therefore, similarities between kinematical properties of the different emission lines may indicate a kinematical connection between their emission regions.
In order to investigate the kinematical connections between the UV and optical emission regions, we perform the correlations between the kinematical properties of the analyzed UV and optical emission lines. The widths and shifts of the lines and their components (represented by different Gaussians) are obtained from the best fit. As mentioned in Sec 2.1, in our fitting model we assume that all narrow lines (NLR component of Balmer lines and \[\] lines) are arising in the same emission region, and therefore have the same Doppler widths and shifts.
Similarly, it is assumed that the core components of all Balmer lines arise in ILR, and the wing components in VBLR, and consequently they have the identical kinematical properties. Therefore, we now investigate possible correlations between kinematical parameters of the lines which are the free parameters, i.e. between Balmer components which arise in the NLR, ILR, VBLR, core, wings and the lines in the UV and optical range. The shifts are measured relative to the shift of the narrow lines (\[\] 5007 Å).
The correlations between the line widths and shifts are given in Table \[tbl-2\] and Table \[tbl-3\], and the most significant are shown in Figs \[5\] and \[6\]. As it can be seen, the strongest kinematical connection is between the UV Fe II, optical Fe II, core, and Balmer lines core (ILR component).
It is interesting that the correlation between the widths of the UV and optical lines is weaker than correlation of their widths with some other lines from the spectral range. The strongest correlation of the UV width is with the core of the (r=0.49, P=0; Fig \[5\], left), whereas its correlations with the widths of the optical lines and Balmer line ILR component are slightly less significant (r=0.39, P$\approx$2E-12).
The width of the optical lines has the most significant correlation with the width of the core as well (r=0.57, P=0; Fig \[5\], right), and with the Balmer ILR component (r=0.58, P=0; Fig \[6\], right). The last correlation has was noted in the previous work of [@ko2010].
We find that the correlation of the UV and optical widths are slightly higher with FWHMs of and H$\beta$ (core + wings included), than with core and H$\beta$ ILR components alone (see Table 2). On the other hand, there is no a positive correlation between the iron line widths and the wing component of or H$\beta$: there is only an anticorrelation with wings.
The width of line significantly correlates with the width of Balmer lines. The correlation between FWHM H$\beta$ vs. FWHM is r=0.77 and P=0 (see Fig. \[6aaa\]). As it can be seen, the objects with $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)<0.5}$ (black squares in Fig. \[6aaa\]), are located among the objects with smaller widths of H$\beta$ and . The core width correlates with the width of the Balmer line ILR components (r=0.60, P=0; Fig \[6\], left), while the width of the wing component decreases as the widths of the Balmer line ILR, UV , optical and core increase (see Table \[tbl-2\]). In addition, the wings of the become narrower when this component is shifted to the red. The H$\beta$ ILR and core are broader as the H$\beta$ VBLR component is shifted to the red.
Similarly as the widths, the shifts of the optical Fe II, UV Fe II, core, and H$\beta$ ILR, are correlated (see Table \[tbl-3\]) and reflect a kinematical connection between their emission regions. The shifts of the UV and optical lines have the most significant correlation with the shift of the core (r=0.48, P=0 for UV and r=40, P=1.05E-12 for the optical Fe II), whereas the correlations with the H$\beta$ ILR are weaker. The strongest correlation is between the shifts of the core and Balmer line ILR (r=0.62, P=0).
The relation between the kinematical properties of the optical and UV iron lines is shown in Fig \[6a\]. There are only weak trends between their widths, as well as between their shifts.
The average values for widths and shifts of analyzed lines and their components are given in Table \[tbl-4\]. It can be seen that the optical and UV lines have close average values for widths (optical Fe II: 2360 km s$^{-1}$, UV Fe II: 2530 km s$^{-1}$) with a very large dispersion.
The majority of objects have the Doppler width of the optical between 1000-3500 km s$^{-1}$ and of the UV between 1500-3000 km s$^{-1}$. In Fig \[7\], the optical and UV widths are compared with the widths of Balmer line components, which originate from different line emission regions (NLR, ILR, VBLR), and the average values of the widths are assigned. The core of lines and ILR component of Balmer lines have smaller average Doppler widths ( core: 1590 km s$^{-1}$, ILR: 1930 km s$^{-1}$). The dispersion of the ILR widths is large as well, and most objects have an ILR width between 1000-3000 km s$^{-1}$, whereas the dispersion of the core is narrower and for 85% of objects the width is within range: 1000-2000 km s$^{-1}$. The comparison between the widths of the Balmer line components and components are shown in Fig \[8\].
The average shift is significant only for the UV lines (1150$\pm$580 km s$^{-1}$, see Table \[tbl-4\]), which seems to be systematically redshifted relative to the narrow lines. All other analyzed lines (optical Fe II, and H$\beta$ components) have no significant average velocity shift.
Correlations between the UV and optical emission line parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------
A line EW reflects the emission line strength relative to the total continuum and it depends on a number of physical parameters of the emitting plasma, such as, e.g. electron density, temperature, the strength of the photoionizing flux, optical depth for the line, etc. We measure the EWs of broad and narrow lines from the spectral range and we find their averaged values for the sample, and for two subsamples with $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)<0.5}$ (SB dominant) and $\mathrm{log([O III]/H\beta}_{NLR}\mathrm{)>0.5}$ (AGN dominant). The results are shown in Table \[tbl-nova1\]. As it can be seen, there are differences between AGN and SB dominant objects, and the biggest one is for the average EW of the optical and \[\] lines. The SB dominate subsample has significantly higher EW of optical and weaker EW \[\] than the AGN dominant subsample.
We explore the correlations between the EWs of the optical and UV lines and their components (see Table \[tbl-7\]). We can summarize the correlations given in Table \[tbl-7\] as: (i) there is no any correlation between the EWs of the optical and UV lines; (ii) the EW UV correlates only with the EW Mg II$_{total}$; (iii) the EW optical shows only anticorrelation with EW \[\] [@bg92; @ko2010]; (iv) the EW \[\] correlates with EWs of all analyzed lines and line components (broad and narrow), except with the EW UV and anticorrelates only with the EW optical; (v) there is a correlation among EWs of all narrow lines; (vi) the EW correlates with EWs of all analyzed broad lines except with EW optical.
There is no correlation between the EWs of the optical and UV lines. The plot between the optical and multiplet 60 of the UV is shown in Fig \[13aa\]. The multiplet 60 of the UV was chosen because it is well defined feature at $\sim$2950 Å and it does not overlap with extended wings. It can be seen that objects with a dominant starburst radiation (black squares in Fig \[13aa\]) generally have a strong optical emission, while such trend cannot be seen for the UV lines.
The correlations between the widths and EWs of the considered emission lines are shown in Table \[tbl-9\]. The most interesting correlations in this table are those with the EW of the optical and the line widths. While EWs of the Fe II$_{UV 60}$, H$\beta$ NLR and line increase, their line widths increase as well; however, the opposite happens for the EW of the optical lines: the EW Fe II optical increases as its width decreases. Moreover, EW Fe II$_{optical}$ anticorrelates with the widths of all analyzed broad lines, especially with FWHM H$\beta$ and FWHM (see Fig \[14\]). The objects with dominant SB emission (black squares in Fig. \[14\]), as expected, have a strong optical emission and narrower H$\beta_{broad}$ and lines.
### The flux ratios of the emission lines
We explore the correlations between the line properties and flux ratios $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$, $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$, $\mathrm{[O III]_{5007}}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$, $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ (see Table \[tbl-8\]). These flux ratios are chosen because they may be indicators of some physical conditions or the abundance in the emission line regions.
Different models of the iron emission predict that the ratio of $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ could be an indicator of the column density, due the atomic properties of the iron ion [see @jo1987; @sa2011]. @ve2003 and @sa2011 found that this ratio depends on microturbulence, i.e. the increase of the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ ratio reflects the increase of the column density and the decrease of the microturbulence in the emitting gas. It has been found that this ratio anticorrelates with FWHM [@ts2006] and FWHM H$\beta$ [@do2011], but correlates with the Eddington ratio [@sa2011; @do2011].
Table \[tbl-8\] shows several correlations between this ratio and the different line properties. We found that the ratio $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ increases as: (i) the widths of all analyzed broad lines decrease (H$\beta$, Mg II, optical and UV Fe II); (ii) the EW decreases.
The correlations between the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ ratio and FWHMs of H$\beta$ and are presented in Fig \[13\]. Note that SB dominant objects (assigned with black squares) are in the upper part of graphs among the objects with a high $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ ratio and small FWHM H$\beta$ and FWHM widths.
The ratio $\mathrm{Fe II}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ is considered by several authors to be a cosmological abundance indicator [@hf1993; @mr2001; @ve2003; @do2011; @dr2011]. Until now, no relation has been found between this ratio and cosmological redshift, which may be a consequence of the additional influence of the physics of the emission region to this ratio. The model of @ve2003 predicts that the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ ratio is sensitive on microturbulence. Similar to the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ ratio, the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ increases as the FWHM and FWHM H$\beta$ decrease [@ts2006; @do2011], and Eddington ratio increases [@do2011].
In our sample we analyze the both ratios, $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, and we find that correlations with some spectral properties are different for these two ratios. The $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ ratio increases as the widths of the broad lines (except UV) decrease, while the ratio $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ does not correlate with these properties. Both ratios ($\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$) anticorrelate with EW \[\] and EW H$\beta_{broad}$. The correlation of the $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ and the widths of H$\beta_{broad}$ and are presented in Fig \[14a\]. The starburst dominant objects (black squares in Fig \[14a\]) have a high ratio of $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$.
The ratio $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$ may be taken as an indicator of the element abundance in AGNs. This ratio correlates with the width of the and with EW $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$, that shows how beside the abundance, other effects can affect on the $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$ ratio.
Finally, the ratio $\mathrm{[O III]_{5007}}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ is assumed to be an indicator of the starburst activity. Namely, the ratios of some narrow lines reflect the shape of ionizing continuum, i.e. whether the ionization source is the accretion disc around black hole or hot, young stars. This fact is used in the construction of the diagnostic diagrams based on the narrow line ratios [see @bpt1981; @vo1987]. @pk11 found that the $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ ratio (which is usually used as one axis in diagnostic diagrams) could be used as an approximate indicator of the presence or absence of the starburst activity in AGN spectra.
We analyze the correlations between this ratio and other spectral properties in our sample (see Table \[tbl-8\]), and find that as $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ ratio increases (which indicate smaller contribution of SB fraction): (i) the narrow lines become narrower; (ii) the broad lines become broader; (iii) the EWs of \[O III\], H$\beta_{broad}$ and increase; (iv) the EW of Fe II$_{opt}$ decreases.
On the other hand, the objects that may have significant SB activity near an AGN (which is reflected as decrease of this ratio), have a smaller difference in the width of the narrow and broad lines, stronger Fe II$_{opt}$ lines, and weaker \[O III\], H$\beta_{broad}$ and Mg II. No correlation is seen for the EW of Fe II$_{uv}$.
It is found that the ratio of the broad Balmer lines may be an indicator of the intrinsic dust extinction [@do2008]. However, this should not strongly affect the ratio $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ because the extinction effects on the lines are similar (close transition wavelengths). Under some circumstances this ratio can be used for the diagnostic of the physical parameters in the BLR plasma [see, e.g. @poo2003; @il2012]. We found that the $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ ratio increases as: (i) the FWHM H$\beta$, FWHM and the Fe II$_{opt}$ width increase (see Table \[tbl-8\]); (ii) the EW Fe II$_{opt}$ decreases (r= - 0.49, P=0, Fig \[13b\]) and EW \[\] increases (r= 0.34, P=1.3E-9). The correlation with line widths may indicate some connections between the kinematics and physics of the emitting gas. Fig \[13b\] shows that objects with strong starburst activity (black squares) have large values of the optical, and the smallest values of the $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ ratio.
Some of these ratios correlate between each other. For example, as $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ increases, $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ increases as well, but $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ decrease. The ratio $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ anticorrelates with $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, and $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$ anticorrelates with $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$.
Note that the width of the narrow Balmer line component and the width of the broad Balmer component have opposite trends with the some ratios, especially with $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ (see Table \[tbl-8\]). Also, the EWs of the optical and \[\] have opposite correlations with all considered ratios ($\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$, $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, $\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ and $\mathrm{O III}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$), except with $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$. This reflects the EW vs. EW \[\] anticorrelation.
The averaged flux ratios of emission lines are given in Table \[tbl-nova2\]. As it can be seen, the optical lines (in range 4400-5500 Å) are, on average, about five times stronger than the UV ones (in range 2900-2980 Å, multiplet 60), whereas in the SB dominant subsample they are $\sim$7.5 times stronger than the UV ones. It is interesting that the ratio of $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$ (which is expected to be a cosmological indicator) is significantly higher in the SB dominant subsample ($\sim$1.4) compared with the AGN dominant subsample ($\sim$0.8).
Discussion
==========
Location of the UV emitting region
----------------------------------
In our previous work, we discussed the location of the optical emission region [see @po2009; @ko2010; @sh2012], and found that it is located in an outer part of the BLR (so-called the ILR), which is recently confirmed by reverberation [see @ba13].
The correlation between the widths of the optical and UV lines indicates that the UV emission region is probably located close to the optical one. Moreover, the widths and the shifts of the UV and optical lines are correlated with the widths and shifts of the core and H$\beta$ ILR component (see Table \[tbl-2\] and Table \[tbl-3\]). The average widths of the UV and optical lines are very similar (2530 km s$^{-1}$ and 2360 km s$^{-1}$), and they are both broader than the average widths of the H$\beta$ and cores (1930 km s$^{-1}$ and 1590 km s$^{-1}$). The correlation of the iron lines width is even more significant with the FWHM of the total broad profile (wings + core) of and H$\beta$, but there is no a positive correlation with the separated wing component of these lines. It seems that the iron lines (both, UV and optical) generally originate in the outer part of the BLR (ILR). However, as we mentioned in [@ko2010], there may be an additional emission of the lines (in the UV and optical) that is coming from the inner part of BLR (VBLR). This emission is probably contributing to the continuum because the lines are very broad and cannot be resolved in the bulk of lines in the UV and optical spectral ranges.
In order to test the location of the forming region of the UV and optical lines, we searched for the same geometry as in the and H$\beta$ emission regions. We modified the UV and optical iron templates, assuming that the profiles of the iron lines are the same as the profiles of the or H$\beta$. We compared the accuracy of the new fits with the previous, single Gaussian model (see Appendix A). We found that: (a) Single Gaussian profile gives better fit for the UV iron lines, compared with and H$\beta$ profiles, (b) H$\beta$ profile fits slightly better optical than single Gaussian profile. This indicates that, at least in the optical lines, there is a contribution of the VBLR emission.
The averaged values of line widths are similar for the UV and optical Fe II. However, there is a great difference in the the averaged values of their shifts. For the optical the shift is 350$\pm$510 km s$^{-1}$, whereas for the UV is much larger: 1150$\pm$580 km s$^{-1}$. Therefore, the systemic redshift (relative to the \[O III\]) could be significantly detected only in the UV Fe II, but it is not significant in the optical Fe II.
The absence of the significant redshift found for the optical is in the agreement with the previously obtained result: 100$\pm$240 km s$^{-1}$ [@ko2010]. [@su12] could not confirm redshift in the optical lines, as well, but [@hu2008a] found a slight redshift in the optical Fe II: 407$\pm$200 km s$^{-1}$. Note that between the shifts of the optical and UV there is no a significant correlation, but only a weak trend.
We should note here that the large averaged redshift of the UV should be taken with the caution, because of uncertainties in the fit of the UV in some spectra. The UV lines can be very broad, which makes it difficult to resolve them from the wings.
The systemic redshift probably represents the infall of the emitting gas [@hu2008a; @fe2009]. [@hu2008a] found the correlation between the optical systemic redshift and L$_{bol}/$L$_{Edd}$, and they speculate that the inflow is driven by gravity toward the center and decelerated by the radiation pressure. [@fe2009] investigated the geometry of the emission region, taking into account the distribution of emitting clouds. If the distribution of emitting clouds is symmetric, we see the same number of clouds from their illuminated as from their shielded faces. But if distribution of emitters is asymmetric, we mainly observe emission from the shielded face of infalling clouds, which is reflected in the systemic redshift of the lines [@fe2009]. Their calculation show that the distribution of the UV emission region is more asymmetric than the distribution of the optical Fe II. This model reproduces well the observed $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ flux ratio.
The results from this paper, the significant average systemic redshift for the UV , and absence of the significant redshift for the optical , support the model given by [@fe2009]. Although the UV and optical emission is emitted from approximately the same region in the AGN structure, it might be that the distribution of emitting clouds is different: the UV emission clouds are probably distributed asymmetrically, while the optical ones have the isotropic distribution.
Other explanations of the results, except asymmetry of the emission region, are also possible. One can speculate that an inflow can be associated with internal shock waves, which may contribute to more effective excitation of the UV lines [see @dop2005]. Namely, it is possible that UV lines are more excited in infalling gas, compared with the optical . For example, some connection between flux and jet emission is detected in [@lt2013].
Peculiarities of the optical correlations
------------------------------------------
Concerning correlations between the optical lines and analyzed UV/optical lines, we can point out several peculiarities:
1. Only the EW of the optical anticorrelates with the EW of some other line (EW \[O III\]), while all other lines correlate with EWs of other lines or show no correlations (Table \[tbl-7\]). This specific anticorrelation is reflected through correlations shown in Table \[tbl-8\], as well, where the EW and EW \[\] have opposite correlations with considered ratios.
2. The EWs of analyzed lines (UV , H$\beta$ NLR and ) increase as their widths increase, or there is no any correlation between their EWs and widths as for H$\beta_{broad}$ and \[\] (Table \[tbl-9\]). Only in the case of the optical Fe II, their EW increases as the width decreases, i.e. the lines are stronger as they are narrower. In addition, while EWs of the broad lines do not depend on widths of the other lines, the EW of the optical becomes stronger as other broad lines are narrower (Mg II, H$\beta$). It is interesting that it is the same with the EW H$\beta$ NLR, which increases as the width of the broad lines decreases.
On the other hand, the UV lines do not show any of these peculiar correlations as the optical Fe II, e.i. it seems that their emission properties are quite different than for the optical Fe II.
Differences between the UV and optical lines
--------------------------------------------
As it can be seen in previous sections, there are significant differences between the optical and UV lines, as reflected in different correlations of these lines with the other spectral properties. Between the EWs of these lines there is no correlation (see Sec 3.2), and their flux ratio depends on different physical parameters, such as column density and microturbulence [see @jo1987; @ve2003; @ve2004; @sa2011]. These differences could be explained in two ways: the emission regions of optical and UV lines have a different spacial distribution, or the mechanisms of their excitation are not the same. The mixture of these two influences is also possible.
[@jo1987] suggested as one of the solutions that the optical and UV could be emitted in two distinct regions. [@fe2009] concluded that iron lines are emitted by clouds that are distributed asymmetrically: the UV lines are beamed toward a central source while the optical lines are emitted isotropically. In the case of asymmetrical distribution, photoionization models can reproduce the observed UV to optical flux ratio [@sa2011]. Our analysis of the kinematical properties of the optical and UV lines indicates that their emission regions are located close to one another in the AGN structure. Also, unlike optical emission region, the UV emission region is probably asymmetric. Different distributions of the iron emission clouds in an emission region can explain their observed flux ratios, but it still cannot explain the peculiar correlations of the optical lines with some line properties, which is not detected for the UV .
It is possible that UV and optical arise with the domination of different excitation mechanisms, which could explain their differences. [@jo1987] found that strong optical emitters can be explained with the collisional excitation in a dense and cold medium (6000 K $<$ T $<$ 8000 K, n$_H>10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$), while UV intensities are more difficult to account for. The models of [@jo1987] show that optical and UV have different correlations with the column density, due the larger optical depth of the UV lines. For N$_H >$ 21 cm$^{-2}$, the optical lines increase more rapidly than the UV ones, because of a smaller optical thickness. For a larger column density (N$_H >$ 22 cm$^{-2}$), the UV flux decreases more rapidly than the flux of the optical [see @jo1987]. It is the reason why the flux ratio of $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ increases with increasing of the column density.
[@sa2011] found that $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}$ ratio increases with increasing of the Eddington ratio. A high Eddington ratio is related to dense medium and large column density, because the clouds with a low density and small column density would be blown away by a large radiative pressure [@do2009; @do2011].
On the other hand, the large column density and the dense environment may be also due to an increase of the star formation rate [@ne2004; @ha2013; @cl2013]. [@ne2004] found that a violent starforming activity can produce high-density and large column density gas in nuclear regions.
The presence of starforming/starburst regions could be related with AGN evolution [@m09; @sa10]. The spectral properties of AGNs are probably changing during the time, and it is expected that young AGNs have a higher Eddington ratio, higher star formation rate, and smaller black hole mass and FWHMs of the broad lines [@lt06; @sa10].
Since the objects in this sample have a redshift in range 0.407$<$z$<$0.643, we cannot explore evolution at high redshift, but we cannot exclude that objects with similar z could be in different evolution phase. This may explain some correlations that are typical for the optical lines found in this paper (see Sec. 4.2), as well as correlations which are part of Boroson and Green Eigenvectror 1 [@bg92]: EW optical vs. EW \[\] and EW optical vs. FWHM H$\beta$. The anticorrelation of the optical and \[\] equivalent widths could be caused by an increase in density and the column density due to the influence of the starbursts: as the column density increases, the flux of the optical increases, but the flux of the forbidden \[\] lines decreases, because of the collisional suppression or the weak ionizing continuum from starbursts. This anticorrelation is not seen for EWs of the UV and \[\], because the UV lines decrease more rapidly with increasing column density, compared with the optical [@jo1987]. [@sa2011] suggested that increasing column density, caused by a large Eddington ratio, is a physical cause behind the Boroson and Green Eigenvectror 1 correlations, but they explain the decrease of the \[\] lines as inability of ionizing photons emitted from the central object to reach the NLR clouds, because the large-column-density clouds in the BLR. In this case, we would expect the anticorrelation between the EWs of the optical and other narrow emission lines (e.g. narrow component of H$\beta$), but these correlations are not observed [see @ko2011]. The pure recombination lines, as the NLR H$\beta$, are not influenced by higher densities, while forbidden \[\] lines would be weaker in a dense medium because of the collisional suppression. Also, unlike the \[\] lines, the Balmer lines are strongly ionized by starburst continuum.
[@sa10] investigated a sample of the AGNs from the local Universe (z $<$ 0.2) using the Spitzer data and found that star formation rate is higher in objects with low FWHMs of the broad lines, low black hole mass and high Eddington ratio. Also, in model of @lt06 young AGNs are expected to have the FWHM of the broad lines smaller than the older ones, because the BLR is not developed yet. This may explain other correlations typical for the optical Fe II, as e.g. an anticorrelation EW optical vs. FWHM H$\beta$. The optical emission is stronger in a high density/large column density environment, which is expected in young objects with the high Eddington ratio, high star formation rate and relatively narrower broad emission lines. In our sample, we also find an anticorrelation between the EW optical and the widths of the optical and Mg II.
If we assume that the ratio $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ is an indicator of the starburst fraction (the increasing ratio reflects the decreasing starburst influence), than the found correlations of this ratio with the other spectral properties supports this model. In Table \[tbl-8\] and Figs \[6aaa\], \[13aa\], \[14\], \[13\], \[14a\] and \[13b\] it could be seen that for the strong starbust influence (small values of the $\mathrm{[O III]}/\mathrm{H\beta_{NLR}}$ ratio), the broad lines are narrower, the narrow lines are broader, EW of the optical is stronger and the EW of the \[\] is weaker. In difference with the optical Fe II, the EW of UV does not depend on the starburst influence (see Table \[tbl-8\] and Fig \[13aa\]). Also the anticorrelation of this ratio with the ratios $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$, which depend on the column density and microturbulence, imply that for starburst dominant objects, the column density is larger and microturbulence is smaller, compared with the gas in pure AGNs.
A high density may stimulate some excitation processes that have a more important role for the optical Fe II. This could be the collisional excitation or increased Ly$\alpha$ fluorescence, which may be one of the very important additional mechanisms of the excitation [@pe1987; @gr1996; @sp1998; @ba2004].
The model we have is discussed here certainly is not an unique interpretation of the data. We may speculate about some other explanations of these correlations. For example, they could be consequence of the different viewing angle. It is possible that visibility of the optical emission region increases as we get a more pole-on view of the BLR, while the broad line widths decrease. This could be reflected as an anticorrelation of the optical strength and broad line width. There are some indications that EW \[\] also depends on inclination [see @ri2011], which can be the explanation for the anticorrelation of the optical lines and \[\]. In this case, these anticorrelations are not seen for the UV lines because their emission region has the different spacial distribution than the optical one.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we investigate the connections between the UV and optical emission lines using a sample of the 293 AGNs from the SDSS database. The properties of the optical and UV iron lines are compared and correlated with the properties of the other emission lines that are present in the observed spectral range, in order to investigate the origin of the iron lines and processes responsible for their emission. We model the UV emission taking into account the contribution of the different multiplets [@po2003]. Additionally, we use a new model for the Balmer continuum subtraction [@ko2014]. The strong emission lines are decomposed into components that are coming from the different emission regions, in order to explore and compare the physical properties of the environment where the components arise. The flux ratios of the lines, which can be the indicators of the physical conditions in the emission region, are also analyzed. We consider the influence of starburst activity to the spectral properties of the iron emission. After investigation of correlations between the UV/optical and other lines from the spectral range, we can outline the following conclusions:
1. The UV and optical lines arise in the close emission regions in the AGN structure. Most of the UV/optical emission is probably originating in the Intermediate Line emission Region i.e. a region with Doppler velocities around 1500-2000 $\rm km s^{-1}$. However, the lines tend to be broader than the ILR components of H$\beta$ and , which indicates a small contribution of VBLR emission, at least in the optical lines.
2. The significant systemic redshift, which is the signature of the gas infall, is found only for the UV lines (1150$\pm$580 km s$^{-1}$), but not for the optical (350$\pm$510 km s$^{-1}$). This indicates that, although the UV and optical emission clouds are located in approximately the same region of the AGN structure, their distribution is probably different: the UV emission clouds seem to be distributed asymmetrically (we see more shielded, infalling clouds) while the optical emission clouds are probably isotropically distributed. Except emission region asymmetry, some other models can explain high UV redshift, e.g. more efficient excitation of the UV lines in the infalling gas, due to shock waves.
3. There are significant differences between the optical and UV lines, which are presented in different correlations between these lines and other spectral properties. The intriguing anticorrelations found for the optical (EW Fe II$_{opt}$ vs. EW \[\] and EW Fe II$_{opt}$ vs. FWHM H$\beta$), which are part of the @bg92 Eigenvector 1, are not detected for the UV Fe II. Beside all analyzed broad lines, only the EW Fe II$_{opt}$ anticorrelates with EW some other emission line (\[\]), and only EW Fe II$_{opt}$ increases as the widths of all broad lines (including Fe II$_{opt}$) decrease.
4. The peculiar anticorrelations of the optical are probably connected with a high density and a large column density region in AGNs with a high star formation rate. The anticorrelation between EWs of the optical and \[\] lines is probably due increase of the additional excitation mechanism of the optical with the increase of the column density, and at the same time, a decrease of the forbidden \[\] lines due collisional suppression, or because of low ionization continuum from starbursts. On the other hand, the anticorrelation EW Fe II$_{opt}$ vs. FWHM H$\beta$ is present because the AGNs, with high star formation rate and large column density regions, are expected to be young objects with a smaller mass of the black hole and widths of the broad lines that are generally narrower than in the spectra of older, pure AGNs. These correlations are not detected in the UV lines, since their optical thickness is larger than for optical , so with increasing column density, UV lines decrease more rapidly than optical . Other explanations of the these correlations are possible. For example, they could be caused by different angle of view.
Additionally, we explore some correlations between the and Balmer lines, as well as between the flux ratio of different lines and kinematical parameters. From this investigation we can outline following conclusions:
1. There is an expected good correlation between FWHMs of the broad and H$\beta$ line. Both, the and broad Balmer lines can be decomposed into two components, the VBLR and ILR, which shows a complex structure of the BLR. Moreover, there is an anticorrelation between the width and shift of the wing component, that indicates the asymmetry in the Mg II, i.e. the narrower wing component tends to be asymmetric.
2. It seems that the explored line ratios (see Table \[tbl-8\]) are connected with the FWHMs of broad lines, especially with FWHM Mg II, where a positive trend between FWHM and ratios $\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}/\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}$ and $\mathrm{Mg II}/\mathrm{H\beta_{broad}}$ is found, and anticorrelations with $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}$ and $\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}/\mathrm{Mg II}$. This is an indicator that the physical processes and abundances in the BLR, which are reflected in the ratios, are connected with the emission region kinematics.
This work is a part of the project (146002) “Astrophysical Spectroscopy of Extragalactic Objects” supported by the Ministry of Science of Serbia. The authors would like to thank the Alexander Von Humboldt (AvH) foundation for its support this work through project “Probing the Structure and Physics of the BLR using AGN Variability” in the frame of the AvH program for funding a research group linkage.
The fitting of the iron lines with Mg II and H$\beta$ profiles
==============================================================
In order to fit the optical iron lines with the H$\beta$ line profile, we modify the iron template, so that instead of one Gaussian for each iron line, there are two Gaussians with the same widths, relative shifts, and relative intensities as the ILR and VBLR H$\beta$ components. We keep the same relative intensities between the iron lines in the multiplets as in the initial, single Gaussian template, and the shift of the template is the free parameter. We fit simultaneously the H$\beta$ line and the optical template made of the sum of H$\beta$ profiles. After that, we applied the other template made of the profiles, where the widths, relative shifts, and relative intensities of the core and the wings are fixed values obtained from the fit in the UV part of spectrum. We repeat this procedure for the UV lines using and H$\beta$ profiles in the UV template in the same way, but this time line is fitted simultaneously with UV Fe II template, which is made of profiles. For template with H$\beta$ profiles we use the fixed values of H$\beta$ parameters, which were obtained from the fit in the optical range. An example of the one object fit (SDSS J020435.18$-$093154.9) with the different iron templates is given in Figs \[15\] and \[16\]. It can be seen that fit of the optical lines with H$\beta$ profiles (B) is slightly better than with single Gaussian model (A), whereas the iron template with profiles cannot fit well the optical iron lines (C). In the case of the UV lines, the single Gaussian model (A) fits the iron lines better, than other two templates (B and C).
We compare the $\chi^2$ of the fits obtained from the different templates with the $\chi^2$ of the initial fit where the iron lines are fitted with one Gaussian for each line. The results for the whole sample are given in Table \[App\]. Generally, the differences between $\chi^2$ obtained with different templates are, for most of objects, small and less than 5%. The fit of the optical iron lines with the H$\beta$ profiles gives a slightly better fit, comparing the single Gaussian model for $\sim$85 % of objects from the sample. Only in 3% of objects, fit is significantly improved (the difference between $\chi^2$ higher than 10%). In the case of the fit of optical iron lines with the profile, only in the half of the sample fits are better. The fit of the UV iron lines is less accurate with H$\beta$ and profiles than with one Gaussian model for the majority of objects from the sample.
Abazajian, K.N. et al. 2009, , 182, 543A Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Carswell, R. F., Hamann, F., Phillips, M. M., Verner, D., Wilkes, Belinda J., Williams, R. E. 1996, , 461, 664 Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Hamann, F., LaCluyz' e, A. 2004, , 615, 610 Baldwin, J.A., Phillips, M.M. & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5 Barth, A. J., Pancoast, A., Bennert, V. N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 28B Bautista, M. A., Rudy, R. J., Venturini, C. C. 2004, , 604L, 129 Bon, E., Popovi' c, L.Č., Ili' c, D. & Mediavilla, E.G. 2006, New Astronomy Reviews, 50, 716 Bon, E., Popovi' c, L.Č., Ili' c, D. & Mediavilla, E.G. 2009, , 400, 924 Boroson, T.A. & Green, R.F. 1992, , 80, 109 Brotherton, M.S., Wills, B.J., Francis, P.J., Steidel, C.C. 1994, , 430, 495 Bruhweiler, F. and Verner, E. 2008, , 675, 83 Clowes, R.G., Raghunathan, S., S$\ddot{o}$chting, I.K., Graham, M.J., Campusano, L.E. 2013, , 433, 2467 Collin, S. & Joly, M. 2000, New Astronomy Reviews, 44, 531 Collin-Souffrin, S., Joly, M., Dumont, S., Heidmann, N. 1980, A[&]{}A, 83, 190 Corbin, M.R. & Boroson, T.A. 1996, , 107, 69 Croom, S. M., Rhook, K., Corbett, E. A., Boyle, B. J., Netzer, H., Loaring, N. S., Miller, L., Outram, P. J., Shanks, T., Smith, R. J. 2002, , 337, 275 De Rosa, G., Decarli, R., Walter, F., Fan, X., Jiang, L., Kurk, J., Pasquali, A. and Rix, H.W. 2011, , 739, 56 Dimitrijević, M.S., Popović, L.Č., Kovačević, J., Dačić, M., Ilić, D. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1181 Dong, X., Wang, J., Ho, L. C., Wang, T., Fan, X., Wang, H., Zhou, H., Yuan, W. 2011, , 736, 86 Dong, X.-B., Wang, T.-G., Wang, J., Fan, X., Wang, H., Zhou, H., Yuan, W. 2009, , 703L, 1 Dong, X., Wang, T., Wang, J., Yuan, W., Zhou, H., Dai, H., Zhang, K. 2008, , 383, 581 Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S. 2005, Astrophysics of the diffuse universe, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Ferland, Gary J., Hu, Chen, Wang, Jian-Min, Baldwin, Jack A., Porter, Ryan L., van Hoof, Peter A.M., Williams, R.J.R. 2009, , 707, 82 Graham, M.J., Clowes, R.G. and Campusano, L.E. 1996, , 279, 1349 Grandi, S. A. 1982, , 255, 25 Grupe D. 2004, , 127, 1799 Grupe D, Nousek, J. A. 2015, , 149, 17 Hamman, F. & Ferland, G. 1993, , 418, 11 Harris, K.A., Williger, G. M., Haberzettl, L., Mitchell, S., Farrah, D., Graham, M. J., Dav' e, R., Younger, M. P., S$\ddot{o}$chting, I. K. 2013, , 435, 3125 Howarth, I. D. 1983, , 203, 301 Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Chen, Y.-M., Bian, W.H., Xue, S.J. 2008b, , 683, 115 Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., Chen, Y.-M., Zhang, H.-T., Bian, W.H., Xue, S.J. 2008a, , 687, 78 Hu, C., Wang, J.-M., Ho, L. C., Ferland, G. J., Baldwin, J. A., Wang, Y. 2012, , 760, 126 Ili' c, D., Popovi' c, L.Č., Bon, E., Mediavilla, E.G. & Chavushyan, V.H. 2006, , 371, 1610 Ili' c, D., Popovi' c, L. Č., La Mura, G., Ciroi, S. & Rafanelli, P. 2012, A[&]{}A, 543, 142 Joly, M. 1987, A[&]{}A, 184, 33 Joly, M. 1991, A[&]{}A, 242, 49 Kovačević, J. 2011, SerAJ, 182, 17 Kovačević, J., Popović, L. Č., Dimitrijević, M.S. 2010, , 189, 15 Kovačević, J., Popović, L. Č., Kollatschny, W. 2014, AdSpR, 54, 1347-1354 Kuraszkiewicz, J.K., Green, P.J., Forster, K., Aldcroft, T.L., Evans, I.N. & Koratkar, A. 2002, , 143, 257 Kuraszkiewicz, J., Wilkes, B.J., Czerny, B., Mathur, S. 2000, , 542, 692 Kurk, J. D., Walter, F., Fan, X., Jiang, L., Riechers, D. A., Rix, H.-W., Pentericci, L., Strauss, M. A., Carilli, C., Wagner, S. 2007, , 669, 32 Laor, A., Jannuzi, B. T., Green, R. F., Boroson, T. A. 1997, , 489, 656 Lawrence, A., Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McHardy, I., Brandt, N. 1997, , 285, 879 León-Tavares, J., Chavushyan, V., Patiño-Álvarez, V., Valtaoja, E., Arshakian, T.G., Popović, L. Č., Tornikoski, M., Lobanov, A., Carramiñana, A., Carrasco, L. & Lähteenmäki, A. 2013, , 763, 36 Lipari, S.L. & Terlevich, R.J. 2006, , 368, 1001 Ludwig, R. R., Wills, B., Greene, J. E., Robinson, E. L. 2009, , 706, 995 Mao, Y-F. Wang, J., Wei, J.-Y. 2009, Res. A[&]{}A, 9, 529 Marchese, E., Della Ceca, R., Caccianiga, A., Severgnini, P., Corral, A., Fanali, R. 2012, A&A, 539A, 48 Matteucci, F. & Recchi, S. 2001, , 558, 351 Netzer, H., Shemmer, O., Maiolino, R., Oliva, E., Croom, S., Corbett, E., di Fabrizio, L. 2004, , 614, 558 Netzer, H., & Wills, B.J. 1983, , 275, 445 Peebles P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, Princeton Penston, M. V. 1987, , 229, 1 Popovi' c, L. Č. 2003, , 599, 140 Popovi' c L. Č. & Kovačevi' c J. 2011, ApJ, 738, 68 Popovi' c L. Č., Kovačevi' c J., Dimitrijevi' c, M. S. 2013, 2013arXiv1301.6941 Popovi' c, L. Č., Mediavilla, E. G., Bon, E. and Ili' c, D. 2004, A&A, 423, 909 Popovi' c, L. Č., Mediavilla, E. G., Bon, E., Stani' c, N., Kubičela, A. 2003, , 599, 185 Popovi' c, L. Č., Smirnova, A., Kovačevi' c, J., Moiseev, A. & Afanasiev, V. 2009, , 137, 3548 Risaliti, G., Salvati, M., Marconi, A. 2011, , 411, 2223 Sameshima, H., Kawara, K., Matsuoka, Y., Oyabu, S., Asami, N., Ienaka, N. 2011, , 410, 1018 Sani, E., Lutz, D., Risaliti, G., Netzer, H., Gallo, L. C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Sturm, E., Boller, T. 2010, , 403, 1246 Schlegel, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Seaton, M. J. 1979, , 187, 73 Shang, Z., Wills, B. J., Robinson, E. L., Wills, D., Laor, A., Xie, B., Yuan, J. 2003, , 585, 52 Shapovalova, A. I., Popović, L. Č., Burenkov, A. N. et al. 2012, , 202, 10 Sigut, T.A.A. and Pradhan, A.K. 1998, , 499, 139 Sigut, T.A.A. and Pradhan, A.K. 2003, , 145, 15 Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., Zamfir, S. 2009, New AR, 53, 198 Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., Zamfir, S., Meadows, Z. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, 7 Tsuzuki, Y., Kawara, K., Yoshii, Y., Oyabu, S. 2006, , 650, 57 Veilleux, S. & Osterbrock, D.E. 1987, , 63, 259 Verner, E., Bruhweiler, F., Verner, D., Johansson, S., Gull, T. 2003, , 592, 59 Verner, E., Bruhweiler, F., Verner, D., Johansson, S., Kallman, T., Gull, T. 2004, , 611, 780 Wang, J., Mao, Y. F., Wei, J. Y. 2009, , 137, 3388 Wang, J., Wei, J. Y., He, X. T. 2006, , 638, 106 Wills, B. J., Laor, A., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, D., Wilkes, B. J., Ferland, G. J., Shang, Z. 1999, , 515, 53 Yip, C. W., Connolly, A. J., Vanden Berk, D. E., Ma, Z., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2004, , 128, 2603 Zhang, X.-G. 2011, , 741, 104
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="60.00000%"}
{width="75.00000%"}
{width="60.00000%"}
{width="47.00000%"} {width="47.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="47.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
{width="35.00000%"} {width="35.00000%"}
{width="35.00000%"} {width="35.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}
{width="37.00000%"} {width="37.00000%"}
{width="37.00000%"} {width="37.00000%"}
{width="37.00000%"} {width="37.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"}
{width="35.00000%"}
[c c c c]{}
Wavelength&Multiplet&Transitions&Relative intensity\
2926.58&60 & a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{9/2}$& 1.000\
2953.77&60 & a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{7/2}$ & 0.842\
2970.51 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{5/2}$ &0.386\
2979.35 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{1/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{3/2}$& 0.165\
2916.15 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{7/2}$&0.007\
2945.26 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{5/2}$&0.007\
2975.94 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{1/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{1/2}$ & 0.039\
2907.85 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{5/2}$ &0.015\
2939.51 &60 & a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{3/2}$ &0.030\
2961.27&60 & a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^6F^o_{1/2}$ & 0.035\
2880.75 &61 &a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^6P^o_{7/2}$ & 1.000\
2868.87 &61 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^6P^o_{5/2}$ & 0.229\
2861.19 &61 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^6P^o_{3/2}$ & 0.042\
2917.46 &61 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^6P^o_{7/2}$ & 0.071\
2892.82 &61 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^6P^o_{5/2}$ & 0.062\
2755.73&62 &a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{9/2}$ & 1.000\
2749.33 &62 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{7/2}$ & 0.773\
2749.74! &62 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{3/2}$ &0.104\
2746.48 &62 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{5/2}$ & 0.545\
2743.20&62 &a${\ }^4D_{1/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{3/2}$ & 0.332\
2716.68&62 &a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{7/2}$ & 0.0003\
2724.88 &62 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{5/2}$ & 0.264\
2730.73&62 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{3/2}$ & 0.045\
2709.37 &62 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4F^o_{3/2}$ & 0.0004\
2739.54 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{7/2}$ &1.000\
2746.98 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{5/2}$ & 0.653\
2749.18 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{3/2}$ &0.300\
2749.48 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{1/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{1/2}$ &0.153\
2714.41 &63 & a${\ }^4D_{7/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{5/2}$&0.220\
2727.54&63 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{3/2}$ &0.227\
2772.72 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{5/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{7/2}$ & 0.0003\
2768.94 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{3/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{5/2}$ & 0.019\
2761.81 &63 &a${\ }^4D_{1/2}$ - z${\ }^4D^o_{3/2}$ & 0.031\
[ccccccccccc]{} w NLR&r & 1&-0.03&-0.03&-0.1 &-0.19 &0.11&-0.19&-0.25&-0.10\
&P & 0 & 0.59 & 0.56& 0.09 &1.3E-3&0.07&8.6E-4&2E-5& 0.08\
w ILR&r &-0.03&1&[**0.35**]{}&[**0.83**]{}&[**0.60**]{}&-0.28&[**0.63**]{}&[**0.58**]{}&[**0.39**]{}\
&P &0.59& 0&[**9.8E-10**]{}&[**0**]{}&[**0**]{}&1.4E-6&[**0** ]{}&[**0** ]{}&[**2.4E-12**]{}\
w VBLR&r &-0.03&[**0.35**]{}&1 &0.30 &0.21 & -0.15&0.27&0.19&0.20\
&P &0.56&[**9.8E-10**]{}&0&1.3E-7 &2.5E-4&8.6E-3&2.8E-6&9.3E-4&7.0E-4\
w Mg II core&r &-0.19 &[**0.60**]{} & 0.21&[**0.67** ]{} &1&-0.3& [**0.85**]{}& [**0.57**]{}& [**0.49**]{}\
&P &1.3E-3&[**0**]{}&2.5E-4&[**0**]{}& 0 &2.2E-7&[**0**]{}& [**0**]{}&[**0**]{}\
w Mg II wings&r &0.11&-0.28 &-0.15&[**-0.36** ]{} &-0.30 &1&-0.35&[**-0.37**]{}&[**-0.43**]{}\
&P & 0.07&1.4E-6& 8.6E-3& [**2.7E-10**]{}&2.2E-7&0&9.3E-10&[**5.4E-11** ]{}& [**6.4E-15** ]{}\
w Fe II$_{opt}$&r & 0.25&[**0.58**]{}& 0.19&[**0.69**]{} &[**0.57**]{}& [**-0.37**]{}&[**0.64**]{}&1&[**0.39**]{}\
&P &2.0E-5&[**0**]{}&9.3E-4&[**0** ]{} &[**0**]{}&[**5.4E-11**]{}&[**0**]{}&0&[**4.1E-12**]{}\
w Fe II$_{UV}$&r &-0.10&[**0.39**]{} &0.20&[**0.47**]{}&[**0.49**]{}&[**-0.43**]{}&[**0.48**]{}&[**0.39**]{}&1\
&P &0.08&[**2.4E-12**]{}&7.0E-4&[**0**]{}&[**0**]{} &[**6.4E-15**]{}&[**0**]{} &[**4.1E-12**]{}&0\
sh ILR &r&0.13 & -0.15 & -0.07 & -0.26 & -0.26 & 0.13 & -0.26 &-0.25 & -0.18\
&P & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.21 & 9.4E-6 & 7.8E-6 & 0.03 & 6.3E-6 & 1.0E-5 & 2.0E-3\
sh VBLR &r &-0.02 &[**0.42**]{} & 0.30 & [**0.39**]{} & [**0.36**]{} & -0.30 & [**0.38**]{} & 0.30 & 0.24\
&P & 0.73 &[**3.4E-14**]{}& 2.1E-7 & [**5.9E-12**]{} & [**3.0E-10**]{} & 2.6E-7 & [**1.8E-11**]{}& 1.1E-7 &3.3E-5\
sh Mg II core &r & 0.09 & 0.02 & -0.08 & -0.01 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.002 & 0.03 & -0.08\
&P & 0.12 & 0.71 & 0.18 & 0.81 & 0.50 & 0.45 & 0.98 & 0.64 & 0.18\
sh Mg II wings &r& -0.05 & 0.07 & -0.03 & 0.14 & 0.17 & [**-0.56**]{} & 0.11 & 0.13 & [**0.46**]{}\
&P &0.43 & 0.25 & 0.56 & 0.02 & 4E-3 & [**0**]{} & 0.05 & 0.03 &[**2.2E-16**]{}\
sh Fe II$_{opt}$ &r & 0.003 & 0.21 & 0.07 & 0.24 & 0.24 & -0.10 & 0.24 & 0.34 & 0.13\
&P & 0.97 & 2.4E-4 & 0.21 & 3.5E-5& 4E-5 & 0.08 & 2.4E-5& 1.7E-9 &0.03\
sh Fe II$_{UV}$ &r &0.04 & 0.1 & 0.0037 & 0.06 & -0.025 & 0.25 & 0.02 & 0.05 & -0.1\
&P &0.49 & 0.1 & 0.95 & 0.33 & 0.66 & 1.0E-5 & 0.72 & 0.37 & 0.1\
[ccccccccc]{}
sh ILR&r & 1 &-0.13 &[**0.62**]{} & -0.05 & 0.34 & 0.32\
&P & 0& 0.02 & [**0**]{} & 0.39 & 1.6E-9& 3.6E-8\
sh VBLR&r &-0.13 &1 &0.20 &0.22 &0.20 & 0.12\
&P & 0.02 &0 & 4.5E-4 & 1.6E-4& 5.9E-4 & 0.04\
sh Mg II core&r & [**0.62**]{}& 0.20 & 1 & 0.02&[**0.40** ]{} &[**0.48**]{}\
&P & [**0**]{} & 4.5E-4 & 0 & 0.71&[**1.05E-12**]{} & [**0**]{}\
sh Mg II wings&r &-0.05 &0.22 &0.02 & 1&0.03& -0.21\
&P &0.39 &1.6E-4& 0.71&0 &0.62 & 3.6E-4\
sh Fe II$_{opt}$ &r &0.34& 0.20 &[**0.40** ]{} &0.03& 1&0.23\
&P &1.6E-9& 5.9E-4&[**1.1E-12** ]{} &0.62& 0& 7.1E-5\
sh Fe II$_{UV}$ &r&0.32&0.12&[**0.48**]{}&-0.21&0.23& 1\
&P &3.6E-8& 0.04& [**0**]{}& 3.6E-4&7.1E-5&0\
[ccccc]{}
Balmer line NLR &310 & 170 &0 & 0\
Balmer line ILR &1930 & 650 & -50 & 400\
Balmer line VBLR &4370 &980 & 770 &1120\
Mg II 2800 core &1590 &390 & -3 & 240\
Mg II 2800 wings & 7770 & 1790 & 500 & 1260\
Fe II optical &2360 &1050 & 350 & 510\
Fe II UV &2530 &990 &1150 & 580\
[ccccccc]{}
EW Fe II UV$_{total}$ & 11.879 & 8.380& 12.093 & 8.899 & 10.731 & 4.596\
EW Mg II$_{wings}$ & 29.279 & 11.790& 30.457 & 12.065 & 22.956 & 7.605\
EW Mg II$_{core}$ & 15.389 & 8.849& 15.874& 9.404 & 12.781 & 4.044\
EW Fe II opt$_{total}$& 101.216 & 42.760 & 94.058 & 40.211 & 139.653& 35.123\
EW \[O III\] 5007 & 17.051 & 14.806& 18.767& 15.305 & 7.834 & 6.232\
EW H$\beta$ NLR & 4.210 & 12.945 & 3.255 & 11.198 & 9.334 & 19.236\
EW H$\beta$ ILR & 32.409 & 13.588 & 32.634 & 13.782 & 31.197 & 12.566\
EW H$\beta$ BLR & 39.721 & 16.720 & 42.027 & 16.638& 27.343 & 10.721\
EW H$\gamma$ NLR & 0.558 & 0.581 & 0.499 & 0.506 & 0.873 & 0.817\
EW H$\gamma$ broad & 28.776 & 7.541 & 28.848 & 7.781 & 28.389& 6.158\
EWH$\delta$ NLR & 0.272 & 0.362 & 0.239 & 0.318 & 0.452 & 0.507\
EWH$\delta$ broad & 7.728 & 3.340 & 7.837 & 3.452 & 7.140 & 2.608\
[cccccccccccc]{}
FeII UV & r& 1 & 0.15 & -0.11 & [**0.39**]{} & -0.10 & 0.005 & -0.16& 0.17 & -0.04 & -0.05\
& P& 0 & 0.01 & 0.06& [**3.2E-12**]{} & 0.07 & 0.94 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.44 & 0.40\
FeII$_{opt}$ & r& 0.15 & 1 & [**-0.41**]{}& -0.22 & 0.21 & -0.11 & 0.02 & 0.17 & -0.004 & 0.04\
& P& 0.01 & 0 & [**2.1E-13**]{} & 1.3E-4& 3E-4 & 0.07 & 0.77 & 0.003 & 0.95 & 0.48\
$[$O III$]$ & r& -0.11 & [**-0.41** ]{} & 1 & [**0.38** ]{}& 0.30 & [**0.56**]{} & [**0.44**]{}& [**0.35** ]{} & [**0.38** ]{} & [**0.39** ]{}\
& P& 0.06 & [**2.1E-13** ]{}& 0 & [**1E-11**]{} & 1.1E-7 & [**0** ]{} & [**2.2E-15**]{} & [**3.9E-10** ]{}& [**1.9E-11**]{} & [**3.5E-12** ]{}\
MgII$_{total}$ & r& [**0.39** ]{} & -0.22 & [**0.38**]{} & 1 & -0.04 & [**0.50** ]{} & 0.06 & [**0.42** ]{} & 0.11 & 0.30\
& P& [**3.2E-12** ]{} & 1.3E-4 & [**1E-11** ]{}& 0 & 0.44 & [**0** ]{} & 0.30 & [**7.5E-14**]{} & 0.07 & 9.6E-8\
H$\beta_{NLR}$ & r& -0.10 & 0.21 & 0.30 & -0.04 & 1 & 0.09 & [**0.70** ]{}& 0.22 & [**0.56**]{} & 0.28\
& P& 0.07 & 3E-4 & 1.1E-7 & 0.44 & 0 & 0.14 & [**0** ]{}& 1.7E-4 & [**0** ]{}& 7.4E-7\
H$\beta_{broad}$ & r& 0.005 & -0.11 & [**0.56**]{} & [**0.50**]{} & 0.09 & 1 & 0.20 & [**0.77**]{} & 0.20& [**0.55** ]{}\
&P& 0.94 & 0.07 & [**0**]{} & [**0** ]{}& 0.14 & 0 & 4.9E-4 & [**0** ]{} & 6.8E-4 & [**0** ]{}\
H$\gamma_{NLR}$ & r& -0.16 & 0.02 & [**0.44** ]{}& 0.06 & [**0.70** ]{}& 0.20 & 1 & 0.28 & [**0.61** ]{}& [**0.36** ]{}\
& P& 0.005 & 0.77 & [**2.2E-15** ]{}& 0.30 & [**0**]{} & 4.9E-4 & 0 & 1.3E-6 & [**0** ]{}& [**3.2E-10** ]{}\
H$\gamma_{broad}$ &r& 0.17 & 0.17 & [**0.35**]{}& [**0.42** ]{}& 0.22 & [**0.77** ]{} & 0.28 & 1 & 0.21 & [**0.65**]{}\
&P& 0.004 & 0.003 & [**3.9E-10**]{} & [**7.5E-14**]{}& 1.7E-4 & [**0**]{} & 1.3E-6 & 0 & 2.1E-4 & [**0** ]{}\
H$\delta_{NLR}$ & r& -0.04 & -0.004 & [**0.38**]{} & 0.11 & [**0.56** ]{}& 0.20 & [**0.61**]{} & 0.21 & 1 & 0.22\
& P& 0.44 & 0.95 & [**1.9E-11**]{} & 0.07 & [**0** ]{}& 6.8E-4 & [**0** ]{}& 2.1E-4 & 0 & 1.7E-4\
H$\delta_{broad}$ & r& -0.05 & 0.04 & [**0.39** ]{}& 0.30 & 0.28 & [**0.55**]{} & [**0.36** ]{} & [**0.65** ]{}& 0.22 & 1\
& P& 0.40 & 0.48 & [**3.5E-12** ]{} &9.6E-8 & 7.4E-7 & 0 & [**3.2E-10** ]{}& [**0**]{} & 1.7E-4 & 0\
[cccccccc]{}
w NLR&r & 0.24& -0.02 &[**0.52** ]{}& -0.13& -0.01&-0.14\
&P & 2.3E-5 &0.65 &[**0** ]{}& 0.03&0.86&0.02\
FWHM H$\beta_{broad}$ &r &[**-0.44**]{}& -0.003 &-0.23&0.07& 0.09&0.14\
&P &[**4.9E-15**]{} &0.96 &7.5E-5&0.2&0.12&0.01\
FWHM Mg II&r &[**-0.45**]{}&0.13 &[**-0.37**]{}&0.1& 0.12& 0.32\
&P &[**8.9E-16**]{}&0.03 &[**4.0E-11**]{}&0.1&0.04&1.5E-8\
w Fe II$_{opt}$&r & -0.33&0.01 &-0.34 &0.17&0.15&0.17\
&P &7.9E-9& 0.83&3.2E-9&0.003&0.01&0.002\
w Fe II$_{UV}$&r &-0.20&[**0.40**]{} &-0.19&0.03&0.05&0.02\
&P &7.6E-4&[**6.7E-13**]{} &0.001&0.59&0.42&0.69\
[c c c c c c c c]{}
& & $\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}}$& $\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$& $\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$&$\frac{\mathrm{Mg II}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}$&$\frac{\mathrm{[O III]}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{NLR}}$& $\frac{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}{\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}}$\
width NLR&r &0.21&0.24 &0.12 &-0.036&[**-0.49** ]{} & -0.16\
&P & 2.2E-4 & 3.3E-5& 0.03 &0.54 &[**0** ]{} & 0.005\
FWHM H$\beta$ &r & [**-0.43**]{}&[**-0.45**]{}&-0.19 & 0.19&0.32&[**0.44**]{}\
&P & [**2E-14** ]{}& [**4.4E-16**]{}& 0.001&0.001&1.2E-8&[**3.5E-15**]{}\
FWHM Mg II&r & [**-0.55**]{}& [**-0.57**]{}&-0.23 & [**0.36**]{}&[**0.50**]{}&[**0.40**]{}\
&P & [**0**]{} &[**0**]{}&8.6E-5 & [**1.75E-10**]{}&[**0**]{}&[**5.8E-13**]{}\
width Fe II$_{opt}$&r &-0.31& [**-0.37**]{}&-0.17 &0.09&[**0.43**]{}&[**0.48**]{}\
&P &8.5E-8&[**1E-10**]{}&0.004 &0.10&[**1.2E-14**]{}&[**0**]{}\
width Fe II$_{UV}$&r &[**-0.44**]{} &-0.18&0.32 &0.065&0.23&0.14\
&P & [**1.5E-15**]{}& 0.002&2.2E-8&0.26&5.2E-5&0.01\
EW Fe II$_{opt}$&r & [**0.69**]{}& [**0.76**]{} &[**0.39**]{} &-0.13&[**-0.45**]{}& [**-0.49**]{}\
&P &[**0**]{}&[**0**]{} &[**4.3E-12** ]{}&0.02&[**8.9E-16**]{}&[**0**]{}\
EW Fe II$_{UV 60}$&r & [**-0.42**]{}& -0.07 &[**0.52**]{} &[**0.35**]{}&0.02& -0.28\
&P &[**8.3E-14**]{}& 0.26 &[**0** ]{} &[**6.1E-10**]{}&0.78&6.8E-7\
EW \[O III\]&r & -0.28& [**-0.48**]{}&[**-0.44**]{} &-0.09&[**0.36** ]{} & 0.34\
&P &6.9E-7& [**0** ]{}&[**1.5E-15** ]{} &0.13& [**2.0E-10** ]{}&1.3E-9\
EW H$\beta_{broad}$&r &-0.17& [**-0.35**]{}&[**-0.39**]{} &-0.24&0.30 &[**0.37**]{}\
&P &0.003&[**4.5E-10**]{} &[**2.0E-12**]{} &2.4E-5&1.6E-7&[**3.2E-11**]{}\
EW Mg II$_{total}$ &r & [**-0.50**]{}& [**-0.70**]{}&[**-0.51**]{} &[**0.57**]{}&0.30& 0.19\
&P &[**0**]{}&[**0**]{}&[**0**]{} &[**0**]{}&1.0E-7&0.001\
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}}$ &r & 1& [**0.82**]{}&0.06 &[**-0.45**]{}&[**-0.40**]{}& -0.26\
&P &0 &[**0**]{}&0.29 &[**6.7E-16**]{}&[**1.3E-12**]{}& 7.3E-6\
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$ &r & [**0.82**]{}& 1&[**0.57**]{} &[**-0.50**]{}&[**-0.47**]{}& [**-0.46**]{}\
&P &[**0**]{}& 0 &[**0**]{} &[**0**]{}&[**0**]{}&[**0**]{}\
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$ &r & 0.06& [**0.57**]{}& 1 &-0.20&-0.26& [**-0.43**]{}\
&P &0.29& [**0** ]{}&0 &5.5E-4&5.0E-6&[**6.9E-15**]{}\
$\frac{\mathrm{Mg II}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}$ &r & [**-0.45**]{}& [**-0.50**]{}&-0.20&1&0.07& -0.16\
&P &[**6.7E-16**]{}&[**0**]{}&5.5E-4&0&0.23 &0.006\
$\frac{\mathrm{[O III]}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{NLR}}$ &r & [**-0.40**]{}& [**-0.47**]{}&-0.26&0.07&1& [**0.37**]{}\
&P &[**1.3E-12**]{}&[**0**]{} &5.0E-6&0.23&0&[**4.9E-11**]{}\
$\frac{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}{\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}}$ &r &-0.26& [**-0.46**]{}&[**-0.43** ]{} &-0.16&[**0.37** ]{} & 1\
&P &7.3E-6&[**0**]{}&[**6.9E-15** ]{}&0.006&[**4.9E-11**]{}&0\
[ccccccc]{}
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}}$ & 5.482 & 2.881 & 5.114 & 2.776 & 7.455 & 2.650\
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{opt}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$ & 0.902 & 0.524 & 0.804 & 0.472& 1.428& 0.476\
$\frac{\mathrm{Fe II}_{UV 60}}{\mathrm{Mg II}}$ & 0.166 & 0.062 & 0.160 & 0.060 & 0.200 & 0.060\
$\frac{\mathrm{Mg II}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}$ & 1.938 & 1.048 & 1.959 & 1.108& 1.827 & 0.627\
$\frac{\mathrm{H\beta}_{broad}}{\mathrm{H\gamma}_{broad}}$ & 2.042 & 0.345 & 2.109 & 0.287& 1.683 & 0.409\
$\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{[O III]}}{\mathrm{H\beta}_{NLR}}$ & 0.979 & 0.769 & 1.148 & 0.695 & 0.071& 0.442\
[ccccc]{}
$\chi_{new}^2 > \chi_{old}^2$ & 15.17 % & 50.00 % & 82.59 % & 89.73 %\
(worse fit)& & & &\
$\chi_{new}^2 < \chi_{old}^2$ & 84.83 % & 50.00 % & 17.41 % & 10.27 %\
(better fit)& & & &\
[^1]: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/
[^2]: The template $\lambda\lambda$ 4000-5500 Å, as well as the web application for fitting on-line lines with this model are given at http://servo.aob.rs/FeII\_AGN/ as a part of Serbian Virtual Observatory.
[^3]: http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/asd.cfm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Strong correlations between electrons and holes can drive the existence of an electron-hole liquid (EHL) state, typically at high carrier densities and low temperatures. The recent emergence of quasi-2D monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) provide ideal systems to explore the EHL state since ineffective screening of the out of plane field lines in these quasi-2D systems allows for stronger charge carrier correlations in contrast to conventional 3D bulk semiconductors and enabling the existence of the EHL at high temperatures. Here we construct the phase diagram for the photo-induced first-order phase transition from a plasma of electron-hole pairs to a correlated EHL state in suspended monolayer MoS2. We show that quasi-2D nature of monolayer TMDCs and the ineffective screening of the out of plane field lines allow for this phase transition to occur at and above room temperature, thereby opening avenues for studying many-body phenomena without the constraint of cryogenics.'
author:
- Avinash Rustagi
- 'Alexander F. Kemper'
bibliography:
- 'EHL.bib'
title: 'Theoretical phase diagram for the room temperature Electron-Hole Liquid in photo-excited quasi-2D monolayer MoS$_2$'
---
Introduction
============
The monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides, two-dimensional graphene-like lattices, are enabling the study of fundamental physics in regimes that are not typically accessible. One aspect of this is the unusually high exciton binding energy due to the quantum confinement and lack of screening of the electron-hole pairs, and another is the possibility of photo-doping to comparatively high excitation densities. An unusual feature of the latter is that at the highest densities, the mixture of excitons and electron-hole plasma can undergo a phase transition into a strongly correlated *electron-hole liquid* state [@keldysh1968proceedings; @Keldysh1986], with a critical temperature roughly set by the exciton binding energy. In the TMDCs, due to the high binding energy, the critical temperature should be similarly high, with a simple estimate placing it above room temperature. This prediction was recently confirmed in a landmark experiment [@kenan], where a monolayer of MoS$_2$ was photo-doped to extremely high carrier densities, resulting in photoluminescence spectra showing the signatures of an electron-hole liquid (EHL).
The transition in to an EHL in photo-doped systems is a striking example of a true non-equilibrium phase transition. It occurs at high densities, when the mixture of electron-hole plasma and excitons undergoes a Mott transition triggered by runaway dissociation of excitons [@zimmermann1988many]. The properties of the mixture are typically set by temperature and interactions, leading to a complex interplay between thermal/Mott dissociation and correlations, resulting in a rich phase diagram for the non-equilibrium photo excited electron-hole system. In addition, a recent experiment has shown that high magnetic field alters the materials band structure and thus can tune the conditions of EHL formation [@BStabilized_EHL2016]. This opens up new avenues for studying the many-body liquid phase under the effects of magnetic field, strain, etc. for potential technological applications.
The two ingredients to EHL formation are long-lived photo-excited carriers and the lower ground state energy of the state compared to the exciton/plasma mixture. In indirect-gap semiconductors such as silicon, germanium, gallium phosphide, the lower ground state energy of EHL was attributed to the multi-valley nature of the bands, and the different effective masses of electrons and holes [@TKLO1974; @EHLGaP1977]; additional inclusion of coupling to phonons was necessary to explain EHL formation in direct-gap semiconductors [@EHLPolarSC1977; @MoriyaGaAs1974]. Until the discovery in the TMDCs, these constraints had limited the critical temperature to 165K in diamond [@ShimanoDiamondEHL2014]. The above room temperature transition in the TMDCs raises the possibility of cryogen-free devices based on the EHL state, where the optical and electric properties are markedly different from the underlying semiconductor.
In this work, we determine the phase diagram of photo- induced non-equilibrium phase transition in the quasi-2D monolayer MoS$_2$ via a calculation of the many-body grand potential using the linked cluster expansion. Our results indicate the formation of EHL state at high densities with a maximum critical temperature of $\sim$514.9 K and a critical density of $\sim$3.8 $\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$. We find that the high critical temperatures are in part due to the nearly two-dimensional nature of the material, where the poor screening of field lines outside of the material plays a critical role.
TMDCs provide a unique system to study many-body phenomena tuned by strain, magnetic field, etc. with the potential for a wide range of applications in optoelectronics [@Kis_Photodetector2013], and valleytronics [@Heinz_Pseudospin2014; @Heinz_ValleyPseudospin2017]. They are particularly versatile in tunability of band gap and direct/indirect gap nature of bands depending on the number of layers [@Shen_Indirect2Direct_2014]. The quasi-2D nature of the interactions, long-lived photo-excited carriers, and their particular band structure a direct gap at the K and K’ points makes monolayer TMDCs an ideal class of candidates to study the EHL state. Strong spin-orbit coupling in these materials results in spin-splitting of the conduction and valence bands. The spin texture of the split bands at K and K’ points are related by time reversal symmetry which is preserved for spin-orbit interaction. For MoS$_2$, the conduction band spin splitting is fairly small ($\sim$3 meV) and thus is usually ignored but the valence band spin splitting is significantly large ($\sim $ 148 meV). The valence band splitting of $\sim$ 148 meV implies that for a photo-excited density less than $3.26 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$, only one of the spin-split valence bands is occupied at each of the K and K’ points as shown in Fig. \[bands\] which is what we include in our calculations.
Ground State Energy
===================
The stability of EHL compared to excitons stems from its lower ground state energy which has contributions from kinetic ($E_\mathrm{k}$), exchange ($E_\mathrm{x}$), and correlation ($E_\mathrm{c}$) energies at T=0 K. These are given by the following expressions [@Hubbard1958; @BrinkmanRice1973] : $$\label{ET0}
\begin{split}
E_\mathrm{k} &= \sum_{i=e,h} \nu_{i}\sigma_i \sum_{\bm{k}<\bm{k}_{F,i}} \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2 m_{i}}\\
E_\mathrm{x} &= -\sum_{i=e,h}\frac{\nu_{i}\sigma_i}{2 L^2} \sum_{\bm{k},\bm{p}<\bm{k}_{F,i}} V_{\bm{k}- \bm{p} }\\
E_\mathrm{c} &= \sum_{\bm{q}} \int_0^\infty \frac{\hbar d\omega}{2 \pi} \left[ \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{-\Sigma_{\bm{q}}(\omega)}{1-A_{\bm{q}}(\omega)}\right) + \Sigma_{\bm{q}}(\omega) \right]
\end{split}$$ where index $i=\{e,h\}$ identifies the electron and hole species, $\nu_{i}$ is the number of valleys, $\sigma_i$ is the spin degeneracy of the band, $L^2$ is the area of the system, $\bm{k}_{F,i}$ is the Fermi wavevector, and $V_{\bm{q}} \chi_{\bm{q}}(\omega) = A_{\bm{q}}(\omega) + i \Sigma_{\bm{q}}(\omega)$. Here $V_{\bm{q}}$ is the interaction potential and $\chi_{\bm{q}}(\omega)= \nu_{e} \chi_{e,\bm{q}}(\omega) + \nu_{h} \chi_{h,\bm{q}}(\omega)$ is sum of retarded electron and hole *Lindhard* susceptibilities.
The finite thickness of Monolayer TMDCs makes it a quasi-2D system for which interactions between charge carriers are best described by the Keldysh potential [@Keldysh1978; @MacDonald2015] which in Fourier space is of the form $$\label{keldyshPotential}
V_{\bm{q}}=\frac{4\pi e^2}{(\epsilon_1 +\epsilon_2)q(1+r_0 q)}$$ where $\epsilon_{1/2}$ is the dielectric constant of substrate above/below the quasi-2D layer, and effective thickness $r_0=\epsilon d/ (\epsilon_1 +\epsilon_2)=4\pi \chi_{2D}/ (\epsilon_1 +\epsilon_2)=43.91 \mathrm{\AA}$ for free-standing MoS$_2$ [@Cudazzo2011; @wang2014many] ($d$ is the thickness of the quasi-2D system, $\epsilon$ is the planar dielectric constant of the monolayer material, $\chi_{2D}$ is the 2D polarizability of the planer material).
![\[zeroTEnergy\] a) Correlation energy per electron-hole pair at T=0 K for different values of $r_0$. The Keldysh case corresponds to $r_0$= 43.91 $\mathrm{\AA}$ (MoS$_2$), ‘More 3D’ case corresponds to $r_0$= 219.7 $\mathrm{\AA}$ ($V_q \sim 1/q^2$) and ‘More 2D’ case corresponds to $r_0$= 21.96 $\mathrm{\AA}$ ($V_q \sim 1/q$). b) Ground state energy per electron-hole pair at T=0 K for MoS$_2$($r_0=$ 43.91 $\mathrm{\AA}$). The contributions from the kinetic, exchange, and correlation terms are marked.](Fig2_Combined_T0.pdf)
The Keldysh potential in equation (\[keldyshPotential\]) has two significant effects. First, it provides the correct energy scale of few hundred meV for the exciton binding energy for monolayer TMDC’s. Second, it accounts for the dimensional crossover of the interaction. The interaction behaves as three-dimensional ($\sim 1/q^2$) for small distances (large wavevectors) and two-dimensional ($\sim 1/q$) for large distances (small wavevectors) compared to the length scale provided by $r_0$ (see Fig. \[bands\]). The dimensional crossover of the interaction is clearly seen in the correlation energy calculation at T=0 K (see Fig. \[zeroTEnergy\]a) evaluated using the Keldysh potential. The density at which the interaction has dimensional crossover can be estimated as $r_0 k_\mathrm{F} \sim 1$ which implies $n \sim 1/2\pi r_0^2$. Fig. \[zeroTEnergy\]a shows that this dimensional crossover marked by the minima, happens at lower density for for higher $r_0$ and vice-versa. We also evaluate the contributions from the kinetic, exchange terms to get the variation of total ground state energy with density as shown in Fig. \[zeroTEnergy\]b following Eq. \[ET0\]. The lower ground state energy compared to the free exciton binding energy suggests EHL to be more stable.
Free Energy
===========
To map the phase diagram at finite temperature (i.e. effective temperature of the thermalized electrons and holes), we proceed to evaluate the thermodynamic potential $\Omega[\mu_e, \mu_h, T]$ at finite temperatures using the *linked cluster expansion* method. The thermodynamic potential can be separated into three contributions, the non-interacting potential $\Omega_{0}$, the exchange potential $\Omega_\mathrm{X}$ and the correlation potential $\Omega_\mathrm{C}$ [@mahan2013many]. $$\label{linkedcluster}
\begin{split}
\Omega_{0} &= -\sum_{i=e,h}\frac{\nu_{i}\sigma_i}{\beta} \sum_{\bm{k}} \log \left[1+\exp\left(-\beta(\varepsilon_{\bm{k},i}-\mu_{i} \right) \right]\\
\Omega_\mathrm{x} &= -\sum_{i=e,h}\frac{\nu_{i}\sigma_i}{2 L^2} \sum_{\bm{k},\bm{p}} V_{\bm{k}- \bm{p} }\, f_{i}(\bm{k}) f_{i}(\bm{p}) \\
\Omega_\mathrm{c} &= \frac{1}{2\beta} \sum_{i\omega_{n},\bm{q}} \bigg[ \log\big(1+ V_{\bm{q}} \chi_{\bm{q}}(i\omega_{n})\big) - V_{\bm{q}} \chi_{\bm{q}}(i\omega_{n})\bigg]
\end{split}$$ where $\beta=1/k_\mathrm{B}T$ is the inverse thermal energy, $i\omega_{n}=2\pi n/\beta$ are the bosonic Matsubara frequencies, $\varepsilon_{\bm{k},i}=\hbar^2 k^2/2m_i$ is the energy dispersion (for MoS$_2$: $m_e=0.5$ $m_0$ and $m_h=0.59$ $m_0$ where $m_0$ is the free electron mass [@wang2014many]), $\mu_{i}$ is the chemical potential, $ f_{i}(\bm{k})$ is the Fermi-Dirac function, and $\chi_{\bm{q}}(i\omega_{n}) = \nu_{e} \chi_{e,\bm{q}}(i\omega_{n}) + \nu_{h} \chi_{h,\bm{q}}(i\omega_{n})$ is the sum of electron and hole susceptibilities. Each of the susceptibilities corresponding to electrons and holes is taken to be the *Lindhard* susceptibility thus taking into account the contribution from ring diagrams.
In the recent experimental observation of EHL in MoS$_2$ [@kenan], the system is photoexcited with a CW laser beam. The non-equilibrium photoexcited carriers attain dynamic equilibrium where the rate of carrier creation equals that of destruction. We note that by evaluating thermodynamic quantities, we are implicitly assuming ergodicity wherein the system has attained dynamic equilibrium characterized by the steady state photoexcited density and the effective temperature of the thermalized carriers.
Since our photo-excited system has a severe constraint of having equal electron and hole densities $n_e=n_h=n$, it is appropriate for us to work in the canonical ensemble and consider the Helmholtz free energy $F[n,T]$ (also denoted as $A[n,T]$), of which the exchange-correlation contribution is related to the thermodynamic grand potential evaluated for chemical potential $\mu_{0,e/h}$ [@PerrotWardana1984] $$\label{Helmholtz}
F_\mathrm{xc}(n,T)\approx \Omega_\mathrm{xc}(\mu_{0,e},\mu_{0,h},T)$$ where $\mu_{0,e/h}$ is the non-interacting chemical potential corresponding to the number density $n$. The chemical potential, which can show signatures of a phase transition, can be obtained from the Helmholtz free energy through an appropriate derivative, $$\label{chemicalPotential}
\mu= \left( \frac{\partial F}{\partial N}\right)_{T,V} =\mu_{0,e}+\mu_{0,h}+ \left( \frac{\partial F_\mathrm{xc}}{\partial N}\right)_{T,V}.$$
![ \[BGR\] The variation of exciton binding energy with density for different temperatures. The inset shows band gap renormalization $\Delta E_{G} \equiv \mu_\mathrm{xc}$ as a function of density $n$ for different temperatures which is used to get density-dependent binding energy. The free exciton binding energy is denoted by the dashed line; the Mott transition occurs where these meet (at the Mott density $n_M\approx 2.8 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$).](Fig3_BGR.pdf)
Band Gap Renormalization
========================
Photo-excited carriers have two major effects on the optical spectrum of a semiconductor. First, screening from the carriers weakens the interaction binding the electron-hole pairs causing a blue-shift of the exciton peak. Second, the self energy of the interacting system renormalizes the band gap and causes a red-shift of the exciton peak. Several studies have concluded that these energy shifts offset each other and the exciton peak location in the optical spectrum does not shift, however the continuum band edge shifts due to modification from band gap renormalization (BGR) [@BGRScreening_Haug1985]. Thus the variation in the exciton binding energy with density and temperature can be determined from the BGR. The exchange-correlation chemical potential may be used as an estimate of the band gap renormalization (BGR) [@RinkerBGR1992] (see inset in Fig. \[BGR\]) as a function of number density $n$ of electron-hole pairs at a few different temperatures. The BGR is used to determine the density and temperature dependent exciton binding energy (Fig. \[BGR\]). The Mott density where excitons merge into the continuum and dissociate into electron-hole plasma is found to be $n_\mathrm{M} \approx 2.8 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ independent of temperature. Our result is in close agreement with the exciton binding energy shift and band gap shift calculated by solving the semiconductor Bloch equations using an *ab initio* band structure of MoS$_2$ [@Steinhoff_BEGapShiftSBE2014].
Phase Diagram
=============
The variation of the chemical potential $\mu$ with density $n$ is shown in Fig. \[CombinedPD\]a for different temperatures. At high temperatures, the chemical potential increases monotonically with density; at low temperatures there exists a regime in density where $\left(\partial\mu/\partial n\right)_{T,V} < 0$. This region is thermodynamically unstable and a Maxwell equal area construction (shown as horizontal dotted lines) is done to construct the region of coexistence. The discontinuity in the Maxwell constructed region classifies it as a *first-order* phase transition for temperatures lower than the critical temperature T$_c$ . From this, we map out the phase diagram in temperature-density (T-n) space shown in Fig. \[CombinedPD\]b indicating regions of electron-hole plasma phase, liquid phase and the coexistence of the two. The coexistence region is characterized by a dense electron-hole plasma with droplets of constant high density electron-hole liquid. We find the critical density n$_c$=3.8 $\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ and the critical temperature T$_c$= 514.9 K, which are indicated on the phase diagram.
Interactions lead to a first-order phase transition from a gas of electron-hole pairs to an electron-hole liquid. However, in actuality the gas phase is composed of exciton, biexcitons, and electon-hole plasma. Since our formalism does not incorporate all components in the gas phase, we use one of the most commonly used concepts in plasma physics, the Saha ionization equation [@SahaEq_1920], to describe the chemical equilibrium between electron-hole plasma and excitons $e+h \rightleftarrows X$ $$\label{Saha}
\dfrac{\alpha^2}{1-\alpha} = \dfrac{g_e g_h}{g_{ex}} \dfrac{1}{n \lambda_T^2} \exp\left( -\dfrac{\vert E_{ex}(n) \vert }{k_B T}\right),$$ where $g$’s are the degeneracy factors ($g_e=4$ due to spin and valley degeneracy, $g_h=2$ due to valley degeneracy, and $g_{ex}=2$ due to valley degeneracy), $\alpha$ is the ionization ratio, $\lambda_T = h/\sqrt{2\pi m_r k_B T}$ is the thermal De Broglie wavelength of the electron-hole pair, $m_r$ is the reduced mass of electron-hole pair. Fig. \[CombinedPD\]b displays ionization ratio lines corresponding to $\alpha=\{0.1,0.5,0.9\}$ based on equation(\[Saha\]), incorporating the density-dependent exciton binding energy (ignoring the temperature dependence, using exciton binding energy for T=156 K). As expected, at high temperatures and low density, the excitons dissociate into electron-hole plasma as the temperature becomes larger than the exciton binding energy. At low temperatures, the exciton gas is only partially dissociated into electron-hole plasma, but as the density increases the plasma that is present coexists with the liquid phase (orange region). As the density increases further, the ionization ratio rapidly increases until the Mott transition is reached, beyond which only the liquid and plasma phases are found.
A widely used empirical relation exists relating the exciton binding energy $E_\mathrm{ex}$ and the critical temperature $T_\mathrm{c}$ ($k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{c} \approx 0.1 E_\mathrm{ex}$) [@Keldysh1986] holds for our results. The family of monolayer TMDCs have exciton binding energies in the range of a few hundred meV [@Reichman_TMDCBE2013]. Thus it is expected that room temperature EHL state should be observable in the family of TMDCs. However, the presence of a substrate reduces the exciton binding energy[@MacDonald2015] and thus the critical temperature T$_\mathrm{c}$ should decrease as per the empirical scaling relation suggesting lower critical temperature in presence of a substrate compared to a free standing layer.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we map the phase diagram of monolayer MoS$_2$ showing EHL formation at and above room temperature. Such high critical temperature is caused by strong interactions described by the Keldysh potential given the quasi-2D nature of the system. The variation of the thermodynamically conjugate variables (chemical potential-density) shows discontinuity indicating a *first-order* phase transition. We find the critical density to be n$_c$=3.8 $\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ and the critical temperature to be T$_c$= 514.9 K for MoS$_2$.\
The authors acknowledge the discussions and insights from A. Bataller, R. Younts and K. Gundogdu.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Methods based on propagation of the one-body reduced density-matrix hold much promise for the simulation of correlated many-electron dynamics far from equilibrium, but difficulties with finding good approximations for the interaction term in its equation of motion have so far impeded their application. These difficulties include the violation of fundamental physical principles such as energy conservation, positivity conditions on the density, or unchanging natural orbital occupation numbers. We review some of the recent efforts to confront these problems, and explore a semiclassical approximation for electron correlation coupled to time-dependent Hartree-Fock propagation. We find that this approach captures changing occupation numbers, and excitations to doubly-excited states, improving over TDHF and adiabatic approximations in density-matrix propagation. However, it does not guarantee $N$-representability of the density-matrix, consequently resulting sometimes in violation of positivity conditions, even though a purely semiclassical treatment preserves these conditions.'
author:
- Peter Elliott
- 'Neepa T. Maitra'
title: 'Density-Matrix Propagation Driven by Semiclassical Correlation'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro .unnumbered}
============
Time-resolved dynamics of electrons in atoms, molecules, and solids are increasingly relevant for a large class of problems today. The electrons and ions are excited far from their ground states in photo-induced processes such as in photovoltaics or laser-driven dynamics, and control of the dynamics on the attosecond time-scale is now experimentally possible. To theoretically model these processes an adequate accounting of electron correlation is required. Clearly solving the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) is impossible for more than a few electrons, and, moreover, the many-electron wavefunction contains much more information than is needed. Most observables of interest involve one- or two-body operators, suggesting that a description in terms of reduced variables would be opportune: in particular, obtaining directly just the one- and two-body time-dependent reduced density matrices (TD RDMs) [@RDMbook] would enable us to obtain any one- or two-body observable (e.g. electron densities, momentum profiles, double-ionization probabilities, etc). Even simpler, the theorems underlying time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT), prove that [*any*]{} observable can be obtained from knowledge of simply the one-body density. However, hiding in any of these reduced descriptions is the complexity of the full many-body interacting electron problem, in the form of reconstruction functionals for the RDM case and exchange-correlation potentials as well as observable-functionals in the TDDFT case. In practice, these terms must be approximated, and intense research has been underway in recent years to determine approximations that are accurate but practically efficient. The temptation to simply use approximations that were developed for the ground-state cases, whose properties for the ground-state have been well-studied and understood, has proved profitable in some cases giving, for example, usefully accurate predictions of excitation spectra [@EFB07; @TDDFTbook2; @PG15]. But when used for non-perturbative dynamics, these same approximations can become rapidly unreliable. These problems will be reviewed in the next section.
Solving the full TDSE scales exponentially with the number of electrons in the system, while the computational cost of propagating RDMs is in principle independent of the system-size. Classical dynamics of many-body systems on the other hand scales linearly with the number of particles, which raises the question of using semiclassical approaches to many-electron systems. Usually used for nuclear dynamics, a semiclassical wavefunction is built using classical dynamical information alone, in particular the phase arises from the classical action along the trajectory [@V28; @S81; @H81; @M98; @TW04; @K05]; in this way semiclassical methods can capture essential quantum phenomena such as interference, zero-point energy effects, and to some extent tunneling.
We present some results from an approach that uses semiclassical electron dynamics to evaluate the correlation term in the propagation of the reduced density-matrix, with all the other terms in the equation of motion treated exactly, as introduced in Refs. ; thus it is a semiclassical-correlation driven time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF). We study dynamics in perturbative and non-perturbative fields in two one-dimensional ($1d$) model systems of two electrons: one is a Hooke’s atom, and the other a soft-Coulomb Helium atom. The method improves over both TDHF and the pure semiclassical method for the dynamics and excitation spectra in the Hooke’s atom case, but gives unphysical negative density regions in the soft-Coulomb case. This is due to violation of $N$-representability conditions, even though the pure semiclassical dynamics and the TDHF on their own preserve these conditions.
Propagating Reduced Density Matrices: A Brief Review {#sec:review .unnumbered}
====================================================
We start with the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the electron dynamics of a given system (defined by the external potential, $v\ext(\br)$): i(x\_1..x\_N,t) = ( \_j -\_j\^2/2 + \_j v(\_j) + \_[i<j]{}v(\_i,\_j) )(x\_1..x\_N,t) \[tdse\] where $x=(\br,\sigma)$ is a combined spatial and spin index, $\Psi$ is the wavefunction, and $v\inter$ is the $2$-body Coulomb interaction between the electrons, $v\inter(\br,\br') = 1/\vert\br-\br'\vert$. Atomic units are used throughout this paper, ($m_e = \hbar = e^2 = 1$). Additionally the initial wavefunction $\Psi_0$ must be specified in order to begin the propagation. However solving Eq. (\[tdse\]) is computationally an extremely costly exercise and becomes intractable as the number of electrons in the system grows. Thus we must seek an alternative approach that aims to reproduce the result of Eq. (\[tdse\]) but at a much more reasonable computational cost. Further, as mentioned in the introduction, the many-electron wavefunction contains far more information than one usually needs.
Most observables that are experimentally measurable or of interest involve one- and two-body operators, such as the density e.g. in dipole/quadrupole moments, the momentum-density e.g. in Compton profiles, and pair-correlation functions in e.g. double-ionization. So a formulation directly in terms of one- and two-body density-matrices, bypassing the need to compute the many-electron wavefunction, would be more useful.
This leads to the concept of reduced density-matrices, where the $p$-RDM involves tracing the full $N$-electron wavefunction over $N-p$ degrees of freedom: \_[p]{}(x’\_1..x’\_p, x\_1...x\_p, t) = dx\_[p+1]{}...dx\_N \^\*(x’\_1..x’\_p,x\_[p+1]{}...x\_N,t)(x\_1..x\_p,x\_[p+1]{}...x\_N,t) \[pRDM\] The diagonal of the $p$-RDM gives the $p$-body density, $\Gamma(x_1..x_p,t)$, the probability of finding any $p$ electrons at points $\br_1..\br_p$ with spin $\sigma_1..\sigma_p$ at time $t$. One can also define spin-summed RDMs: e.g. $\rho_1(\br',\br,t) = \sum_{\sigma, \sigma_2...\sigma_N}\rho_1(x',x,t)$. The Bogoliubov-Born-Green-Kirkwood-Yvon (BBGKY) hierarchy of equations of motion for the RDMs were written down sixty years ago [@BBGKY; @Bonitz]: The first in the hierarchy is that for $\rho_1$, which spin-summed is: i([**[r’]{}**]{},[**[r]{}**]{},t) = (-\^2/2 + v([**[r]{}**]{},t)+ ’\^2/2 - v([**[r’]{}**]{},t))\_1([**[r’]{}**]{},[**[r]{}**]{},t) + d\^3r\_2 f(,’,\_2) \_2(’,\_2,,\_2,t) \[rho1dot\] where f(,’,\_2) = v(,\_2)-v(’,\_2) The electron-interaction term in the equation for the 1RDM involves the 2RDM, whose equation of motion, the second in the hierarchy, i(’\_1,’\_2,\_1,\_2,t) = (\_[i=1,2]{}((-\_i\^2/2 + v([**[r\_i]{}**]{},t)) - (-\_i’\^2/2 + v([**[r\_i’]{}**]{},t)))+v(\_1,\_2)\
-v(\_1’,\_2’))\_2(’\_1,’\_2,\_1,\_2,t) + dr\_3(f(\_1,\_1’,\_3)+f(\_2,\_2’,\_3))\_3(\_1,\_2,\_3,\_1’,\_2’,\_3,t) involves the 3RDM, and so on. Solving the full hierarchy is equivalent to solving Eq. (\[tdse\]) and no less impractical for many-electron systems. The hierarchy is usually therefore truncated, typically using a “cluster expansion” where one reconstructs higher-order RDMs as antisymmetrized products of lower order ones plus a correlation term, sometimes referred to as a cumulant. Putting the correlation term to zero becomes exact for the case when the underlying wavefunction is a single Slater determinant (SSD). For example, in the case of truncation at the first equation, the equations reduce to TDHF, and, for a spin singlet of a closed shell system, $\rho_2$ in Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) is replaced by, \_2\^[SSD]{}(’,\_2,,\_2,t)=(\_2,t)\_1(’,,t)-\_1(’,\_2,t)\_1(\_2,,t) \[rho2SSD\]
If instead, the truncation is done at the second equation in the BBGKY heirarchy, putting the correlation term to zero in $\rho_3$, one obtains the Wang and Cassing approximation [@WC85; @CVV93]. One has then the choice of propagating the equation for $\rho_2$ alone or propagating it simultaneously alongside the equation for $\rho_1$ [@AHNRL12]. However, recently it was found that, in the former case, propagating while neglecting the three-particle correlation term leads to the eventual violation of energy conservation [@LBSI15; @AHNRL12]. Now the $p$-RDM can be obtained from higher-order RDMs via contraction (i.e. partial trace), \_p(x\_1’..x\_p’, x\_1..x\_p,t) = dx\_[p+1]{} \_[p+1]{}(x\_1’..x\_p’,x\_[p+1]{}, x\_1..x\_p,x\_[p+1]{}, t), \[contcons\] as follows from the definition Eq. (\[pRDM\]). So an important condition to consider when formulating reconstructions is whether they are contraction-consistent, i.e. whether they satisfy Eq. (\[contcons\]). In fact, in Ref. , it was shown that the reconstruction approximation of Refs. violated this condition; the underlying reason was that the spin-decomposed three-particle cumulant[@Mazz98], neglected in this approximation, has non-zero contraction. This realization enabled the authors of Ref. to derive a “contraction-consistent” reconstruction for $\rho_3$ by including the part of the three-particle cumulant that has non-zero contraction, which fortunately is exactly known as a functional of the 2RDM. This was able to conserve energy in the dynamical simulations. However one cannot breathe easy just yet: propagation with this contraction-consistent reconstruction violated $N$-representability, another fundamental set of conditions that wreak havoc if not satisfied. Ref. showed that contraction-consistency, and energy conservation, can be enforced if both 1RDM and 2RDM are propagated simultaneously, even while neglecting the three-particle correlation term. However again, $N$-representability was violated in this approach, leading to unphysical dynamics, instabilities and regions of negative densities.
$N$-representability means that there exists an underlying many-electron wavefunction whose contraction via Eq. (\[pRDM\]) yields the matrix in question [@C63; @Mazz12]. For 1RDMs, the $N$-representability conditions are simple, and usually expressed in terms of its eigenvalues $\eta_j$, called natural orbital (NO) occupation numbers, as defined via: \_1(’,,t) = \_[j]{} \_j\^\*\_[j]{}(’,t)\_[j]{}(,t) \[NOexp\] for the spin-summed singlet case, where $\xi_{j}(\br,t)$ are natural orbitals. The $N$-representability conditions are that $0\le \eta_j \le 2$, and $\sum_j \eta_j = N$. (For the spin-resolved case, the first condition becomes $0\le \eta_j \le 1$). The 1RDM should be positive semi-definite, with trace equal N, and each eigenvalue bounded above by 2. If this is violated, densities can become negative in places, even when the norm is conserved. (Note that it can be shown that particle number is always conserved by any approximation [@AHNRL12]). For 2RDMs, only very recently has a complete set of conditions for ensemble $N$-representability been discovered [@Mazz12]; for pure states, not all the conditions are known, although some are. One important condition regards positive semi-definiteness of the 2RDM, which is challenging to maintain in dynamics when using approximate reconstructions. Yet without positive semi-definiteness, the propagation becomes unstable. The condition is in fact violated even by the contraction-consistent reconstruction introduced in Ref and by the joint 1RDM and 2RDM propagation in Ref. . Even for ground-state problems (where the analog of the BBGKY equations is referred to as the contracted Schrödinger equation), the reconstruction functionals can violate such conditions, and iterative “purification” schemes have been introduced to yield self-consistent $N$-representable ground-state solutions [@Mazz02; @ACTPV05]. Even when the initial RDM satisfies $N$-representability conditions, one can find violations building up at later times in the propagation when approximate reconstruction functionals are used [@AHNRL12; @LBSI15]. Ref. presented promising results where a dynamical purification scheme was applied at each time-step in the dynamics of molecules in strong-fields, leading to stable and accurate propagation. A similar method [@JD14] uses an energy-optimization procedure to obtain the 2RDM at each time-step while also enforcing various $N$-representability conditions, but the resulting dynamics is unable to change occupation numbers.
From a different angle, it has been recently shown that the BBGKY equations can be recast into a Hamiltonian formulation [@R12], that opens the possibility of using advanced approximate methods of classical mechanics to analyze the equations and derive different reconstructions, in terms of equivalent classical variables.
On the other hand, “time-dependent density-matrix functional theory”(TDDMFT) [@PGB07], which deals only with Eq. (\[rho1dot\]), proceeds from a somewhat different philosophy: the idea is that the 2RDM and all observables can in principle be obtained [*exactly*]{} from the time-dependent 1RDM due to the Runge-Gross theorem of TDDFT. The latter theorem [@RG84; @TDDFTbook2] proves that given an initial state, there is a one-to-one mapping between the time-evolving one-body density ($\rho(\br,t)$, diagonal of the 1RDM), and the externally applied potential. This means that, in principle, knowledge of $\rho(\br,t)$ is enough to determine the many-electron wavefunction, up to a purely time-dependent phase, and hence all pRDMs also. Since $\rho_1(\br,\br,t) = \rho(\br,t)$, this means in turn that $\rho_1(\br',\br,t)$ determines all properties of the system. The only assumption is that time-evolution of $\rho_1$ occurs in a local potential, meaning a multiplicative operator in space, which raises questions about $v$-representability [@G15].
There has been significant effort to approximate the 2RDM of Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) as a functional of $\rho_1$, or of its NOs and occupation numbers (Eq. (\[NOexp\])). A natural starting point is to insert the time-evolving 1RDM into an approximation developed for ground-state density-matrix functional theory [@Mueller84; @GU98; @BB02; @GPB05; @LeivaPiris05; @SDLG08], thus making an “adiabatic” approximation. These functionals can give very good approximations for ground-state properties, especially important for strongly-correlated systems where common approximations in alternative scalable methods like density-functional theory fail. However, when used in time-propagation, these same functionals keep the occupation numbers fixed [@GBG08; @RP10; @RP11; @AG10; @GGB10], which leads to erroneous dynamics. The first real-time non-perturbative application of TDDMFT [@RP10] resorted to an extra energy-minimizing procedure to determine occupation numbers at each time-step that resulted in time-evolving occupation numbers. By considering perturbations around the ground-state, a frequency-dependent response theory can be formalized [@GBG08] from which excitation energies can be computed, and it was shown that adiabatic functionals cannot capture double-excitations. Phase-including NO (PINO) functional theory [@GGB10; @GGB12; @MGGB13] has been introduced to overcome this problem. Here the functional depends on the phase of the NO, which extends out of the realm of TDDMFT since any phase-dependence of the NOs cancels out when $\rho_1$ is formed.
Computationally, it has been argued that there is an advantage to propagating the NOs and occupation numbers directly instead of working with Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) [@AG10; @BB13]. By renormalizing the NOs via their occupation numbers, $\tilde\xi(t)\rangle = \sqrt{\eta_i(t)}\vert \xi(t)\rangle$, Refs. showed that the equations of motion for the orbitals and those for the occupation numbers can be instead combined into one for each renormalized-orbital, which is numerically far more stable than the coupled equations for $\eta_i(t)$ and $\vert\xi_i(t)\rangle$. By studying model two-electron systems, for which the exact 2RDM is known in terms of the NOs and occupation numbers [@LS56], Refs. could propagate the renormalized NOs in strong fields, with the only approximation being propagating a finite number of orbitals. Even relatively few orbitals gave very good results for challenging phenomena in correlated strong-field dynamics: autoionization, Rabi oscillations, and non-sequential double-ionization. For more than two electrons, one will however run again into the challenge of finding an accurate approximation for the 2RDM in terms of the renormalized NOs.
The progress and applications in time-propagating RDMs as described above has been relatively recent (the use of RDMs in static electronic structure theory is much older and more established), although the BBGKY equations were written down sixty years ago. This is partly because of the instabilities stemming from violating $N$-representability when one truncates the hierarchy, or the inability of the adiabatic approximations for the functionals $\rho_2[\rho_1]$ to change occupation numbers, as reviewed above. TDDFT, on the other hand, formulated about thirty years ago [@RG84; @TDDFTbook2], has seen significant applications, especially for the calculations of excitations and response, while the past decade has witnessed exciting explorations into strong-field regime. As discussed above, the Runge-Gross states that all observables can be obtained from the one-body density, but, instead of working directly with the density, TDDFT operates by propagating a system of non-interacting electrons, the Kohn-Sham system, that reproduces the exact interacting density. The potential in the equation for the Kohn-Sham orbitals is defined such that $N$ non-interacting electrons evolving in it have the same time-dependent one-body density as the true interacting problem. One component of this potential is the exchange-correlation potential, a functional of the density $\rho$, the initial interacting state $\Psi$, and the initial choice of Kohn-Sham orbitals $\Phi$ in which to begin the propagation, $v\xc[\rho; \Psi_0, \Phi_0](\br, t)$. In almost all of the real-time non-perturbative calculations, an adiabatic approximation is used, in which the time-evolving density is inserted in a ground-state functional approximation, neglecting the dependence on the initial-states and the history of the density. This has produced usefully accurate results in a range of situations, e.g. modeling charge-transfer dynamics in photovoltaic candidates [@Carlo], ultrafast demagnetization in solids [@peter], dynamics of molecules in strong fields [@Bocharova]. Yet, there are errors, sometimes quite large [@RB09; @RN11; @RN12; @RN12b; @HTPI14], and investigation of the behavior of the [ *exact*]{} exchange-correlation potential reveals non-adiabatic features that are missing in the approximations in use today [@EFRM12; @FERM13; @RG12]. Further, when one is interested in observables that are not directly related to the density, additional “observable-functionals” are need to extract the information from the Kohn-Sham system: simply evaluating the usual operators on the Kohn-Sham wavefunction is not correct, even when the exact exchange-correlation potential functional is used [@WB06; @WB07; @RHCM09; @Henkel09]. Although it is in principle possible to extract all observables from the Kohn-Sham system, it is not known how. A final challenge is that Kohn-Sham evolution maintains constant occupation numbers, even with the exact functional, which results in strong exchange-correlation effects. The one-body nature of the Kohn-Sham potential means that the Kohn-Sham state remains a SSD throughout the evolution, even though the interacting system that it is modeling can dramatically change occupation numbers [@AG10; @LFSEM14], evolving far from an SSD (e.g. if a singlet single excitation gets appreciably populated during the dynamics). This leads to large features in the exact exchange-correlation potential that are difficult to model accurately.
So, although computationally attractive, one could argue that operating via a non-interacting reference leads to a more difficult task for functionals. This has motivated the revisiting of the 1RDM dynamics in recent years as discussed above: any one-body observable can be directly obtained from the 1RDM using the usual operators, and one does not need the effective potential to “translate” from a non-interacting system to an interacting system. This suggests the terms in the equation that contain the many-body physics could be easier to model. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the difficulty then is to come up with approximations for the 2RDM that can change occupation numbers and maintain $N$-representability of the 1RDM. In this work, we implement the idea first introduced in Ref. , using a semiclassical approximation for the correlation term in Eq. (\[rho1dot\]).
Semiclassical-Correlation Driven TDHF {#sec:formalism .unnumbered}
=====================================
From now on we deal only with singlet states and consider only the spin-summed RDMs. We begin by extracting the correlation component of Eq. (\[rho1dot\]), by decomposing $\rho_2$ via an SSD-contribution from Eq. (\[rho2SSD\]), plus a correlation correction: \_2(’,\_2,,\_2,t) = \_2\^[SSD]{}(’,\_2,,\_2,t) + c(’,\_2,,\_2,t) \[rho2\] Then the last term of Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) can be written d\^3r\_2 f(,’,\_2) \_2(’,\_2,,\_2,t) = (v(,t)-v(’,t))\_1(’,,t) + F(’,,t) + vc(’,,t) \[eepart\] where v(,t) = d\^3r’ is the familiar Hartree potential of DFT and \[fock\] F(’,,t) = -d\^3r\_2 f(,’,\_2) \_1(’,\_2,t)\_1(\_2,,t) is the Fock exchange matrix. The final term of Eq. (\[eepart\]) we refer to as the correlation potential: vc(’,,t) = d\^3r\_2 f(,’,\_2)c(’,\_2,,\_2,t) \[v2c\] Without $v\2c$, the propagation of Eq. \[rho1dot\] using the first two terms of Eq. \[eepart\], reduces to TDHF. In the present work we will evaluate $v\2c$ via semiclassical Frozen Gaussian dynamics, so turn now to a short review of this.
Frozen Gaussian Dynamics {#frozen-gaussian-dynamics .unnumbered}
------------------------
Semiclassical methods aim to approximate the solution of Eq. (\[tdse\]) via an expansion in $\hbar$; the zeroth order recovers the classical limit while the first-order $O(\hbar)$ terms are referred to as the semiclassical limit. For propagation, a popular example is the Heller-Herman-Kluk-Kay (HHKK) propagator [@H81; @HK84; @KHD86; @TW04; @K05; @M98; @GX98; @S81; @V28] where the $N$-particle wavefunction at time $t$ as a function of the $3N$ coordinates, denoted ${\underline{\underline{\br}}}=\{ \br_1,...,\br_N\}$, is: \[frozg\] \^[FG]{}(,t) = \_t\_tC\_[,,t]{} e\^[iS\_t/]{}\_0\_0 \_0where $\{\bq_t,\bp_t\}$ are classical phase-space trajectories at time $t$ in $6N$-dimensional phase-space, starting from initial points $\{\bq_0,\bp_0\}$. In Eq. (\[frozg\]), $\langle{\underline{\underline{\br}}}\vert\bq\bp\rangle$ denotes the coherent state: = \_[j=1]{}\^[3N]{}()\^[1/4]{}e\^[-(r\_j-q\_j)\^2 + ip\_j(r\_j-q\_j)/]{} where $\gamma_j$ is a chosen width parameter. $S_t$ is the classical action along the trajectory $\{\bq_t,\bp_t\}$. Finally, each trajectory in the integrand is weighted by a complex pre-factor based on the monodromy (stability) matrix, $C_{\bq,\bp,t}$ which guarantees the solution is exact to first order in $\hbar$. Computing this pre-factor is the most time-consuming element in the integral, scaling cubically with the number of degrees of freedom.
When the prefactor in Eq. (\[frozg\]) is set to unity, HHKK reduces to the simpler Frozen gaussian (FG) propagation [@H81], which is more efficient. As a consequence, it is no longer exact to order $\hbar$ and the results are no longer independent of the choice of width parameter $\gamma_j$, unlike in HHKK. For our calculations we take $\gamma_j=1$. Neither the HHKK propagation nor FG are unitary; typically we find the norm of the FG wavefunction decreases with time, and so we must renormalize at every time-step. In previous work[@EM11], the FG dynamics of electrons was investigated and found to give reasonable results for a number of different quantities and systems. Some of these will be referred to in the Results presented here.
TDDMFG {#tddmfg .unnumbered}
------
In this work we will implement the idea of Ref. whereby a FG propagation, running parallel to a propagation of the 1RDM, is used to construct $v\2c$, which is then used in Eq. (\[eepart\]) and Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) to propagate the 1RDM. From the FG wavefunction given by Eq. (\[frozg\]), the 1RDM and 2RDM are computed and then used to construct: \[v2cfg\] vc(’,, t) = d\^3r\_2 f(,’,\_2)c(’,\_2,,\_2,t) where $\rho\FG\2c$ is found by inverting Eq. (\[rho2\]): c(’,\_2,,\_2,t)=\_2(’,\_2,,\_2,t)-(\_2,t)\_1(’,,t)+\_1(’,\_2,t)\_1(\_2,,t) We then insert this into Eq. \[v2cfg\], and propagate Eq. \[rho1dot\] with the last term evaluated using Eq. \[v2cfg\]. We refer to this coupled dynamics as TDDMFG, meaning time-dependent density-matrix propagation with frozen-gaussian correlation.
The scheme of Ref. takes advantage of the “forward-backward” nature of the propagation of the 2RDM (i.e there is both a $\Psi(t)$ and a $\Psi^*(t)$), which leads to some cancellation of the oscillatory phase for more than two electrons. We also observe that the spatial permutation symmetry of the initial-state is preserved during the evolution (since the Hamiltonian is for identical particles, exchanging coordinate-momentum pairs of two electrons does not change the action). We will study here two-electron singlet states where the wavefunction is spatially-symmetric under exchange of particles. In the FG propagation, although the energy of each classical trajectory is conserved in the absence of external fields, the energy of the FG wavefunction constructed from these trajectories is not guaranteed to be. As noted earlier, the norm is not conserved either and the wavefunction must be renormalized at each time. Thus, in general it is unlikely that energy will be conserved in the TDDMFG scheme.
Computational Details {#computational-details .unnumbered}
---------------------
The phase-space integral in Eq. (\[frozg\]) is performed using Monte Carlo integration, with the distribution of $M$ initial phase-space points weighted according to a simple gaussian initial distribution. In principle this method scales as $\sqrt{M}$, however the oscillatory phase from the action $S_t$ can make the FG propagation difficult to converge and thus a large number of trajectories are often needed. This, in turn, means that parallelization of the numerical computation of Eq. (\[frozg\]) is needed. Fortunately the main task is “embarrassingly parallel” as each classical trajectory can be calculated separately, however construction in real space of the FG wavefunction, 2RDM, 1RDM, and Eq. (\[v2cfg\]) is time-consuming and also required parallelization (in a manner similar to the Fock exchange matrix calculations discussed below). To avoid performing these costly procedures at every time step, we used a linear-interpolation of Eq. (\[v2cfg\]) which only required its construction every $D_V$ timesteps. We tested that the results were converged with respect to $D_V$, finding accurate results for values as high as $D_V=200$ for a timestep of $dt=0.001$ au for the cases we studied.
The 1RDM propagation was performed via the predictor-corrector method combined with an Euler forward-stepping algorithm. All quantities were calculated on a real-space grid and the derivatives in Eq. (\[rho1dot\]) were done using a $3$-point finite difference rule.
Calculation of the Fock exchange matrix, Eq. (\[fock\]), also required parallelization, as it has the worst scaling (cubic) with respect to the number of grid points of the remaining quantities. Parallelization often contains additional subtleties which can make the problem non-trivial, thus in order to parallelize efficiently, the problem was first transformed to resemble a more typical problem in parallel computing. To detail this procedure, it is convenient to switch to a matrix representation: \_[nm]{}=\_1(\_n,\_m) where $\br_n$ is the $n$^th^ point of the real-space grid. We then define a new matrix \_[nm]{} = A\_[nm]{}\_[nm]{} where A\_[nm]{} = v(\_n,\_m) which is then used to construct = C\_[nm]{} = \_k \_[nk]{}\_[km]{} The Fock exchange matrix can then be written as = (\^- ) in the case when the Fock integral is evaluated via quadrature and $\Delta x$ is the grid spacing. Thus, we have reduced the calculation of the Fock exchange integral to the calculation of $\mathbf{C}$, which only involves a matrix-matrix multiplication. In parallel computing, matrix-matrix multiplication is a well-studied problem for which standard solutions exist and thus could be easily implemented in our code without additional difficulty.
RESULTS {#sec:results .unnumbered}
=======
In this section we present the results of the TDDMFG formulation for various time-dependent problems and compare the results to the TDHF (i.e. $v\2c=0$), the pure FG, and the exact cases. In order to compare to exact results we work in $1d$ and focus on two-electron systems, as it allows us to solve the full TDSE in a reasonable time with reasonable computational resources.
We first tested our TDDMFG propagation algorithm by coupling to the exact dynamics, i.e. we used the exact wavefunction to calculate the exact $v\2c$ at each time which is then used within the 1RDM propagation to verify it recovers the exact dynamics. To remove any error due to the initial ground state we start the FG dynamics in the exact GS wavefunction and the 1RDM propagation in the exact GS density matrix.
Each of TDHF and FG calculations on their own can yield reasonably good results for particular cases, thus the goal of the coupled TDDMFG propagation should be to either improve upon both, or at least, improve the results in scenarios where one or the other performs poorly.
Hooke’s atom {#hookes-atom .unnumbered}
------------
(12,6.2) (-4.9,-3.6)
(12,6.2)
We begin by studying Hooke’s atom in $1d$, which consists of a harmonic external potential: v(x) = k\_0x\^2 and a softened Coulomb interaction between the electrons: v(x’,x) = In our first application we drive the system by applying an oscillating quadrupole field v(x,t) = k(t)x\^2 where $k(t)=-0.025 \sin(2t)$ and $k_0=1$. The frequency of this perturbation is chosen to be resonant with an allowed excitation of the system. We then compare in Fig. \[f:hquad\] the change in the quadrupole moment relative to the ground state quadrupole ($Q_0$), Q(t) = dx (x)x\^2 - Q\_0
as computed via exact propagation, TDHF, FG semiclassical dynamics, and TDDMFG propagation. In this case we see an improvement to both the TDHF and the FG calculations. While the exact quadrupole is seen to continue increasing in amplitude over time, the TDHF does not, and in fact oscillates in a beating pattern. This is partly due to the fact that TDHF spectra cannot describe this particular excitation (which will be discussed in more detail later) and leads to an off-resonance Rabi oscillation. However even running TDHF at the resonance frequency of TDHF does not show Rabi oscillations either; although the quadrupole begins to grow, it ultimately fails because of the spurious detuning effect explained in Ref. . The FG, in contrast, overestimates the amplitude of the oscillations, while the TDDMFG coupled dynamics lies in between these two extremes and is much closer to the exact result. In previous work we found that the quadrupole is more sensitive than other quantities to the number of trajectories used in our FG calculation, in this case $100224$. Thus we could expect better agreement if we further increase the number of trajectories. It is interesting to note that all three approximate calculations work reasonably well for the first $10$ au.
(12,6.2) (-4.9,-3.6)
(12,6.2)
Buoyed on by this success, we next examine the NO occupation numbers to probe the 1RDM in more detail than the quadrupole, an averaged expectation value, can provide. As noted in the earlier review, a major shortcoming of adiabatic functionals in TDDMFT is their inability to change these occupations. As can be seen in Fig. \[f:hNOs\] this behavior manifests itself as straight lines, labelled ATDDM, constant at the initial state NO occupations. This is also true for the TDHF case shown previously. Since we spin-sum, the NOs go between 0 and 2, and we plot the highest occupied NO occupation, which this case begins very close to $2$, indicating the initial state is strongly of an SSD character. The time-dependence of this occupation is shown in Fig. \[f:hNOs\]. The exact value decreases towards a value of $1$ as the system becomes excited and the wavefunction moves away from SSD-like state. In Ref. , it was shown that FG propagation can quite accurately capture the evolution of the NO occupations, so the question is whether the coupled dynamics of TDDMFG is also able to do so. Examining the TDDMFG values, we see that TDHF coupled to the FG correlation is able to evolve the occupations accurately. In fact TDDMFG is slightly better than the pure FG values where FG has sometimes spuriously large oscillations.
Although the amplitude of the oscillations of the TDDMFG quadrupole are closer to those of the exact than the FG oscillations, the phase of the oscillations of the latter is closer to the exact case than the TDDMFG case. This becomes more evident carrying the propagation out to longer times. This can be understood from considering the resonant frequencies of the system: the frequency of the perturbation $k(t)$ is on-resonance with an excitation of the exact system which FG in fact correctly describes. The TDDMFG excitation frequency is however shifted slightly leading to the difference in phase observed here. We will now examine the respective excitation frequencies of each method in more detail.
EXACT TDHF FG TDDMFG
---------- ------ ----- --------
1.000000 0.99 1.0 0.99
1.734522 1.86 1.6 1.58
2.000000 - 2.0 1.86
2.734522 2.79 2.6 2.58
3.000000 - 3.0 2.77
: \[t:hooke\]The singlet excitation frequencies $\omega_n=E_n-E_0$, where the ground-state energy is $E_0 = 1.774040$ a.u., solved exactly for Hooke’s atom, and the corresponding TDHF,FG, and TDDMFG values as calculated by real-time linear response.
Turning to how well the TDDMFG captures excitation spectra, we focus in particular on so-called double excitations (defined loosely as excitations which have a large fraction of a doubly excited state character, with respect to the SSD ground state of a non-interacting reference system [@EGCM11]). It is known that these excitations are missing from all TDDFT spectra calculations within the adiabatic approximation. Since TDHF is equivalent to adiabatic exact exchange in TDDFT for the $2$-electron case studied here, we do not see double excitations in the uncoupled 1RDM TDHF spectra. This point is illustrated in the upper panel of Fig. \[f:hqspec\] which shows the TDHF power spectra. The spectra are calculated via the linear response method, utilizing a ’kicked’ initial state defined as: \_0(x,y) = e\^[ik(x\^n+y\^n)]{}(x,y) where $\Psi\GS$ is the ground-state wavefunction, $k$ is a small constant, and $n$ is an integer (we define a quadratic kick as $n=2$ and a cubic kick as $n=3$). An expression for the initial 1RDM can be easily derived from this. A dipole kick ($n=1$) is commonly used when calculating optical spectra as it corresponds to an electric field consisting of a $\delta-$function at time $t=0$ which excites all dipole allowed excitations [@YNIB06]. However due to symmetries of Hooke’s atom, to access the double excitations, higher moment kicks were necessary [@EM11]. To obtain the spectra, for each run we calculate the appropriate moment (e.g. quadrupole moment for quadratic kicks) and Fourier transform to frequency space to reveal the excitation peaks [@EM11]. In the TDHF case, we do not see the pair of excitations peaks at frequencies (1.73,2.0), nor the pair (2.73,3.0) but instead see a single peak in between. This behavior is commonly seen for TDDFT calculations with an adiabatic approximation, where a frequency-dependent XC kernel is required to split the peak into two separate excitations [@MZCB04; @EGCM11]; any adiabatic approximation in TDDMFT will also only display one peak [@GBG08].
Moving to the lower panel of Fig. \[f:hqspec\], we plot the TDDMFG spectra calculated in the same manner. It can be seen that including $v\FG\2c$ into the TDHF propagation correctly splits the single peak into two peaks, for both the quadratic and cubic kick cases. Thus we have demonstrated that our coupled dynamics does indeed capture double excitations. Identifying the position of the peaks, we compare in Table \[t:hooke\] the values given by each method for the lowest 5 excitations of Hooke’s atom. It was found in Ref. that FG on its own also describes double excitations quite well, and in fact is exact for certain excitations in Hooke’s atom. This is due to the fact that the Hamiltonian becomes separable in center-of-mass and relative coordinates, and that in the center-of-mass coordinate is a simple harmonic oscillator [@EM11]. It is well-known that harmonic potentials are a special case for semiclassical methods as they often perform exactly. With this in mind, although the value of the TDDMFG frequencies are worse than the pure FG values, they are competing with a special case, but in fact the splitting between the peaks is better described by the TDDMFG. In particular, in the second multiplet, the exact splitting is 0.27, while that of the TDDMFG is 0.28, improved over the bare FG result of 0.4 (and obviously over TDHF where there is no peak). We emphasize again that these excitations are completely missing in the TDHF case, or in any adiabatic TDDFT or TDDMFT functional. It is better to have the excitations shifted slightly from the exact result than to not describe them at all.
(12,15.1) (-4.9,-3.4)
(12,6.2)
(-4.9,4.1)
(12,6.2)
Soft-Coulomb Helium {#soft-coulomb-helium .unnumbered}
-------------------
We now move to the more realistic case of soft-Coulomb Helium where the external potential is: v(x) = - which mimics the $3d$ case as for large $x$ it decays as $-1/|x|$. In the previous case of Hooke’s atom, we saw that the problem was well described by the FG dynamics whereas the TDHF performed poorly (i.e. not changing the NO occupations or capturing double excitations). Driving the TDHF with FG correlation in TDDMFG interestingly improved over FG for the NO occupations and quadrupole moment, with slightly worse performance for the double-excitations. For dynamics in the soft-Coulomb Helium case we will see, in contrast, that the FG is worse than the TDHF for some quantities. Will the coupled dynamics of TDDMFG improve the situation? As detailed in Ref. , this case is much more difficult for the FG method due to classically auto-ionizing trajectories (where one electron gains energy from the other and ionizes while the other slips below the zero-point-energy), thus a far greater number of trajectories are required: . Ref. discussed how in a truly converged Frozen Gaussian calculation, the contributions from these unphysical trajectories cancel each other out, but a very large number of trajectories are required; otherwise methods to cut out their contribution to the semiclassical integral can be used. In the presented calculations, $2000448$ trajectories were used and all were kept.
We apply a strong laser pulse with a linearly-switched-on electric field: (t) = (0.5t) {
[c l]{} & t20\
1 & t>20
. \[eq:trapeps\] which is included in our Hamiltonian via the dipole approximation, i.e. $\delta v\ext(x) = \epsilon(t)x $. We begin by examining the 1RDM itself at time $T=10$ au: both the real and imaginary parts are shown in Fig. \[f:dmR10\]. At this time, while the structure of the FG 1RDM is broadly correct, it can be seen that the TDHF 1RDM is much closer to the exact. The TDDMFG 1RDM also captures more of the correct structure compared to the pure FG case, although it generally overestimates the peaks and valleys. Thus, while the $v\FG\2c$ is constructed from the poorer FG calculation, the TDDMFG follows more closely the more accurate TDHF description.
(16.15,8) (-4.0,-4.6)
(7,7)
(4.2,-4.6)
(7,7)
We next turn to the dipole moment which is plotted in Fig. \[f:sdips\]. The TDHF (not shown) essentially matches the exact case, whereas the FG performs quite poorly, particularly during the second optical cycle. The TDDMFG, in contrast, is performing particularly well and follows very closely the exact result, even at times greater than $T=10$ au, likely due to the guidance of the TDHF component in the evolution.
At this point one might conclude that the TDDMFG is behaving correctly, however the good results for the 1RDM and dipole moment are masking the fact that the underlying description suffers from a major error, described below.
(12,6.2) (-4.9,-3.6)
(12,6.2)
As was the case for Hooke’s atom, a more thorough examination of the method is given by studying the NO occupations. The highest two NO occupations are plotted in Fig. \[f:sNOs\] where the strong field causes a large change in their values. In fact we see that the FG description of the NO occupations is working better than we previously anticipated, albeit overestimating their change. Again the TDHF occupations (not shown) are constant, fixed at their initial values. At $T=10$ au, the exact 1RDM is still dominated by the highest occupied natural orbital, explaining why the TDHF appeared so good at this time.
Unfortunately in the TDDMFG case, we see that the highest occupation rises above $2$ thus violating the exact condition for $N$-representability of the 1RDM (positive semidefiniteness). The effect of this is quite drastic as the density develops negative regions, due to having negative occupations (the sum of the occupations remains $2$, thus an increase above $2$ is accompanied by negative values). At $T=10$ au the value of the highest NO is only slightly above $2$ and so this bad behavior has yet to truly manifest itself. The FG NO occupation at $T=10$ au is underestimated, consistent with the FG 1RDM being not so accurate. At later times, none of the methods provide a particularly good description of the 1RDM structure, with the TDHF remaining the closest, despite its constant occupation number, but the TDHF momentum densities are not good. The TDDMFG 1RDM resembles the TDHF but with exaggerated highs and lows, and unphysical negative regions, manifest also in the momentum density.
(12,6.2) (-4.9,-3.6)
(12,6.2)
It is a frustrating situation where neither the FG and TDHF on their own violate the N-representability condition, and FG does evolve the occupation numbers unlike any adiabatic approximation, however coupling FG correlation to TDHF in the TDDMFG leads violation of $N$-representability. We speculate this is due to a mismatch in correlation potential and the Hartree-exchange terms as there is no mechanism to provide feedback between the two calculations. Implementing a dynamical purification scheme along the lines of that in Ref. that iteratively decreases the magnitude of the negative occupation numbers should be investigated.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:Conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
The TDDMFG dynamics which uses a Frozen Gaussian calculation to construct an approximation to the correlation potential in 1RDM propagation gives mixed results. On one hand, it was shown for Hooke’s atom to be a significant improvement over all adiabatic 1RDM functionals as it can vary the natural orbital occupations reasonably accurately. Furthermore it was shown that double excitations, which are difficult to capture with the commonly-used TDDFT method and adiabatic TDDMFT, can be accurately described with the TDDMFG formalism. On the other hand, for soft-Coulomb Helium the method was seen to fail drastically giving the unphysical result of negative density due to violation of an exact constraint. Further work is required to understand why this violation occurs and then hopefully to then use this information to prevent it from occurring. This same problem, violation of the positive semi-definiteness, was also found in other recent approaches propagating RDMs with approximate correlation terms [@AHNRL12; @LBSI15]. Dynamical purification schemes along the line of that successfully used in Ref. could be very helpful here. Indeed understanding how the FG correlation potential changes NO occupation or includes double excitations could be used to construct better approximations for TDDMFT. Finally, in this work we studied systems of only $2$ electrons, whereas we might expect that (semi)classical methods work best for large numbers of particles, and it remains to be seen whether the problems we encountered become less significant for larger systems.
An advantage of using a semiclassical scheme to evaluate the correlation term, is that initial state dependence is automatically taken care of: in general reconstructions, whether one begins in an excited state or ground-state, the same approximation for the 2RDM in terms of the 1RDM is assumed. This is known to be incorrect; several different initial wavefunctions and different initial 2RDM’s can give rise to the same initial 1RDM [@EM12; @MB01]. The resulting correlation effect is clearly different depending on the wavefunction, but this effect is ignored in all reconstructions in use today. For this reason, it seems worthwhile to pursue further investigations of a semiclassical-correlation driven TDHF, once the $N$-representability problem is taken care of, especially since in many simulations of non-equilibrium dynamics of interest today, the problem starts in a photo-excited state.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank Robert Numrich and Richard Walsh, of the CUNY HPC center, for useful discussions concerning the parallelization of our code. PE acknowledges support by SFB 762 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. NM thanks NSF (Grant CHE-1162784) for financial support. The CUNY HPCC is operated by the College of Staten Island and funded, in part, by grants from the City of New York, State of New York, CUNY Research Foundation, and National Science Foundation Grants CNS-0958379, CNS-0855217 and ACI 1126113.
[99]{}
, Ed. D. A. Mazziotti, (John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken NJ, 2007)
P. Elliott, F. Furche, and K. Burke, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, edited by K. B. Lipkowitz and T. R. Cundari (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009), p. 91.
, Eds. M. A. L. Marques, N. T. Maitra, F. Nogueira, A. Rubio, E.K.U. Gross, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012).
, K. Pernal and K. J. H. Giesbertz, in [*Density Functional Methods for Excited States*]{}, Vol. 368 of Topics in Curr. Chem. (2015).
J.H. van Vleck, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**14**]{}, 178 (1928).
,L. S. Schulman, (Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1981).
E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. [**75**]{}, 2923 (1981).
W. H. Miller, Faraday Disc. Chem. Soc. [**110**]{}, 1 (1998).
M. Thoss and H. Wang, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**55**]{} , 299 (2004).
K. G. Kay, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**56**]{} 255 (2005).
A.K. Rajam, I. Raczkowska, N.T. Maitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 113002 (2010).
P. Elliott and N.T. Maitra, J. Chem. Phys. [**135**]{}, 104110 (2011).
N. N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys. USSR [**10**]{}, 265 (1946); N. N. Bogoliubov and K. P. Gurov, J. Expt and Theor. Physics [**17**]{}, 614 (1947); J. Yvon, Actual. Sci. Indust.[**203**]{} (Paris, Hermann, 1935); J. G. Kirkwood, J. Chem. Phys. [**14**]{}, 180 (1946), ibid [**15**]{}, 72 (1947); M. Born and H. S. Green, Proc. Roy. Soc. A. [**188**]{}, 10 (1946).
M. Bonitz, [*Quantum Kinetic Theory*]{} (B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart Leipzig, 1998).
S. J. Wang and W. Cassing, Ann. Phys. NY [**159**]{}, 328 (1985).
F. Colmenero, C. Pérez del Valle, and C. Valdemoro, Phys. Rev. A. [**47**]{}, 971 (1993).
A. Akbari, M.J. Hashemi, A. Rubio, R. M. Nieminen, and R. van Leeuwen, Phys. Rev. B. [**85**]{}, 235121 (2012).
F. Lackner, I. Brezinová, T. Sato, K. L. Ishikawa, J. Burgdörfer, Phys. Rev. A, [**91**]{}, 023412 (2015).
D. A. Mazziotti, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**289**]{}, 419 (1998).
A. J. Coleman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**35**]{}, 668 (1963).
D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 263002 (2012).
D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 026704 (2002).
D. R. Alcoba, F. J. Casquero, L. M. Tel, E. Prez-Romero, and C. Valdemoro, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**102**]{}, 620 (2005).
D. B. Jeffcoat and A. E. DePrince, J. Chem. Phys. [**141**]{}, 214104 (2014).
R. Requist, Phys. Rev. A. [**86**]{}, 022117 (2012).
K. Pernal, O. Gritsenko, and E. J. Baerends, Phys. Rev. A. [**75**]{}, 012506 (2007).
E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 997 (1984).
K. Giesbertz, J. Chem. Phys. Phys. [**143**]{}, 1 (2015).
A. M. K. Müller, Phys. Lett. A. [**105**]{}, 446 (1984).
S. Goedecker and C. J. Umrigar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 866 (1998).
M. Buijse and E. J. Baerends, Mol. Phys. [**100**]{}, 401 (2002).
O. V. Gritsenko, K. Pernal, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**122**]{}, 204102 (2005).
P. Levia and M. Piris, J. Chem. Phys. [**123**]{}, 214102 (2005).
S. Sharma, J. K. Dewhurst, N. N. Lathiotakis, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. B. [**78**]{}, 201103 (2008).
K. Giesbertz, E.J. Baerends, O. Gritsenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 033004 (2008).
R. Requist and O. Pankratov, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 042519 (2010). R. Requist and O. Pankratov, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 052510 (2011).
H. Appel and E. K. U. Gross, Europhys. Lett. [**92**]{}, 23001 (2010).
K.J.H. Giesbertz, O. V. Gritsenko, and E. J. Baerends, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 013002 (2010).
K.J.H. Giesbertz, O. V. Gritsenko, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**136**]{}, 094104 (2012).
R. van Meer, O. V. Gritsenko, K.J.H. Giesbertz, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. [**138**]{}, 094114 (2013)
M. Brics and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 052514 (2013).
J. Rapp, M. Brics, and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 012518 (2014).
M. Brics, J. Rapp, D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A. [**90**]{}, 053418 (2014).
P.-O. Löwdin and H. Shull, Phys. Rev. [**101**]{}, 1730 (1956).
C. A. Rozzi et al. Nat. Commun. [**4**]{}, 1602 (2013).
K. Krieger, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S. Sharma, and E.K.U. Gross, J. Chem. Theory and Comput. [**11**]{}, 4870 (2015).
I. Bocharova et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 063201 (2011).
M. Ruggenthaler and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 233001 (2009). S. Raghunathan and M. Nest, J. Chem. Theory Comput. [**7**]{}, 2492 (2011). R. Ramakrishnan and M. Nest, Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 054501 (2012). S. Raghunathan and M. Nest, J. Chem. Theory Comput. [**8**]{}, 806 (2012). B. F. Habenicht, N. P. Tani, M. R. Provorse, and C. M. Isborn, J. Chem. Phys. [**141**]{}, 184112 (2014).
P. Elliott, J. I. Fuks, A. Rubio, and N. T. Maitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 266404 (2012).
J. I. Fuks, P. Elliott, A. Rubio, and N. T. Maitra, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. [**4**]{}, 735 (2013).
J. D. Ramsden and R.W. Godby, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 036402 (2012).
F. Wilken and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 203001 (2006).
F. Wilken and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A. [**76**]{}, 023409 (2009).
A. K. Rajam, P. Hessler, C. Gaun, and N. T. Maitra, J. Mol. Struct. Theochem, [**914**]{}, 30 (2009).
N. Henkel, M. Keim, H. J. Lüdde, and T. Kirchner, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 032704 (2009).
K. Luo, J. I. Fuks, E. Sandoval, P. Elliott, and N. T. Maitra, J. Chem. Phys. [**140**]{}, 18A515 (2014).
M. F. Herman and E. A. Kluk, Chem. Phys. [**91**]{}, 27 (1984).
E. Kluk, M. F. Herman, and H. L. Davis, J. Chem. Phys. [**84**]{}, 326 (1986).
F. Grossmann and A. L. Xavier, Phys. Lett. A [**243**]{} 243 (1998).
P. Elliott, S. Goldson, C. Canahui, and N.T. Maitra, Chem. Phys. [**391**]{}, 110 (2011).
J. I. Fuks, K. Luo, E. D. Sandoval, N. T. Maitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 183002 (2015).
K. Yabana, T. Nakatsukasa, J.-I. Iwata, G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) [**243**]{}, 1121 (2006).
N.T. Maitra, F. Zhang, R.J. Cave, and K. Burke, J. Chem. Phys. [**120**]{}, 5932 (2004).
P. Elliott and N. T. Maitra, Phys. Rev. A. [**85**]{}, 052510 (2012).
N.T. Maitra and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 042501 (2001); [**64**]{} 039901 (E).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
We present:
1\) a mixing $Z ^ 2$-action with the following asymmetry of multiple mixing property: for some commuting measure-preserving transformations $S$, $T$ and a sequence $n_j$ $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap S^{-n_j}A\bigcap T^{-n_j}A)=\mu(A)^3$$ for all measurable sets $A$, but there is $A_0$, $\mu(A_0)=\frac 1 2$, such that $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A_0\bigcap S^{n_j}A_0\bigcap T^{n_j}A_0)=0;$$
2\) $Z $-actions with the asymmetry of the partial multiple mixing and the partial multiple rigidity: $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{k_j}A\bigcap T^{m_j}A)=
\frac23 \mu(A)^3+\frac13\mu(A),$$ $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-k_j}A\bigcap T^{-m_j}A)=
\mu(A)^2;$$
3\) an infinite transformation $T$ such that for all $A$, $\mu(A)<\infty$, $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{k_j}A\bigcap T^{m_j}A)=
\frac13\mu(A)$$ and $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-k_j}A\bigcap T^{-m_j}A)=0.$$
[ **Об асимметрии кратных асимптотических свойств\
эргодических действий** ]{}
.1in
[Рыжиков В.В.]{}
.1in
[Аннотация. В статье предъявлены перемешивающие $\Z^2$-действия, не изоморфные своим обратным; рассмотрены $\Z$-действия с асимметрией свойств частичного кратное перемешивания на последовательностях и частичной кратной жесткости; приведены новые примеры преобразований пространства с бесконечной мерой, не изоморфных своим обратным. ]{}
.1in
Асимметрия кратного перемешивания для $\Z^2$-действий.
=======================================================
В работе [@1] В.А. Рохлин ввел понятие кратного перемешивания, предполагая, что новый метрический инвариант сможет различать динамические системы с одинаковым спектром. До сих пор не доказано существование перемешивающих преобразований, не обладающих кратным перемешиванием. Однако, для $\Z^2$-действий Ф. Ледраппье [@2] дал изящное решение $\Z^2$-аналога этой знаменитой проблемы. Оказалось, что коммутирующие автоморфизмы некоторых компактных коммутативных групп относительно меры Хаара дают примеры перемешивающих действий, не обладающих кратным перемешиванием. Действия типа Ледраппье, как мы покажем, могут обладать асимметрией свойства кратного перемешивания.
**Теорема 1.** *Существует перемешивающее действие, порожденное коммутирующими преобразованиями $S$, $T$, такое, что для некоторой последовательности $n_m\to +\infty$ для всех измеримых множеств $A$ $$\lim_{m\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap S^{-n_m}A\bigcap T^{-n_m}A)=\mu(A)^3,$$ но для некоторого множества $A_0$ меры $\frac 1 2$ для всех $n_m$ выполнено $$\mu(A_0\bigcap S^{n_m}A_0\bigcap T^{n_m}A_0)=0.$$ Иначе говоря, найдется $\Z^2$-действие, которое кратно перемешивает относительно пары последовательностей $(-n_m,0), \ (0,-n_m)$ при $m\to\infty$, а обратное действие этим свойством не обладает.*
Доказательство. В качестве фазового пространства действия выбирается группа $X$ всех последовательностей $a:\Z^2\to\Z_2$, удовлетворяющих тождеству $$a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+1,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+1) =0.$$ Групповая операция – почленное сложение (mod 2) последовательностей. Важную роль для дальнейшего играет наблюдение Ледраппье о том, что исходное тождество влечет за собой серию других тождеств: $$a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+2^m,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+2^m) =0. \eqno (\ast)$$ Действительно, из $$a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+1,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+1) +a(z_1+1,z_2)+a(z_1+2,z_2)+a(z_1+1,z_2+1)+$$ $$+a(z_1,z_2+1)+a(z_1+1,z_2+1)+a(z_1,z_2+2)=a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+2,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+2)$$ имеем $$0+0+0= a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+2,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+2).$$ Теперь аналогично получаем $a(z_1,z_2)+a(z_1+2,z_2)+a(z_1,z_2+4)=0$ и т.д.
Рассмотрим автоморфизмы $$Ta(z_1,z_2)=a(z_1+1,z_2), \ \ Sa(z_1,z_2)=a(z_1,z_2+1).$$ Мера Хаара $\mu$ инвариантна относительно $S$ и $T$. Хорошо известно, что действие, порожденное этими автоморфизми обладает перемешиванием.
Докажем, что для любых нетривиальных характеров $\chi_1$, $\chi_2$, $\chi_3$ для всех достаточно больших $m$ выполнено $$\int_X\chi_1 (S^{-2^m}\chi_2) (T^{-2^m} \chi_3)d\mu =0, \eqno (0)$$ что непосредственно влечет за собой $$\mu(A\cap S^{-2^m}B\cap T^{-2^m}C)\to \mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C), \ \ m\to+\infty.$$ так как характеры образуют базис в $L_2(\mu)$.
Пусть $(0)$ не выполняется, тогда для бесконечного множества чисел $m$ $$\chi_1 (S^{-2^m}\chi_2) (T^{-2^m} \chi_3) =1.$$ В силу $(\ast)$ выполняется $$a+S^{2^m}a+T^{2^m}a=0,$$ $$\chi (S^{2^m}\chi) (T^{2^m} \chi)=1 \eqno (1)$$ для любого характера $\chi$. Подставляя $\chi=S^{-2^m}T^{-2^m} \chi_3$ в $(1)$, получим $$S^{-2^m}T^{-2^m} \chi_3 (T^{-2^m} \chi_3) (S^{-2^m} \chi_3)=1.$$ Умножение левой части этого выражения на $\chi_1 (S^{-2^m}\chi_2) (T^{-2^m} \chi_3)=1$ дает $$\chi_1 \chi_3(S^{-2^m}\chi_2\chi_3) (S^{-2^m}T^{-2^m} \chi_3) =1.$$ Теперь умножим на $$S^{-2^m}(\chi_1 \chi_3) \ (\chi_1\chi_3)\ S^{-2^m}T^{2^m} (\chi_1\chi_3) =1$$ и получим $$S^{-2^m}(\chi_1 \chi_2) \ S^{-2^m}T^{2^m} (\chi_1\chi_3)(S^{-2^m}T^{-2^m} \chi_3)=1,$$ что равносильно $$\chi_1 \chi_2 \ T^{2^m} (\chi_1\chi_3)T^{-2^m} \chi_3 =1.$$ Как доказал Рохлин [@1],§3, эргодический автоморфизм $T$ компактной коммутативной группы перемешивает кратно. Следовательно, последнее тождество возможно для больших значений $m$ только в случае $$\chi_1 \chi_2 =\chi_1\chi_3= \chi_3 =1,$$ следовательно, $
\chi_1 =\chi_2 =\chi_3 =1.
$ Итак, первая часть утверждения теоремы доказана.
Для доказательства второй части мы предъявим множество $A_0$, $\mu(A_0)=\frac 1 2$, такое, что $
\mu(A_0\bigcap S^{2^m}A_0\bigcap T^{2^m}A_0)=0
$ для всех $m>0$. Для этого фиксируем нетривиальный характер $\chi$ и обозначим через $A_0$ прообраз $\{ -1\}$ относительно функции $\chi$.
Заметим, что характеры вида $\chi S^{2^m}\chi $, $S^{2^m}\chi T^{2^m}\chi$ нетривиальны (это вытекает из эргодичности автоморфизмов $ S^{2^m}$ и $S^{-2^m}T^{2^m}$). Пользуясь $(1)$, получим для всех $m>0$ $$\int_X(1- \chi )(1-S^{2^m}\chi ) (1- T^{2^m} \chi )d\mu$$ $$=1-
\int_X \chi \ d\mu +\dots + \int_X S^{2^m}\chi \ T^{2^m} \chi d\mu -
\int_X \chi \ S^{2^m}\chi \ T^{2^m} \chi d\mu$$ $$=1 -0 +\dots +0 -1=0.$$ Так как подынтегральная функция $(1- \chi )(1-S^{2^m}\chi ) (1- T^{2^m} \chi )$ неотрицательна, получим, что она равна 0 тождественно. Поэтому $
\mu(A_0\bigcap S^{2^m}A_0\bigcap T^{2^m}A_0)=0.
$
Отметим, что рассмотренное действие и его обратное обладают счетнократным лебеговским спектром, см. [@3].
Асимметрия частичного кратного перемешивания и частичной кратной жесткости преобразований
==========================================================================================
В [@4], [@5] для обнаружения эффекта асимметрии $\Z$-действий использовались такие свойства как частичная кратная жесткость и частичное кратное перемешивание на последовательностях. Эти инварианты (свойства, инвариантные относительно сопряжения) позволяли различать действие и его обратное. Недавно И.С. Ярославцев упростил метод работы [@2]. Процитируем основное утверждение заметки [@6].
*Существует эргодическое преобразование $T$, обладающее свойством: для некоторой последовательности $n_j\to\infty$ и для любых измеримых множеств $A, B$ и $C$ выполнено равенство $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{n_j+1}B\bigcap T^{2n_j}C)=$$ $$=\frac13 \left(\mu(A\bigcap TB\bigcap T^{-1}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{2}B\bigcap TC)+\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C) \right).$$*
При наличии такого предела преобразования $T$ и $T^{-1}$ не изоморфны друг другу[@4]. Это вытекает из того, что предел $\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-n_j-1}B\bigcap T^{-2n_j}C)$ не содержит компоненты $\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C)$. Более подробные пояснения см. ниже.
Повторяя рассуждения из [@4], получаем следующее формально более общее утверждение.
**Теорема 2.** *Существует эргодическое преобразование $T$, обладающее следующим свойством: для любого $N>0$ найдется последовательность $n_j\to\infty$ такая, что для любых измеримых множеств $A, B$ и $C$ выполнено*
$$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{n_j+N}B\bigcap T^{2n_j}C)=$$
$$=\frac13 \left(\mu(A\bigcap T^NB\bigcap T^{-N}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{2N}B\bigcap T^NC)+\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C) \right).$$
**Замечание. Из приведенного свойства преобразования $T$ вытекает, что оно обладает слабым перемешиванием. Действительно, оператор $\frac13 \left(T^{-1}+ T+ I \right)$ является слабым пределом некоторой последовательности степеней преобразования, поэтому $T$ не имеет собственных функций, кроме констант. Действительно, если $|\lambda|=1$ и $\lambda^{n_i}\to \frac13 (\lambda^{-1} +\lambda +1)$, то $\lambda=1$. Для эргодического $T$ только постоянные функции удовлетворяют условию $Tf=f$. Отсутствие нетривиальных собственных функций означает слабое перемешивание (непрерывность спектра).**
[**Конструкция преобразования.**]{} Примеры преобразований, удовлетворяющих условиям теоремы 2, строятся в классе преобразований ранга 1 (их определение см., например, в [@7]). Достаточно потребовать, чтобы для каждого $N>0$ нашлась бесконечная последовательность этапов построения преобразования ранга 1, в каждом из которых массив надстроек (spacers) имел бы вид $(0,2N,N,0,2N,N,...,0,2N,N)$, причем длины этих массивов не ограничены. Тогда по аналогии с работой [@6] для такой конструкции $T$ при любом фиксированном $N$ найдутся последовательность $h_j\to\infty$ и последовательность разбиений фазового пространства $$X= Y_i\sqcup Y^1_i \sqcup Y^2_i\sqcup Y^3_i$$ такие, что $\mu(Y_i)\to 0$, а множества $Y^1_i,Y^2_i,Y^3_i$ имеют следующий вид:
$
Y^1_j = B^1_j\cup TB^1_j\cup \dots
\cup T^{h_j-2}B^1_j\cup T^{h_j-1}B^1_j,
$
$
Y^2_j = B^2_j\cup TB^2_j\cup \dots
\cup T^{h_j}B^2_j \cup T^{h_j+2N -1}B^2_j,
$
$
Y^3_j = B^3_j \cup TB^3_j \cup \dots
\cup T^{h_j-1}B^3_j \cup T^{h_j+N-1}B^3_j.
$\
Также потребуем выполнения условий: последовательность разбиений $$\{ C_j, TC^1_j, T^2C_j, \dots , T^{h_j-1}C_j\},\
\
C_j= B^1_j\cup B^2_j\cup B^3_j,$$ стремится к разбиению на точки, $$T^{h_j}B^1_j= B^2_j, \ \
T^{h_j+2N}B^2_j= B^3_j,
\ \
\mu(T^{h_j+N}B^3_j\Delta B^1_j)/\mu(B^1_j) \ \to \ 0.$$ Эти условия обеспечивают наличие пределов, фигурирующих в теореме 2. Отметим, что в заметке [@4] был рассмотрен случай $N=1$.
Доказательство асимметрии
===========================
Предварительно установим равенство $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-n_j-N}B\bigcap T^{-2n_j}C)=$$ $$= \frac13 \left(\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap T^{N}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{-N}B\bigcap T^{-N}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{-2N}B\bigcap C) \right).$$ Заметим, что $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-n_j-N}B\bigcap T^{-2n_j}C)=
\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(T^{2n_j}A\bigcap T^{2n_j}T^{-n_j-N}B\bigcap T^{-2n_j}T^{-2n_j}C)$$ $$=\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(C\bigcap T^{n_j-N}B\bigcap T^{2n_j}A)=
\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(C\bigcap T^{n_j+N}T^{-2N}B\bigcap T^{2n_j}A)$$ и применим к последнему пределу теорему 2, подставив $T^{-2N}B$ вместо $B$. Получаем, что предел $\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-n_j-N}B\bigcap T^{-2n_j}C)$ равен $$\frac13 \left(\mu(C\bigcap T^{N}T^{-2N}B\bigcap T^{-N}A)+\mu(C\bigcap B\bigcap T^NA)+\mu(C\bigcap T^{-2N}B\bigcap A) \right),$$ что нам и нужно.
Так как $T$ – слабо перемешивающее преобразование, найдется последовательность $N_j\to\infty$ такая, что $$\lim_j \mu(A\bigcap T^{N_j}B\bigcap T^{-N_j}C)=
\lim_j \mu(A\bigcap T^{2N_j}B\bigcap T^{N_j}C)=\mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C).$$ Это вытекает из известной теоремы Фюрстенберга [@8], утверждающей для большинства $n$ близость величин $ \mu(A\bigcap T^{n}B\bigcap T^{2n}C)$ и $\mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C).$ (Отметим, что можно не использовать упомянутую теорему, а построить явную конструкцию с подходящей перемешивающей последовательностью $N_j$.) Пользуясь теоремой 2, в выражении $ \mu(A\bigcap T^NB\bigcap T^{-N}C)+\dots+\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C)
$ переходим к (повторному) пределу по $N$ вдоль упомянутой последовательности $N_j$. Получим $$\lim_j \mu(A\bigcap T^{N_j}B\bigcap T^{-N_j}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{2N_j}B\bigcap T^{N_j}C)+\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C)\$$ $$=2\mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C) + \mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C).$$ Таким образом, преобразование $T$ обладает частичным кратным перемешиванием относительно пары некоторых последовательностей (соответствующий предел имеет компоненту $\mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C)$). Но преобразование $T^{-1}$ этим свойством не обладает. Действительно, имеем $$\lim_j \mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap T^{N_j}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{-N_j}B\bigcap T^{-N_j}C)+\mu(A\bigcap T^{-2N_j}B\bigcap C) \$$ $$=\mu(A\bigcap B)\mu(C) +\mu(B\bigcap C)\mu(A) +\mu(A\bigcap C)\mu(B).$$ Положив $k_j = n_j +N_j$, $m_j=2n_j$ (рост перемешивающей последовательности $N_j$ выбирается достаточно медленным), получим следующую асимметрию: $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{k_j}B\bigcap T^{m_j}C)=
\frac23 \mu(A)\mu(B)\mu(C)+\frac13\mu(A\bigcap B\bigcap C),$$ $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-k_j}B\bigcap T^{-m_j}C)=
\frac13 \left(\mu(A\bigcap B)\mu(C)+\mu(B\bigcap C)\mu(A)+\mu(A\bigcap C)\mu(B)\right).$$ Подведем итог в случае $A=B=C$. **Теорема 3.** *Существует слабо перемешивающее преобразование $T$ такое, что для некоторых последовательностей $k_j,m_j\to\infty$ и любого измеримого множества $A$ выполнено*
$$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{k_j}A\bigcap T^{m_j}A)=
\frac23 \mu(A)^3+\frac13\mu(A),$$
$$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-k_j}A\bigcap T^{-m_j}A)=
\mu(A)^2.$$
**Следствие.** *Преобразования $T$ и $T^{-1}$ не изоморфны.*
Действительно, асимптотические свойства в теореме 2 являются инвариантами, т. е. сохраняются при сопряжении. Если $S=R^{-1}TR$ и $R$ сохраняет меру, то $$\mu(A\bigcap S^{-k_j}A\bigcap S^{-m_j}A)=
\mu(RA\bigcap T^{-k_j}RA\bigcap T^{-m_j}RA).$$ Поэтому $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap S^{-k_j}A\bigcap S^{-m_j}A)=\mu(RA)^2=\mu(A)^2.$$ Аналогично устанавливается равенство $$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap S^{k_j}A\bigcap S^{m_j}A)=\frac23 \mu(A)^3+\frac13\mu(A).$$
Таким образом, показано, что *пара последовательностей $k_j, m_j$ обеспечивает для некоторого преобразования одновременно и частичное кратное перемешивание (слагаемое $\frac23 \mu(A)^3$) и частичную кратную жесткость (слагаемое $\frac13 \mu(A)$), в то время как обратное преобразование этими свойствами не обладает.*
Случай бесконечной меры. Замечания
===================================
Асимметрия сохраняющих меру преобразований особенно наглядна в случае, когда фазовое пространство имеет бесконечную (сигма-конечную) меру. Отметим, что свойство перемешивания, т. е. условие $\mu(A\bigcap T^{N_j}B)\to\mu(A)\mu(B)$, теперь превращается в $\mu(A\bigcap T^{N_j}B)\to 0$ для любых множеств $A,B$ конечной меры. Приведем “бесконечный” аналог теоремы 3.
**Теорема 4.** *Существует эргодическое обратимое преобразование $T$, сохраняющее бесконечную меру, такое, что для некоторых последовательностей $k_j,m_j\to\infty$ и любого измеримого множества $A$ конечной меры выполнено*
$$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{k_j}A\bigcap T^{m_j}A)=
\frac13\mu(A),$$
$$\lim_{j\to \infty}\mu(A\bigcap T^{-k_j}A\bigcap T^{-m_j}A)=0.$$
Доказательство этой теоремы осуществляется по тому же плану, что и доказательства теоремы 3. Но теперь ситуация упрощается за счет того, что перемешивание в пространстве с бесконечной мерой тривиальным образом влечет за собой кратное перемешивание. Конструкции преобразований отличаются от упомянутых ранее конструкций на пространстве с конечной мерой лишь тем, что вместо последовательности массивов надстроек вида $$(0,2N,N,0,2N,N,...,0,2N,N)$$ используются массивы вида $$(H_j,H_j+2N,H_j+N,H_j,H_j+2N,H_j+N,...,H_j,H_j+2N,H_j+N).$$ Последовательность $H_j$ выбирается так, чтобы мера фазового пространства конструкции оказалась бесконечной. Здесь подойдет любая достаточно быстро растущая последовательность.
В заключение отметим, что приведенные выше результаты о $\Z$-действиях можно перенести на потоки. Поток, не изоморфный обратному, действующий на пространстве бесконечной меры был предъявлен в [@9]. Изучению асимметрии асимптотических свойств потоков посвящена статья [@10]. Наша работа, как и заметка [@6], была стимулирована поиском наиболее простых и наглядных инвариантов, которые показывают отличие действия и его обратного. Для эргодической теории представляет интерес отсутствия сплетений между различными положительными степенями преобразования. Из результатов работ по этой тематике (см., например, [@9], [@11], [@12]) видно, что неизоморфизм положительных степеней может быть следствием некоторых двукратных асимптотических свойств. Так как преобразования $T$ и $T^{-1}$ обладают одинаковыми асимптотическими свойствами кратности 2, необходимо использовать свойства большей кратности, чтобы установить их неизоморфизм.
[99]{} Рохлин В.А. Об эндоморфизмах компактных коммутативных групп. Изв. АН СССР. 1949. Сер. матем., Т. 13. № 4. С. 329–340.
Ledrappier F. Un champ merkovien peut \^ etre d’entropie null et m' elangeant. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A. 1978. 287. C. 561–563.
Агеев О.Н. Действия автоморфизмами коммутативных компактных групп со счетнократной лебеговской компонентой в спектре. Матем. заметки. 1991. Т. 49. № 2. 14-22
Рыжиков В.В. Об асимметрии каскадов. Тр. МИАН, 216, Наука, М., 1997. С. 154–157.
Рыжиков В.В. Частичное кратное перемешивание на подпоследовательностях может различать автоморфизмы $T$ и $T^{-1}$. Матем. заметки. 2003. Т. 74. № 6. С. 889-895.
Ярославцев И.С. Асимметрия прошлого и будущего эргодического $\Z$-действия. Матем. заметки. 2014.
Рыжиков В.В. Слабые пределы степеней, простой спектр симметрических произведений и перемешивающие конструкции ранга 1. Матем. сб. 2007. Т. 198. № 5. C. 137-159.
Furstenberg H. Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory. Princeton Univ. Press. 1981.
Danilenko A.I., Ryzhikov V.V. On self-similarities of ergodic flows. Proc. London Math. Soc. 2012. 104:3. 431-454
Fraczek K., Kulaga-Przymus J., Lemanczyk M. Non-reversibility and self-joinings of higher orders for ergodic flows. To appear in Journal d’Analyse Mathematique, arXiv:1206.3053
Рыжиков В. В. Ограниченные эргодические конструкции, дизъюнктность и слабые пределы степеней. Тр. ММО. МЦНМО. М. 2013. 74. № 1. 201-208. Тихонов С. В. Аппроксимация перемешивающих преобразований. Матем. заметки. 2014. 95:2. 282-299.
Московский государственный университет
им. М.В. Ломоносова
[email protected]
07.02.2014
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by similarities between quantum Hall systems à la Susskind and aspects of topological string theory on conifold as well as results obtained in hep-th/0601020, we study the dynamics of D-string fluids running in deformed conifold in presence of a strong and constant RR background B-field. We first introduce the basis of D-string system in fluid approximation and then derive the holomorphic non commutative gauge invariant field action describing its dynamics in conifold. This study may be also viewed as embedding Susskind description for Laughlin liquid in type IIB string theory. FQH systems on real manifolds $R\times S^{2}$ and $S^{3}$ are shown to be recovered by restricting conifold to its Lagrangian sub-manifolds. Aspects of quantum behaviour of the string fluid are discussed. **Key words**: Quantum Hall fluids, D string in conifold, topological gauge theory, non commutative complex geometry.'
author:
- |
R. Ahl Laamara$^{1,2}$, L.B Drissi$^{1,2}$, E.H Saidi$^{1,2,3}$[^1]\
[*1.*]{} [*Lab/UFR-Physique des Hautes Energies, Faculté des Sciences de Rabat, Morocco.*]{}\
[*2. Groupement National de Physique des Hautes Energies, GNPHE;* ]{}\
[*Siege focal, Lab/UFR-HEP, Rabat, Morocco.*]{}\
[*3. VACBT, Virtual African Centre for Basic Science and Technology,* ]{}\
[*Focal point Lab/UFR-PHE, Fac Sciences, Rabat, Morocco.*]{}
title: |
**D-string fluid in conifold:**\
**I. Topological gauge model**
---
Introduction
============
Since Susskind proposal on fractional quantum Hall (FQH) fluids in Laughlin state as systems described by $\left( 2+1\right) $ non commutative CS gauge theory $\cite{1}$, there has been a great interest for building new solutions extending this idea $\cite{2}$-$\cite{6}$. Motivated by: (a) results concerning attractor mechanism on flux compactification $\cite{7,8}$, in particular the link with non commutative geometry, and (b) the study of $\cite{9}$ dealing with topological non commutative gauge theory on conifold, we develop in this paper a new extension of Susskind proposal for FQH fluids to higher dimensions. Our extension deals with modelization of the dynamics of a fluid of D strings running in conifold and in presence of a strong and constant RR background B-field. The extended system lives in complex three (real six) dimensions and is related to the usual FQH system with point like particles by the following correspondence:
(**1**) The role of the usual FQH particles moving in a real Riemann surface $\mathcal{M}$ with coordinates $z$ and $\overline{z}$, is played by D strings moving on K3 surface with some complex holomorphic coordinates $u$ and $v$ to be specified later. In this picture, FQH particles may be then viewed as D0 branes coming from D1 strings wrapped on $S^{1}$.
(**2**) The complex coordinates $z_{a}\left( t\right) $ and $\overline{z}_{a}\left( t\right) $ parameterizing the dynamics of the N fractional quantum Hall particles are then mapped to $u_{a}=u_{a}\left( \xi \right) $ and $v_{a}=v_{a}\left( \xi \right) $ with $\xi =t+i\sigma $ being the string world sheet complex coordinate.
(**3**) The local coordinates $\left( t,z,\overline{z}\right) $ parameterize a real three dimension space; say the space $R^{1,2}$. The local variables $\left( \xi ,u,v\right) $ parameterize a complex three dimension space, which is just the conifold $T^{\ast }S^{3}$ realized as $T^{\ast }S^{1}$ fibered on $T^{\ast }S^{2}$. The $R^{1,2}$ geometry used in Susskind description appears then as a special real three dimension slice of conifold.
(**4**) The role of the magnetic field B is now played by a constant and strong RR background field $\mathrm{B}$ of type IIB string. Like in FQH system, the B field is supposed normal to K3 surface and strong enough so that one can neglect other possible interactions.
From this naive and rapid presentation of the higher dimensional extended FQH system, to which we refer here below as a D-string fluid (DSF for short), one notes some specific properties among which the three following: First, Susskind proposal may be recovered from DSF by taking appropriate parameter limits of DSF moduli space to be described later. Second, the real geometry of FQH system is contained in conifold; the present study may be then thought of as embedding Susskind field theoretical model for Laughlin state with filling factor $\nu =\frac{1}{k}$ into type IIB superstring theory on conifold. This property offers one more argument for embedding FQH systems in supersymmetric theories; others arguments have been discussed in $\cite{10,11}$. Finally, in DSF model, the complex holomorphy property plays a basic role; reality is recovered by restricting conifold to its half dimension Lagrangian sub-manifold. This involution has the effect of projecting DSF into the usual FQH system opening the way for links between real 3D physics and type II superstrings on Calabi-Yau threefolds.
The presentation of this paper is as follows: In section 2, we introduce the basis of fluid approximation of D-strings running in conifold. To build this system, we use special properties of K3 complex surface and conifold geometry. We also take advantage of Susskind model for Laughlin liquid which we use as a reference to make comparisons and physical interpretations. In section 3, we study the classical dynamics of the interaction between D strings and the RR magnetic background field. We suppose that B is strong enough so that one can neglect string kinetic energy and mutual energy interactions between the D strings. We also suppose that the number of D strings per volume unit is high and uniform. Then use the fluid approximation to derive the effective field theory extending Susskind model. In this section, we also study some special limits such as real projection. In section 4, we discuss quantum aspects of the D-strings fluid, in particular holomorphic property and in section 5 we give our conclusion and outlook.
D fluid Model proposal
======================
Like in usual fractional quantum Hall fluids in real three dimensions, the D string system we consider here involves, amongst others, two basic ingredients:
(**a**) A set of N D strings running in conifold and printing a line trajectory $\mathcal{T}$ on the complex two surface K3. The curve $\mathcal{T}$ is exactly the world line trajectory one gets if the D strings $\left(
u\left( \xi \right) ,v\left( \xi \right) \right) $ collapse to point like particles $\left( z\left( t\right) ,\overline{z}\left( t\right) \right) $.
(**b**) A constant RR background field , which is taken normal to K3, governs the dynamics of the strings. The magnitude of the field is supposed strong enough such that one can neglect all other interactions in the same spirit as we do in FQH systems involving point like particles. Non zero field induces then a non commutative geometry on K3 captured by the Poisson bracket $\left\{ \mathcal{X}\left( \xi ,u,v\right) ,\mathcal{Y}\left( \xi ,u,v\right) \right\}
_{u,v}\sim \partial _{u}\mathcal{X}\partial _{v}\mathcal{Y}-\partial _{v}\mathcal{X}\partial _{u}\mathcal{Y}$ of the dynamical variables $\mathcal{X}\left( \xi ,u,v\right) $ and $\mathcal{Y}\left( \xi ,u,v\right) $ of the fluid approximation.
To get the gauge invariant effective field action $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}$ describing the dynamics of fluids of D strings in conifold with analogous conditions as in FQH systems, we need two essential things. First fix the classical field variables $u=u\left( \xi \right) $ and $v=v\left( \xi
\right) $ describing the D string dynamics in conifold and second implement the fluid approximation by using a uniform particle density $\rho =\rho
\left( u,v\right) $ to deal with the number of D strings per volume unit. We know how this is done in the case of standard FQH fluids in Laughlin state with filling fraction $\nu =\frac{1}{k}$ and we would like to extend this construction for D string fluids taken in similar conditions. Though the geometries involved in the present study are a little bit complicated and the basic objects are one dimensional extended elements, we will show that the theoretical analysis is quite straightforward.
For the choice of the string variables $u=u\left( \xi \right) $ and $v=v\left( \xi \right) $; they are given by the geometry of K3 and the fluid description is obtained by extending Susskind analysis for FQH particles. For fluid approximation, we use also properties of holomorphic area preserving diffeomorphisms on K3 demanding a uniform density. Seen that the idea of the general picture has been exposed before and seen that details requires involved tools, we begin the present analysis by describing, in next subsection, the D string dynamical variables. Then come back to the fluid approximation with uniform density. More details on the holomorphic gauge invariant field action and real truncating will be considered in the forthcoming section.
D string variables
------------------
First note that there are various kinds of K3 surfaces; the one we will be using below is a local K3 with a deformed $A_{1}$ singularity; that is $T^{\ast }P^{1}\simeq T^{\ast }S^{2}$. Second note also that the complex surface K3 is a non flat Kahler manifold and so the natural way to define it is in term of a projective surface embedded in a homogeneous complex three space as given below,$$xy-zw=\mu ,\qquad x,y,z,w\in \mathbb{C}, \label{1}$$together with the following projective transformations,$$\left( x,y,z,w\right) \qquad \rightarrow \qquad \left( \lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y,\lambda z,\frac{1}{\lambda }w\right) , \label{2}$$and where $\mu $ is a complex constant. In these relations, we have four complex holomorphic variables namely $x,y,z$ and $w$; but not all of them are free. They are subject to two constraint relations (\[1\]-\[2\]) reducing the degrees of freedom down to two. Note in passing that by setting $y=\overline{x}$ and $w=\overline{z}$, the above relations reduce to$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert z\right\vert ^{2} &=&\func{Re}\mu ,
\notag \\
\left( x,z\right) \qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad e^{i\theta }\left( x,z\right) ,
\label{02}\end{aligned}$$so they define a real two sphere $S^{2}$ embedded in complex space $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ parameterized by $\left( x,z\right) $. This is an interesting property valid not only for $T^{\ast }S^{2}$; but also for conifold $T^{\ast
}S^{3}$. This crucial property will be used to recover the hermitian models on real three dimension space; it deals with the derivation of Lagrangian sub-manifold from mother manifold $T^{\ast }S^{3}$. As we will see it progressively, this feature is present everywhere along all of this paper. We will then keep it in mind and figure it out only when needed to make comments.
To implement string dynamics, we should add time variable $t$ and the string variable $\sigma $ parameterizing the one dimensional D string geometry. If we were dealing with a point like particle moving on this complex surface, the variables would be given by the $1d$ fields,$$x=x\left( t\right) ,\qquad y=y\left( t\right) ,\qquad z=z\left( t\right)
,\qquad w=w\left( t\right) . \label{3}$$For the case of a D string with world sheet variable $\xi =t+i\sigma $ moving on $T^{\ast }P^{1}$, the D string variables are then given by the $2d$ fields,$$x=x\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad y=y\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad z=z\left( \xi
\right) ,\qquad w=w\left( \xi \right) . \label{4}$$with $\left\vert \sigma \right\vert \leq l$ and obviously the constraint eqs(\[1\]-\[2\]). In the limit $l\rightarrow 0$, the above $2d$ fields reduces to the previous one dimensional variables. Since K3 surface as considered here is a projective algebraic surface using complex holomorphic variables, it is natural to make the two following hypothesis:
(**i**) **Field Holomorphy**: We suppose that the above D-string field variables eqs(\[4\]) have no $\overline{\xi }$ dependence; that is holomorphic functions in $\xi $, $$\frac{\partial \phi }{\partial \overline{\xi }}=0,\qquad \phi \left( \xi
\right) =\sum_{n\in Z}\alpha _{n}^{\phi }\xi ^{n},\qquad \phi =x,y,z,w,
\label{5}$$where $\alpha _{n}^{\phi }=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\doint \frac{d\xi }{\xi ^{n+1}}\phi \left( \xi \right) $ are string modes. This hypothesis means that the D string we are dealing with is either a one handed mover closed D-string, say a left mover closed string, or an open D-string with free ends. To fix the ideas, we consider here below closed D-strings and think about $\xi =\exp
\left( \tau +i\widetilde{\sigma }\right) $ with $0\leq \sigma =l\widetilde{\sigma }\leq 2\pi l$. Holomorphy hypothesis selects one sector; it requires that the variables parameterizing the D-strings are complex holomorphic and same for the field action $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}=\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ x,y,z,w\right] $ that describe their dynamics. Usual hermiticity is recovered by restricting conifold to its Lagrangian sub-manifold obtained by setting $\xi
=\overline{\xi },$ $y=\overline{x}$ and $w=\overline{z}$.
(**ii**) **Induced gauge symmetry**:For later use it is interesting to treat on equal footing the string world sheet variable $\xi $ and those parameterizing K3. This may be done by thinking about the projective transformations (\[2\]) also as those one gets by performing the change,$$\xi \qquad \rightarrow \qquad \lambda \xi , \label{6}$$with $\lambda $ a non zero complex parameter. In other words, the string variables obey the following,$$\begin{aligned}
x\left( \lambda \xi \right) &=&\lambda x\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad z\left(
\lambda \xi \right) =\lambda z\left( \xi \right) , \notag \\
y\left( \lambda \xi \right) &=&\frac{1}{\lambda }y\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad
w\left( \lambda \xi \right) =\frac{1}{\lambda }w\left( \xi \right) ,
\label{7}\end{aligned}$$together with the local constraint eqs,$$x\left( \xi \right) y\left( \xi \right) -z\left( \xi \right) w\left( \xi
\right) =\mu . \label{8}$$Note that eq(\[8\]) describes in fact an infinite set of constraint relations since for each value of $\xi \in \mathbb{C}^{\ast }$, the D-string fields should obey (\[8\]). This feature has a nice geometric interpretation. The string dynamics involves five complex holomorphic variables namely $\left( \xi ,x,y,z,w\right) $ and the two algebraic constraint equations (\[1\]-\[2\]). Therefore these variables parameterize a complex three dimension projective hypersurface embedded in $\mathbb{C}^{5}$ and which is nothing else that the deformed conifold geometry $T^{\ast }S^{3}$ with the realization,$$T^{\ast }S^{3}\simeq T^{\ast }S^{1}\times T^{\ast }S^{2}. \label{9}$$In this fibration, $T^{\ast }S^{2}$ is the base sub-manifold and the fiber $T^{\ast }S^{1}$ describes the D-string world sheet.
To summarize, the variables describing the motion of a D-string in conifold are given by eqs(\[6\]-\[8\]). For a system of N D-strings moving in conifold, we have then,$$x_{a}\left( \xi \right) y_{a}\left( \xi \right) -z_{a}\left( \xi \right)
w_{a}\left( \xi \right) =\mu ,\qquad a=1,...,N, \label{10}$$where for each value of the index a, we have also the eqs (\[6\]-\[7\]). Having fixed the variables, we turn now to describe the fluid approximation of D-strings and implement the constant and strong background RR B-field.
Fluid approximation
-------------------
For later analysis, it is convenient to use the usual $SL\left(
2\right) $ isometry of the conifold to put the above relations into a condensed form. Setting $$X^{i}=\left( x\left( \xi \right) ,z\left( \xi \right) \right) ,\qquad
Y_{i}=\left( y\left( \xi \right) ,w\left( \xi \right) \right) , \label{11}$$transforming as isodoublets under $SL\left( 2\right) $ isometry, the coordinates of a given D string moving in conifold is given by the holomorphic field doublets,$$X^{i}=X^{i}\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad Y_{i}=Y_{i}\left( \xi \right) ,\qquad
i=1,2, \label{12}$$with the local constraint eqs, $$\epsilon _{ij}X^{i}\left( \xi \right) Y^{j}\left( \xi \right) =\mu ,
\label{13}$$and the projective symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
X^{i}\left( \lambda \xi \right) &=&\lambda X^{i}\left( \xi \right) , \notag
\\
Y_{i}\left( \lambda \xi \right) &=&\frac{1}{\lambda }Y_{i}\left( \xi \right)
. \label{14}\end{aligned}$$Using these notations, the system of D string reads then as follows$$\epsilon _{ij}X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) Y_{a}^{j}\left( \xi \right) =\mu
,\qquad a=1,...,N, \label{15}$$where $\epsilon _{ij}$ is the usual two dimensional antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon _{12}=1$. In the large $N$ limit with density $\rho \left(
\xi ,x,y\right) $; i.e $N=\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}v\rho \left( \xi
,x,y\right) ,$ where $\left( x,y\right) $ sometimes denoted also as $\left(
x^{1},x^{2},y_{1},y_{2}\right) $ stand for the pairs of doublets $\left(
X^{i},Y^{j}\right) $, the D-string system may be thought of as a fluid of D1 branes running in conifold. Along with the previous relations, the fluid approximation allows the following substitutions,$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ }1\leq a\leq N\right\} \qquad
&\rightarrow &\qquad \mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \notag \\
\left\{ Y_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ }1\leq a\leq N\right\} \qquad
&\rightarrow &\qquad \mathcal{Y}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \label{16}\end{aligned}$$together with eqs(\[15\]) replaced by $$\epsilon _{ij}\mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{Y}^{j}=\mu ,\qquad \mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) ,\qquad \mathcal{Y}^{i}=\mathcal{Y}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \label{17}$$and projective symmetry promoted to,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right)
&=&\lambda \mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \notag \\
\mathcal{Y}^{i}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right) &=&\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathcal{Y}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) . \label{18}\end{aligned}$$For physical interpretation, we will also use the splitting$$\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\qquad \mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i}-\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i},$$where $\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{-i}$ are gauge fields constrained as $$x^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}=0, \label{b}$$scaling as the inverse of length and describing fluctuations around the static positions $x^{i}$ and $y_{i}$. From $SL\left( 2\right) $ representation theory, one may also split the fields $\mathcal{X}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}^{i}$ using holomorphic vielbein gauge fields, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) &=&x^{i}E_{+-}+\epsilon
^{ij}y_{j}A_{++}, \notag \\
\mathcal{Y}_{i}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) &=&y_{i}E_{-+}-\epsilon
_{ij}x^{j}A_{--}, \label{19}\end{aligned}$$where $E_{\pm \mp }$ should be as $E_{\pm \mp }=\left( 1+A_{\pm \mp }\right)
$. Like for $\mathcal{X}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}^{i}$, the gauge fields $\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{-i}$ as well as $E_{\pm \mp }$ and $A_{\pm \pm }$ are homogeneous holomorphic functions subject to the projective transformations $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right) =\lambda ^{\pm }\mathcal{C}_{\pm }\left( \xi
,x,y\right) $ and, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{+-}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right)
&=&E_{+-}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \notag \\
A_{++}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right) &=&\lambda
^{2}A_{++}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \notag \\
E_{-+}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right)
&=&E_{-+}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) , \label{pr} \\
A_{--}\left( \lambda \xi ,\lambda x,\frac{1}{\lambda }y\right) &=&\lambda
^{-2}A_{--}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) . \notag\end{aligned}$$Using the conifold defining relation $\epsilon _{ij}\mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{Y}^{j}=\mu $, we see that, like for $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}$ gauge fields, the above holomorphic vielbeins capture two complex degrees of freedom only since in addition to eqs(\[pr\]), they satisfy moreover, $$E_{+-}E_{-+}-A_{++}A_{--}=1. \label{c}$$An equivalent relation using $A_{\pm \mp }$ and $A_{\pm \pm }$ may be also written down. As far as the constraint eq(\[b\],\[c\]) are concerned, there are more than one way to deal with. One way is to solve it perturbatively as $E_{\pm \mp }\simeq \left( 1+A_{\pm \mp }\right) $ with $A_{\pm \mp }=\pm A_{0}$ and then substitute $A_{0}=i\sqrt{A_{++}A_{--}}$. An other way is to solve eq(\[c\]) exactly as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{+-} &=&K\sqrt{1+A_{++}A_{--}}, \notag \\
E_{-+} &=&\frac{1}{K}\sqrt{1+A_{++}A_{--}},\end{aligned}$$where $K$ is an arbitrary non zero function. In both cases one looses field linearity which we would like to have it. We will then keep the gauge field constraint eqs as they are and give the results involving all these components using Lagrange method. Notice that, from physical view, the gauge fields $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}$ or equivalently $A_{\pm \mp }=A_{\pm \mp
}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) $ and $A_{\pm \pm }=A_{\pm \pm }\left( \xi
,x,y\right) $ describe gauge fluctuations around the static solution $$\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i},\qquad \mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i},\qquad x^{i}y_{i}=\mu ,
\label{20}$$preserving conifold volume 3-form. Expressing the field $\mathcal{X}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}$ as $\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i}-\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}$, we have $\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}=x^{i}A_{+-}+y^{i}A_{++}$ and $\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}=-y_{i}A_{-+}+x_{i}A_{--}$. Notice also that, as general coordinate transformations, the splitting (\[19\]) may be also defined as holomorphic diffeomorphisms $\mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{L}_{v}x^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}=\mathcal{L}_{v}y_{i}$ where the vector field $\mathcal{L}_{v}$ is given by $$\mathcal{L}_{v}=V_{++}D_{--}+V_{--}D_{++}+V_{0}D_{0}+V_{0}^{\prime }\Delta
_{0}, \label{21}$$with gauge component fields $V_{pq},$ $p,$ $q=+,-$ and where the dimensionless derivatives generating the $GL\left( 2\right) $ group are given by,$$\Delta _{0}=\frac{1}{2}\left( x^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}}+y^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial y^{i}}\right) ,$$or naively as $\Delta _{0}=\frac{\partial }{\partial \left(
x^{i}y_{i}\right) }$, and $$D_{--}=y^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}},\qquad D_{++}=x^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial y^{i}},\qquad D_{0}=\left( x^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}}-y^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial y^{i}}\right) . \label{38}$$In these eqs, we have two charge operators; the operator $\Delta _{0}$ generates the abelian scaling factor with the property$$\left[ \Delta _{0},D_{\pm \pm }\right] =2D_{\pm \pm },\qquad \left[ \Delta
_{0},D_{0}\right] =0,$$and $D_{0}=\left[ D_{++},D_{--}\right] $ generates the abelian Cartan Weyl $GL\left( 1\right) $ subgroup of $SL\left( 2\right) $. Notice moreover that inverting the decomposition (\[19\]), we can write the vielbein fields as follows,$$\begin{aligned}
E_{+-} &=&\frac{1}{\mu }y_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}=1+y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\qquad E_{-+}=\frac{1}{\mu }\mathcal{Y}_{i}x^{i}=1-x^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}, \notag \\
A_{++} &=&\frac{1}{\mu }\epsilon _{ij}x^{i}\mathcal{X}^{j}=-x_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\qquad A_{--}=\frac{1}{\mu }\epsilon ^{ij}y_{i}\mathcal{Y}_{j}=-y^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}, \label{23}\end{aligned}$$As one sees, these gauge fluctuations $E_{\pm \mp }$ and $A_{\pm \pm }$ are dimensionless; they let understand that they should appear as gauge fields covariantizing dimensionless linear differential operators. These are just the $D_{0,\pm \pm }$ operators given above. At the static point eq(\[20\]), we also see that $E_{+-}=E_{-+}=1$ and $A_{\pm \pm }=0$, ($\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}=0$). With these tools we are now in position to address the building of the effective field action of the D string fluid model in conifold.
Field action
============
To get the gauge invariant effective field action $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}=\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i},\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] $ describing the dynamics of the D string fluid in the conifold, we borrow ideas from Susskind method used for FQH liquid of point like particles. We first give the classical field action $\mathcal{S}_{clas}\left[ X,Y\right] $ describing the interaction between a given D string $\left\{ X\left( \xi
\right) ,Y\left( \xi \right) \right\} $ moving in the RR background field B. Then we consider the fluid approximation using the field variables $\left\{
\mathcal{X}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) ,\mathcal{Y}\left( \xi ,x,y\right)
\right\} $ instead of the coordinates $\left\{ X_{a}\left( \xi \right)
,Y_{a}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ \ }1\leq a\leq N\right\} $. In this limit we suppose that density $\rho \left( \xi ,x,y\right) $ is large and uniform; i.e $\rho \left( \xi ,x,y\right) =\rho _{0}$. Finally, we derive the effective gauge field action once by using the D-string field variables $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$; i.e $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[
\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right] $ and an other time by using gauge fields $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{0}$ describing the fluctuations around the static positions.
Classical B$_{RR}$-D string coupling
------------------------------------
To start recall that the field action $\mathcal{S}_{clas}\left[ z,\overline{z}\right] =\int dt\mathcal{L}_{clas}\left( z,\overline{z}\right) $ describing the classical dynamics of a charged particle with coordinate positions $z=z\left( t\right) $ and $\overline{z}=\overline{z}\left(
t\right) $, in a constant and strong background magnetic field B, is given by $$\mathcal{L}_{clas}=\frac{iB}{2}\left( \overline{z}\left( t\right) \frac{dz\left( t\right) }{dt}-z\left( t\right) \frac{d\overline{z}\left( t\right)
}{dt}\right) .$$For a system of N classical D-strings $\left\{ X_{a}\left( \xi \right)
,Y_{a}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ \ }1\leq a\leq N\right\} $ in the RR background magnetic field, one has a quite similar quantity. The above point like particle action extends as follows,$$\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] =\frac{1}{2}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{1}}d\xi
\sum_{a=1}^{N}B_{ij}\left( Y_{a}^{j}\left( \xi \right) \frac{\partial
X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) }{\partial \xi }-Y_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right)
\frac{\partial X_{a}^{j}\left( \xi \right) }{\partial \xi }\right) ,
\label{24}$$with $B_{ij}=i\mathrm{B}\epsilon _{ij}$ and which, for convenience, we rewrite also as$$\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] =\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2}\int_{T^{\ast
}S^{1}}d\xi \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( Y_{ia}\frac{\partial X_{a}^{i}}{\partial
\xi }-X_{a}^{i}\frac{\partial Y_{ia}}{\partial \xi }\right) . \label{25}$$This field action $\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] $ exhibits three special and remarkable features; first it is holomorphic and the corresponding hermitian $\mathcal{S}_{N}^{\func{real}}\left[ X,\overline{X}\right] $ follows by setting, $$Y_{ia}=\overline{\left( X_{a}^{i}\right) },\qquad \xi =\overline{\xi }=t,\qquad \mathrm{B}=\overline{\mathrm{B}}. \label{26}$$As such we have$$\mathcal{S}_{N}^{\func{real}}\left[ X,\overline{X}\right] =\frac{i\func{Re}\mathrm{B}}{2}\int dt\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( \overline{\left( X_{a}^{i}\right) }\frac{dX_{a}^{i}}{dt}-X_{a}^{i}\frac{d\overline{\left( X_{a}^{i}\right) }}{dt}\right) . \label{27}$$The second feature of $\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] $ deals with the hypersurface eq(\[15\]). Since $Y_{ia}X_{a}^{i}=\mu $ is a constraint eq on the dynamical field variables, it can be implemented in the action by using a Lagrange gauge field $\Lambda =\Lambda \left( \xi \right) $. So eq(\[24\]) should be read as, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y,\Lambda \right] &=&\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{1}}d\xi \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( Y_{ia}\frac{\partial X_{a}^{i}}{\partial \xi }-X_{a}^{i}\frac{\partial Y_{ia}}{\partial \xi }\right)
\notag \\
&&+\frac{\mathrm{B}}{2}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{1}}d\xi \sum_{a=1}^{N}\Lambda
_{a}\left( \xi \right) \left( Y_{ia}\left( \xi \right) X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi
\right) -\mu \right) . \label{28}\end{aligned}$$The difference between $\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] $ of eq(\[25\]) and the above $\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y,\Lambda \right] $ is that in the second description the field variables $X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) $ and $Y_{a}^{j}\left( \xi \right) $ are unconstrained. Conifold target hypersurface is obtained by minimizing $\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y,\Lambda \right] $ with respect to $\Lambda ,$ $$\frac{\delta S_{N}\left[ X,Y,\Lambda \right] }{\delta \Lambda _{a}}=Y_{ia}\left( \xi \right) X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) -\mu =0.$$The third feature concerns the computation of the conjugate momentum $\Pi
_{i}=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \left( \partial X^{i}/\partial \xi
\right) }$ of the field variable $X^{i}$. One discovers that the coordinate variables $Y_{i}$ and $X^{i}$ are conjugate fields. This property shows that the underlying conifold geometry with the background field behaves as a non commutative manifold.
Notice that, as required by the construction, eq(\[24\]) is invariant under the global symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
\xi \qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \lambda \xi , \notag \\
X_{a}^{i}\qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \lambda X_{a}^{i}, \label{29} \\
Y_{a}^{i}\qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \frac{1}{\lambda }Y_{a}^{i}, \notag\end{aligned}$$with $\frac{d\lambda }{d\xi }=0$. This is a crucial point as far as we are thinking about conifold as given by the fibration $T^{\ast }S^{1}\times
T^{\ast }S^{2}$. Now, using the fluid approximation mapping the system $\left\{ X_{a}^{i}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ }Y_{a}^{j}\left( \xi \right) ,\text{ }\Lambda _{a}\left( \xi \right) \text{ };1\leq a\leq N\right\} $ into the 3D holomorphic fields $\mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \xi
,x,y\right) ,$ $\mathcal{Y}^{j}=\mathcal{Y}^{j}\left( \xi ,x,y\right) $ and $\mathcal{\Lambda }=\mathcal{\Lambda }\left( \xi ,x,y\right) $, we can put eq(\[28\]) as a complex 3D holomorphic field action $$\mathcal{S}_{2}\left[ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right]
=\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}v\mathcal{L}_{2}\left( \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right) ,$$with$$\mathcal{L}_{2}\left( \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right) =\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2\mu }\left[ \left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) -i\Lambda \left(
\mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mu \right) \right] , \label{30}$$and $\partial _{0}=\xi \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }=\frac{\partial }{\partial \ln \xi }$ and where $d^{3}v$ is the conifold holomorphic volume measure given by,$$d^{3}v=\frac{d\xi \wedge dx^{i}\wedge dy_{i}}{\xi },\qquad x^{i}y_{i}=\mu .
\label{vol}$$For more details on the specific properties of this complex volume see $\cite{12}$; for the moment let us push forward this description using the $T^{\ast }S^{1}\times T^{\ast }S^{2}$ realization of conifold. In this view, notice that on $T^{\ast }S^{1}$, the global holomorphic operator $\partial
=d\xi \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }$ may be also written as $\partial
=d\varsigma _{0}\partial _{0}$ with $d\varsigma _{0}=\frac{d\xi }{\xi }$ and $\partial _{0}$ as before. Notice moreover that one can express the field action $\mathcal{S}_{2}\left[ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right] $ in term of the $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }$ gauge field fluctuations. Using the splitting $\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i}-\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}$, we obtain$$\mathcal{L}_{2}\left( \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\Lambda \right) =\frac{\mathrm{B}\mu }{2i}\left[ \left( \mathcal{C}_{-i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right) +i\Lambda \left(
y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}x^{i}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\right) \right] , \label{d}$$where we have dropped out the total derivatives $\frac{d}{d\xi }\left( y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}+x^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right) $. Doing the same thing for the splitting $\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i}E_{+-}+y^{i}A_{++}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i}E_{-+}-x_{i}A_{--}$ and substituting these relations back into eq(\[30\]), we get,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{2}\left[ E,A,\widetilde{\Lambda }\right] &=&\frac{\mu ^{2}\mathrm{B}}{2}\left( E_{-+}\partial _{0}E_{+-}-E_{+-}\partial
_{0}E_{-+}\right) \notag \\
&&\frac{\mu ^{2}\mathrm{B}}{2}\left( A_{--}\partial
_{0}A_{++}-A_{++}\partial _{0}A_{--}\right) \label{31} \\
&&+\frac{\mu \mathrm{B}}{2}\widetilde{\Lambda }\left(
E_{+-}E_{-+}-A_{++}A_{--}-1\right) , \notag\end{aligned}$$invariant under the projective symmetry with $\widetilde{\Lambda }$ a Lagrange gauge field parameter carrying the conifold constraint hypersurface. By using the $D_{0}$ charge operator, the transformations ([pr]{}) can be also stated as $D_{0}E_{\pm \mp }=0,$ $D_{0}A_{\pm \pm }=\pm
2A_{\pm \pm }$; they follow as well from the identities $D_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{X}^{i}$ and $D_{0}\mathcal{Y}^{i}=-\mathcal{Y}^{i}$. Note that by substituting $E_{+-}=1+A_{+-}$ and $E_{-+}=1-A_{+-}$, one sees that the term $\left( E_{-+}\partial _{0}E_{+-}-E_{+-}\partial _{0}E_{-+}\right) $ reduces to a total derivative $\partial _{0}\left( 2A_{+-}\right) $ and so can be ignored in such a realization.
Implementing density constraint equation
----------------------------------------
First note that to get the density constraint eq in the fluid approximation, one computes the total number $N$ of D strings by using two paths; once by the coordinate frame $\left\{ x,y\right\} $ and second by using the frame $\left\{ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}\right\} $. Then equating the two expressions since this number is invariant under coordinate transformation. Supposing that fluid density is uniform $\rho \left( \xi
,x,y\right) =\rho _{0}$, a property implying,$$N=\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}\rho d^{3}v=\rho _{0}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}v,
\label{33}$$and using the fact that this number is a constant, one gets a constraint eq on the Jacobian $J\left( x,y\right) =\left\vert \frac{\partial ^{2}\left(
\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}\right) }{\partial ^{2}\left( x,y\right) }\right\vert
$ of the general transformation,$$x\qquad \rightarrow \qquad \mathcal{X}=\mathcal{X}\left( x,y\right) ,\qquad
y\qquad \rightarrow \qquad \mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{Y}\left( x,y\right) .
\label{34}$$Eq(\[33\]) requires that $J\left( x,y\right) =1$. Let us give some details on this calculation. Since the density is uniform, we should have$$\rho _{0}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}\mathcal{V}=\rho _{0}\int_{T^{\ast
}S^{3}}d^{3}v. \label{35}$$Using the explicit expressions of the conifold holomorphic volume 3-form which we write first as $d^{3}\mathcal{V}=\frac{d\xi }{\xi }\wedge d^{2}S$ and second $d^{3}v=\frac{d\xi }{\xi }\wedge d^{2}s$. Then expanding the K3 holomorphic 2-form $d^{2}S=\left( d\mathcal{X}^{i}\wedge d\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) $, we get after some straightforward algebra,$$\begin{aligned}
\mu d^{2}S &=&\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}d^{2}s
\label{36} \\
&&+\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0-}dx^{l}\wedge
dx_{l}+\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0+}dy^{l}\wedge
dy_{l}. \notag\end{aligned}$$In this relation $d^{2}s=\left( dx^{i}\wedge dy_{i}\right) $ and $\left\{
f,g\right\} _{p,q}$ stand for the Poisson brackets defined as,$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ f,g\right\} _{+-} &=&\left( D_{++}f\right) \left( D_{--}g\right)
-\left( D_{--}f\right) \left( D_{++}g\right) , \notag \\
\left\{ f,g\right\} _{0-} &=&\left( D_{0}f\right) \left( D_{--}g\right)
-\left( D_{--}f\right) \left( D_{0}g\right) , \label{37} \\
\left\{ f,g\right\} _{0+} &=&\left( D_{0}f\right) \left( D_{++}g\right)
-\left( D_{++}f\right) \left( D_{0}g\right) , \notag\end{aligned}$$with $D_{\pm \pm ,0}$ generating the $SL\left( 2,C\right) $ isometry eqs([38]{}). Volume preserving diffeomorphisms require then the following constraint eqs to be hold,$$\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}=\left( D_{++}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{--}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) -\left( D_{--}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{++}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) =\mu , \label{39}$$and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0-} &=&\left( D_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{--}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) -\left( D_{--}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) =0, \label{40} \\
\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0+} &=&\left( D_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{++}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) -\left( D_{++}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) \left( D_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) =0. \notag\end{aligned}$$A careful inspection shows that the last two conditions are not really constraint eqs. The point is that because of the identities,$$D_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{X}^{i},\qquad D_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}=-\mathcal{Y}_{i}, \label{41}$$required by K3 geometry, the two last constraint eqs can be brought to,$$\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0-}=D_{--}\left( \mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) ,\qquad \left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{0+}=D_{++}\left( \mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) .
\label{42}$$But these relations vanishes identically because of the identity $\mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{Y}_{i}=\mu =$ [constant]{}. Therefore the volume transformation (\[36\]) becomes $\mu d^{2}S=\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}d^{2}s$ and so we are left with one constraint relation; namely $\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}=\mu $ which can be implemented in the field action (\[30\]) by help of a Lagrange gauge field $\mathcal{C}_{0}$. To that purpose note that by setting $\mathcal{J}_{\pm \pm }=\pm \left( \mathcal{C}_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}D_{\pm \pm }\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) $, one can check that we have,$$\int d^{3}v\mathcal{C}_{0}\left[ \left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}-\mu \right] =\int d^{3}v\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\left\{
\mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{X}^{i}\right\} _{+-}\right) \label{43}$$where we have dropped out the boundary term $\int d^{3}v\left[ D_{--}\mathcal{J}_{++}+D_{++}\mathcal{J}_{--}\right] $. Implementing this identity in the field action as usual, we get the following holomorphic functional$$\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0}\right]
=\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}v\text{ }\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left( \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0}\right) ,$$with,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] &=&\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2\mu }\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) +\frac{\mathrm{B}}{2\mu }\Lambda \left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mu \right) \notag \\
&&-\frac{\mathrm{B}}{\mu }\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{X}^{i}\right\} _{+-}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\} _{+-}\right) . \label{44}\end{aligned}$$Using the previous splitting of the D string fields $\mathcal{X}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}$, we can express this field action in terms of the gauge fields either as $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}=\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm
i},\mathcal{C}_{0},\Lambda \right] $ or equivalently as $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}=\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ E,A,\mathcal{C}_{0},\Lambda \right] $. Let us do this calculation for the splitting $\mathcal{X}^{i}=x^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{i}=y_{i}-\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}$. In this case the density constraint eq $\left\{ \mathcal{X}^{i},\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right\}
_{+-}=\mu $ reads in terms of the $\mathcal{C}_{\pm i}$ gauge fields as follows, $$\left\{ x^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{-+}-\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},y_{i}\right\} _{-+}+i\mu \left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{-+}=0. \label{420}$$This relation can be put into a more interesting way by setting $\left\{
x^{i},F\right\} _{-+}=\partial _{+}^{i}F$, $\left\{ F,y_{i}\right\}
_{-+}=\partial _{-i}F$ with the remarkable properties $\partial
_{+}^{i}\partial _{-i}=-y_{i}D_{++}\left( x^{i}D_{--}\right) =-\mu
D_{++}D_{--}$ and $\partial _{-i}\partial _{+}^{i}=-x^{i}D_{--}\left(
y_{i}D_{++}\right) =-\mu D_{--}D_{++}$. Putting these relations back into (\[420\]), we obtain$$\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\partial _{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-i\left(
\partial _{+}^{k}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{-k}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\partial
_{-k}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{+}^{k}\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right) =0,
\label{421}$$or equivalently by introducing Poisson bracket $\left\{ F,G\right\}
_{PB}\equiv \left( \partial _{+k}F\right) \left( \partial _{-}^{k}G\right)
-\left( \partial _{-}^{k}F\right) \left( \partial _{+k}G\right) $,$$\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\partial _{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-i\left\{
\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{PB}=0. \label{422}$$Note also that $\left\{ F,G\right\} _{PB}$ is just $\mu \left\{ F,G\right\}
_{-+}$. As we see, this is a typical equation of motion of non commutative gauge theory; it can be then thought of as the minimization of an invariant gauge field $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] $ with gauge fields $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{0}$. In this view, we have, $$\frac{\delta \mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] }{\delta \mathcal{C}_{0}}=\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\partial
_{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-i\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{PB}=0, \label{423}$$from which we can determine $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] $ taking into account eq(\[d\]). Setting $$\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i},\mathcal{C}_{0},\Lambda \right] =\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2\mu }\int_{T^{\ast }S^{3}}d^{3}v\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0},\Lambda \right] ,$$we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{DFS}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0},\Lambda \right]
&=&\frac{i\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\left( \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\right) + \notag \\
&&-\frac{\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\left[ 2\left( \mathcal{C}_{0}\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\mathcal{C}_{0}\partial _{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\right) -2\mathcal{C}_{0}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{PB}\right] \\
&&+\frac{\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\Lambda \left( y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}x^{i}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\right) . \notag\end{aligned}$$This holomorphic lagrangian density may be put into a more convenient way by performing an integration by part and dropping out the total derivatives. Replacing$$\mathcal{C}_{0}\left\{ F,G\right\} _{-+}=-F\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},G\right\}
_{-+}+F\mathcal{C}_{0}D_{0}G+\text{ {\small total derivative}}$$for holomorphic functions $F$ and $G$ on conifold we have,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{\pm },\mathcal{C}_{0}\right] &=&\frac{i\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\partial _{-i}\mathcal{C}_{0}-\frac{2i}{3}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{PB}\right] \notag
\\
&&+\frac{i\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\left[ -\mathcal{C}_{0}\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}+\mathcal{C}_{0}\partial _{-i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}+\frac{2i}{3}\mathcal{C}_{0}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right\} _{PB}\right] \label{hcs} \\
&&+\frac{i\mathrm{B}\mu }{2}\left[ \mathcal{C}_{-i}\partial _{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{0}-\mathcal{C}_{-i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-\frac{2i}{3}\mathcal{C}_{-i}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i},\mathcal{C}_{0}\right\} _{PB}\right] .
\notag\end{aligned}$$where we have set $\left( y_{i}\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}-x^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}-\mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\mathcal{C}_{-i}\right) =0$ describing gauge fluctuations restricted to conifold. By substituting $\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}=x^{i}A_{+-}+y^{i}A_{++}$ and $\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i}=-y_{i}A_{-+}+x_{i}A_{--}$ in the above gauge field action, one gets the expression of $\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left[ A_{+-},A_{++},A_{-+},A_{--}\right]
$ in terms of the gauge fields $A_{+-},$ $A_{++},$ $A_{-+}$ and $A_{--}$ .
In the end notice that on the real slice of conifold with parameter $\func{Re}\mu $, background field $\func{Re}\mathrm{B}$ and field variables as, $$\mathcal{Y}_{i}=\overline{\left( \mathcal{X}^{i}\right) },\qquad
\Leftrightarrow \qquad \mathcal{C}_{-i}=\overline{\left( \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}\right) },$$the previous field action reduces to non commutative Chern Simons gauge theory in real three dimensions. In this case $\left( \func{Re}\mathrm{B}\right) \times \left( \func{Re}\mu \right) $ should be equal to Kac-Moody level $k$.
Holomorphy and quantum corrections
==================================
Though natural from classical view, the correspondence between FQH systems and fluids of D-strings in conifold described above is however no longer obvious at quantum level. In the D-string fluid proposal, the classical free degrees of freedom of the holomorphic sector,$$\mathcal{S}_{N}\left[ X,Y\right] =\frac{i\mathrm{B}}{2}\int_{T^{\ast
}S^{1}}d\zeta \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( Y_{ia}\frac{\partial X_{a}^{i}}{\partial
\zeta }-X_{a}^{i}\frac{\partial Y_{ia}}{\partial \zeta }\right) ,$$ and the corresponding antiholomorphic one, $$\mathcal{S}_{N}^{\ast }\left[ X^{\ast },Y^{\ast }\right] =\frac{-i\mathrm{B}}{2}\int_{T^{\ast }S^{1}}d\overline{\zeta }\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( Y_{ia}^{\ast
}\frac{\partial X_{a}^{\ast i}}{\partial \overline{\zeta }}-X_{a}^{\ast i}\frac{\partial Y_{ia}^{\ast }}{\partial \overline{\zeta }}\right) ,$$may couple quantum mechanically unless this is forbidden by underlying symmetries. Typical examples of these powerful symmetries, one encounters in such kind of situations, are generally given by conformal invariance, supersymmetry and their extensions. In this section, we make general comments on quantum effects in the D string system and give a discussion on how supersymmetry can help to overcome difficulties. Implication of supersymmetry in the game can be motivated from several views starting from complex Kahler geometry of $T^{\ast }\mathbb{S}^{3}$ and ending with topological aspects of $2d$ fields on conifold. To fix the ideas on the way we will do things, we recall the standard parallel between field holomorphy in conifold geometry and chirality in $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma model captured by the usual supersymmetric derivatives $\overline{D}_{\pm 1/2}$. Using this parallel, we shall show that the holomorphic lagrangian density $L\left( X,Y\right) =\mathrm{B}\sum_{a=1}^{N}Y_{ia}\left( \partial X_{a}^{i}/\partial \zeta \right) $ of the D-string fluid can be thought of as following from the chiral superspace lagrangian of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric sigma model in large B field, $$L_{chiral}\left[ \Phi \right] =\int_{SM_{-}}d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }\text{ }\mathcal{W}\left( \Phi \right) ,$$where $\Phi $ refers to generic chiral superfields and $SM_{-}$ to chiral superspace. In this relation, $\mathcal{W}\left( \Phi \right) \sim \left(
\mathrm{B}\sum_{a=1}^{N}\Phi _{a1}\Phi _{a2}\right) $ is chiral the superpotential. Substituting the chiral superfields $\Phi _{ia}$ by their $\theta $-expansions; i.e $$\Phi _{ia}\sim Y_{ia}+...+\theta {\small _{\text{+1/2}}}\theta {\small _{\text{-1/2}}}F_{ia},\qquad i=1,2,$$where we have dropped out fermions and where $F_{ia}$ are auxiliary fields to be specified in a moment; then integrating with respect to the Grassman variables ${\small \theta }_{{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1/2}}}$, gives the following field component product $\mathrm{B}\left(
\sum_{a=1}^{N}Y_{ia}F_{ia}\right) $. By taking the auxiliary fields $F_{ia}$ as,$$F_{ia}=\left( \sqrt{\mu }\epsilon _{ij}X_{a}^{j}+\epsilon _{ij}\frac{\partial X_{a}^{j}}{\partial \zeta }\right) ,$$where $\epsilon _{ij}$ is the usual spinor metric and $\mu $ the conifold complex parameters, one discovers, up to a constant, the above holomorphic lagrangian density.
Before going ahead, it should be also noted that the comments we shall give below are certainly not final answers; but just a tentative to approach aspects of quantum behaviour of D string fluid in conifold. The discussion presented below relies on path integral method for quantization. But may be the more natural way to do would be extending matrix model approach of Susskind-Polychronakos (SP) for FQH droplets. Recall that SP method uses canonical quantization. We will give a brief comment on this method in the end of this section. More involved details may be found in [@15].
This discussion is organized as follows: In the first subsection, we explore the consequences of quantum effects on conifold geometry and derive the constraint eq on quantum consistency of holomorphy property. Using path integrals quantization method, we show that holomorphy persists as far quantum fluctuations are restricted to complex deformations of conifold. Implementation of Kahler deformations destroys this behaviour since holomorphic and antiholomorphic modes get coupled. In sub-section 2, we study the embedding the D string model in a supersymmetric theory and too particularly in its chiral sectors. The latter seems to be the appropriate theory that governs the quantum fluctuations of the D-string fluid in conifold. As a first step in checking this statement, we start by describing the field theoretic derivation of holomorphy hypothesis considered in section 2. Then we give a correspondence with $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma model with conifold as a target space; in presence of a background magnetic field $B$. We end this section by discussing the statistics of the D-string system which requires a filling fraction $\nu =\frac{1}{k}$ with even integer Kac-Moody levels $k$.
Quantum effects and conifold deformations
-----------------------------------------
A way[^2] to study the quantum effects on the holomorphy feature of the D-string fluid model is to proceed as follows. First think about the D string fluid model as a classical field theory based on the conifold geometry $xy-zw=\mu $. This means that the complex threefold, with its complex modulus $\mu $, can be thought of as a classical geometry. Quantum mechanically, the above fields are subject to fluctuations and so the complex parameter $\mu $ gets corrections induced by quantum effects. To have an idea on the nature of these quantum corrections, we consider fluctuations of the D-strings around the classical field configurations $x,y,z,w$. These field fluctuations can be written as$$\phi \qquad \rightarrow \qquad \phi +\delta F_{\phi },\qquad \phi =x,y,z,w,
\label{d1}$$with the generic fields $\phi =\phi \left( \xi \right) $ is as in eq(\[5\]) and $\delta F_{\phi }$ describing the perturbations around the classical field $\phi $. Notice that these fluctuations are involved in the computation of the partition function $\mathcal{Z}\left[ j\right] $ of the model,$$\mathcal{Z}\left[ j\right] =\int \left( \dprod D\phi \right) \exp \frac{i}{\hbar }\left( S\left[ \phi \right] +\int j\phi \right) ,$$where $\dprod D\phi $ stays for the usual field path integral measure. As it is known, this quantity generates the Green functions of the quantum model with $j$ being the usual external source. Notice also that the $\delta
F_{\phi }$ deformations should a priori depend on both the string fields $\phi $ and their complex conjugates $\overline{\phi }$ as shown below, $$\delta F_{\phi }=F\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) . \label{d2}$$By implementing the fluctuations (\[d1\]) into the D-string fluid model, one discovers that the classical geometry $xy-zw=\mu $ we started with gets now deformed as follows, $$xy-zw=\mu +\mathcal{F},$$where the functional $\mathcal{F}$ capturing the field fluctuations is given by, $$\mathcal{F}=x\delta F_{y}+y\delta F_{x}-z\delta F_{w}-w\delta F_{z}.$$Like for eq(\[d2\]), one sees that $\mathcal{F}$ depends in general on both the fields $x$, $y$, $z$, $w$ and their complex conjugate $\overline{x}$, $\overline{y}$, $\overline{z}$, $\overline{w}$,$$\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) ,\qquad \phi
=x,y,z,w.$$Thus, quantum mechanical effects encoded in the functional $\mathcal{F}\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) $ break holomorphy of the classical conifold geometry unless field deformations $\delta F_{\phi }$ are restricted to holomorphic perturbations around the classical field configuration. In this special case, we have,$$\frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial \overline{\phi }}=0, \label{d6}$$and so classical holomorphy is preserved quantum mechanically. This is the condition for quantum decoupling of holomorphic and antiholomorphic degrees of freedom. This property has a geometric interpretation in term of conifold structure deformations; it means that only complex deformations of holomorphic volume that are allowed for having a consistent quantum mechanics. It is also interesting to note that eq(\[d6\]) is a strong condition; its solution requires however a strong symmetry which apparently D-string fluid model does not exhibit manifestly; at least not as things have been formulated so far. Note moreover that as far as quantum holomorphy is concerned, to our knowledge only supersymmetry that has the magic power to deal with target space holomorphy. There, quantum corrections are controlled by the so called non renormalization theorem.
The next question is how the string fluid model could be related to $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma model with conifold as target space. Thinking about the D-string model as the bosonic part of a supersymmetric theory does not answer exactly the question since there are Kahler deformations induced by quantum effects that destroy the classical holomorphy property. To overcome such difficulty one should then associate the action of the D-string model with chiral superpotentials,$$\mathcal{W}=\mathcal{W}\left( \Phi \right) ,$$of $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma model. In what follows, we develop a way to do it. Though not exact and needs more investigations, this approach offers however an important step towards the goal.
Supersymmetric embedding
------------------------
To begin recall that there is a closed connection between Kahler geometry and $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetry in two dimensions. The fact that the fluid of D-strings is described by a topological holomorphic gauge theory, let understand that this model can be embedded in a $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric theory; from which one can get informations about quantum corrections. In this view holomorphy property is interpreted as the target space manifestation of chirality feature of $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric sigma models with conifold as target space. A close idea is used in building topological string theory by using twist of $2d$ $N=2$ superconformal algebra [@17] and a correspondence with type II superstrings on Calabi-Yau threefolds [@18]. In our concern, we have the following correspondence,$$\begin{aligned}
\int d\zeta ...\qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \int d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }...,
\notag \\
\int d\overline{\zeta }...\qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \int d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}..., \\
\int d^{2}\zeta ...\qquad &\rightarrow &\qquad \int d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}..., \notag\end{aligned}$$with the $\mathrm{\theta }_{\pm 1/2}$’s and $\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}_{\pm 1/2}$’s the usual Grassman variables. Similar things may be also written down for $\partial /\partial \zeta $ and supersymmetric derivatives. Before that, let us start by deriving rigorously the holomorphy hypothesis of section 2 by using a field theoretical method; then come back to the correspondence between target space holomorphy and 2d $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric chirality.
### Holomorphy property and boundary QFT$_{2}$
Holomorphy is one of the basic ingredients we have used in deriving the D-string model developed in this paper. It has been imposed in order to complete the conifold realization $T^{\ast }\mathbb{S}^{3}$ as a fibration of $T^{\ast }\mathbb{S}^{1}$ over the base $T^{\ast }\mathbb{S}^{2}$. In this study, we first give the field theoretic derivation of this holomorphy hypothesis; it appears as the solution of a constraint eq required by boundary field theory in two dimensions. Then we derive the field action (\[27\]); its connection with supersymmetric models is considered in the next sub-subsection.
To proceed and seen that the model we are studying involves complex fields, it is then natural to start from the following bosonic QFT$_{2}$ field action,$$S\left[ \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right] =\int_{M}d^{2}\zeta \left( G_{\alpha
\overline{\beta }}\partial _{+}\phi ^{\alpha }\partial _{-}\overline{\phi
^{\beta }}\right) , \label{d7}$$where $M$ is a real surface parameterized by the local complex coordinates $\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) $. The fields $\phi ^{\alpha }=\phi
^{\alpha }\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) $ form a set of complex $2d$ scalar fields parameterizing some target Kahler manifold with metric $G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) $. To make contact with conifold geometry and the fluid of N strings, we think about these field variables as, $$\phi ^{\alpha }\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) =X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta
,\overline{\zeta }\right) ,\qquad i=1,2,\qquad a=1,...,N,$$with $X_{a}^{i}$ an SU$\left( 2\right) $ doublet like in eq(\[11\]) and to fix the ideas the field doublet $Y_{ia}$ are set to $\overline{X_{a}^{i}}$. Once the idea is exhibited, the field $\overline{X_{a}^{i}}$ will be promoted to $Y_{ia}$. In this case, the Kahler metric $G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}$ may be split as $$G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) =\delta
_{ab}\left[ g_{\left( ij\right) }+B\epsilon _{ij}\right] ,$$where the $SU\left( 2\right) $ triplet $g_{\left( ij\right) }$ is a function on the target space field coordinates; i.e $g_{\left( ij\right) }=g_{\left(
ij\right) }\left( \phi ,\overline{\phi }\right) $, and where $\epsilon _{ij}$ is the usual antisymmetric $SU\left( 2\right) $ invariant tensor. In the special case where $B$ is field independent and strong enough so that we can neglect the term $g_{\left( ij\right) }$, the metric $G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}$ reduces essentially to $B\delta _{ab}\epsilon _{ij}$; and so one is left with the following approximated field action,$$S\left[ X,\overline{X}\right] \simeq \int_{M}d^{2}\zeta \left( B\epsilon
_{ij}\sum_{a=1}^{N}\partial _{+}\overline{X}_{a}^{j}\partial
_{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) , \label{d100}$$where we have set $\zeta =\zeta _{-}$, $\overline{\zeta }=\zeta _{+}$ and $\partial _{+}=\partial _{\zeta }$, $\partial _{-}=\partial _{\overline{\zeta
}}$. Moreover since $B$ is a constant, one can split this action as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
S\left[ X,\overline{X}\right] &\simeq &\frac{B}{2}\int_{M}d\zeta _{-}\left[
d\zeta _{+}\partial _{-}\left( \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( \partial _{+}\overline{X}_{ia}\right) X_{a}^{i}\right) \right] \notag \\
&&+\frac{B}{2}\int_{M}d\zeta _{+}\left[ d\zeta _{-}\partial _{+}\left(
\sum_{a=1}^{N}\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \partial _{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right) \right] \label{d11} \\
&&-\frac{B}{2}\int_{M}d^{2}\zeta \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left[ \left( \partial
_{-}\partial _{+}\overline{X}_{ia}\right) X_{a}^{i}+\overline{X}_{ia}\left(
\partial _{+}\partial _{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right] , \notag\end{aligned}$$where the summation over $SU\left( 2\right) $ indices is understood. By integrating the two first terms of above relation, one sees that the field action $S\left[ X,\overline{X}\right] $ decomposes as, $$S\simeq S^{{\tiny boundary}}+S^{{\tiny bulk}} \label{d110}$$with two factors for $S^{{\tiny boundary}}=S^{{\tiny bound}}$ as given below, $$\begin{aligned}
S^{{\tiny bound}} &=&\frac{B}{2}\int_{\partial M_{-}}d\zeta \left(
\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( \partial _{+}\overline{X}_{ia}\right) X_{a}^{i}\right)
\notag \\
&&+\frac{B}{2}\int_{\partial M_{+}}d\overline{\zeta }\left( \sum_{a=1}^{N}\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \partial _{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right) , \label{d12}\end{aligned}$$where $\partial M_{\pm }$ stand for the oriented boundaries of the Riemann surface $M$ and $$S^{{\tiny bulk}}=-\int_{M}d^{2}\zeta \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left[ \frac{B}{2}\left(
\partial _{-}\partial _{+}\overline{X}_{ia}\right) X_{a}^{i}+\frac{B}{2}\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \partial _{+}\partial _{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right] .
\label{d13}$$Equating eq(\[d100\]) and eq(\[d12\]), one gets the holomorphy condition of the field variables,$$\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \zeta }\frac{\partial }{\partial \overline{\zeta }}X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) \right] _{\partial
M}=0,\qquad \left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \zeta }\frac{\partial }{\partial \overline{\zeta }}\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) \right] _{\partial M}=0.$$These constraint relations are solved by field holomorphy as shown below;$$\begin{aligned}
X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) &=&X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta
\right) +X_{a}^{i}\left( \overline{\zeta }\right) , \notag \\
\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \zeta ,\overline{\zeta }\right) &=&X_{ia}^{\ast
}\left( \zeta \right) +X_{ia}^{\ast }\left( \overline{\zeta }\right) .\end{aligned}$$They tell us that on the boundary $\partial M$ of the Riemann surface, we have two heterotic free field theories; a holomorphic sector with field variables$$X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta \right) ,\qquad X_{ia}^{\ast }\left( \zeta \right) ,
\label{d16}$$which, for convenience and avoiding confusion we set $X_{ia}^{\ast }\left(
\zeta \right) =Y_{ia}\left( \zeta \right) $, and an antiholomorphic one with,$$X_{ia}^{\ast }\left( \overline{\zeta }\right) =\overline{\left(
X_{a}^{i}\left( \zeta \right) \right) },\qquad X_{a}^{i}\left( \overline{\zeta }\right) =\overline{\left( Y_{ia}\left( \zeta \right) \right) },
\label{d17}$$in agreement with the hypothesis on holomorphicity of the string coordinates.
### Supersymmetric interpretation
The decomposition of the field action $S\left[ {\small QFT}_{2}\right]
$ eqs(\[d7\]-\[d100\]) taken in the limit large $B$ field is very suggestive. First, because it explains the origin of holomorphy hypothesis we have used to build the model of the fluid of D strings. As such, one should distinguish between fields in bulk and fields in boundary given by eqs(\[d16\]-\[d17\]). Second it permits a one to one correspondence with $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma models. More precisely the three terms of the field action of the bosonic QFT$_{2}$ in large B limit,$$\begin{aligned}
S\left[ {\small QFT}_{2}\right] &=&-\int_{M}d^{2}\zeta \sum_{a=1}^{N}\left[
\frac{B}{2}X_{a}^{i}\left( \partial _{-}\partial _{+}\overline{X}_{ia}\right) +\frac{B}{2}\overline{X}_{ia}\left( \partial _{+}\partial
_{-}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right] \notag \\
&&-\int_{\partial M_{-}}d\zeta \left( \frac{B}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{N}Y_{ia}\left(
\partial _{+}X_{a}^{i}\right) \right) \label{d15} \\
&&-\int_{\partial M_{+}}d\overline{\zeta }\left( \frac{B}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{N}\overline{\left( Y_{ia}\right) }\left( \partial _{-}\overline{\left(
X_{a}^{i}\right) }\right) \right) , \notag\end{aligned}$$are in one to one with the usual three blocks of $2d$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric non linear sigma models,$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathcal{N}=2}\left[ \Phi ,\Phi ^{+}\right] &=&\int_{SM}d^{2}\upsilon
d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}\text{ }\mathcal{K}\left( \Phi _{i},\Phi _{i}^{+}\right) \notag \\
&&+\int_{SM_{-}}d^{2}\upsilon d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }\text{ }\mathcal{W}\left(
\Phi _{i}\right) \\
&&+\int_{SM_{+}}d^{2}\upsilon d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}\text{ }\overline{\mathcal{W}}\left( \Phi _{i}^{+}\right) . \notag\end{aligned}$$In this relation, the symbol $SM$ stands for the usual two dimensional superspace with super-coordinates $\left( \upsilon _{\pm },\mathrm{\theta }_{{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1/2}}},\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}_{{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1/2}}}\right) $ and $SM_{\pm }$ stand for the two associated chiral superspaces. The $\Phi _{i}$’s (resp. $\Phi _{i}^{+}$) are chiral (resp. antichiral) superfields living on $SM_{-}$ (resp. $SM_{+}$), $\mathcal{K}\left( \Phi ,\Phi ^{+}\right) $ is the Kahler superpotential and $\mathcal{W}\left( \Phi \right) $ the usual complex chiral superpotential. Like for the holomorphic functions $f=f\left( \zeta \right) $ living on $\partial M_{-}$ and satisfying the holomorphy property, $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial \overline{\zeta }}=0,$$we have for chiral superfields $\Phi \left( \widetilde{\upsilon }_{\pm },\mathrm{\theta }_{{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1/2}}}\right) $ living on $SM_{-}$, the following chirality property,$$\overline{D}_{\pm 1/2}\Phi =0.$$By comparison of the two actions, one sees that the bulk term $S^{{\tiny bulk}}$ of the QFT$_{2}$ eq(\[d15\]) is associated with Kahler term of the supersymmetric sigma model,$$S^{{\tiny bulk}}\left[ \text{{\small QFT}}_{2}\right] \qquad
\longleftrightarrow \qquad \int_{SM}d^{2}\upsilon d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}\text{ }\mathcal{K}\left( \Phi _{i},\Phi
_{i}^{+}\right) ,$$while the two boundary terms $S_{\pm }^{{\tiny bound}}$ are associated with the chiral superfield actions. More precisely, we have $$\int_{\partial M_{-}}d\zeta \left( \sum_{a=1}^{N}\frac{B}{2}Y_{ia}F_{a}^{i}\right) \qquad \longleftrightarrow \qquad
\int_{SM_{-}}d^{2}\upsilon d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }\text{ }\mathcal{W}\left(
\Phi _{i}\right) ,$$where we have set $F_{a}^{i}=\left( \partial _{\zeta }X_{a}^{i}\right) $ and by putting after setting $\overline{F}_{ia}=\left( \partial _{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\left( X_{a}^{i}\right) }\right) $, we also have $$\int_{\partial M_{+}}d\overline{\zeta }\left( \sum_{a=1}^{N}\frac{B}{2}\overline{\left( Y_{ia}\right) }\overline{\left( F_{a}^{i}\right) }\right)
\qquad \longleftrightarrow \qquad \int_{SM_{+}}d^{2}\upsilon d^{2}\overline{\mathrm{\theta }}\text{ }\overline{\mathcal{W}}\left( \Phi _{i}^{+}\right) .$$Now, considering two chiral superfields $\Phi _{1}=\Phi _{1}\left( \upsilon
_{\pm },{\small \theta }_{\pm \text{{\small 1/2}}}\right) $ and $\Phi
_{2}=\Phi _{2}\left( \upsilon _{\pm },{\small \theta }_{\pm \text{{\small 1/2}}}\right) $ with ${\small \theta }$- expansions, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi _{1} &=&Y_{1}+{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}{\small \psi }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}+{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}{\small \psi }_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}+{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}F_{1}, \notag \\
\Phi _{2} &=&Y_{2}+{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}{\small \varphi }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}+{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}{\small \varphi
}_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}-{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small +1/2}}}{\small \theta }_{\text{{\small -1/2}}}F_{2},\end{aligned}$$with $Y_{i}$ and $F_{i}$ being the bosonic complex fields, we can build the superpotential associated with the boundary QFT$_{2}$. We have,$$\int_{SM_{-}}d^{2}\mathrm{\theta }\left( \sum_{a=1}^{N}\frac{B}{2}\Phi
_{a1}\Phi _{a2}\right) =-\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( \frac{B}{2}Y_{a1}F_{a2}-Y_{a2}F_{a1}\right) ,$$which can be also written a covariant form as $\frac{B}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left( Y_{ia}F_{a}^{i}\right) $.
In the end of this section, we want to note that it would be interesting to push further the similarity between the fluid of D-strings and the usual FQH systems. As a next step, it is important to build the ground state $|\Phi _{0}>$ of the quantized D-string model which may be done by extending the matrix model approach of Susskind and Polychronakos. Recall in passing that the fundamental wave function of standard FQH system on plane with filling fraction $\nu =\frac{1}{k}$ is described by the Laughlin wave,$$\Phi _{L}\left( x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) \sim \dprod\limits_{a<b=1}^{N}\left(
x_{a}-x_{b}\right) ^{k}e^{-B\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left\vert x_{a}\right\vert ^{2}}.$$This wave function, which has been conjectured long time ago by Laughlin has been recently rederived rigorously in [@16] by using matrix model method. Notice that under permutation of particles, the wave function behaves as,$$\Phi _{L}\left( x_{1},..,x_{a},..,x_{b},.,x_{N}\right) =\left( -\right)
^{k}\Phi _{L}\left( x_{1},..,x_{b},..,x_{a},.,x_{N}\right) .$$Symmetry property of this function requires that $k$ should be a positive odd integer for a system of fermions and an even integer for bosons.
Conclusion and outlook
======================
In this paper, we have developed a gauge field theoretical model proposal for a classical fluid of D-strings running in conifold and made comments on its quantum behaviour. The field action $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}$ of this classical conifold model, in presence of a strong and constant RR background magnetic field , exhibits a set of remarkable features. It is a complex holomorphic functional $\mathcal{S}_{DSF}\left[ \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right] =\int_{T^{\ast
}S^{3}}d^{3}v$ $\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left( \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right) $ with $\mathcal{L}_{DSF}=\mathcal{L}_{DSF}\left( \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{\Lambda }\right) $ given by,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{DSF} &=&i\frac{\mathrm{B}_{RR}}{2\mu }\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) +\frac{\mathrm{B}_{RR}}{2\mu }\mathcal{\Lambda }\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mu \right) \notag \\
&&-\frac{\mathrm{B}_{RR}}{\mu }\mathcal{C}_{0}\left( D_{++}\mathcal{Y}_{i}D_{--}\mathcal{X}^{i}-D_{--}\mathcal{Y}_{i}D_{++}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) ,
\label{c1}\end{aligned}$$where $\mathcal{\Lambda }$ is a Lagrange gauge field capturing the conifold hypersurface. By setting $\left\{ F,G\right\} _{+-}=\left( D_{++}F\right)
\left( D_{--}G\right) -\left( D_{--}F\right) \left( D_{++}G\right) $ and using general properties of the Poisson bracket, in particular antisymmetry and Jacobi identity as well as the property,$$\mathcal{C}_{0}\left\{ \mathcal{Y}_{i},\mathcal{X}^{i}\right\} _{+-}=-\mathcal{Y}_{i}\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{X}^{i}\right\} _{+-}-\mathcal{C}_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}+\left(
D_{++}J_{--}+D_{--}J_{++}\right) ,$$with $J_{\pm \pm }=\pm \left( \mathcal{C}_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}D_{\pm \pm }\mathcal{X}^{i}\right) $, the above holomorphic Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{DSF}$ can be also put into a gauge covariant way as follows,$$\mathcal{L}_{DSF}=i\frac{\mathrm{B}_{RR}}{2\mu }\left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{D}_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\mathcal{D}_{0}\mathcal{Y}_{i}\right) +\frac{\mathrm{B}_{RR}}{2\mu }\Lambda \left( \mathcal{Y}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mu \right) ,$$with $\mathcal{D}_{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}=\partial _{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}+i\left\{
\mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{X}^{i}\right\} _{+-}$. The presence of the Poisson bracket $\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\ast \right\} _{+-}$ in the gauge covariant derivative $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ is a signal of non commutative gauge theory in the same spirit as in Susskind description of Laughlin fluid. The basic difference is that instead of a $U\left( 1\right) $ gauge group, we have here a holomorphic $\mathbb{C}^{\ast }$ gauge symmetry acting on scalar field as $\delta \mathcal{\Phi }=\left\{ \mathcal{\lambda },\mathcal{\Phi }\right\} _{+-}$ and $\delta \mathcal{C}_{0}=\partial _{0}\mathcal{\lambda }+i\left\{ \mathcal{C}_{0},\mathcal{\lambda }\right\} _{+-}$ with $\mathcal{\lambda }$ being the gauge parameter. Moreover, thinking about the D-string field variables as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{i} &=&x^{i}+\mu \mathcal{C}_{+}^{i}, \notag \\
\mathcal{Y}_{i} &=&y_{i}-\mu \mathcal{C}_{-i},\end{aligned}$$where the gauge fields $\mathcal{C}_{\pm }^{i}$ describe fluctuations around the static solution, $\mathcal{L}_{DSF}$ can be put in the form ([hcs]{}) defining a complex holomorphic extension of the usual non commutative Chern-Simons gauge theory. Notice that the role of the non commutative parameter $\theta $ of usual FQH liquid is now played by the complex modulus $\mu $ of the conifold in agreement with the observation of $\cite{9}$. The topological gauge theory derived in this paper may be then thought of as enveloping Susskind description of fractional quantum Hall fluid in Laughlin state. The latter follows by restricting the conifold analysis to its Lagrangian sub-manifolds by using eqs(\[02\]). From this view the D-strings fluid constitues a unified description of systems of FQH fluids in real three dimensions, in particular those involving $R\times S^{2}$ and $S^{3}$ geometries recovered as real slices of the conifold. The first geometry is obtained by restricting world sheet variable $\xi =t+i\sigma $ to its real part and the second geometry is recovered by identifying $\xi $ with $\sigma $; that is a periodic time. For instance, the restriction of eq(\[c1\]) to the real three sphere reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{FQH}^{\func{real}} &=&\frac{\func{Re}\left( \mathrm{B}_{RR}\right) }{2\func{Re}\left( \mu \right) }\left[ i\left( \overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}\partial _{0}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\mathcal{X}^{i}\partial _{0}\overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}\right) -2\mathcal{C}_{0}D_{++}\overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}D_{--}\mathcal{X}^{i}\right] \\
&&+\frac{\func{Re}\left( \mathrm{B}_{RR}\right) }{2\func{Re}\mu }\left[ 2\mathcal{C}_{0}D_{--}\overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}D_{++}\mathcal{X}^{i}+\mathcal{\Lambda }\left( \overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}\mathcal{X}^{i}-\func{Re}\mu \right) \right] , \notag\end{aligned}$$where $\mathcal{X}^{i}=\mathcal{X}^{i}\left( \sigma ,x,\overline{x}\right) $, $\overline{\mathcal{X}}_{i}=\overline{\left( \mathcal{X}^{i}\right) }$, $\mathcal{C}_{0}=\overline{\mathcal{C}_{0}},$ $\mathcal{\Lambda }_{0}=\overline{\mathcal{\Lambda }_{0}}$ and $$D_{++}=x^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial \overline{x}^{i}},\qquad D_{--}=\overline{x}^{i}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}},\qquad D_{0}=\left[
D_{++},D_{--}\right] .$$This analysis may be also viewed as a link between, on one hand, topological strings on conifold, and, on the other hand, non commutative Chern Simons gauge theory as well as FQH systems in real three dimensions. It would be interesting to deeper this relation which may be used to approach attractor mechanism on flux compactification by borrowing FQH ideas. To that purpose, one should first identify the matrix model regularization of the continuous field theory developed in this paper. This may be done by extending the results of $\cite{13,14}$ obtained in the framework of fractional quantum Hall droplets. An attempt using matrix field variables valued in $GL\left( N,\mathbb{C}\right) $ representations is under study in $\cite{15}$, progress in this direction will be reported elsewhere.
This research work is supported by the program Protars III D12/25, CNRST.
[99]{} L. Susskind, The Quantum Hall Fluid and Non-Commutative Chern Simons Theory, hep-th/0101029
Simeon Hellerman, Leonard Susskind, Realizing the Quantum Hall System in String Theory, hep-th/0107200
Dimitra Karabali, Electromagnetic interactions of higher dimensional quantum Hall droplets, Nucl.Phys B726 (2005) 407-420, hep-th/0507027
Aziz El Rhalami, El Hassan Saidi, NC Effective Gauge Model for Multilayer FQH States hep-th/0208144, JHEP
A.El Rhalami, E.M. Sahraoui, E.H.Saidi, NC Branes and Hierarchies in Quantum Hall Fluids, JHEP 0205 (2002) 004, hep-th/0108096
S.C. Zhang, Quantum Hall effect in higher dimensions, (Talk given at the Conference on Higher Dimensional Quantum Hall Effect, Chern-Simons Theory and Non-Commutative Geometry in Condensed Matter Physics and Field Theory, 1-4/03/2005, AS-ICTP Trieste
Hirosi Ooguri, Andrew Strominger, Cumrun Vafa, Black Hole Attractors and the Topological String, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 106007, hep-th/0405146
Hirosi Ooguri, Cumrun Vafa, Erik Verlinde, Hartle-Hawking Wave-Function for Flux Compactifications, hep-th/0502211
EL Hassan Saidi, Topological $SL\left( 2\right) $ gauge theory on conifold and non commutative geometry, Lab/UFR-HEP/0514, GNPHE/0514, VACBT/0514
James Gates Jr, Ahmed Jellal, EL Hassan Saidi, Michael Schreiber, Supersymmetric Embedding of the Quantum Hall Matrix Model, JHEP 0411 (2004) 075 hep-th/0410070
Kazuki Hasebe, Supersymmetric Quantum Hall Effect on Fuzzy Supersphere, Phys.Rev.Lett. 94 (2005) 206802, hep-th/0411137
Sergei Gukov, Kirill Saraikin, Cumrun Vafa, A Stringy Wave Function for an S3 Cosmology, hep-th/0505204
Bogdan Morariu, Alexios P. Polychronakos, Fractional quantum Hall effect on the two-sphere: a matrix model proposal, Phys. Rev. D 72: 125002, 2005, hep-th/0510034
EL Hassan Saidi, Topological matrix model proposal for Laughlin wave and cousin state, Lab/UFR-HEP0517/GNPHE/0519/VACBT/0519
R. Ahl Laamara, L.B Drissi, E H Saidi, D-string fluid in conifold: II. Matrix model for D-droplets, in preparation.
Simeon Hellerman, Mark Van Raamsdonk, Quantum Hall Physics = Noncommutative Field Theory, JHEP 0110 (2001) 039, hep-th/0103179
E.H. Saidi, M. Zakkari, Superconformal geometry from the Grassmann and Harmonic Analycities, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A6:3151-3173,1991 & Int.J.Mod.Phys.A6:3175-3200,1991.
Marcos Marino, Chern-Simons Theory and Topological Strings, Rev.Mod.Phys. 77 (2005) 675-720, hep-th/0406005.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: An other tentative to approach the fluid of D-strings in conifold, by using a generalization of matrix model method based on canonical quantization, has been developed in [@15]. There and as a first step in dealing with the problem, one focuses on the study of quantum droplets for the conifold sub-varieties $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ and $\mathbb{S}^{2}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a new, unified approach to solving jump-diffusion partial integro-differential equations (PIDEs) that often appear in mathematical finance. Our method consists of the following steps. First, a second-order operator splitting on financial processes (diffusion and jumps) is applied to these PIDEs. To solve the diffusion equation, we use standard finite-difference methods, which for multi-dimensional problems could also include splitting on various dimensions. For the jump part, we transform the jump integral into a pseudo-differential operator. Then for various jump models we show how to construct an appropriate first and second order approximation on a grid which supersets the grid that we used for the diffusion part. These approximations make the scheme to be unconditionally stable in time and preserve positivity of the solution which is computed either via a matrix exponential, or via P[á]{}de approximation of the matrix exponent. Various numerical experiments are provided to justify these results.'
author:
- Andrey Itkin
title: 'Efficient Solution of Backward Jump-Diffusion PIDEs with Splitting and Matrix Exponentials. [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Partial integro-differential equations (PIDEs) naturally appear in mathematical finance if an underlying stochastic process is assumed to be a combination of diffusion and jumps. A wide class of L[é]{}vy processes fall into this category. In modern popular models such as stochastic volatility or, e.g., hybrid models, jumps could accompany any stochastic factor, thus increasing the overall complexity of the problem. For more details about jump-diffusion processes, see [@ContTankov; @Sato:99].
Unsurprisingly, most of these PIDEs cannot be solved in closed form. At the same time, a numerical counterpart must be efficient. This is especially important if such a jump-diffusion model is used not only for pricing (given the values of the model parameters), but for their calibration as well. While the solution of the diffusion part (PDE) has been numerously discussed in the literature and various methods were proposed (see, e.g., [@fdm2000; @Duffy; @BrennanSchwartz:1978; @ContVolchkova2003; @AA2000; @HoutFoulon2010]), little can be found for the jump part, which according to the L[é]{}vy-Khinchine formula is represented by a non-local integral.
In this paper we also do not consider jump-diffusion models where the characteristic function (CF) is known in closed form, since then transform methods (FFT, cosine, wavelets etc.) seem to be the most efficient ones. We draw our attention to some particular settings where both the CF and pdf of the diffusion part are not known, while for the jump part the CF can be obtained in closed form. Various popular models are collected under such an umbrella, i.e. local volatility models with jumps, local stochastic volatility models with jumps, etc.
A number of methods were proposed to address the construction of an efficient algorithm for solving these type of PIDEs, see [@CarrMayo; @Strauss2006; @ItkinCarr2012Kinky] and references therein as well as discussion of problems related to their implementation. In particular, they include a discretization of the PIDE that is implicit in the differential terms and explicit in the integral term ([@ContVolchkova2003]), Picard iterations for computing the integral equation ([@Halluin2004; @Halluin2005a]) and a second-order accurate, unconditionally-stable operator splitting (ADI) method that does not require an iterative solution of an algebraic equation at each time step ([@AA2000]). Various forms of operator splitting technique were also used for this purpose ([@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]). In this paper, we will review operator splitting on financial processes in more detail.
Assuming that an efficient discretization of the PIDE in time was properly chosen, the remaining problem is a fast computation of the jump integral, as it was observed to be relatively expensive. We mention three different approaches to numerical computation of this integral.[^2]
The first approach assumes a direct approximation of the integral on an appropriate grid and then applies some standard quadrature method, such as Simpson’s rule or Gaussian quadrature. This approach may be computationally expensive for two reasons. First, usually the “jump” grid is not the same as the “diffusion” grid. Therefore, after the integral is computed, its values at the jump grid should be re-interpolated to the diffusion grid. Second, the integral is defined on an infinite domain, so either the domain has to be truncated or a non-uniform grid has to be used. Moreover, the complexity becomes greater if an implicit discretization of the integral is used, because it requires the solution of a dense system of linear equations of a large size. Therefore, most often an explicit discretization is utilized, which brings some constraints on the time steps to guarantee stability of the scheme.
However, an exponential change of variables reduces the expense of evaluating the integral at all points. This change converts the integral term into a correlation integral, which can be evaluated at all the grid points simultaneously using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). This approach has been suggested by many authors ([@fdm2000; @AA2000; @Wilmott1998]). Still, this could be expensive because a large number of FFT nodes may be required for better accuracy. Another issue is that using FFT to compute a product of matrix $A$ and vector requires $A$ to be circulant, while the matrix obtained after discretization of the jump integral is not of that type. Therefore, a direct (naive) usage of FFT for this purpose produces undesirable so-called “wrap-around” errors. A common technique to eliminate these errors is to embed $A$, which is actually a Toeplitz matrix, into a circulant matrix. This, in turn, requires doubling the initial vector of unknowns, which makes the algorithm slower. This approach was improved in [@Halluin2005b], still some extension of the computational region is required in both upper and lower directions while not doubling the grid size. Also linear interpolation with a pre-computed coefficients was proposed to transform option values from the non-uniform diffusion grid to the uniform jump grid, which keeps the second order of approximation, and is efficient performance-wise.
The second approach to computing the jump integral utilizes an alternative representation of this integral in the form of a pseudo-differential operator, which puts the entire PIDE in the form of a fractional PDE. This problem was considered in [@Cartea2007] and [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]. A recent survey of the existing literature on this subject and techniques for computation of the jump integral using the Grunwald-Letnikov approximation (which is of the first order in space) is given in [@AndersenLipton2012]. As it is known from [@AbuSaman2007; @MeerschaertTadjeran2004; @Tadjeran2006; @MeerschaertTadjeran2006; @Sousa2008], a standard Grunwald-Letnikov approximation leads to unconditionally unstable schemes. To improve this, a shifted Grunwald-Letnikov approximation was proposed, which allows construction of an unconditionally stable scheme of the first order in space.[^3] However, solving pricing equations to second order in the space variable is almost an industry standard, and therefore this method requires further investigation to address this demand.
The third method exploits a nice idea first proposed in [@CarrMayo]. Carr and Mayo found that for some L[é]{}vy models, the solution of the integral evolutionary equation[^4] is equivalent to the solution of a particular PDE. The problem is then to find a proper space-differential operator (kernel) to construct such a PDE. Carr and Mayo demonstrated the advantage of this approach for the Merton and Kou models, and showed which parabolic equations provide the necessary solution. Later in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky], this idea was further generalized to the class of pseudo-parabolic equations as applied to a class of Lévy processes, known as GTSP/CGMY/KoBoL models. These pseudo-parabolic equations could be formally analytically solved via a matrix exponential. Itkin and Carr then discuss a numerical method to efficiently compute this matrix exponential. When the parameter $\alpha$ of the GTSP/CGMY/KoBoL model is an integer, this method uses a finite-difference scheme similar to those used for solving parabolic PDEs, and the matrix of this finite-difference scheme is banded. Therefore, in this case, the computation of the jump integral:
- Is provided on the same grid as was constructed for the diffusion (parabolic) PDE. Outside of this domain (if ever needed, e.g. for European options), the PIDE grid is further extended to an infinite domain,[^5] but no interpolation is required afterwards.
- At every time step it has linear ($O(N)$) complexity in the number of the grid nodes $N$, since the results (e.g., option prices) are given by solving a linear system of equations with a banded matrix. In the case of a real parameter $\alpha$, Itkin and Carr suggested computing the prices using the above algorithm at three values of an integer $\widetilde{\alpha}$ closest to the given real $\alpha$, and then interpolating using any interpolation of the second order.
In this paper we use a different flavor of this idea. First, we use an operator-splitting method on the financial processes, thus separating the computation of the diffusion part from the integral part. Then, similar to [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky], we represent the jump integral in the form of a pseudo-differential operator. Next we formally solve the obtained evolutionary partial pseudo-differential equations via a matrix exponential. We then show that the matrix exponential can be efficiently computed for many popular L[é]{}vy models, and that the efficiency of this method could be not worse than that of the FFT. The proposed method is almost universal, i.e., allows computation of PIDEs for various jump-diffusion models in a unified form. We also have to mention that this method is relatively simple for implementation.
Note, that the idea of this method is in some sense close to another popular approach - Fourier Space Time-Stepping Method (FSTS), see [@Surkov2007]. The advantage of both approaches lies in the fact that the jump integral could contain singularities, while in FSTS and in the present approach these singularities are integrated out. The difference is that in FSTS this is done by switching to the Fourier space (one FFT). Then FSTS uses finite-difference method directly in the Fourier space, and finally switches back to the price space (one inverse FFT) at each time step. In our approach we eliminate these two extra FFTs at every time step since we are working in the price space all the time. The second difference is that FSTS treats both diffusion and jump operators in a symmetric way by switching all calculations to the Fourier space. This, however, can not be done, if the CF of the diffusion operator is not known, for instance for LV or LSV models, while this is not a limitation for our approach.
Let us also mention one more method proposed by [@LiptonSepp2009a] as applied to the Stern-Stern model. Though it is not evident how to generalize this method for other models, it provides a very efficient computational algorithm for this particular model. Also for simpler jump models, like that of Merton and Kou, there are some other efficient methods in the literature, see, e.g., [@Tangman2008a; @Lee2012].
Based on the above survey, we can conclude that in our domain of models (LV + jumps, LSV + jumps, etc.) the most relevant predecessors of our work are [@Halluin2004] in general, and for Merton and Kou models - [@CarrMayo]. Therefore, we want to underline the differences between these approaches and that in this paper:
1. For Merton’s model following our general approach we re-derive the result of [@CarrMayo].
2. For Kou’s model again following our general approach we derive a different flavor of [@CarrMayo].
3. For CGMY model to get a second order approximation in time [@Halluin2004] use Picard iterations, while here we provide two flavors of the method: one is similar to [@Halluin2004] and uses FFT to multiply matrix by vector (with the complexity $O(N \log N)$; the other one, which doesn’t need iterations, exploits matrix exponential (with the complexity $O(N^2)$). In the latter case our method also doesn’t need to extend an FFT grid to avoid wrap-around effects.
4. For CGMY model method of [@Halluin2004] experiences some difficulties when parameter $\alpha$ of the CGMY model is close to 2, see [@WangWanForsyth2007]. Here we show what is the source of this problem and propose another method to address this issue.
5. For CGMY model a special treatment of the area close to $x=0$ is required, see [@ContVolchkova2003; @WangWanForsyth2007]. Here there is no such a problem due to an analytical representation of the jump integral in the form of a pseudo-differential operator (i.e, this singularity is integrated out analytically).
As far as the complexity of the proposed methods is concerned let us mention the following.
- For Merton’s and Kou’s jumps the algorithms that reduce the total complexity to $O(N)$ per time step are presented in this paper. For the Merton’s jumps this includes a new idea to use Fast Gauss Transform, [@IFGT] instead of the finite difference method when solving the intermediate heat equation.
- For CGMY model with $\alpha < 0$ it is clear that the method is very similar to that of [@WangWanForsyth2007] since our experiments show that the matrix exponential is less efficient than FFT in this case, and the Lévy kernel doesn’t have singularities. Instead we recommended to use a different flavor of this method, see [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] is more efficient with complexity $O(N)$.
- For CGMY model with $0 < \alpha < 1$ again the method is similar to that of [@WangWanForsyth2007]. However, in our case it doesn’t require a special treatment of the point $x=0$ because this singularity was already integrated out. On the other hand, in this region we provide only a first order scheme $O(h)$ leaving extension of the method to $O(h^2)$ as an open yet problem. From this prospective in this region the method of [@WangWanForsyth2007] is more accurate. Again, approach of [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] would improve it if one uses the approach of this paper to compute the price at some $1 < \alpha < 2$, and then use it in the interpolation procedure of [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]. The total complexity for the entire algorithm then coincide with the complexity in the case $1 < \alpha < 2$.
- For CGMY model with $1 < \alpha < 2$ our method has some advantage as compared with that of [@WangWanForsyth2007], namely: i) computation of the matrix exponential eliminates the necessity for Picard iterations which poorly converge in this case (we also explain why a slow convergence is observed in the latter approach), and ii) the singularity close to $\alpha = 2$ is already integrated out, and, therefore, the method works fine in this case even at $\alpha $ close to 2 (the results in the last section are provided for $\alpha = 1.95$).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[Sec2\] we briefly discuss a general form of a backward PIDE for the class of L[é]{}vy models. In Section \[Sec3\], we introduce a splitting technique for nonlinear operators. In section \[Sec4\], we present our general approach to the solution of the PIDE using a splitting and matrix exponential approach. An explicit construction of various finite-difference schemes of the first and second order is presented in the next section. There we consider the following jump models: Merton, Kou and GTSP (also known as CGMY or KoBoL). The results presented in the last two sections are new, and to the best of our knowledge have not been discussed in the literature. Our technique utilizes some results from matrix analysis related to definitions of M-matrices, Metzler matrices and eventually exponentially nonnegative matrices. We also give the results of various numerical tests to demonstrate convergence of our method. In section \[Sec6\], some additional numerical examples are presented that consider all steps of the splitting algorithm, not just the jump part as in the previous sections. The final section concludes.
L[é]{}vy Models and Backward PIDE {#Sec2}
==================================
To avoid uncertainty, let us consider the problem of pricing equity options written on a single stock. As we will see, this specification does not cause us to lose any generality, but it makes the description more practical. We assume an underlying asset (stock) price $S_t$ be driven by an exponential of a L[é]{}vy process $$\label{Levy}
S_t = S_0 \exp (L_t), \quad 0 \le t \le T,$$ where $t$ is time, $T$ is option expiration, $S_0 = S_t \ |_{t=0}$, $L_t$ is the L[é]{}vy process $L = (L_t)_{0 \le t \le T}$ with a nonzero Brownian (diffusion) part. Under the pricing measure, $L_t$ is given by $$\label{Lt}
L_t = \gamma t + \sigma W_t + Y_t, \qquad \gamma, \sigma \in \mathbb{R}, \quad \sigma > 0,$$ with triplet $(\gamma, \sigma, \nu$), where $W_t$ is a standard Brownian motion on $0 \le t \le T$ and $Y_t$ is a pure jump process.
We consider this process under the pricing measure, and therefore $e^{-(r-q) t} S_t$ is a martingale, where $r$ is the interest rate and $q$ is a continuous dividend. This allows us to express $\gamma$ as ([@Eberlein2009]) $$\gamma = r - q - \frac{\sigma^2}{2} - \int_\mathbb{R} \left(e^x -1 -x {\bf 1}_{|x| < 1}\right)\nu(dx),$$ where $\nu(dx)$ is a measure which satisfies $$\int_{|x| > 1}e^x \nu(dx) < \infty.$$
We leave $\nu(dx)$ unspecified at this time, because we are open to consider all types of jumps including those with finite and infinite variation, and finite and infinite activity. [^6]
To price options written on the underlying process $S_t$, we want to derive a PIDE that describes time evolution of the European option prices $C(x,t), \ x \equiv \log (S_t/S_0)$. Using a standard martingale approach, or by creating a self-financing portfolio, one can derive the corresponding PIDE ([@ContTankov]) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PIDE}
r C(x,t) = \fp{C(x,t)}{t} + \left(r-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \right) \fp{C(x,t)}{x} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \sop{C(x,t)}{x} \\
+ \int_\mathbb{R}\left[ C(x+y,t) - C(x,t) - (e^y-1)\fp{C(x,t)}{x} \right] \nu(dy)\end{gathered}$$ for all $(x,t) \in \mathbb{R} \times (0,T)$, subject to the terminal condition $$C(x,T) = h(x),$$ where $h(x)$ is the option payoff, and some boundary conditions which depend on the type of the option. The solutions of this PIDE usually belong to the class of viscosity solutions ([@ContTankov]).
We now rewrite the integral term using the following idea. It is well known from quantum mechanics ([@OMQM]) that a translation (shift) operator in $L_2$ space could be represented as $$\label{transform}
\mathcal{T}_b = \exp \left( b \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \right),$$ with $b$ = const, so $$\mathcal{T}_b f(x) = f(x+b).$$
Therefore, the integral in Eq. (\[PIDE\]) can be formally rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intGen}
\int_\mathbb{R} \left[ C(x+y,t) \right. & \left. - C(x,t) - (e^y-1) \fp{C(x,t)}{x} \right] \nu(dy) = \mathcal{J} C(x,t), \\
\mathcal{J} & \equiv \int_\mathbb{R}\left[
\exp \left( y \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \right) - 1 - (e^y-1) \fp{}{x} \right] \nu(dy). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the definition of operator $\mathcal{J}$ (which is actually an infinitesimal generator of the jump process), the integral can be formally computed under some mild assumptions about existence and convergence if one treats the term $\partial/ \partial x$ as a constant. Therefore, operator $\mathcal{J}$ can be considered as some generalized function of the differential operator $\partial_x$. We can also treat $\mathcal{J}$ as a pseudo-differential operator.
With allowance for this representation, the whole PIDE in the can be rewritten in operator form as $$\label{oper}
\partial_\tau C(x,\tau) = [\mathcal{D} + \mathcal{J}]C(x,\tau),$$ where $\tau = T - t$ and $\mathcal{D}$ represents a differential (parabolic) operator $$\mathcal{D} \equiv - r + \left(r-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \right) \fp{}{x} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \sop{}{x},$$ where the operator $\mathcal{D}$ is an infinitesimal generator of diffusion.
Notice that for jumps with finite variation and finite activity, the last two terms in the definition of the jump integral $\mathcal{J}$ in could be integrated out and added to the definition of $\mathcal{D}$. In the case of jumps with finite variation and infinite activity, the last term could be integrated out. However, here we will leave these terms under the integral for two reasons: i) this transformation (moving some terms under the integral to the diffusion operator) does not affect our method of computation of the integral, and ii) adding these terms to the operator $\mathcal{D}$ negatively influences the stability of the finite-difference scheme used to solve the parabolic equation $\mathcal{D} C(x,t) = 0$. This equation naturally appears as a part of our splitting method, which is discussed in the next section.
Operator Splitting Technique {#Sec3}
============================
To solve Eq. (\[oper\]) we use splitting. This technique is also known as the method of fractional steps (see [@yanenko1971; @samarskii1964; @dyakonov1964]) and sometimes is cited in financial literature as Russian splitting or locally one-dimensionally schemes (LOD) ([@Duffy]).
The method of fractional steps reduces the solution of the original $k$-dimensional unsteady problem to the solution of $k$ one-dimensional equations per time step. For example, consider a two-dimensional diffusion equation with a solution obtained by using some finite-difference method. At every time step, a standard discretization on space variables is applied, such that the finite-difference grid contains $N_1$ nodes in the first dimension and $N_2$ nodes in the second dimension. Then the problem is solving a system of $N_1 \times N_2$ linear equations, and the matrix of this system is block-diagonal. In contrast, utilization of splitting results in, e.g., $N_1$ systems of $N_2$ linear equations, where the matrix of each system is banded (tridiagonal). The latter approach is easy to implement and, more importantly, provides significantly better performance.
The previous procedure uses operator splitting in different dimensions. [@marchuk1975] and then [@Strang] extended this idea for complex physical processes (for instance, diffusion in the chemically reacting gas, or the advection-diffusion problem). In addition to (or instead of) splitting on spatial coordinates, they also proposed splitting the equation into physical processes that differ in nature, for instance, convection and diffusion. This idea becomes especially efficient if the characteristic times of evolution (relaxation time) of such processes are significantly different.
For a general approach to splitting techniques for [*linear*]{} operators using Lie algebras, we refer the reader to [@LanserVerwer]. Consider an equation $$\label{operEq}
\fp{f({\bf x},t)}{t} = \mathcal{L} f({\bf x},t)$$ where $f({\bf x},t)$ is some function of independent variables ${\bf x},t, \ {\bf x} = x_1 ... x_k$, and $\mathcal{L}$ is some linear k-dimensional operator in ${\bf x}$ space.
Decomposing the total (compound) operator $\mathcal{L}$ for problems of interest seems natural if, say, $\mathcal{L}$ can be represented as a sum of $k$ noncommuting linear operators $\sum_{i=1}^k \mathcal{L}_i$. In this case the operator equation can be formally integrated via an operator exponential, i.e., $$f({\bf x},t) = e^{t \mathcal{L}} f({\bf x}, 0) = e^{ t \sum_{i=1}^k \mathcal{L}_i} f(0).$$ Due to the noncommuting property, the latter expression can be factorized into a product of operators $$f({\bf x},t) = e^{t \mathcal{L}_k} ... e^{t \mathcal{L }_1}f({\bf x},0).$$ This equation can then be solved in $N$ steps sequentially by the following procedure: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(1)}({\bf x},t) &= e^{t \mathcal{L}_1}f({\bf x}, 0), \nonumber \\
f^{(2)}({\bf x},t) &= e^{t \mathcal{L}_2}f^{(1)}({\bf x},t), \nonumber \\
&\quad \vdots \\
f^{(k)}({\bf x},t) &= e^{t \mathcal{L}_k}f^{(k-1)}({\bf x},t), \nonumber \\
f({\bf x}, t) &= f^{(k)}({\bf x},t). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This algorithm is exact (no bias) if all the operators commute. If, however, they do not commute, the above algorithm provides only a first-order approximation in time (i.e., $O(t)$) to the exact solution.
To get the second-order splitting for noncommuting operators, Strang proposed a new scheme, which in the simplest case ($k=2$) is ([@Strang]) $$f({\bf x},t) = e^{t L} f({\bf x},0) = e^{ t (L_1 + L_2)} f({\bf x},0) = e^{ \frac{t}{2} L_1 } e^{t L_2} e^{ \frac{t}{2} L_1 } f({\bf x},0) + O(t^2).$$
For parabolic equations with constant coefficients, this composite algorithm is second-order accurate in $t$ provided the numerical procedure that solves a corresponding equation at each splitting step is at least second-order accurate.
The above analysis, however, cannot be directly applied to our problem, because after transformation is applied, the jump integral transforms to a non-linear operator . For [*non-linear*]{} operators, the situation is more delicate. As shown in [@ThalhammerKoch2010], the theoretical analysis of the nonlinear initial value problem $$u'(t) = F(u(t)), \qquad 0 \le t \le T$$ for a Banach-space-valued function $u: [0,T] \rightarrow X$ given an initial condition $u(0)$ could be done using calculus of Lie derivatives. A formal linear representation of the exact solution is $$u(t) = \mathcal{E}_F(t,u(0)) = e^{t D_F} u(0), \qquad 0 \le t \le T,$$ where the evolution operator and Lie derivatives are given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{t D_F} v &= \mathcal{E}_F(t,v), \quad e^{t D_F} G v = G(\mathcal{E}_F(t,v)), \quad 0 \le t \le T, \\
D_F v &= F(v), \quad D_F G v = G'(v) F(v)\end{aligned}$$ for an unbounded nonlinear operator $G: D(G) \subset X \rightarrow X$. Using this formalism, [@ThalhammerKoch2010] showed that Strang’s second-order splitting method remains unchanged in the case of nonlinear operators.
Using this result for gives rise to the following numerical scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{splitFin}
C^{(1)}(x,\tau) &= e^{\frac{\Delta \tau}{2} \mathcal{D} } C(x,\tau), \\
C^{(2)}(x,\tau) &= e^{\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}} C^{(1)}(x,\tau) \nonumber, \\
C(x,\tau+\Delta \tau) &= e^{\frac{\Delta \tau}{2} \mathcal{D} } C^{(2)}(x,\tau). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus, instead of an unsteady PIDE, we obtain one PIDE with no drift and diffusion (the second equation in ) and two unsteady PDEs (the first and third ones in ).
In what follows, we consider how to efficiently solve the second equation, while assuming that the solution of the first and the third equations can be obtained using any finite-difference method that is sufficiently efficient. To this end, in various examples given in the next sections we will explicitly mention what particular method was used for this purpose.
In this paper, we do not discuss the uniqueness and existence of the solution for the PIDE; to do so would move us to the definition of a viscosity solution for this class of integro-differential equations. For more details, see [@ContTankov] and [@Arisawa2005].
Lastly, let us mention that $\mathcal{J} = \phi(-i \partial_x)$, where $\phi(u)$ is the characteristic exponent of the jump process. This directly follows from the L[é]{}vy-Khinchine theorem.
Solution of a Pure Jump Equation {#Sec4}
================================
We begin with the following observation. By definition of the jump generator $\mathcal{J}$, under some mild constraints on its existence, $\mathcal{J}$ could be viewed as a function of the operator $\partial_x$. Therefore, solving the integral (second) equation in requires a few steps.
First, an appropriate discrete grid ${\bf G}(x)$ has to be constructed in the truncated (originally infinite) space domain. This grid could be nonuniform. An important point is that in the space domain where the parabolic equations of are defined, this grid should coincide with the finite-difference grid constructed for the solution of these parabolic equations.[^7] This is to avoid interpolation of the solution that is obtained on the jump grid (the second step of the splitting algorithm) to the diffusion grid that is constructed to obtain solutions at the first and third splitting steps.
To make this transparent, let the parabolic equation be solved at the space domain $[x_0,x_k],$ $\ x_0 > -\infty$, $x_k < \infty$ using a nonuniform grid with $k+1$ nodes ($x_0, x_1,...,x_k$) and space steps $h_1 = x_1-x_0, ..., h_k = x_k - x_{k-1}$. The particular choice of $x_0$ and $x_k$ is determined by the problem under consideration. We certainly want $|x_0|$ and $|x_k|$ not to be too large. The integration limits of $\mathcal{J}$ in are, however, plus and minus infinity. Truncation of these limits usually is done to fit memory and performance requirements. On the other hand, we want a fine grid close to the option strike $K$ for better accuracy. Therefore, a reasonable way to construct a jump grid is as follows. For $x_0 \le x \le x_k$, the jump grid coincides with the grid used for solution of the parabolic PDEs. Outside of this domain, the grid is expanded by adding nonuniform steps; i.e., the entire jump grid is $x_{-K}, x_{1-K}, ... x_{-1}, x_0, x_1, ..., x_k, x_{k+1}, ..., x_{k+M}$. Here $K >0, \ M>0$ are some integer numbers that are chosen based on our preferences. Since contribution to $\mathcal{J}$ from very large values of $x$ is negligible, the outer grid points $x_{-K}, x_{1-K}, ... x_{-1}$ and $x_{k+1}, ..., x_{k+M}$ can be made highly nonuniform. One possible algorithm could be to have the steps of these grids be a geometric progression. This allows one to cover the truncated infinite interval with a reasonably small number of nodes.
Second, the discretization of $\partial_x$ should be chosen on ${\bf G}(x)$. We want this discretization to:
1. Provide the necessary order of approximation of the whole operator $\mathcal{J}$ in space.
2. Provide unconditional stability of the solution of the second equation in .
3. Provide positivity of the solution.
Let $\Delta_x$ denote a discrete analog of $\partial_x$ obtained by discretization of $\partial_x$ on the grid ${\bf G}(x)$. Accordingly, let us define the matrix $J(\Delta_x)$ to be the discrete analog of the operator $\mathcal{J}$ on the grid ${\bf G}(x)$. The following proposition translates the above requirements to the conditions on $J(\Delta_x)$.
\[prop0\] The finite-difference scheme $$\label{fd0}
C(x, \tau + \Delta \tau) = e^{\Delta \tau J(\Delta_x)} C(x,\tau)$$ is unconditionally stable in time $\tau$ and preserves positivity of the vector $C(x,\tau)$ if there exists an M-matrix $B$ such that $J(\Delta_x) = - B$.
By definition of an M-matrix (see [@BermanPlemmons1994]), the class of M-matrices contains those matrices whose off-diagonal entries are less than or equal to zero, while all diagonal elements are positive. All eigenvalues of an M-matrix have a positive real part. Therefore, if $B$ is an M-matrix, all eigenvalues of $J(\Delta_x)$ have a negative real part. Therefore, $\|e^{\Delta \tau J(\Delta_x)}\| < 1$ (in the spectral norm), and thus the scheme is unconditionally stable.
Now since $B$ is an M-matrix, $J$ is a Metzler matrix ([@BermanPlemmons1994]). An exponential function of the Metzler matrix is a positive matrix. Therefore, if $C(x,\tau)$ is positive, the scheme preserves the positivity of $C(x,\tau + \Delta \tau)$. $\blacksquare$
This proposition gives us a recipe for the construction of the appropriate discretization of the operator $\mathcal{J}$. In the next section, we will give some explicit examples of this approach.
Once the discretization is performed, all we need is to compute a matrix exponential $ e^{\Delta \tau J(\Delta_x)}$, and then a product of this exponential with $C(x,\tau)$. The following facts make this method competitive with those briefly described in the introduction. We need to take into account that:
1. The matrix $J(\Delta_x)$ can be precomputed once the finite-difference grid ${\bf G}(x)$ has been built.
2. If a constant time step is used for computations, the matrix $\mathcal{A} = e^{\Delta \tau J(\Delta_x)}$ can also be precomputed.
If the above two statements are true, the second splitting step results in computing a product of a matrix with time-independent entries and a vector. The complexity of this operation is $O(N^2)$, assuming the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is $N \times N$, and the vector is $N \times 1$. However, $N$ in this case is relatively small (see below). One can compare this with the FFT algorithm proposed in [@AA2000] to compute the correlation integral. This translates into computation of two matrix-by-vector products. This algorithm is $2 c \times O(N \log_2 N)$, where $c$ is some coefficient. However, $N$ is relatively high in this case. Typical values are $N = 4096$. Also a post-solution interpolation is required.[^8] Finally, for some models (CGMY, VG), the computation of the integral in a neighborhood of $x=0$ requires special treatment ([@ContVolchkova2003]).
To make a numerical estimate, assume that we want to compute an option price on the grid with the local accuracy $O(h_i h_{i+1})$ where the option log-strike lies within the interval $[x_i, x_{i+1}]$ of the non-uniform grid ${\bf G}(x)$. Also suppose that the jump integral is truncated from the above at $x_{max} = \log S_{max} = 12.566$ (this approximately corresponds to a choice of the step size in the Fourier space $\eta=0.25$, see [@CarrMadan:98]). Finally assume that the inverse Fourier transform integral is approximated by the Trapezoid rule, which provides same accuracy, e.g., $O(\lambda_1^2))$, where $\lambda_1$ is the step of integration in the log-strike space. Then to make a local error of both methods to be of the same order we need to set $\lambda_1 = 2 b/N$. For $h_i = 0.006$ this gives $N=4096$. On the other hand, a non-uniform grid ${\bf G}(x)$ for computing $J(\Delta_x)$ can be easily constructed, see e.g., [@HoutFoulon2010], that has the same local step $h_i$ close to the strike, and ends up at $x_{max}$, while the total number of grid points $N$ is about 100-200. Therefore, in this case this method is able to outperform FFT. Further improvements, for instance, using the Simpson’s rule for integration could be done in favor of the FFT approach. However, various non-uniform grids can also be used in our approach to reduce the number of nodes. Therefore, both methods seem to be comparable in performance. We demonstrate this below when presenting some numerical examples.
At the very least the product $\mathcal{A} C(x,\tau)$ can be computed also using FFT, if at every time step one re-interpolates values from ${\bf G}(x)$ to the FFT grid, similar to how this was done in [@Halluin2004]. The advantage of our method then is that it doesn’t use Picard iterations to provide the second order approximation in space, which give some gain in performance as compared with the method of [@Halluin2004]. Also it is known that the latter method for the CGMY model experiences some problems when parameter $\alpha$ of the model is close to 2, while our method seems to be insensitive to that.
The above consideration is sufficiently general in the sense that it covers any particular jump model where jumps are modeled as an exponential process. Clearly, as we already mentioned in Introduction, for some models computation of the jump integral can be readily simplified, for instance for the Merton’s model, thus demonstrating a better performance than a more general approach.
Examples for Some Popular Models
================================
In this section, we review some popular jump models known in the financial literature. Given a model, our goal is to construct a finite-difference scheme, first for $\Delta_x$, and then for $J(\Delta_x)$, that satisfies the conditions of Proposition \[prop0\]. We want to underline that we discuss these jump models being a part of a more general either LV or LSV model with jumps. Otherwise, as characteristic functions of the original Merton, Kou and CGMY models are known, any FFT based method would be more efficient in, e.g., obtaining prices of European vanilla options.
Merton Model
------------
[@merton:76] considered jumps that are normally distributed with the density $$\label{MertonDensity}
\nu(dx) = \lambda \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\sigma_J} \exp \left[ -\frac{(x-\mu_J)^2}{2 \sigma^2_J}\right] dx,$$ where $\lambda$, $\mu_J$ and $\sigma_J$ are parameters of the model. Considering the pure jump part of the Merton model, one can see that it exhibits finite activity, i.e., a finite number of jumps within any finite time interval. Plugging into the definition of the operator $\mathcal{J}$ in and fulfilling a formal integration gives $$\label{JMerton}
\mathcal{J} = \lambda\left(e^{\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2} -
\kappa \triangledown -1 \right), \qquad \kappa = e^{\mu _J+\frac{\sigma _J^2}{2}} - 1,$$ where $\triangledown \equiv \partial /\partial x$, $\triangledown^2 \equiv \partial^2 /\partial x^2$. The corresponding evolutionary pure jump equation to be solved is $$\label{EqMerton}
C^{(2)}(x,\tau) = \mathcal{A} C^{(1)}(x,\tau), \qquad
\mathcal{A} = \exp \left[ \lambda \Delta \tau \left(e^{\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2
\triangledown^2} - \kappa \triangledown -1 \right) \right].$$
A matrix exponential method for this model with the exponential operator[^9] as in has already been considered in [@Tangman2011] using a different derivation (from [@CarrMayo]). They also discuss in more detail various modern methods for computing the matrix exponentials.
Recall that the diffusion equations in have to be solved up to some order of approximation in time $\tau$. Suppose for this purpose we want to use a finite-difference scheme that provides a second order approximation, $O((\Delta \tau^2))$. However, gives an [*exact*]{} solution of the corresponding pure jump equation (the second step in Strang’s splitting scheme). Since Strang’s scheme guarantees only second-order accuracy ($O((\Delta \tau)^2)$) to the exact solution of the full PIDE, the second step could be computed to the same order of accuracy.
To this end we can use the (1,1) P[á]{}de approximation of $e^{\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}}$, $$\label{mer1}
e^{\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}} \approx [1 - \frac{1}{2}\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}]^{-1}[1 + \frac{1}{2}\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}] + O(\Delta \tau^3).$$ Now the product $$\mathcal{J} C^{(1)}(x,\tau) = - \lambda (\kappa \triangledown + 1) C^{(1)}(x,\tau) + \lambda e^{\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2}
C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$$ can be efficiently computed if one observes that:
- Merton’s jumps are that with finite variation and finite activity. Therefore, the term $- \lambda \kappa \triangledown C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$ could be taken out of the jump integral and added to the diffusion operator (see our splitting algorithm, ). We will denote the remaining part of the integral as $\mathcal{J}^*$, e.g., $$\mathcal{J}^* C^{(1)}(x,\tau) = \lambda \left[ -1 + e^{\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2} \right] C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$$
- Vector $$z(x,\tau) \equiv e^{\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2} C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$$ is a solution of $$\label{heat}
\fp{z(x,s)}{s} = \left(\mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2\right) z(x,s).$$ for $0 \le s \le 1$ and $z(x,0) = C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$. A straightforward approach proposed in [@CarrMayo] suggests to use, e.g., finite difference scheme to solve this equation. The solution should be obtained at the same grid in space with a space step $h$, while the “time” step $\Delta s$ could be arbitrary chosen. However, since the total accuracy of this solution should not be worse that the required accuracy of the whole method, e.g., $O(\Delta \tau^2 + h^2)$, this dictates that $\Delta s \le \max(h, \Delta \tau)$. Therefore, the total complexity of such the solution is $O(N M), \ M = 1/\Delta s$.
However, this result could be improved. Indeed, suppose we compute an European option price[^10]. As coefficients $\mu_J, \sigma _J$ are assumed to be constant, the Green’s function of is Gaussian. Therefore, the solution of given a vector of the initial prices is a convolution of this vector with the Gaussian kernel, and it can be computed by using a Fast Gaussian Transform (FGT).
Since our problem is one-dimensional computation of the low-dimensional FGT does not pose any difficulties if we use a powerful algorithm known as Improved Fast Gauss Transform (IFGT), see [@IFGT]. The number of target points in this case is equal to the number of source points $N$, and, therefore, the total complexity of IFGT is $O(2N)$.
- The scheme with allowance for can be re-written as $$C^{(1)}(x, \tau + \Delta \tau) - C^{(1)}(x, \tau) = \frac{1}{2} \Delta \tau \mathcal{J}^* \left[C^{(1)}(x, \tau + \Delta \tau) + C^{(1)}(x, \tau)\right],$$ and this equation could be solved using the Picard iterations having in mind that at each iteration vector $z(x,t)$ could be obtained by solving .
In other words, we presented another derivation of the method first proposed in [@CarrMayo][^11]. Notice, that to be unconditionally stable this method requires $B \equiv \mu_J \triangledown +\frac{1}{2} \sigma _J^2 \triangledown^2$ to be a Metzler matrix. Then $e^B$ is a positive matrix with all positive eigenvalues less than 1 in value. Accordingly, $ \mathcal{J}^* = \lambda(-I + e^B)$ is a Metzler matrix with all negative eigenvalues. Then $|B_1^{-1} B_2| < 1$, where $B_1 = I + \frac{1}{2} \Delta \tau \mathcal{J}^*, \ B_2 = I - \frac{1}{2} \Delta \tau \mathcal{J}^*$, and $I$ is an identity matrix.
Kou Model
---------
The Kou model, proposed in [@Kou2004], is a double exponential jump model. Its density is $$\label{Kou}
\nu (dx) = \lambda\left[ p \theta_1 e^{-\theta_1 x} {\bf 1}_{x \ge 0} + (1-p) \theta_2 e^{\theta_2 x} {\bf 1}_{x < 0} \right] dx,$$ where $\theta_1 > 1$, $\theta_2 > 0$, $1 > p > 0$; the first condition was imposed to ensure that the stock price $S(t)$ has finite expectation. Using this density in the definition of the operator $\mathcal{J}$ in and carrying out the integration (recalling that we treat $\partial/ \partial x$ as a constant) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KouJ}
\mathcal{J} &= \lambda \left[- 1 + \mu_0 \triangledown + p \theta_1(\theta_1-\triangledown)^{-1} + (1-p) \theta_2(\triangledown+\theta_2)^{-1}\right], \\
\triangledown &\equiv \partial_x, \qquad \mu_0 = \frac{p}{\theta _1-1} - \frac{1-p}{1+\theta _2}, \quad -\theta_2 < Re(\triangledown) < \theta_1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The inequality $-\theta_2 < Re(\triangledown) < \theta_1$ is an existence condition for the integral defining $\mathcal{J}$ and should be treated as follows: the discretization of the operator $\triangledown$ should be such that all eigenvalues of matrix $A$, a discrete analog of $\triangledown$, obey this condition.
Also for the future let us remind that $\lambda$ is a parameter (intensity) of the Poison process, therefore $\lambda > 0$.
We proceed in a similar to Merton’s model way by using again the (1,1) P[á]{}de approximation of $e^{\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}}$. As Kou’s jumps are that with finite variation and finite activity, the term $\lambda \mu_0 \triangledown$ could be taken out of the jump integral and added to the diffusion operator (see our splitting algorithm, ). Now the whole product $\mathcal{J}^* C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$ with $$\mathcal{J}^* \equiv -1+ p \theta_1 (\theta_1-\triangledown)^{-1} + (1-p) \theta_2(\triangledown+\theta_2)^{-1}$$ could be calculated as follows.
#### Second term.
Observe that vector $z(x,\tau) = p \theta_1 (\theta_1-\triangledown)^{-1} C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$ solves the equation $$\label{kou1system}
(\theta_1-\triangledown) z(x,\tau) = p \theta_1 C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$$ The lhs of this equation could be approximated to $O(h^2)$ using a [*forward*]{} one-sided derivative $\triangledown f(x) = - [3 f(x) - 4 f(x+h) + f(x + 2 h)]/(2 h) + O(h^2)$, so on a given grid matrix $A^F_2$ with elements $-3/(2h)$ on the main diagonal, $2/h$ on the first upper diagonal, and $-1/(2h)$ on the second upper diagonal is a representation of $\triangledown$. Note, that the matrix $M_1 = \theta_1 I -A^F_2$ is not an M-matrix, however its inverse is a positive matrix if $h < 1/\theta_1$. Also since $M_1$ is an upper banded tridiagonal matrix, its eigenvalues are $\lambda_i = \theta_1 + 3/(2h), i=1,N$. Also under the condition $h < 1/\theta_1$ one has $|p \theta_1/\lambda_i| < 1$, i.e. this discretization is unconditionally stable in $h$ given the above condition is valid. Solving vector $z(x,\tau)$ can be found with the complexity $O(N)$.
#### Third term.
Observe that vector $z(x,\tau) = (1-p) \theta_2 (\theta_2+\triangledown)^{-1} C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$ solves the equation $$\label{kou2system}
(\theta_2+\triangledown) z(x,\tau) = (1-p) \theta_2 C^{(1)}(x,\tau)$$ The lhs of this equation could be approximated with $O(h^2)$ using a [*backward*]{} one-sided derivative $\triangledown f(x) = [3 f(x) - 4 f(x-h) + f(x - 2 h)]/(2 h) + O(h^2)$, so on a given grid matrix $A^B_2$ with elements $3/(2h)$ on the main diagonal, $-2/h$ on the first lower diagonal, and $1/(2h)$ on the second lower diagonal is a representation of $\triangledown$. Note, that the matrix $M_2 = \theta_2 I + A^B_2$ is not an M-matrix, however its inverse is a positive matrix if $h < 1/\theta_2$. Also since $M_2$ is an lower banded tridiagonal matrix, its eigenvalues are $\lambda_i = \theta_2 + 3/(2h), i=1,N$. Also under the condition $h < 1/\theta_2$ one has $|(1-p)\theta_2/\lambda_i| < 1$, i.e. this discretization is unconditionally stable in $h$ given the above condition is valid. Solving vector $z(x,\tau)$ can be found with the complexity $O(N)$.
Overall, a discrete representation of $\mathcal{J}^*$ on the given grid constructed in such a way is a Metzler matrix, therefore all its eigenvalues have a negative real part. Indeed, all eigenvalues of the matrix $M_1^{-1}$ (here they are just the diagonal elements) are positive and less than 1, and all eigenvalues of the matrix $M_2^{-1}$ (also here they are just the diagonal elements) are positive and less than 1. Moreover, their sum is less than 1, and, therefore, the diagonal elements of matrix $\mathcal{J}^*$ are negative and less than 1.
Now by construction, it could be seen that matrices $M_1, M_2$ are strictly diagonal dominant, and, therefore, the off-diagonal elements of matrices $M_1^{-1}, M_2^{-1}$ are small as compared with that on the main diagonal. Therefore, by Gershgorin’s circle theorem ([@GL83]) eigenvalues of $\mathcal{J}^* $ are $|\lambda_i| < 1, \ i=1,N$. Thus, the above described scheme is unconditionally stable provided $h < 1/\max(\theta_1, \theta_2)$, and at the same time gives the second order approximation $O(h^2 + \Delta \tau^2)$.
#### Numerical experiments
Note, that aside of splitting technique and the way how to solve the diffusion equations at the first and third steps of Strang’s splitting, our method differs from that in [@Halluin2004] only by how we compute a jump integral. Therefore, our numerical experiments aim to compare just that part and are organized as follows.
We consider a call option and take the Kou model parameters similar to [@Halluin2005b], i.e., $S_0 = K = 100, r = 0.05, p = 0.0.3445, \theta_1 = 3.0465, \theta_2 = 3.0775, \sigma=0.15$. One step in time is computed by taking $T = \Delta \tau = 0.25$ (same as in [@Halluin2005b]). As $C^{(1)}(x, \Delta \tau)$ in the comes after the first step of splitting, we get it by using the Black-Scholes formula with the forward interest rate $r + \lambda \mu_0$ because in our splitting algorithm we moved the term $\lambda \mu_0 \triangledown$ from the jump part to the diffusion part (see above). At the second step the solution of the jump part $C^{(2)}_j(x,\Delta \tau)$ is produced given the initial condition $C^{(1)}(x,\Delta \tau)$ from the previous step. We compare our solution for the jump step with that obtained with $N = 409601$ which is assumed to be close to the exact value[^12]. The finite-difference grid was constructed as follows: the diffusion grid was taken from $x^D_{min} = 10^{-3}$ to $x^D_{max} = 30 max(S,K)$. The jump grid is a superset of the diffusion grid, i.e. it coincides with the diffusion grid at the diffusion domain and then extends this domain up to $x^J_{max} = \log (10^5)$. Here to simplify the convergence analysis we use an uniform grid with step $h$. However, non-uniform grid can be easily constructed as well, and, moreover, that is exactly what this algorithm was constructed for.
The results of such a test are given in Table \[Tab1\]. Here $C$ is the price in dollars, $N$ is the number of grid nodes, $t_e$ is the elapsed time[^13], $\beta$ is the order of convergence of the scheme. The “exact” price obtained at $N= = 409601$ is $C_{num}(\Delta \tau)$ = 3.99544616155. It is seen that the convergence order $\beta_i
= \log_2 \frac{C(i) - C_{num}}{C(i+1)-C_{num}}, \ i=1,2...$ of the scheme is asymptotically close to $O(h^2)$.
[|c|l|r|l|r|]{} $C$ & $h$ & $N$ & $t_e, \mbox{sec}$ & $\beta$ 4.08176114 & 0.149141 & 101 & 0.00807 & - 4.00896884 & 0.0745706 & 201 & 0.00441 & 3.81602 3.99640628 & 0.0372853 & 401 & 0.00613 & 2.02002 3.99568288 & 0.0186427 & 801 & 0.00772 & 2.04431 3.99550355 & 0.00932133 & 1601 & 0.00829 & 1.93623 3.99546116 & 0.00466066 & 3201 & 0.01042 & 1.96681 3.99545000 & 0.00233033 & 6401 & 0.02305 & 1.97418 3.99544714 & 0.00116517 & 12801 & 0.04445 & 1.97265 3.99544641 & 0.000582583 & 25601 & 0.10146 & 1.96645 3.99544623 & 0.000291291 & 51201 & 0.22158 & 1.99185 3.99544618 & 0.000145646 & 102401 & 0.53087 & 2.21324
As a sanity check we can compare this value with the reference value obtained by pricing this model (one step) using FFT, which is $C_{FFT}(\Delta \tau)$ = 3.97383, see, e.g., [@Halluin2005b]. Definitely $C_{FFT}(\Delta \tau)$ is not exactly equal to $C_{num}(\Delta \tau)$ because our two steps used in the test[^14] are equivalent to the splitting scheme of the first order in $\Delta \tau$, i.e. it has an error $O(\Delta \tau)$. And $\Delta \tau$ in this experiment is large. Therefore, we rerun this test taking now $T = \Delta \tau = 0.5$. This results are given in Tab. \[Tab11\]. Now $C_{FFT}(\Delta \tau)$ = 1.545675, and $C_{num}(\Delta \tau)$ = 1.544557, so the relative error is 0.07%. This confirms that the value $C_{num}(\Delta \tau)$ looks reasonable.
[|c|l|r|l|r|]{} $C$ & $h$ & $N$ & $t_e, \mbox{sec}$ & $\beta$ 1.96362542 & 0.149141 & 101 & 0.00819 & - 1.72184850 & 0.0745706 & 201 & 0.00387 & 5.00130 1.55009251 & 0.0372853 & 401 & 0.00692 & 3.62747 1.54500503 & 0.0186427 & 801 & 0.01647 & 4.78856 1.54457335 & 0.00932133 & 1601 & 0.01135 & 1.94876 1.54456134 & 0.00466066 & 3201 & 0.01330 & 2.05321 1.54455816 & 0.00233033 & 6401 & 0.02666 & 2.07878 1.54455739 & 0.00116517 & 12801 & 0.04160 & 1.98360 1.54455721 & 0.000582583 & 25601 & 0.10207 & 1.99972 1.54455716 & 0.000291291 & 51201 & 0.22687 & 2.05112 1.54455715 & 0.000145646 & 102401 & 0.77614 & 2.29722
Performance-wise the similarity of this method to that in [@Halluin2004] is that it also requires Picard’s iterations at every time step. In contrast to [@Halluin2004] at every iteration this method requires solution of two linear systems with a tridiagonal (one upper and one lower triangular) matrix, i.e. its complexity is $O(N)$. In [@Halluin2004] it requires two FFT provided on a slightly extended grid to avoid wrap-around effects, so the total complexity is at least $O(N \log_2 N)$. Therefore, even if $N$ in out method is chosen to be close to $N$ in the FFT approach the former is approximately $\log_2 N$ times faster.
CGMY Model
----------
Computation of jump integrals under the CGMY model (also known as the KoBoL model, or more generally as generalized tempered stable processes (GTSPs)) was considered in detail in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] using a similar approach. GTSPs have probability densities symmetric in a neighborhood of the origin and exponentially decaying in the far tails. After this exponential softening, the small jumps keep their initial stable-like behavior, whereas the large jumps become exponentially tempered. The Lévy measure of GTSPs is given by $$\label{measure}
\mu(y) = \lambda_{L} \dfrac{e^{-\nu_{L}|y|}}{|y|^{1 + \alpha_{L}}}{\bf 1}_{y<0} + \lambda_{R} \dfrac{e^{-\nu_{R}|y|}}{|y|^{1 + \alpha_{R}}}{\bf 1}_{y>0},$$ where $\nu_R$, $\nu_L > 0$, $\lambda_R$, $\lambda_L > 0$ and $\alpha_R, \alpha_L < 2$. The last condition is necessary to provide $$\label{cond}
\int^1_{-1} y^2 \mu(dy) < \infty \, , \ \int_{|y| > 1} \mu(dy) < \infty.$$
The next proposition follows directly from Proposition 7 of [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky].[^15]
The PIDE $$\fp{}{\tau} C(x,\tau) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left[C(x+y,\tau) - C(x,\tau) - \fp{}{x} C(x,\tau) (e^y-1) \right] \mu(y) dy$$ is equivalent to the PDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whole}
\fp{}{\tau} C(x,\tau) &= (\mathcal{L}_R + \mathcal{L}_L)C(x,\tau), \\
\mathcal{L}_R &= \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R - \triangledown\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] \triangledown \right\}, \nn \\
& \alpha_R < 2, \ {Re}(\nu_R - \triangledown) > 0, \, \nu_R > 1, \nn \\
\mathcal{L}_L &= \lambda_L \Gamma(-\alpha_L) \left\{ \left(\nu_L + \triangledown\right)^{\alpha_L} - \nu_L^{\alpha_L} + \left[ \nu_L^{\alpha_L} - (\nu_L+1)^{\alpha_L}\right] \triangledown \right\}, \nn \\
& \alpha_L < 2, \ {Re}(\nu_L + \triangledown) > 0, \ \nu_L > 0, \nn\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function, and $Re(L)$ for some operator $L$ formally refers to the spectrum of $L$. In other words, $Re(L) > 0$ means that real parts of all eigenvalues $\lambda$ of $L$ are positive.
In special cases, this equation changes to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whole0}
\mathcal{L}_R &= \lambda_R \left\{ \log(\nu_R) - \log \left(\nu_R - \triangledown \right) + \log \left(\dfrac{\nu_R-1}{\nu_R}\right)\triangledown \right\} \\
& \alpha_R = 0, \mathbb{R}(\nu_R - \triangledown) > 0, \mathbb{R}(\nu_R) > 1, \nn \\
\mathcal{L}_L &= \lambda_L \left\{\log(\nu_L) - \log \left(\nu_L + \triangledown \right) + \log \left(\dfrac{\nu_L+1}{\nu_L}\right)\triangledown \right\} \nn \\
& \alpha_L = 0, \ \mathbb{R}(\nu_L + \triangledown) > 0, \ \mathbb{R}(\nu_L) > 0, \nn\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whole1}
\mathcal{L}_R &= \lambda_R \Big[ (\nu_R-\triangledown)\log (\nu_R-\triangledown) - \nu_R \log (\nu_R) + \triangledown \left(\log (\nu _R-1) - 2 \nu_R \coth^{-1} (1-2 \nu_R) \right) \Big] \nn \\
& \alpha_R = 1, \ Re(\nu_R - \triangledown) > 0, \ \nu_R > 1, \\
\mathcal{L}_L &= \lambda_L \Big[ (\nu_L+\triangledown)\log \left(\frac{\nu_L+\triangledown}{\nu_L}\right) - \triangledown (1 + \nu_L)\log \left(\frac{\nu_L+1}{\nu_L}\right) \Big] \nn \\
& \alpha_L = 1, \ Re(\nu_L + \triangledown) > 0, \ \nu_L > 0, \nn\end{aligned}$$ where the logarithm of the differential operator is defined in the sense of [@logOfDif].
We underline the existence conditions for the jump integrals to be well-defined which are $\nu_L > 0, \ \nu_R > 1$. This is in some sense similar to the Kou’s model where $\theta_1$ is defined on the domain $\theta_1 > 1$ while $\theta_2$ at the domain $\theta_2 > 0$.
There are a few ways to proceed in this case. First, one can use an extra Strang’s splitting; instead of directly solving , solve it in three sweeps. At every step, only one operator, either $\mathcal{L}_R$ or $\mathcal{L}_L$ enters the equation. Thus, the construction of the appropriate discrete operator is simplified. The second approach is based on the observation that eigenvalues of the sum of two M-matrices are also positive. This result follows from Wayl’s inequality (see [@Bellman]). Therefore, if every operator in the right-hand side of is represented by the negative of an M-matrix, the sum of those operators is also the negative of an M-matrix. However, the discretization of these operators, while on the same grid, could differ, thus adding some flexibility to the construction of the numerical scheme.
As shown in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky], the computation of the matrix exponential could be fully eliminated by using the following approach. First, they show that for $\alpha_I \in \mathbb{Z}$ the solution of the pure jump equation could be reduced to the solution of a system of linear equations where the matrix in the left-hand side of the system is banded. Therefore, the complexity of this solution is $O(N)$. Then to compute the matrix exponential for a real $\alpha$, first choose three closest values of $\alpha_I \in \mathbb{Z}$. Given the solutions at these $\alpha_I$, we can interpolate them to give the solution for $\alpha$. Therefore, if linear interpolation is used, and the interpolation coefficients are pre-computed, the total complexity of this solution is also $O(N)$.
This approach, however, does not work well if $0 < \alpha < 2$, since we do not have a solution at $\alpha = 2$. To proceed in such a way would then require extrapolation instead of interpolation. It is well known that extrapolation is not a reliable procedure, and so in what follows we apply the general approach of this paper to the GTSP models.
First, consider terms with $\alpha_R$. Based on the above analysis, the most important case for us is $1 < \alpha_R < 2$. That is because if we manage to propose an efficient numerical algorithm in such case, other domains of $\alpha_R$ could be treated as in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] by involving the value $1 < \alpha_R < 2$ into the interpolation procedure in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]. However, for the sake of completeness we begin with a relatively simple case $\alpha_R < 0$ and $0 < \alpha_R < 1$ to demonstrate our approach. A special case $\alpha_R = 0$ was already addressed in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]. A special case $\alpha_R = 1$ is considered later in this paper.
### Case $\alpha_R < 0$.
Define a one-sided [*forward*]{} discretization of $\triangledown$, which we denote as $A^F: \ \partial C/ \partial x = [C(x+h,t) - C(x,t)]/h$. Also define a one-sided [*backward*]{} discretization of $\triangledown$, denoted as $A^B: \ \partial C/ \partial x = [C(x,t) - C(x-h,t)]/h$.
\[prop-0\] If $\alpha_R < 0$, then the discrete counterpart $L_R$ of the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$ is the negative of an M-matrix if $$L_R = \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R I - A^F\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} I + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] A^B \right\}.$$ The matrix $L_R$ is an $O(h)$ approximation of the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$.
We need eigenvalues of $A^F$ to be negative to obey the existence condition in . That dictates the choice of $A^F$ in the first term as $A^F$ is the Metzler matrix which eigenvalues are negative. Now take into account that $\nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R} < 0$ if $\alpha_R < 0$, while $\Gamma(-\alpha_R) > 0$. Matrix $M = \left(\nu_R I - A^F\right)$ is an M-matrix with all positive eigenvalues. Its power is a positive matrix because $M^{\alpha_R} = \exp(\alpha_R \log M)$, matrix $\log M$ is also an M-matrix, matrix $\alpha_R \log M$ is negative of an M-matrix, i.e. the Metzler matrix, and exponentiation of the Metzler matrix gives a positive matrix, see [@BermanPlemmons1994]). Matrix $M_1 = - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] A^B $ is bi-diagonal and also the Metzler matrix. Therefore, $M+M_1$ is the Metzler matrix, so is $L_R$. Now take into account that diagonal elements of $M$ are $d_i < (\nu_R + 1/h)^{\alpha_R}, \ i=1,N$, and diagonal elements of $M_1$ are $d_{1,i} = [\nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}]/h - \nu_R^{\alpha_R}, \ i=1,N$. Therefore, $$d_i + d_{1,i} < \left(\nu_R + \frac{1}{h}\right)^{\alpha_R} + \frac{1}{h}[\nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}] - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} < \frac{1}{h}[\nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}] < 0$$ Thus, matrix $L_R$ is the negative of an M-matrix. First order approximation follows from the definition of $A^F$ and $A^B$. $\blacksquare$
To get the second order of approximation we can use the following observations:
- Jumps with $\alpha_R < 0$ are of the finite activity and finite variation. Therefore, the term $\left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] \triangledown$ could be moved to the diffusion part of our splitting algorithm;
- The remaining operator could be approximated as $$L_R = \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R I - A^F_2\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R}I \right\} + O(h^2)$$
The proof is almost exactly same as in the proposition \[prop-0\], if one notices that despite $M = \nu_R I - A^F_2$ is not exactly an M-matrix, its logarithm is an M-matrix. That is because $M$ is upper tridiagonal matrix which positive elements on the second upper diagonal in absolute value are small as compared with the elements of the main and first upper diagonals.
#### Numerical experiments
We organize this test in exactly same way as that was done for the Kou model. There are two ways to proceed. The first one is to pre-compute $\mathcal{J} = \exp(\Delta \tau L_R)$, and then at every time step of the splitting method when a corresponding jump equation has to be solved (or a jump integral has to be computed) to compute a product $\mathcal{J} C(x,\tau)$. This operation has the complexity $O(N^2)$, but it doesn’t require Picard iterations to provide the second order approximation in $\tau$. Another approach would be to proceed in a sense of [@Halluin2004], similar to what we did for the Merton and Kou models. The (1,1) P[á]{}de approximation of $e^{\Delta \tau \mathcal{J}}$ could be again re-written in the form of the implicit equation which could be solved by using Picard iterations (see above). Here, however, we don’t have a fast way to compute a product $\mathcal{J} C(x,\tau)$, so FFT could be used for this purpose. From this prospective, this method is similar to [@Halluin2004], the difference is in the matrix $L_R$. We, however, remind the reader, that the method of [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] is more efficient in this case.
In Tab. \[tab2\] the results of such a test for a call option are given assuming the following values of parameters: $\alpha_R = -0.5, \lambda_R = 10, \nu_R = 2, S_0 = K = 1, r = 0, \sigma = 0.2, T = 0.1$. The grid was constructed exactly in the same way as in the test for Kou’s model. in Table \[tab2\] $C_{it}$ is the price in cents obtained by using Picard iterations, $C_{exp}$ is the price in cents obtained by using matrix exponential, $N$ is the number of grid nodes, $\beta_{it}$ is the order of convergence of the iterative scheme, $\beta_{exp}$ is the order of convergence of the exponential scheme. The “exact” price obtained at $N=4000$ is $C_{it}(\Delta \tau) = $ 40.2261 cents, and $C_{exp}(\Delta \tau) = $ 39.223 cents. It is seen that the convergence order $\beta$ of both schemes is close to $O(h^2)$.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} $C_{it}$ & $h$ & $N$ & $\beta_{it}$ & $C_{exp}$ & $\beta_{exp}$ 40.1100 & 0.104131 & 100 & - & 39.1027 & - 40.2002 & 0.051804 & 200 & 2.16 & 39.1937 & 2.0340.2223 & 0.025837 & 400 & 2.86 & 39.2167 & 2.2640.2260 & 0.012902 & 800 & 4.12 & 39.2216 & 2.4440.2258 & 0.006447 & 1600 & 1.58 & 39.2222 & 1.14
At high $N$ the convergence ratio drops down most likely because computation of the matrix exponent, or matrix power loses accuracy, see [@Moler2003].
### Case $0 < \alpha_R < 1$.
This case is similar to the previous one.
\[alpha01\] Suppose $0 < \alpha_R < 1$ (so jumps are of the infinite activity but finite variation) and consider the following discrete approximation of the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$: $$\lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R I - A^F\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R}I + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] \triangledown \right\}.$$ Because of the finite variation of the jumps the last terms in this representation could be taken out and moved to the diffusion part (that is what we did already several times in the above). The remaining matrix $$L_R = \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R I - A^F\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} I \right\}.$$ approximates the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$ with $O(h)$, and is the negative of an M-matrix.
The proof is also similar. The difference in the proof is as follows: $0 < \alpha_R < 1$ means that $\Gamma(\alpha_R) < 0$. As $\alpha_R > 0$ matrix $M^{\alpha_R} = \exp(\alpha_R \log M)$ is an M- matrix, so is $M_1 = \left(\nu_R I - A^F\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R}$. The last statement is true because matrix $M$ is upper bi-diagonal, therefore $M^{\alpha_R}$ is upper triangular with diagonal elements $d_i = \left(\nu_R + 1/h\right)^{\alpha_R}$ ( this follows from the definition of the matrix power via a spectral decomposition). As $\left(\nu_R I + 1/h\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} > 0$ diagonal elements of $M_1$ are positive. Thus, $M_1$ is an M-matrix, and $L_R$ is the negative of an M-matrix.
We run another test with the model parameters same as in the previous one and $\alpha_R = 0.9$. The results are given in Tab. \[tab3\]. One can observe the first order convergence in $h$. The “exact” price is $C_{exp}=$ 22.27 cents.
[|c|c|c|c|]{} $C_{exp}$ & $h$ & $N$ & $\beta_{exp}$ 23.9336 & 0.104131 & 100 & - 22.9222 & 0.051804 & 200 & 1.35 22.5558 & 0.025837 & 400 & 1.19 22.3944 & 0.012902 & 800 & 1.21 22.3170 & 0.006447 & 1600 & 1.43 22.2789 & 0.003223 & 3200 & 2.59
However, the second order approximation $O(h^2)$ cannot be constructed by simply replacing $A^F$ with $A^F_2$ when $\alpha_R$ is close to 1. For now we leave this as an open problem. As a work-around, in the next section $O(h^2 + \Delta \tau^2)$ algorithm is constructed for $1 < \alpha_R < 2$. Then using a price obtained for some $\alpha_R^*, \ 1 < \alpha_R^* < 2$ and prices for $\alpha_R = 0, -1$ obtained using the approach of [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky] (the latter could be computed with the complexity $O(N)$) an $O(h^2)$ approximation for $ 0 < \alpha_R < 1$ can be found by interpolation.
### Case $\alpha_R = 1$.
This case could be covered twofold. First, if we have a good method for the region $1 < \alpha_1 < 2$, then prices at $\alpha = 1$ could be obtained by computing three prices at $1 < \alpha_1 < 2, \ \alpha_2 \le 0, \alpha_3 < 0$ and then using interpolation in $\alpha$. This approach relies on the fact that for the CGMY model jump integrals are continuous in $\alpha$ at $\alpha < 2$, see Proposition 5 in [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky].
Another approach is very similar to the previous case $0 < \alpha_R < 1$.
\[alpha1\] Suppose $\alpha_R = 1$ and consider the following discrete approximation of $\mathcal{L}_R$: $$L = \lambda_R \Big[ (\nu_R-A^F)\log (\nu_R-A^F) - \nu_R \log (\nu_R)I + \kappa A^F\left(\log (\nu _R-1) - 2 \nu_R \coth^{-1} (1-2 \nu_R) \right) \Big].$$ where $\kappa$ is some constant. This approximates the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$ with $O(h)$, and is the negative of an M-matrix.
The proof is also similar. Indeed, according to this discretization $M_1 = \nu_R-A^F$ is an M-matrix, therefore $\log M_1$ is also an M-matrix. The product of this two M-matrices is an upper triangular matrix with all positive elements except of that at the first upper diagonal. Now observe that $\log (\nu _R-1) - 2 \nu_R \coth^{-1} (1-2 \nu_R) > 0$. Therefore, taking $\kappa > 0$ big enough dumps the negative values at the first upper diagonal and at the same time makes elements of the main diagonal all negative. Thus, the whole matrix $L$ is the negative of an M-matrix.
As in the original jump integral we have just $\kappa = 1$ the trick is to borrow $\Delta D = (\kappa-1)\left[\log (\nu _R-1) - 2 \nu_R \coth^{-1} (1-2 \nu_R) \right]\triangledown$ term from the diffusion part. In other words, we can re-distribute some terms in our splitting algorithm between the diffusion and jump parts, as we did that for Kou and Merton models, and for CGMY model with $\alpha_R < 1$, by moving a drift-like term from the diffusion to the jump part. Accordingly, to compensate we need to subtract $\Delta D$ from the drift term in the diffusion part. This potentially could result in the negative drift term which, however, is not a problem.
The results (call option prices in dollars) given below in Tab. \[TabAL1\] are obtained by applying this algorithm in the test with parameters $S = K = 100, T = 0.05; r = 0.05, \sigma = 0.15, \lambda_R = 0.1, \nu_R = 2, \kappa = 5$. The exact price is $C = 2.1428$ cents was obtained at $N = 2000$.
[|c|c|c|c|]{} $C_{exp}$ & $h$ & $N$ & $\beta_{exp}$ 3.7296 & 0.1381550 & 101 & - 2.6527 & 0.0690776 & 201 & 1.638 2.3939 & 0.0345388 & 401 & 1.022 2.2402 & 0.0172694 & 801 & 1.366 2.1594 & 0.0086347 & 1601& 2.552
The first order convergence could be observed.
Similar to the previous case the second order approximation $O(h^2)$ cannot be constructed by simply replacing $A^F$ with $A^F_2$. We leave this as an open problem as well. At the beginning of this section we mentioned an interpolation approach which is applicable if the second order approximation could be constructed for $1 < \alpha_R < 2$. Then it could be used as a work-around to construct the $O(h^2)$ approximation.
### Case $1 < \alpha_R < 2$.
This case is the most difficult, see, e.g., [@WangWanForsyth2007]. Below based on our general approach we provide an analysis of why a standard method experiences a problem in this range of the $\alpha_R$ values, and describe a variation of our method to address this problem.
Consider a discrete counterpart $L_R$ of the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$ $$\label{cgmy12}
L_R = \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R I - A_1\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R}I + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] A_2 \right\}.$$ where $A_1, A_2$ are some discrete approximations of the operator $\triangledown$ (i.e. $A_1 \propto 1/h, \ A_2 \propto 1/h$). Observe, that for this range of $\alpha_R$ the following inequalities take place $$\Gamma(-\alpha_R) > 0, \quad \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right] > 0,$$ as well as the existence condition in requires $\lambda_i(M_1) > 0, \ i=1,N$ with $\lambda_i(M_1)$ being the eigenvalues of matrix $M_1 = \nu_R I - A_1$.
To remind, based on Proposition \[prop0\] we want $L_R$ to be the negative of an M-matrix. However, this could not be achieved. Indeed, suppose we chose $A_1 = A^B$. Then matrix $M_1$ is the Metzler matrix, unless $h$ is restricted from the bottom, $h > 1/\nu_R$, which is not a good choice because the accuracy of such a method is also restricted by these values of $h$. But on the other hand at $h < 1/\nu_R$ we break the existence condition because $\lambda_i(M_1) < 0, \ i=1,N$. Thus, $A_1 = A^B$ is not a choice.
Now let us try $A_1 = A^F$. Then $M_1$ is a bi-diagonal M-matrix with negative elements on the first upper diagonal. Therefore, $M_1^{\alpha_R}$ is an upper triangular matrix, also with negative elements on the first upper diagonal (property 1). Trying to construct $L_R$ to be the negative of an M-matrix we must choose $A_2 = A^F$. But as $$\lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left\{ \left(\nu_R +1/h \right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} + \left[ \nu_R^{\alpha_R} - (\nu_R-1)^{\alpha_R}\right]/h \right\} > 0, \ \forall h$$ it is not possible to have the diagonal elements to be non-positive (property 2). Both properties 1 and 2 make it impossible to construct a stable approximation of $L_R$. The effect should be more pronounced when $\alpha_R$ moves from 1 to 2, similar to what was observed in [@WangWanForsyth2007].
The following proposition solves the above problem.
\[alphaR12\] Consider $1 < \alpha_R < 2$. Because the singularity in the CGMY measure has been already integrated out, the last term in the operator $\mathcal{L}_R$ could be taken out of the jump operator and moved to the diffusion part. Suppose that the following discretization scheme for the remaining operator $$L_R = \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left[ \left(\nu_R - \triangledown\right)^{\alpha_R} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} \right]$$ is in order $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cgmy2}
M &= \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left[ \left(A_2^C + \nu_R^2 I - 2 \nu_R A^C\right) \left( \nu_RI - A^F_2\right)^{\alpha_R-2} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} I \right]
\end{aligned}$$ where $A^C_2 = A^F\dot A^B$ is the central difference approximation of the second derivative $\triangledown^2$, $A^C = (A^F + A^B)/2$ is the central difference approximation of the first derivative $\triangledown$. Then $M$ is an $O(h^2)$ approximation of the operator $L_R$ and the negative of an M-matrix.
See Appendix.
The trick is that we represent the operator $(\nu_R - \triangledown)^{\alpha_R}$ as $L_{1R} = (\nu_R - \triangledown)^2 (\nu_R - \triangledown)^{-\varepsilon}$ where $\varepsilon \equiv 2-\alpha_R$. The first multiplier in $L_{1R}$ is a convection-diffusion operator, and we use a well-known central difference approximation of the second order to discretize this part. The second multiplier is similar to $(\nu_R - \triangledown)^{\alpha_R}$ in the case $-1 < \alpha < 0$ (because by definition $-1 < -\varepsilon < 0$, and, therefore, we use same discretization as in that case.
To check the convergence numerically we run the same test as for $0 < \alpha_R < 1$, but now choosing $T = 0.01, \alpha_R = 1.98$. The results are given in Tab. \[tab4\]. The “exact” price at $N=2000$ is $C=$ 8.1973. All prices are computed via the matrix exponential.
[|c|c|c|c|]{} $C$ & $h$ & $N$ & $\beta$ 8.2197 & 0.2763100 & 51 & - 7.9533 & 0.1381550 & 101 & 3.443 8.1558 & 0.0690776 & 201 & 2.557 8.1836 & 0.0345388 & 401 & 1.592 8.1943 & 0.0172694 & 801 & 2.210 8.1970 & 0.0086347 & 1601 & 3.214
While the convergency ratio $\beta$ looks a bit sporadic, the rate of convergence is closer to 2.
Further analysis of the matrix $M$ reveals two important observations. First, the minimum eigenvalue of $M$ could be close to zero. Therefore, the proposed scheme is close to a family of the $A$-stable schemes, rather than to the $L$-stable ones [^16]. Second, the maximum eigenvalue of $e^{\Delta \tau M}$ as $h \rightarrow 0$ tends to 1 which makes the convergence slow, and the conditional number of the matrix high. Also under this situation round-off errors could play a significant role. Performance-wise as it was mentioned in [@WangWanForsyth2007] Picard iterations in this case converge very slow and, therefore, direct computation of the matrix exponential (this step could be pre-computed) followed by computation of the product of matrix by vector could be preferable. Our experiments show that the necessary number of iterations could exceed 30. A simple calculus shows that two FFT with the total number of nodes $N$=3000 (including the extended grid to avoid wrap-around effects) gives complexity $O(2 \cdot 30 \cdot N \log_2N ) \propto 2\cdot 10^6$ which corresponds to the complexity of multiplication of a $N \mbox{x}N$ matrix by a $N\mbox{x}1$ vector with $N=1400$. Also if a uniform grid is used, matrix $e^{\Delta \tau M}$ is the Toeplitz matrix, therefore the FFT algorithm for computing a matrix by vector product is applied. Also as shown in [@WangWanForsyth2007] values obtained at a non-uniform grid could be re-interpolated (with complexity $O(N)$) to the uniform grid, so again FFT can be applied for the matrix-vector multiplication followed by the back interpolation to the non-uniform grid.
### Approximations of $\mathcal{L}_L$
Approximations to $\mathcal{L}_L$ can be constructed in a way similar to those corresponding to $\mathcal{L}_R$. Below we will present a few propositions that specify our construction. Proofs of these propositions are omitted because they are very similar to that for $\mathcal{L}_R$.
\[alphaL\] If $\alpha_L < 0$, then the discrete counterpart $L_L$ of the operator $\mathcal{L}^*_L$ which is $\mathcal{L}_L$ with the “drift” term moved to the diffusion part, is the negative of an M-matrix if $$L_L = \lambda_L \Gamma(-\alpha_L) \left\{ \left(\nu_L I + A^B_2\right)^{\alpha_L} - \nu_L^{\alpha_L} \right\}.$$ The matrix $L_L$ is an $O(h^2)$ approximation of the operator $\mathcal{L}^*_L$.
\[alpha01L\] If $0 < \alpha_L < 1$, then the discrete counterpart $L_L$ of the operator $\mathcal{L}^*_L$ which is $\mathcal{L}_L$ with the “drift” term moved to the diffusion part, is the negative of an M-matrix if $$L_L = \lambda_L \Gamma(-\alpha_L) \left\{ \left(\nu_L I + A^B\right)^{\alpha_L} - \nu_L^{\alpha_L} \right\}.$$ The matrix $L_L$ is an $O(h)$ approximation of the operator $\mathcal{L}^*_L$.
\[alpha1L\] Suppose $\alpha_L = 1$ and consider the following discrete approximation of $\mathcal{L}_L$: $$L = \lambda_L \Big\{ (\nu_L+A^B)\log (\nu_L+A^B) - \nu_L \log (\nu_L)I - \kappa A^B
\left[(\nu_L+1)\log (\nu_L+1) - \nu_L \log \nu_L \right] \Big\}.$$ where $\kappa$ is some constant. This approximates the operator $\mathcal{L}_L$ with $O(h)$, and is the negative of an M-matrix.
\[alphaL12\] Consider $1 < \alpha_L < 2$. Because the singularity in the CGMY measure has been already integrated out, the last term in the operator $\mathcal{L}_L$ could be taken out of the jump operator and moved to the diffusion part. Suppose that the following discretization scheme for the remaining operator $$L_L = \lambda_L \Gamma(-\alpha_L) \left[ \left(\nu_L + \triangledown\right)^{\alpha_L} - \nu_L^{\alpha_L} \right]$$ is in order $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cgmy2l}
M &= \lambda_L \Gamma(-\alpha_L) \left[ \left(A_2^C + \nu_L^2 I + 2 \nu_L A^C\right) \left( \nu_L I + A^B_2\right)^{\alpha_L-2} - \nu_L^{\alpha_L} I \right]
\end{aligned}$$ where $A^C_2 = A^F\dot A^B$ is the central difference approximation of the second derivative $\triangledown^2$, $A^C = (A^F + A^B)/2$ is the central difference approximation of the first derivative $\triangledown$. Then $M$ is an $O(h^2)$ approximation of the operator $L_L$ and the negative of an M-matrix.
Other numerical experiments {#Sec6}
===========================
In this section we provide a numerical solution of the whole problem (not just one step) to compare it with the existing analytical one. In the first test we used our numerical approach to compute prices of European vanilla options under the Bates model (a Heston jump-diffusion model with Merton’s jumps). This solution was compared with the semi-analytical solution obtained by using an inverse Fourier Transform (FFT) since the characteristic function for the Bates model is known in closed form; see, e.g., [@Crepey2000].
For the diffusion step we used the method described in detail in [@HoutFoulon2010]. A nonuniform space grid was constructed in both $x$ and $v$ dimensions which contained 100 nodes in $x \in [0,S_{max}], \ S_{max} = 40 \max(S_0,K)$, and 40 nodes in $v \in [0, v_{max}], \ v_{max} = 5 v_0$. Here $K$ is the strike, $S_0, v_0$ are the initial levels of the stock price and instantaneous variance. For the jump step this grid was extended to $S_{up} = 10^4$. Further increase of $S_{up}$ does not influence the option price much, so this boundary was chosen based on a practical argument. The steps of the jump grid when outside of the diffusion grid (where they both coincide with each other) grew according to geometric progression $h_i = h \times g^i$, where $h = (S_{max} - S_{min})/N$ is an average step size for the diffusion grid, $g$ is the growth factor, which in our experiments was chosen as $g=1.03$. The total jump grid thus contained 237 nodes, 75 of which were the diffusion grid nodes.
The initial parameters used in the test are given in Table \[TabParam\]. Here $C$ stays for a call option while $P$ for a put option, $r$ is the interest rate, $q$ is the dividend yield, $\kappa$ is the mean-reversion rate, $\xi$ is the volatility of volatility, $\rho$ is the correlation coefficient, $\theta$ is the mean-reversion level.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Test & $T$ & $K$ & $r$ & $q$ & $C/P$ & $\xi$ & $\rho$ & $\kappa$ & $\theta$ & $\lambda$ & $\mu_J$ & $\sigma_J$ 1 & 1 & 100 & 0.05 & 0.0 & C & 0.3 & -0.5 & 1.5 & 0.1 & 5 & 0.3 & 0.1
We computed European option prices under the Bates model in two ways. The first approach utilizes the fact that the characteristic function of the Bates model is known in closed form. Therefore, pricing of European options can be done using any FFT algorithm. Here we used a standard version of the [@CarrMadan] method with a constant dumping factor $\alpha = 1.25$ and $N=8192$ nodes. The second approach (FDE) uses an algorithm described in this paper, i.e., splitting and matrix exponentials, where the diffusion (Heston) equation was solved using the method of fractional steps described in [@HoutFoulon2010].
In Fig. \[Fig1\] absolute and relative differences in prices obtained in our experiments are presented as a function of moneyness $M = S_0/K$. It is seen that the relative differences between the FDE prices and that obtained with the FFT method are about 0.2% for ITM options with $1 < M < 1.4$, while they drop down to 0.8% for $M = 0.5$[^17]
To see how much of the observed numerical error could be attributed to the Heston model itself, e.g., to the finite-difference algorithm for computing a pure diffusion part, we repeated this test with no jumps and presented these results in Fig. \[Fig3\].
In the second test we considered a model similar to Bates, but with jumps simulated using the VG model. We used the parameters in Table \[TabParam\]. In addition, the VG model parameters were chosen as: $\theta = 0.1, \sigma = 0.4, \nu = 3$, which translates[^18] to $\nu_R = 1.5098, \nu_L = 2.7598, \lambda_R = \lambda_L = 0.33$. The grid was constructed as it was in the previous test. However the upper boundary of the jump grid was moved to 10$^5$, and $S_{max} = 20 \max(S_0,K)$. Again we computed European option prices in two ways. As the characteristic function of the VG model is known in closed form, the characteristic function of our model is a product of that for the Heston and VG models. We then used an FFT algorithm proposed by Alan Lewis, and as applied to the VG model discussed in detail in [@ItkinVG]. The second approach uses the algorithm described in this paper.
In Fig. \[Fig2\], the absolute and relative differences in prices obtained by these two methods are presented as a function of the moneyness $M = S_0/K$. Here FDE behaves worse than in the case of the Bates model, because we used just the first order approximation in $h$. Still, the relative difference with the FFT solution is less than 0.5%, and for $M \approx 0.5$ the difference rises to only 1.7%.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper (which is a further extension of our paper [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]) we proposed a new method to solve jump-diffusion PIDEs. This method exploits a number of ideas, namely:
1. First, we transform a linear non-local integro-differential operator (jump operator) into a local nonlinear (fractional) differential operator. Thus, the whole jump-diffusion operator $\mathcal{J} + \mathcal{D}$ is represented as a sum of the linear and non-linear parts.
2. Second, operator splitting on financial processes[^19] is applied to this operator, namely splitting a space operator into diffusion and jumps parts. For nonlinear operators, this approach was elaborated on based on the definition of Lie derivative (see [@ThalhammerKoch2010]). The described splitting scheme provides a second-order approximation of $\mathcal{J} + \mathcal{D}$ in time.
3. At the third step various finite-difference approximations of the non-linear differential operator $\mathcal{J}$ are proposed for the Merton, Kou and GTSP (a.k.a., CGMY or KoBoL) models. We demonstrated how to construct these approximations to (i) be unconditionally stable, (ii) be of first- and second-order approximation in the space grid step size $h$ and (iii) preserve positivity of the solution. The results are presented as propositions, and the corresponding proofs are given based on modern matrix analysis, including a theory of M-matrices, Metzler matrices and eventually exponentially nonnegative matrices.
4. It is shown that with a minor modification the method could be applied to the CGMY model with parameter $\alpha > 1$. That is the range where similar algorithms, e.g., [@WangWanForsyth2007] experienced a problem. We show how to construct the second order approximation and provide the results of numerical experiments that confirm the second order convergence. Performance-wise matrix exponential followed by computation of a product of matrix by vector seems to be a preferable choice in this case as Picard iterations converge very slow. That is because the maximum eigenvalue of the transition matrix in this case is close to 1. Also under this condition the round-off errors could be important.
All these results seem to be new. The method is naturally applicable to both uniform and nonuniform grids, and is easy for programming, since the algorithm is similar to all jump models. Also notice that the present approach allows pricing some exotic, e.g., barrier options as well. In addition, it respects not just vanilla but also digital payoffs. In principle, American and Bermudan options could also be priced by this method, however this requires some more delicate consideration which will be presented elsewhere.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank Peter Carr and Peter Forsyth for very fruitful discussions, and Igor Halperin and Alex Lipton for useful comments. Also various suggestions of three anonymous referees significantly improved the paper, so their work is appreciated. I am indebted to Gregory Whitten, Steven O’Hanlon and Serguei Issakov for supporting this work, and to Nic Trainor for editing the manuscript. I assume full responsibility for any remaining errors.
Abu-Saman, A. M. and Assaf, A. M. (2007). Stability and convergence of [C]{}rank-[N]{}icholson method for fractional advection dispersion equation. , 2(2):117–125.
Andersen, L. and Andreasen, J. (2000). Jump diffusion processes: volatility smile fitting and numerical methods for option pricing. , 4:231–262.
Andersen, L. and Lipton, A. (2012). Asymptotics for exponential [Lévy]{} processes and their volatility smile: Survey and new results. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6787.
Arisawa, M. (2005). Viscosity solution’s approach to jump processes arising in mathematical finances. In [*Proceedings of 10th International conference in mathematical finances.*]{} lso available at <http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/daiwa/workshops/2005paper/Arisawa.pdf>.
Bakas, I., Khesin, B., and Kiritsis, E. (1993). The logarithm of the derivative operator and higher spin algebras of $w_\infty$ type. , 151(2):233–243.
Bellman, R. (1960). . McGraw–Hill.
Berman, A. and Plemmons, R. (1994). . SIAM.
Brennan, M. and Schwartz, E. (1978). Finite difference methods and jump processes arising in the pricing of contingent claims. , 13(3):461–474.
Carr, P. and Madan, D. (1998). Towards a theory of volatility trading. In Jarrow, R., editor, [*Risk Book on Volatility*]{}, pages 417–427. Risk, New York.
Carr, P. and Madan, D. (1999). Option valuation using the fast fourier transform’. , 2:61–73.
Carr, P. and Mayo, A. (2007). On the numerical evaluation of option prices in jump diffusion processes. , 13(4):353–372.
Cartea, A. and del Castillo-Negrete, D. (2007). Fractional diffusion models of option prices in markets with jumps. , 374:749–763.
Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (2004). . Financial Matematics Series, Chapman & Hall /CRCl.
Cont, R. and Voltchkova, E. (2003). A finite difference scheme for option pricing in jump diffusion and exponential [Lé]{}vy models. Technical Report 513, Rapport Interne CMAP.
Cr[é]{}pey, S. (2000). Computational finance. vry University, France, available at <http://grozny.maths.univ-evry.fr/pages_perso/crepey/papers/me_crepey.pdf>.
de Lange, O. L. and Raab, R. E. (1992). . Oxford science publications. Chapter 3.
, Y., Forsyth, P. A., and Labahn, G. (2005a). A semi-[Lagrangian]{} approach for [American Asian]{} options under jump diffusion. , 27:315–345.
, Y., Forsyth, P. A., and Vetzal, K. R. (2004). A penalty method for [American]{} options with jump diffusion processes. , 97:321–352.
, Y., Forsyth, P. A., and Vetzal, K. R. (2005b). Robust numerical methods for contingent claims under jump diffusion processes. , 25:87–112.
Duffy, D. (2006). . The Wiley Finance Series.
Dyakonov, E. (1964). Difference schemes with a separable operator for general second order parabolic equations with variable coefficient. , 4(2):278–291.
Eberlein, E. (2009). Jump-type [Lé]{}vy processes. In Andersen, T. G., Davis, R. A., Kreiß, J.-P., and Mikosch, T., editors, [*Handbook of Financial Time Series*]{}, pages 439–455. Springer Verlag.
Elhashash, A. and Szyld, D. (2008). Generalizations of [M -matrices]{} which may not have a nonnegative inverse. , 429:2435–2450.
Golub, G. and [Van Loan]{}, C. (1983). . The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Hout, K. J. I. and Foulon, S. (2010). finite difference schemes for option pricing in the [H]{}eston model with correlation. , 7(2):303–320.
Itkin, A. (2005). Pricing options with [VG]{} model using [FFT]{}. available at <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503137>.
Itkin, A. and Carr, P. (2012). Using pseudo-parabolic and fractional equations for option pricing in jump diffusion models. , 40(1):63–104.
Jackson, K., Jaimungal, S., and Surkov, V. (2007). Option valuation using [Fourier]{} space time stepping. <http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0703068>.
Koch, O. and Thalhammer, M. (2011). Embedded exponential operator splitting methods for the time integration of nonlinear evolution equations. Technical report, Institute for Analysis and Scientific Computing, Vienna University of Technology.
Kou, S. and Wang, H. (2004). Option pricing under a double exponential jump diffusion model. , 50(9):1178–1192.
Lanser, D. and Verwer, J. (1999). Analysis of operator splitting for advection-diffusion-reaction problems from air pollution modelling. , 111(1-2):201–216.
Le, H. T. and McDonald, J. J. (2006). Inverses of [M -type]{} matrices created with irreducible eventually nonnegative matrices. , 419:668–674.
Lee, S., Liu, X., and Sun, H. (2012). Fast exponential time integration scheme for option pricing with jumps. , 19(1):87–101.
Lipton, A. and Sepp, A. (2009). Credit value adjustment for credit default swaps via the structural default model. , 5(2):123–146.
Madan, D., Milne, F., and Shefrin, H. (1989). The multinomial option pricing model and its [Brownian]{} and [Poisson]{} limits. , 2:251–265.
Marchuk, G. (1975). . Springer-Verlag.
Meerschaert, M. M. and Tadjeran, C. (2004). Finite difference approximations for fractional advection–dispersion flow equations. , 172:65–77.
Meerschaert, M. M. and Tadjeran, C. (2006). Finite difference approximations for two-sided space-fractional partial differential equations. , 56:80–90.
Merton, R. C. (1976). Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous. , 3(1):125–144.
Moler, C. and [Van Loan]{}, C. (2003). Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, twenty-five years later. , 45:3–49.
Noutsos, D. and Tsatsomeros, M. J. (2008). Reachability and holdability of nonegative states. , 30(2):700–712.
Parrot, K. (2009). methods for option pricing under jump diffusion processes. available at <http://www.thalesians.com/archive/public/thalesians/seminars/slides/Thalesians_Parrott_20091118.pdf>.
Sato, K.-I. (1999). . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sousa, E. (2008). Finite difference approximations for a fractional advection diffusion problem. Technical Report 08-26, Departamento de Matem?atica, Universidade de Coimbra.
Strang, G. (1968). On the construction and comparison of difference schemes. , 5:509–517.
Strauss, A. K. (2006). . PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Tadjeran, C., Meerschaert, M., and Scheffler, H.-P. (2006). A second-order accurate numerical approximation for the fractional diffusion equation. , 213:205–213.
Tangman, D., Gopaul, A., and Bhuruth, M. (2008). Exponential time integration and [Chebychev]{} discretisation schemes for fast pricing of options. , 58(9):1309–1319.
Tangman, D. Y., Peer, A. A. I., Rambeerich, N., and Bhuruth, M. (2011). Fast simpli?ed approaches to [Asian]{} option pricing. , 14(4):3–36.
Tavella, D. and Randall, C. (2000). Wiley series in financial engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,.
Wang, I., Wan, J., and Forsyth, P. A. (2007). Robust numerical valuation of [European and American]{} options under the [CGMY]{} process. , 4:31–70.
Wilmott, P. (1998). . Willey, New York.
Yanenko, N. (1971). . Springer-Verlag.
Yang, C., Duraiswami, R., Gumerov, N. A., and Davis, L. (2003). Improved [Fast Gauss Transform]{} and efficient kernel density estimation. , pages 464–471.
Proof of Proposition
=====================
To prove this proposition we need technique which is closely related to the concept of an “eventually positive matrix”; see [@Noutsos2008]. Below we reproduce some definitions from this paper necessary for our further analysis.
\[def1\] An $N\times N$ matrix $A = [a_{ij}]$ is called
- [*eventually nonnegative*]{}, denoted by $A \overset{v}{\ge} 0$, if there exists a positive integer $k_0$ such that $A^k \ge 0$ for all $k > k_0$; we denote the smallest such positive integer by $k_0 = k_0(A)$ and refer to $k_0(A)$ as the power index of $A$;
- [*exponentially nonnegative*]{} if for all $t > 0, \ e^{t A} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{t^k A^k}{k!} \ge 0$;
- [*eventually exponentially nonnegative*]{} if there exists $t_0 \in [0,\infty)$ such that $e^{t A} \ge 0$ for all $t > t_0$. We denote the smallest such nonnegative number by $t_0 = t_0(A)$ and refer to it $t_0(A)$ s the exponential index of $A$.
We also need the following Lemma from [@Noutsos2008]:
\[lemma1\] Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $A$ is eventually exponentially nonnegative.
2. $A + b I$ is eventually nonnegative for some $b \ge 0$.
3. $A^T + b I$ is eventually nonnegative for some $b \ge 0$.
We also introduce a definition of an EM-matrix, see [@ElhashashSzyld2008].
\[def1\] An $N\times N$ matrix $A = [a_{ij}]$ is called an EM-Matrix if it can be represented as $A = sI - B$ with $0 < \rho(B) < s$, $s > 0$ is some constant, $\rho(B)$ is the spectral radius of $B$, and $B$ is an eventually nonnegative matrix.
For the following we need two Lemmas.
\[lemma2\] Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$, and $A = \nu_R I - A_2^F$. Then $A$ is an EM-matrix.
Denote $d_i$ the $i$-th upper diagonal of $A$. So $d_0$ means the main diagonal, etc.
1\. First, show that $A^F_2$ is an eventually exponentially nonnegative matrix. To see this use representation $e^{t A_2^F} = [e^{t B}]^{1/(2h}$ where $B$ is an upper tridiagonal matrix with all $d_0$ elements equal to -3, all $d_1$ elements equal to 4, and all $d_2$ elements equal to -1. Positivity of $e^{t B}$ can be verified explicitly at $t > N$. The intuition behind that is that the elements on $d_2$ are small in absolute values as compared with that of $d_1$. Taking the square of $B$ propagates large positive values on $d_1$ to the diagonal $d_2$. Taking the square of $B^2$ propagates them to $d_3$, etc.
From $h > 0$ it follows that $e^{t A_2^F} \ge 0$, i.e. $A_2^F$ is eventually exponentially nonnegative.
According to Lemma \[lemma1\], the eventual exponential nonnegativity of $A^F_2$ means that there exists $b \ge 0$ such that $A_2^F + b I = \frac{1}{2h}(B + 2 h b I)$ is eventually nonnegative for some $b \ge 0$. Let us denote $B_1 = B + 2 h b I$ and chose $b = 3/(2h) + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \ll 1$. In practical examples we can choose $\epsilon = 1.e-6$. Then $d_0(B_1) = \epsilon, d_1(B_1) = 2, d_2(B_1) = -1$. It is easy to check that $B_1^(N+3) \ge 0$. Again that is because $d_1(B_1) > 0, |d_1(B_1)| > |d_2(B_1)|$, so taking the square of $B_1$ propagates large positive values on $d_1$ to the diagonal $d_2$, etc. Thus, $A^F_2 + b I$ with $b = 3/(2h) + \epsilon$ is the eventually nonnegative matrix.
2\. Represent $A$ as $A = (\nu_R + b)I - (A_2^F + b I)$. Observe, that $\rho(A_2^F + b I) = \epsilon$ and $s = (\nu_R + b) > \epsilon$. Thus, by definition, $A$ is an EM-matrix. $\blacksquare$
\[lemma3\] The inverse of the matrix $A = (\nu_R + b)I - (A_2^F + b I) \equiv sI - P$ is a nonnegative matrix.
Observe that all eigenvalues of $P$ are $\lambda_i = \epsilon, \ \forall i \in [1,N]$. Therefore $\rho(P) = \epsilon$. Following [@LeMcDonald2006] denote $index_\lambda(A)$ to be the degree of $\lambda$ as a root of the minimal polynomial of $A$. As matrix $P$ doesn’t have zero eigenvalues in its spectrum $index_0 (P) = 0 < 1$.
Nonnegativity of $A^{-1}$ then follows from the Theorem
Let $P$ be an $N \times N$ irreducible eventually nonnegative matrix with $index_0(P) \le 1$, then there exists $\mu > \rho(P)$ such that if $\mu > s > \rho(P)$, then $(s I - P)^{-1} \ge 0$.
To apply this Theorem choose any positive $\mu > s$.
Now we are ready to prove the Proposition \[alphaR12\].
Recall, that in the Proposition \[alphaR12\] the following scheme is proposed in $$\begin{aligned}
M &= \lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) \left[ \left(A_2^C + \nu_R^2 I - 2 \nu_R A^C\right) \left( \nu_RI - A^F_2\right)^{\alpha_R-2} - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} I \right]\end{aligned}$$
We prove separately each statement of the proposition, namely:
1. The above scheme is $O(h^2)$ approximation of the operator $ L_R$;
2. Matrix $M$ is the negative of an M-matrix.
[*Proof of (1):*]{} This follows from the fact that $A^C$ is a central difference approximation of the operator $\triangledown$ to second order in $h$, while $A^F_2$ is the one-sided second order approximation.\
[*Proof of (2):*]{} Matrix $M_1 = A_2^C + \nu_R^2 I - 2 \nu_R A^C$ has the following elements: $\nu_R^2 - \frac{2}{h^2}$ on the main diagonal, $\frac{\nu_R}{h} + \frac{1}{h^2}$ on the first lower diagonal, and $ - \frac{\nu_R}{h} + \frac{1}{h^2}$ on the first upper diagonal. At small enough $h$ this is the negate of an M-matrix.
Matrix $M_2 = \nu_R - A^F_2$ by Lemma \[lemma2\] is an EM-matrix. Now observe that:
1. As $1 < \alpha_R < 2$, so $-1 < k < 0$.
2. The inverse of an EM-matrix $M_2$ is a nonnegative matrix, see Lemma \[lemma3\].
3. A $k$ power of a nonnegative matrix with $ 0 < k < 1$ is a nonnegative matrix.
A product of the nonnegative and the Metzler matrix is the Metzler matrix. Therefore, $M_1 M_2$ is the Metzler matrix, and so is $M = M_1 M_2 - \nu_R^{\alpha_R} I$. Since coefficient $\lambda_R \Gamma(-\alpha_R) > 0$ at $1 < \alpha_R < 2$, the entire matrix $L_R$ is the negative of an M-matrix. That finalizes the proof. $\blacksquare$
[^1]: Opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Numerix LLC.
[^2]: For some models it can be computed analytically, so in what follows we do not take these models into account.
[^3]: A second-order approximation could in principle be constructed as well, but this would result in a massive calculation for the coefficients. Therefore, this approach was not further elaborated on.
[^4]: This equation naturally arises at some step of the splitting procedure, if splitting is organized by separating diffusion from jumps.
[^5]: In other words the PIDE grid is a superset of the corresponding PDE grid.
[^6]: We recall that a standard Brownian motion already has paths of infinite variation. Therefore, the process in has infinite variation since it contains a continuous martingale component. However, here we refer to the infinite variation that comes from the jumps.
[^7]: So the PIDE grid is a superset of the PDE grid.
[^8]: In more advanced approaches, this step could be eliminated; see [@Parrot2009]. Also if coefficients of the linear interpolation are pre-computed, overhead of performance for doing interpolation is relatively small, see [@Halluin2004; @Halluin2005a].
[^9]: It is actually a double exponential operator.
[^10]: The below approach is also applicable to single-barrier options, or to the options with a non-vanilla payoff, e.g., digitals.
[^11]: With a proposed improvement that reduces the total complexity of the method from $O(N /\Delta s)$ to $O(N)$.
[^12]: This method is not very accurate. But as the exact solution is not known, it provides a plausible estimate of the convergence.
[^13]: All experiments were computed in Matlab at Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.2 Ghz under x86 Windows 7 OS. Obviously, C++ implementation provides a better performance by roughly factor 5.
[^14]: Don’t miss this with the accuracy of the whole 3 steps Strang’s algorithm which is $O(\Delta \tau^2)$. The test validates just the convergence in $h$, not in $\Delta \tau$.
[^15]: In Itkin and Carr’s paper, jump integrals were defined on half-infinite positive and negative domains, while here they are defined on the whole infinite domain. Therefore, to prove this Proposition simply use $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} = \int_{-\infty}^{0} + \int_{0}^{\infty}$ and then apply Proposition 7 from [@ItkinCarr2012Kinky]
[^16]: An example of an $A$-stable scheme is the familiar Crank-Nicholson scheme. But we want to underline that 0 doesn’t belong to the spectrum of $M$, so formally the scheme is L-stable, while with convergence properties close to the A-stable scheme. The formal L-stability is important, e.g., for computing the option Greeks.
[^17]: As it was mentioned in Introduction, in this particular case FFT is definitely more efficient, so we provide this comparison just for illustrative purposes.
[^18]: For explicit formulae to provide this translation, see [@Madan:1989].
[^19]: This is similar to splitting on physical processes, e.g., convection and diffusion, which is well-known in computational physics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Randal S. Olson'
- 'Patrick B. Haley'
- 'Fred C. Dyer'
- Christoph Adami
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Exploring the evolution of a trade-off between vigilance and foraging in group-living organisms'
---
[ Keywords: [*group foraging*]{}, [*many eyes hypothesis*]{}, [*anti-predator vigilance*]{}, [*genetic relatedness*]{}, [*reproductive strategy*]{}, [*tragedy of the commons*]{}]{}
[ Article submitted to the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, August 2014.]{}
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Despite the fact that grouping behavior has been actively studied for over a century, the relative importance of the numerous proposed fitness benefits of grouping remain unclear. We use a digital model of evolving prey under simulated predation to directly explore the evolution of gregarious foraging behavior according to one such benefit, the “many eyes” hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, collective vigilance allows prey in large groups to detect predators more efficiently by making alarm signals or behavioral cues to each other, thereby allowing individuals within the group to spend more time foraging. Here, we find that collective vigilance is sufficient to select for gregarious foraging behavior as long there is not a direct cost for grouping (e.g., competition for limited food resources), even when controlling for confounding factors such as the dilution effect. Further, we explore the role of the genetic relatedness and reproductive strategy of the prey, and find that highly related groups of prey with a semelparous reproductive strategy are the most likely to evolve gregarious foraging behavior mediated by the benefit of vigilance. These findings, combined with earlier studies with evolving digital organisms, further sharpen our understanding of the factors favoring grouping behavior.
Introduction
============
Many prey choose to live, forage, and reproduce in groups—this is one of the most readily-observed phenomena in biology. A common adaptive explanation for grouping behavior is that it aids in anti-predatory defense. For instance, Starlings ([*Sturnus vulgaris*]{}) are well known to forage in flocks in the presence of predators [@Powell1974]. Shoaling fish, e.g. the eastern mosquitofish ([*Gambusia holbrooki*]{}), have been documented to identify predators more accurately in larger groups [@Ward2011]. Ostriches ([*Struthio camelus*]{}) have been reported to experience anti-predatory benefits when foraging in groups [@Bertram1980]. Even when there is a correlation between grouping behavior and protection from predators, however, it is difficult to pin down what benefits actually select for the evolution of grouping behavior.
Several such fitness benefits have been proposed. For example, grouping can improve group vigilance [@Pulliam1973; @Treisman1975; @Kenward1978; @Treherne1981], reduce the chance of being encountered by predators [@Treisman1975; @Inman1987], dilute an individual’s risk of being attacked [@Hamilton1971; @Foster1981; @Treherne1982; @Ioannou2012; @Olson2013SelfishHerd; @Olson2014SelfishHerd], enable an active defense against predators [@Bertram1978], or reduce predator attack efficiency by confusing the predator [@Krakauer1995; @Kunz2006PredatorConfusion; @Jeschke2007; @Ioannou2008; @Olson2013PredatorConfusion]. Other possible benefits not involving predation include improved mating success [@Yuval1993], increased foraging efficiency [@Pulliam1984], and the ability for the group to solve problems that would be impossible to solve individually [@Couzin2009], for example through the division of labor [@Goldsby2011].
With all of these interdependent factors potentially affecting the evolution of grouping, it is difficult to study the independent effects of each benefit in biological systems, let alone explore how they unfold over evolutionary time scales. However, recent research has shown that it is possible to explore the potential independent effects of each benefit by modeling them with digital models of evolution [@Hamblin2013]. In previous work, we created several models to explore the predator confusion [@Olson2013PredatorConfusion] and selfish herd [@Olson2013SelfishHerd; @Olson2014SelfishHerd] hypotheses to find when these benefits do (and do not) independently select for grouping behavior. One advantage of these models is that once the independent effects of the various grouping benefits are understood, we can then combine the benefits into a single model to study their relative importance and separate the adaptive benefits (that select for the evolution of grouping) from the incidental side effects of grouping.
Here, we focus on anti-predator vigilance (i.e., the many eyes hypothesis) as a possible selective mechanism for the evolution of gregarious foraging behavior, and control for the influence of the other benefits described above. First proposed using a mathematical model [@Pulliam1973] and explored experimentally a year later [@Powell1974], the many eyes hypothesis makes two key predictions, both of which arise from the assumption that vigilance is costly because it imposes a trade-off with foraging efficiency: (a) individual prey vigilance will decline as a group size increases, and (b) because prey can more equitably divide the task of watching for predators in large groups, they will experience a fitness benefit from foraging more. Therefore, there will be a selective advantage for prey that forage in groups up to a certain group size. In the 40 years since its inception, these predictions have been examined in numerous species across hundreds of independent studies [@Caraco1979; @Ward2011; @Bertram1980; @Roberts1996; @Beauchamp2008]. Furthermore, several game theoretical models have been applied to refine the predictions of when collective vigilance in foraging groups should evolve [@Pulliam1982], and subsequently matched to experimental data [@McNamara1992].
These previous studies focus on the potential fitness consequences of vigilance in groups of animals, but they do not address the circumstances under which vigilance, and the advantages of being in a group with many watchful eyes, provides a sufficient selection pressure to favor group living, independent of other pressures. When considering the evolution of grouping behavior, it is vital to take into account both the benefits [*and*]{} costs imposed by the behavior [@Clark1986]. To satisfy this requirement, a handful of researchers have recently turned to digital models to study the evolution of animal behavior [@Beauchamp2007; @Ruxton2008; @Katsnelson2011]. These researchers use a digital model of evolution to evolve the behavior of a population of locally-interacting animats, enabling them to explore the evolution of behavior in complex environments that are beyond the means of mathematical models [@Adami2012; @Hamblin2013]. Additionally, these evolutionary model systems allow researchers to explicitly control for complicating factors, such as the dilution effect [@Roberts1996] and food density [@Elgar1989], that are commonly confounded with collective vigilance as factors benefiting group-living organisms.
In this study, we extend these digital evolution models to explore the conditions under which collective vigilance favors the evolution of gregarious foraging behavior. We assume that vigilance has benefits (e.g., communicating the presence of a predator via alarm signals) but also costs (e.g., reduced foraging rates by watching for the predator). Under the many eyes hypothesis, grouping is beneficial because it reduces the cost of vigilance by sharing the cost of vigilance among the group, but it may have additional costs that must be considered, e.g., increased predation rates on larger groups [@Ale2007]. Furthermore, this benefit would be diluted if some individuals can freeload on the vigilance of others (as in heterogeneous groups), but magnified if the group members are highly related. The benefits and costs would also be affected by the life history of the prey, in particular whether their reproduction is iteroparous (i.e., repeated) or semelparous (i.e., all at once): Vigilance may be more beneficial in semelparous prey because a predation event can completely prevent them from reproducing, whereas iteroparous prey are more likely to have reproduced at least once prior to experiencing a predation event. To explore these issues, we manipulate the genetic relatedness and reproductive strategy of groups of prey that are under predation and observe the resulting behavior after thousands of generations of digital evolution have taken place. A preliminary investigation of this work was published in the ALIFE 14 conference [@Haley2014], and has been significantly extended in this paper.
Methods
=======
Figure \[fig:disembodied-sim\] depicts our model of predator-prey interactions in a disembodied model, wherein prey must balance the trade-offs between foraging and vigilance [@Ruxton2008]. In an embodied model [@PfeifferBongard2006], every animat is situated in the world, perceives the world via its sensors, and can act on the world via behavioral or other responses. While embodied models offer more detail, they are also sensitive to implementation-specific details of the sensors and actuators, which can skew results. We therefore focus on a disembodied model[^1] for the remainder of this study.
{width="90.00000%"}
In this model, prey fitness is directly related to the amount of time it spends foraging, where a single round of foraging increases prey fitness by 1.0. However, prey vigilance determines whether a predator’s attack on the prey is successful. These two options—foraging and vigilance—are assumed to be mutually exclusive. Thus, prey must evolve to maximize their food intake while remaining vigilant enough to survive the entire simulation, which is akin to the maximum possible life span of the prey.
Model of predators and prey {#model-of-predators-and-prey .unnumbered}
---------------------------
We designed this model to capture certain features of natural predators and to control for potentially complicating factors. First, to ensure that predator attacks are not trivially predictable we simulate predators that attack at intervals that are normally distributed around a specific attack rate. Thus, predator attacks are randomly distributed throughout the 2,000-time-step duration of the simulation. To model the fact that larger groups of prey often attract more attacks from predators—a realistic cost of group living known as the [*attraction effect*]{} [@Ale2007]—we scale this attack rate with the group size, such that the group experiences 5 predator attacks for every prey initially in the group over the course of the simulation. This scaling factor also allows us to control for the [*dilution effect*]{}, which has been suggested to allow prey to survive with lower vigilance levels in larger groups only because they are less likely to be the target of a predator’s attack [@Roberts1996; @Beauchamp2003; @Fairbanks2007].
Each time a predator appears, we randomly select a target prey from the surviving prey of previous attacks. This is followed by a 10 time step delay between the appearance of the predator in the simulation and the actual attack, representing the time it takes for a predator to close the distance to the prey. It is during this time that prey vigilance becomes important. If the target prey is vigilant at any time during this interval, then it spots the predator and the attack only has a 10% chance of success. If the target prey is not vigilant but one or more other prey in the group are vigilant, then the other prey communicate the presence of the predator via an alarm signal or other behavioral indicator and the predator will capture the target prey 30% of the time. These probabilities are chosen based on analytical models of group vigilance [@Ruxton2008] such that group vigilance is not as effective as individual vigilance, and models the imperfect communication between members of the group [@Lima1995b]. Finally, if no members of the group are vigilant while the predator is closing the distance to its target, then the entire group is unaware of the predator and the attack will succeed 100% of the time. In all cases of a successful attack, the target prey is removed from the simulation and can no longer forage to increase its fitness.
Each individual prey makes the decision to forage or be vigilant every simulation time step. This decision-making process is modeled with a [*Markov Network*]{} (MN), which is an “artificial brain” that can stochastically make decisions based on sensory input, memory, and previous actions [@Olson2013PredatorConfusion; @Edlund2011; @Marstaller2013]. Every prey MN is encoded by a list of numbers known as its genotype, such that changes to the genotype can result in changes in the function of the MN. Because we do not provide any sensory input to the prey in this simulation, we are effectively modeling the probability of a prey taking an action every simulation time step. More information on MNs—including details on their genetic encoding, mutational operators, and functionality—is available in [@Olson2014SelfishHerd].
Evolutionary process {#evolutionary-process .unnumbered}
--------------------
We repeat the evaluation procedure described above until all 100 individuals in the Genetic Algorithm (GA) population have been assigned a fitness (see, e.g., [@Eiben2003] for a full description of GAs). Once all individuals have been assigned a fitness, we use fitness-proportional selection according to a Moran process [@Moran1962] to produce the next generation’s population of prey. Fitness-proportional selection ensures that prey with higher fitness values generally produce more offspring. The selected prey reproduce asexually, with a small probability of mutations (0.5% per site) affecting their offspring’s genotype. We repeat this evaluation-selection-reproduction process for 2,500 generations to ensure that the GA has reached an evolutionarily stable strategy [@Hamblin2007] and replicate the experiments 100 times for each treatment—each with a distinct random number generator seed—to verify that we are capturing evolutionary trends rather than outlier scenarios.
Genetic relatedness {#genetic-relatedness .unnumbered}
-------------------
Since the many eyes hypothesis predicts an inverse relationship between individual vigilance and group size [@Pulliam1973; @Powell1974], we study prey populations across a range of group sizes (5, 10, 25, and 50). In our first experiment, we observe the equilibrium vigilance levels when prey are forced to group. In the next experiment, we relax this assumption and allow the prey to choose to group (or not) every time step. In the latter case, we report the group size as the maximum initial group size. To provide a baseline for the optional grouping experiment, we compare its equilibrium vigilance levels to that of experiments where prey are forced to group and experiments where prey are forced to forage individually.
For all of the above experiments, we study the effect of genetic relatedness on grouping behavior. In these treatments, groups can be formed in two different ways. In homogeneous groups, each individual in the current generation of the GA’s population is evaluated separately. During an individual’s fitness evaluation, we fill the group with exact copies of the individual, and the fitness for that individual is the average fitness of all of its copies at the end of the simulation. Because vigilance indirectly benefits the vigilant individual in homogeneous groups by aiding its kin, we expect that vigilance will be highly beneficial in this treatment. In heterogeneous groups, we use a subset of the GA’s population (which contains many prey with different genetics) to study how the prey fare in direct competition (or cooperation) with each other. Because the vigilance of one prey can potentially aid a rival prey in heterogeneous groups, we expect to observe lower levels of vigilance in this treatment.
Reproductive strategy {#reproductive-strategy .unnumbered}
---------------------
The benefits of making the right decision in this simulated environment are straightforward: The prey must maximize food intake by surviving the longest while minimizing the time spent being vigilant. But the cost of making the wrong decision can also depend on the life history of the prey. For example, two different reproductive strategies—semelparity and iteroparity—should incur different costs. Semelparous organisms are characterized by a single reproductive event prior to death. We assume that this reproductive event occurs at the end of the simulation, so if a semelparous prey is consumed by the predator before the end of the simulation, all of its gathered food counts for nothing: it will leave no offspring. In contrast, iteroparous organisms continually reproduce throughout their lifetime. Therefore, when a predator consumes an iteroparous prey, the prey can no longer increase its fitness, but any food it gathered prior to its death counts toward its fitness for the simulation. We hypothesize that the increased risk of genetic death introduced by the semelparous treatment will provide an evolutionary incentive for prey to invest in vigilance, whereas prey in the iteroparous treatment will be more likely to engage in risky, non-cooperative behavior because their demise does not necessarily doom their genetic lineage [@Hintze2014RiskAversion].
Explicit cost of grouping {#explicit-cost-of-grouping .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The model described so far includes a cost of vigilance (insofar as prey cannot forage at the same time that they are vigilant), but there is no explicit cost to choosing to group aside from the possibility of aiding a competing individual. In a final treatment, we implement such a grouping penalty in order to model the realistic constraints of limited resources and the resulting scramble competition for food [@Elgar1989; @McNamara1992; @Beauchamp2003; @Sansom2008]. This grouping penalty is only assessed on prey who choose to forage in the group, and decreases the amount of food they receive in that simulation time step proportional to the number of prey in the group. The group foraging penalty is imposed according to the equation: $${\rm Food} = \frac{1.0}{M * G}$$ where $G$ is the number of prey in the group and $M$ is the penalty multiplier that allows us to experimentally control the severity of the penalty. Given this penalty, prey foraging in larger groups receive less food every time they forage, but potentially enjoy the benefits of group vigilance.
Results
=======
We evolve the vigilance behavior of prey by subjecting them to predation under a variety of treatments that vary reproductive strategy and group composition. Vigilance is measured as the percent chance that a prey will be vigilant at a given moment in time, averaged across all of the prey in the population. These treatments are repeated across a wide range of group sizes, allowing us to study not only whether the selection for vigilance can be generalized to groups of varying sizes, but also whether we can observe the inverse relationship between group size and vigilance predicted by the many eyes hypothesis.
{width="95.00000%"}
In our first experiment, all prey in the simulation are forced to forage in the same group, and the only trait that is evolving is the prey decision to be vigilant or not at every time step. Under these conditions, we find that prey living in homogeneous groups consistently evolve higher levels of vigilance than their counterparts living in heterogeneous groups (Figure \[fig:grouped-treatment-comparison\]). This suggests that organisms living in groups with high genetic relatedness are more likely to evolve cooperative strategies. Thus, in our model as in many natural systems, gregarious foraging is most favorable when genetic interests are aligned.
Figure \[fig:grouped-treatment-comparison\] also shows that semelparous prey are more likely to evolve vigilant strategies than iteroparous prey. This finding follows from the fact that semelparity selects more strongly for successful evasion of predator attacks, since prey death negates all previous foraging efforts. This effect is seen across both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, indicating that semelparity is a strong enough selective pressure to act independently of group genetic composition. Importantly, prey vigilance does not evolve at all in the absence of predation (Figure S1), and gradually reducing the predation rate leads to a correspondingly gradual decrease in prey vigilance levels (Figure S2). Therefore, we know that the selection pressure imposed by predation is the primary driving force behind this evolved vigilance behavior.
All three treatments that evolve any level of vigilance also see the prevalence of vigilance decrease as group size increases. This pattern is important because it matches the pattern predicted by the many eyes hypothesis: As group size increases, individuals are able to rely more on collective rather than individual vigilance and can in turn devote more of their own time to foraging. Since we use a relative attack rate that scales the predator’s attack frequency with group size, we can be sure that this phenomenon is due to group vigilance and not the dilution effect (fewer attacks per individual in larger groups) cited in other studies. We note that vigilance in the heterogeneous/semelparous treatment appears to evolve away almost entirely in a group size of 50. To explain why this trend might be due to something other than collective vigilance, we can instead look at trends in the fitness of the populations.
{width="95.00000%"}
Several interesting trends are seen when we look at the influence of group size on average group fitness. In both homogeneous treatments, there is a steady increase in fitness with increasing group size, suggesting that gregarious foraging behavior is under positive selection. We see no significant fitness increase with group size in the heterogeneous/iteroparous populations, where the populations do not evolve vigilance behavior (Wilcoxon rank-sum $p=0.79$ between group size 5 and 50). Unlike the other treatments, the heterogeneous/semelparous populations actually experience a [*decrease*]{} in fitness with increasing group size (Wilcoxon rank-sum $p=2.77\times10^{-6}$ between group size 5 and 50), which suggests that cooperative behavior is not evolutionarily stable in larger heterogeneous groups. Accordingly, these findings highlight the fact that heterogeneous populations are much more susceptible to non-vigilant, “cheating” prey that sweep the population and reduce the overall population fitness.
Optional grouping {#optional-grouping .unnumbered}
-----------------
So far we have shown that prey appear to take advantage of collective vigilance to increase their fitness when they are forced to group. We might expect from this (and the many eyes hypothesis predicts) that grouping provides a selective advantage. To test this expectation explicitly, we relax the constraints of the previous experiment by allowing the prey to evolve whether to group or not at every simulation time step. Since there is no direct fitness trade-off for grouping in this model yet (as there was for foraging and vigilance), this allows us to study whether the evolutionary advantages of grouping are favorable enough for vigilance and grouping to co-evolve.
Figure \[fig:optional-treatment-comparison\] shows that when we allow prey to choose to group, we find nearly the same results as before. This suggests that collective vigilance provides enough of a selective advantage to favor the evolution of grouping. It is not surprising that the homogeneous treatments evolve to group nearly 100% of the time, given that the population is genetically identical and any “altruistic” action indirectly benefits the altruist as well. As in the forced grouping experiment, we observe a decline in fitness in the heterogeneous/semelparous populations as group size increases, to the point that the population is nearly driven extinct. The inability of the heterogeneous/semelparous populations to evolve consistently high levels of vigilance further supports the hypothesis that evolution is favoring short-term competitive advantages over long-term survival. This phenomenon is commonly known as the tragedy of the commons [@Rankin2007; @Wenseleers2004], where selfish actions that provide an individual short-term benefit lead to a decrease in overall group fitness.
Tragedy of the commons in heterogeneous groups {#tragedy-of-the-commons-in-heterogeneous-groups .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
To explore this apparent tragedy of the commons scenario further, we directly compare vigilance and fitness values from the forced and optional grouping experiments alongside a third experiment where we force the population to forage and survive as individuals. Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-vigilance\] shows that when given the choice to group in the homogeneous treatments, prey behavior closely mirrors the behavior observed when forced to forage in a group. This observation confirms the previous suggestion that collective vigilance in homogeneous groups provides a fitness benefit that positively selects for gregarious foraging behaviors.
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="60.00000%"}
In contrast to the homogeneous populations, heterogeneous populations are much less likely to evolve gregarious foraging behaviors. Heterogeneous/iteroparous populations never evolve vigilance behavior regardless of whether the prey are forced to group or not (Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-vigilance\]). Similarly, heterogeneous/semelparous populations only evolve vigilance behavior in smaller groups, whereas the advantage of collective vigilance is lost in larger groups. At larger group sizes, prey with the ability to choose whether or not to forage in heterogeneous/semelparous groups instead evolve lower levels of vigilance than required to protect the group (Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-vigilance\]), which results in a decrease in overall group fitness relative to prey that always forage in groups (Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-fitness\]).
Explicit cost of grouping {#explicit-cost-of-grouping-1 .unnumbered}
-------------------------
{width="90.00000%"}
In our final treatment, we investigate the impact of assessing a direct cost of foraging in a group (e.g., competition for food). Figure \[fig:grouping-penalty-grouping\] shows that except in the homogeneous/semelparous treatment, an explicit grouping cost selects against gregarious foraging behavior even when the grouping penalty is small ($M = 1.0$). Conversely, prey in the homogeneous/semelparous treatment maintain some level of gregarious foraging behavior even when the penalty for foraging in groups is extreme ($M = 1,000$). Therefore, we conclude that in the presence of even a small penalty for foraging in a group and the absence of additional selection pressures that favor gregarious foraging (e.g., improved social status for sentinels), only the combination of high genetic relatedness within the group and a semelparous reproductive strategy select strongly enough for gregarious foraging behavior to evolve.
Discussion
==========
We found that gregarious foraging behavior can emerge under a variety of conditions when there is a benefit of vigilance and the spreading of information about predators. Prey that forage in homogeneous groups are more likely to evolve gregarious foraging behaviors compared to the those in heterogeneous groups. The same is true for semelparous organisms (who reproduce only once before death) compared to their iteroparous counterparts (who reproduce continually), but group homogeneity selects much more strongly for gregarious foraging behavior.
Clearly, there are numerous challenges to evolving any form of cooperative behavior in a population with unconstrained genetic relatedness. However, we have shown here that when there is strong selection for survival (as in the heterogeneous/semelparous treatment), the benefit of information sharing via being vigilant and making alarm signals is sufficient to select for cooperative behavior in heterogeneous groups. This finding demonstrates that kinship is not necessary for cooperative behavior to evolve as long as there is some benefit to information sharing within the group, e.g., reducing predator attack efficiency.
Further, our results point to a heretofore unsuspected cost of gregarious foraging that is unique to heterogeneous groups. We call this the “two-fold cost of vigilance.” In our model, vigilance behavior in heterogeneous groups is more than a trade-off with foraging on the individual level. By choosing to be vigilant, prey also risk aiding in the survival of rival prey, which then puts the vigilant prey at a fitness disadvantage because it sacrificed a round of foraging to aid the rival prey. Together, these costs could explain why prey in heterogeneous groups evolve to be less vigilant than those in homogeneous groups.
At the same time, it is also possible that there are some evolutionary advantages unique to heterogenous groups that we have not yet addressed. For example, our model does not currently allow for any kind of specialization in roles between individuals, which could explain the presence of multi-species groups in nature [@Goodale2005; @Sridhar2009]. If the prey could evolve to preferentially pay attention to certain “sentinel” members of the population (who, in turn, choose to be vigilant nearly always in order to receive some form of rewards, e.g., food or increased social status) then perhaps an evolutionarily stable form of gregarious foraging could be found in heterogeneous groups of all sizes. It is even possible that such a complex social structure could out-perform the relatively primitive cooperation in our homogeneous groups.
Alongside genetic relatedness, another positive selective pressure for the evolution of vigilance is a semelparous reproductive strategy. When prey must survive any and all predator attacks in order to reproduce, the impetus to be vigilant is much greater. Semelparous organisms are known to be more risk-averse than similar, iteroparous organisms [@Abrams1991], and the decision to forage instead of being vigilant is an example of one such risky behavior. Thus, rather than spending most of their time foraging (as iteroparous prey evolve to do in our model), semelparous prey in our model tend to devote most of their time to watching for predators. When given the opportunity to group with other prey and take advantage of collective vigilance, semelparous prey are actually able to spend less time being vigilant. Thus, when semelparous prey evolve lower levels of vigilance in larger groups, we are observing the effect of collective vigilance.
Although our results suggest that the risk-averseness of semelparity induces semelparous prey to evolve to take advantage of collective vigilance, this selective pressure does not appear to be as strong as the pressure we observed in homogeneous groups. Proof of this observation can be found in the heterogeneous/semelparous treatment, where most group members attempt to cheat their way into collective vigilance by evolving lower levels of vigilance behavior than is observed in populations where prey are either forced to forage on their own or in the group (Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-vigilance\]). Ultimately, this selfish behavior results in lower fitness than the fitness of prey that are forced to forage in groups (Figure \[fig:tragedy-commons-fitness\]), but the constantly-present, short-term benefits of selfishness appear to be too enticing to allow a more advantageous, cooperative behavior to emerge.
The breakdown of cooperation in the heterogeneous/semelparous populations suggests that the populations are succumbing to a tragedy of the commons [@Rankin2007; @Wenseleers2004]. In our experiments, all prey are competing against each other to forage as much food as possible without being captured by the predator. However, because there is an unlimited amount of food, the only depletable group resource is vigilance, which protects the entire group from the predator. As the resulting non-cooperative behavior in the heterogeneous/iteroparous populations demonstrate, absent any major selective pressures for collective vigilance, prey will evolve to selfishly forage 100% of the time. Therefore, group homogeneity and semelparity correspond to two previously-established mechanisms for preventing a tragedy of the commons, namely kin selection and punishment for non-cooperative behaviors, respectively [@Rankin2007]. The relative efficacy of these mechanisms to prevent cheating merits further investigation. For example, does group homogeneity play a larger role than reproductive strategy in the evolution of collective vigilance?
In the presence of even a small penalty for foraging in groups, we observe that only prey in homogeneous groups with a semelparous reproductive strategy are capable of evolving gregarious foraging behavior (Figure \[fig:grouping-penalty-grouping\]). This finding suggests that, in the absence of unlimited food resources or extreme predation rates, collective vigilance (i.e., the many eyes hypothesis) is insufficient to select for gregarious foraging. However, there may be important aspects of natural systems that select for gregarious foraging that we did not model here. For example, predators have been observed to preferentially attack non-vigilant prey in groups [@Krause1996], which would require prey to be vigilant even without the benefit of collective vigilance. Thus, it would be informative in future work to model such a preference for non-vigilant prey and observe the evolution of gregarious foraging under those conditions.
The experimental platform presented here enables a plethora of hypotheses to be studied in future work. Given that there is considerable evidence suggesting that foraging and vigilance behaviors are not mutually exclusive in some species [@Lima1999; @Cresswell2003; @FernandezJuricic2008], it would be instructive to relax that assumption in this model and make foraging only a “reduced vigilance” state. Furthermore, we assume here that prey cannot detect the size of their group; a useful extension would be to allow prey to detect their group’s size and study collective vigilance in prey that evolved in varying group sizes. We also assume here that prey always communicate the presence of the predator to their group members. Given that it may not always be evolutionarily advantageous to aid other group members, another informative extension would be to allow prey to optionally make their alarm signals upon detection of the predator. Finally, there are several hypotheses other than the many eyes hypothesis that could be explored with a model similar to the one presented here, such as the predator confusion hypothesis [@Olson2013PredatorConfusion] and the selfish herd hypothesis [@Olson2013SelfishHerd; @Olson2014SelfishHerd]. Once all of these hypotheses have been studied in isolation, we can then combine them into a single model to study their relative importance and separate the adaptive benefits (those that select for the evolution of grouping) from the chance side effects of grouping. Such experiments will be invaluable for understanding how and why animals evolve grouping behavior.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Art Covert and the Freshman Research Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin for their support through the development of this project. This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation BEACON Center under Cooperative Agreement DBI-0939454, and Michigan State University through computational resources provided by the Institute for Cyber-Enabled Research.
[^1]: Model code: https://github.com/phaley/eos/tree/non-embodied
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present new molecular gas maps of NGC5195 (alternatively known as M51b) from the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter Astronomy (CARMA), including (1–0), (1–0), CN(1$_{0,2}$–$0_{0,1}$), CS(2–1), and 3mm continuum. We also detected HCN(1–0) and HCO$^+$(1–0) using the Onsala Space Observatory. NGC5195 has a / ratio ([$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{}=11.4$\pm$0.5) consistent with normal star-forming galaxies. The CN(1–0) intensity is higher than is seen in an average star-forming galaxy, possibly enhanced in the diffuse gas in photo-dissociation regions. Stellar template fitting of the nuclear spectrum of NGC5195 shows two stellar populations: an 80% mass fraction of old ($\gtrsim$10Gyr) and a 20% mass fraction of intermediate-aged ($\approx$1Gyr) stellar populations, providing a constraint on the timescale over which NGC5195 experienced enhanced star formation during its interaction with M51a. The average molecular gas depletion timescale in NGC5195 is $\langle\tau_{\rm dep}\rangle$=3.08 Gyr, a factor of $\approx$2 larger than the depletion timescales in nearby star-forming galaxies, but consistent with the depletion seen in CO-detected early-type galaxies. While radio continuum emission at centimeter and millimeter wavelengths is present in the vicinity of the nucleus of NGC5195, we find it is most likely associated with nuclear star formation rather than radio-loud AGN activity. Thus, despite having a substantial interaction with M51a $\sim$1/2Gyr ago, the molecular gas in NGC5195 has resettled and is forming stars at an efficiency consistent with settled early-type galaxies at the present time.'
author:
- 'Katherine Alatalo,$^{1}$ Rebeca Aladro,$^{2,3}$ Kristina Nyland,$^{4}$ Susanne Aalto,$^{3}$ Theodoros Bitsakis,$^{5}$ John S. Gallagher$^{6}$ & Lauranne Lanz$^{7}$'
bibliography:
- '../../master.bib'
title: 'After the interaction: an efficiently star-forming molecular disk in NGC5195'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Galaxy populations in the present-day universe largely populate a bimodal distribution between blue and red optical colors with few objects occupying an intermediate color “green valley” [@baade58; @holmberg58; @tinsley78; @strateva+01; @baldry+04]. Slowly evolving galaxies would not necessarily pass rapidly through a phase with intermediate colors. Thus the slow overall evolution of galaxies since [*z*]{}$\sim$1 in combination with the increasing fraction of galaxies on the “red sequence” suggests that galaxies in the green valley experienced a rapid truncation or quenching of their star formation [@bell+03; @faber+07]. However, the existence of spirals with intermediate colors that appear to be evolving at secular rates suggests the existence of an alternate path to the green valley. The intermediate colors in these spirals could result from the steady build-up long-lived lower mass stars leading to a more leisurely transition through the green valley. Two types of galaxies with intermediate colors therefore may exist, those produced by slow evolution and rapid quenching events, that cannot be separated on the basis of broad-band optical colors alone.
Other types of observations, however, can be used to separate these two types of green valley galaxies. Systems where star formation rates (SFRs) have rapidly changed show distinct signposts, including unusual infrared colors. @johnson+07 and @walker+10 were able to show that the [*Spitzer*]{} colors of Hickson Compact Group galaxies (a known rapidly transitioning population; @hickson82) showed a dearth of intermediate [*Spitzer*]{} IRAC colors [@lacy+04], suggestive of rapid transformation. While the galaxy population as a whole did not show bimodality in [*Spitzer*]{} colors, it did strongly bifurcate using [*WISE*]{} \[4.6\]–\[12\]$\mu$m colors [@ko+13; @yesuf+14; @a14_irtz]. In the modern universe ([*z*]{}$\sim$0), this transformation appears to be permanent [@appleton+14; @young+14], thus understanding all pathways that can lead a blue late-type galaxy to become a red early-type is essential.
{width="99.00000%"} -3.5mm
Until recently, it was assumed that in order for a galaxy to metamorphose, it would have to shed its interstellar medium as it quenched star formation [@hopkins+06], but evidence is mounting that this is not strictly necessary. Through the [ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$]{} survey, @young+11 showed that at least 22% of early-type galaxies contain a molecular reservoir, though for the most part the molecular gas fraction of these systems did not exceed 1% (save for the extraordinary galaxy NGC1266; @alatalo+11). @french+15 and @rowlands+15 showed that there were also substantial molecular reservoirs in poststarburst galaxies, a subset of objects known to have rapidly quenched their star formation [@dressler+gunn83; @zabludoff+96; @quintero+04]. Shocked poststarburst galaxies [@a16_sample], identified based on evidence of intermediate age stars and a lack of star formation from their ionized gas ratios also contain substantial gas reservoirs [@a16_spogco], despite being suspected to have started their metamorphosis from blue, star-forming spiral to red, quiescent early-type galaxies.
@a15_hcgco surveyed the molecular gas content in transitioning Hickson Compact Group galaxies [@cluver+13; @lisenfeld+14] using the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter Astronomy (CARMA; @carma)[^1] and found that the molecular gas fractions in this subset of transitioning galaxies are not related to their color (and thus, the transition phase), but rather the star formation efficiency is related to the color. @a15_hcgco suggest that the inability for the molecular gas to form stars efficiently has more influence on a galaxy’s path onto the red sequence than the total content of molecular material available. Studies by the [ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$]{} team seem to support this, with early-type galaxies showing slightly suppressed star formation as well [@davis+14], although a direct color comparison has yet to be done on these sources.
{width="99.00000%"}
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----
[**RA (J2000)**]{} 13$^{\rm h}$29$^{\rm m}$59.59$^{\rm s}$ (1)
[**Declination (J2000)**]{} +47$^\circ$15$^{\rm m}$58.1$^{\rm s}$ (1)
[**Morphology**]{} I0 Peculiar (2)
[**Distance**]{} 9.9Mpc (3)
[**Position Angle**]{} +101$^\circ$ (CCW from N) (2)
[**Inclination Angle**]{} 37$^\circ$ (face-on = 0$^\circ$) (2)
[**Nuclear activity**]{} AGN/LINER (4)
[**log([*L*]{}$_{\rm FIR}$)**]{} 9.3 $L_\odot$ (5)
[**[*M*]{}$_\star$**]{} 1.95$\times$10$^{10}$M$_\odot$ (6)
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----
: **Properties of NGC5195**
\[tab:ngc5195\]\
(1) @2mass (2) @devauc+91 (3) @tikhonov+09 (4) @moustakas+10 (5) @dale+09 (6) @lanz+13
$^{12}$CO(1–0) $^{13}$CO(1–0) CN(1–0) CS(2–1)
----------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
$\nu_{\rm rest}$ 115.2712 110.2014 113.4910 97.9810
$\theta_{\rm beam}$ 5.0$\times$4.4 7.4$\times$5.9 7.2$\times$5.8 8.3$\times$6.7
K per Jy 4.126 2.290 2.291 2.290
$v_{\rm range}$ 463–799 448–729 298–740 473–674
$\Delta v$ 10 20 40 50
RMS 12.0 3.3 4.7 4.0
$I_{\rm peak}$ 243.8$\pm$15.1 23.9$\pm$2.3 19.6$\pm$2.3 5.7$\pm$1.1
Mom0 area $^\ddagger$ 1489 763 365 360
3.29 1.69 0.81 0.80
RMS/channel 97.3 13.0 13.2 9.6
Line flux 243.8$\pm$5.2 22.7$\pm$1.0 12.4$\pm$1.4 3.9$\pm$1.0
S/N (Line) 46.9 22.7 8.9 3.9
$L_{\rm line}$ 2859$\pm$61 255$\pm$11 143$\pm$16 39$\pm$10
: **Derived molecular properties**
\[tab:mol\_properties\] $^\ddagger$arcsec$^2$\
{width="99.00000%"} -1mm
{width="90.00000%"} -1mm
![CN(1–0) channel maps of NGC5195 from CARMA (filled contours) overlaid on the nonstellar 8.0$\mu$m maps from [*Spitzer*]{} (grayscale), tracing the PAH emission. The contours are color coded based on the relative red- or blue-shift of the channel, placed at 1$\sigma$ intervals starting at 3$\sigma$. The velocities listed in the top left are optical recession velocities. The velocity color scale is identical to Fig. \[fig:pah+co\]. CN is well-detected in individual channels.[]{data-label="fig:cn_chans"}](figures/cn_chans.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -1mm
![CS(2–1) channel maps of NGC5195 from CARMA (filled contours) overlaid on the nonstellar 8.0$\mu$m maps from [*Spitzer*]{} (grayscale), tracing the PAH emission. The contours are color coded based on the relative red- or blue-shift of the channel, placed at 1$\sigma$ intervals starting at 3$\sigma$. The velocities listed in the top left are optical recession velocities. The velocity color scale is identical to Fig. \[fig:pah+co\]. CS(2–1) is tentatively (S/N$\approx$3–4) detected in individual channels, but the total line is robustly detected.[]{data-label="fig:cs_chans"}](figures/cs_chans.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -1mm
NGC5195 (alternatively known as M51b) is the disky barred (SB0/SBa(s)) galaxy [@spillar+92] that is the low mass companion of NGC5194 (alternatively known as M51a or “the Whirlpool Galaxy”), having undergone a 3:1 interaction roughly 340–500Myr ago [@salo+00; @dobbs+10; @mentuch+12]. NGC5195 is a good case study of how star formation quenches for a galaxy a short time after an interaction, being nearby and showing signs of having recently transitioned. The integrated [*u–r*]{} color[^2] of NGC5195 is 2.25, which combined with its mass (Table \[tab:ngc5195\]), places it on the cusp between the red sequence and the green valley [@schawinski+14]. Centrally concentrated molecular gas [@aalto5195], and bright nuclear infrared emission [@boulade+96] further support that NGC5195 is in the process of becoming a poststarburst [@dressler+gunn83; @zabludoff+96], and finally an early-type red sequence galaxy, traversing the “standard” pathway for galaxy transitions [@hopkins+08].
Table \[tab:ngc5195\] lists the basic properties of NGC5195 used for this paper. Mid-infrared (IR) spectra of NGC5195 confirm the presence of PAH emission [@boulade+96; @roussel+07] that is more consistent with a poststarburst stellar population than an ongoing starburst. @lanz+13 used the far-ultraviolet (UV) to the far-IR spectral energy distribution (SED) of NGC5195 and were able to estimate a modest star formation rate of 0.142$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. The warm H$_2$ emission detected with [*Spitzer*]{} Infrared Spectrograph is consistent with that of other star-forming galaxies in the SINGS sample [@roussel+07]. @mentuch+12 also fit the ultraviolet to far-IR photometry and concluded that NGC5195 is a poststarburst. Though @schweizer77 detected ionized gas emission lines in the galaxy, @ho+97 and @moustakas+10 found that the ionized gas line ratios are consistent with a low ionization nuclear emission line region (LINER; @kewley+06). Weak X-ray emission was found coincident with a radio source, possibly due to an AGN, but also consistent with an ultra-luminous X-ray source origin [@terashima+04; @schlegel+16].
@sage90 mapped NGC5195 in (1–0), and observed (2–1) and (1–0) with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) 12m single dish, showing that there was molecular gas in the galaxy. @kohno+02 were able to detect HCN(1–0) using Nobeyama Radio Observatory (NRO) 45m single dish, and mapped (1–0) using the Nobeyama Millimeter Array (NMA). @kohno+02 showed that the molecular gas is concentrated in the center of NGC5195, and claimed that the molecular gas is too stable to form stars.
{width="99.00000%"}
We present new molecular gas maps of NGC5195, and use them to develop a narrative of the star formation since the time of its interaction with M51a. In §\[sec:obs\], we describe the observations from CARMA, including reduction and analysis methods. In §\[sec:molgas\], we discuss the properties of the molecular gas of NGC5195. In §\[sec:sf\] we discuss the past and present star formation in NGC5195. In §\[sec:conc\], we present our conclusions. We use the common distance to M51a and NGC5195 of 9.9Mpc, following @tikhonov+09 who used the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of individual resolved stars within the M51 system to calculate the distance. The corresponding spatial scale is 47 parsecs per arcsecond.
Observations and Analysis {#sec:obs}
=========================
Ancillary data {#sec:ancillary}
--------------
The 3.6–4.5–8.0 [*Spitzer*]{} [@spitzer] Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; @irac) data that are shown in Figure \[fig:pah+co\] were obtained by downloading supermosaics from the [*Spitzer*]{} Heritage Archive[^3]. These data were originally part of the [*Spitzer*]{} Infrared Nearby Galaxy Survey [@sings]. The observations were taken on May 2004, with exposure times of 26.8 seconds and were processed through the [*Spitzer*]{} Science Center reduction pipeline, version S18.25.
The [*Herschel*]{} Photo-detecting Array Camera and Spectrometer (PACS; @pacs) data were observed on December 2009 in the “blue channel” (70$\micron$ and 160$\micron$) and were downloaded from the Herschel Science Archive (PI: C. Wilson, KPGT\_cwilso01; see: @parkin+13 for the 70 image). The Level-1 data were reduced using [scanamorphos]{} [@scanomorphos] package that fits accurately the low-frequency (1/$f$) noise. Typical sky background measurements in the final maps were 0.13 and 0.25 mJy for the 70 and 160$\micron$ bands, respectively.
The optical spectrum used below was obtained through the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which surveyed galaxies using a dedicated 2.5m telescope at Apache Point Observatory. The reduced and calibrated spectral data were obtained from SDSS Data Release 12 [@sdssdr12], without any additional modifications applied.
The 1.4GHz data for NGC5195, taken as part of the Westerbork SINGS survey [@braun+07] was downloaded for analysis. Observations of the M51 complex were taken on dates June 25, 2003 and Nov 23, 2003, with a beamsize of 17$\times$12.5$''$. Because the 1.4GHz emission associated with NGC5195 has a complex distribution, we measured the 1.4 GHz flux density from the SINGs image by summing the flux within an aperture matching the extent of the CO emission using the Common Astronomy Software Application ([casa]{})[^4] viewer [@casa].
OSO 20m observations
--------------------
HCN(1–0) and HCO$^+$(1–0) were observed with the Onsala Space Observatory, Sweden, on 3–4 March, 15, and 26 April 2016. The SIS 3-mm receiver was connected to the Omnisys A spectrometer, which gives a bandwidth of 4GHz wide with dual polarization. The observations were performed with a dual beam switch mode with a throw of 11$'$ in azimuth. The half power beam width of the telescope at the rest frequency (88.9 GHz) was 43$''$ and the pointing accuracy was better than 3$''$. The focus was checked each day on bright quasars and the corrections were $\sim$1mm. The average system temperature was around 150K, and the opacity 0.2.
We converted the data from antenna temperature to main beam temperature correcting by a beam efficiency of 0.53. The spectrum was averaged to a final velocity resolution of 40kms$^{-1}$ (12 MHz), for which the achieved RMS is 0.145mK. We fitted a baseline of order two to subtract the continuum.
The spectra of the HCN and HCO$^+$ lines is shown in Fig. \[fig:oso\_spec\]. Using the K per Jy factor of 0.07999, we measure a total HCN(1–0) line flux of 3.25$\pm$0.27Jykm s$^{-2}$, with velocity width of 219kms$^{-1}$. We also measure a HCO$^+$(1–0) total line flux of 2.09$\pm$0.24Jykm s$^{-2}$ with a velocity width of 193kms$^{-1}$.
We measure a HCN/HCO$^+$ J=1–0 line ratio of 2. Reproducing HCN(1–0)/HCO$^+$(1–0) of 2 with $n$=10$^4$cm$^{-3}$ and T$_K$=65K requires a higher HCN than HCO$^+$ abundance. As long as the emission is not very optically thick then the lower critical density of HCO$^+$ would render its J=1–0 transition more luminous than that of HCN (for the same abundance). For the given physical conditions above the HCN(1–0)/HCO$^+$(1–0) ratio should be about 0.5 for the same abundance (and for moderate optical depths). To obtain HCN(1–0)/HCO$^+$(1–0) of 2 for $n$=10$^4$cm$^{-3}$ and T$_K$=65K requires the HCN/HCO$^+$ abundance ratio to be about 10.
CARMA Observations
------------------
We present observations of NGC5195 that were both pulled from the CARMA archive, as well as original observations. The archival portion of our NGC5195 data was observed in (1–0) with CARMA between 2012 May and 2012 December in two different configurations: C-array (1$''$, 30–350m baselines), D array (3$''$, 11–150m baselines) by the CArma and NObeyama Nearby galaxies (CANON; @donovanmeyer+13) survey. We followed up these archival observations in 2014 June with observations of NGC5195 in E-array (8$''$, 8–66m baselines), to better detect some of the more diffuse gas that might be present. (1–0),(1–0), CN(1$_{0,2}$–0$_{0,1}$) and CS(2–1) were observed simultaneously in this set of E-array observations, utilizing the upgraded correlator. The observing properties for each molecular line detected by CARMA in NGC5195 are listed in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\]. All data were reduced and imaged using the Multichannel Image Reconstruction, Interactive Analysis and Display software ([miriad]{}; @miriad).
The primary beam has a diameter of 2$'$ at CO(1–0), which covers all emission from NGC5195. M51a itself does appear within the primary beam, but is easily separable from NGC5195 (see Fig. \[fig:pah+co\]a). All observations used a long integration on a bright quasar to calibrate the passband, and alternated integrations between a gain calibrator and NGC5195. We used the [miriad]{} task [uvlin]{} to separate out continuum emission from the line emission, and we estimate the continuum flux of NGC5195 to be $1.21\pm0.27$mJy, centered on 106GHz, from a CARMA image with a 7.6$''\times$6.1$''$ beam.[^5] Calibration and data reduction steps were followed identically to those in @alatalo+13 to construct channel maps, and moment maps.
Channel maps are shown in Figures \[fig:co\_chans\]–\[fig:cs\_chans\], with the individual gas channels overlaid on a 8$\mu$m nonstellar [*Spitzer*]{} IRAC image. To create the underlying [*Spitzer*]{} image, the 8.0$\mu$m IRAC4 data was corrected for the stellar contribution by subtracting the 3.6$\mu$m IRAC1 image, normalized to the expected stellar continuum at 8$\mu$m (0.232; @helou+04). , , and CN(1–0) are detected. The CN(1–0) channel map includes blueshifted emission compared to the line peak ($\approx$250km s$^{-1}$ away, at 340km s$^{-1}$), which we have attributed to M51a and do not consider in subsequent analysis. CS(2–1) is weak, but still detected with a signal-to-noise (S/N) of 3.9. A tentative line, identified as CH$_3$CN(6$_k$–5$_k$), seems to be present in the spectrum outside of the velocity range that would be inhabited by in M51a, and has a line flux of 1.27$\pm$0.52 (only detected with 2.4$\sigma$ significance), but requires deeper observations to confirm whether it is real.
Figures \[fig:pah+co\] and \[fig:moments\] display the integrated intensity (moment0), and mean velocity (moment1) maps, and Figure \[fig:spectra\] shows the integrated spectra of the , , CN(1–0), and CS(2–1) within NGC5195, Figure \[fig:pvdiags\] shows the position-velocity diagrams across the specified slices of the , , and CN detections (the CS(2–1) being too low in S/N and compact to display). Of note, while the and share the same kinematic axis (of 30$^\circ$), the CN (with an angle of 0$^\circ$) has a different kinematic major axis from the other gas tracers and is thus considered kinematically misaligned according to @davis+11.
The integrated spectrum for each line was constructed using the moment0 map to create a clip-mask and integrating the flux within the moment0-defined (unmasked) aperture in each channel of the data cube. This was done separately for each tracer. The root mean square (RMS) noise was then calculated as the standard deviation of all pixels in the cube outside of the moment0-aperture per channel and is listed in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\]. An additional 30% correction was also added in quadrature to the RMS noise to account for the oversampling of the maps (see: @a15_co13 for details). The RMS noise per channel for the spectrum was then calculated by multiplying the RMS of the entire data cube by the square root of the total number of beams in the moment0-aperture.
![The extracted spectra of the CARMA-detected molecular lines. The moment0 maps were used as masks to integrate the data cubes to create the spectra of CS(2–1) (top), CN(1–0) (top middle), (1–0) (bottom middle) and (1–0) (bottom). The position of the tentatively identified CH$_3$CN is shown in the (1–0) spectrum. The error bar at the left of each panel marks the 1$\sigma$ noise in the spectrum. The shaded gray regions represent the edges of the correlator bands used for each of the spectra. The CN(1–0) spectrum shows emission that does not appear to be associated with the CN(1–0) line in NGC5195 (see Fig. \[fig:cn\_chans\]), and is shaded with diagonal lines.[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](figures/allspecs.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -2mm
The line luminosity for each molecule was calculated using @solomon+05: $$L_{\rm line} = 1.04\times10^{-3}~S_{\rm line}\Delta v~\nu_{\rm rest} (1+z)^{-1} D_L^2$$ where $S_{\rm line}\Delta v$ is the line flux in \[Jykms$^{-1}$\], $\nu_{\rm rest}$ is the rest frequency of the line in \[GHz\], [*z*]{} is the redshift of NGC5195 (calculated using a systemic velocity of 634 kms$^{-1}$, the spectrum), and $D_L$ is the luminosity distance, defined as 9.9Mpc in §\[sec:intro\]. The resultant line fluxes are listed in solar luminosities in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\].
Comparison to Previous Detections {#sec:comparison}
---------------------------------
@kohno+02 observed (1–0) and HCN(1–0) in NGC5195 with the NRO 45m single dish, and imaged the (1–0) with the NMA Interferometer. The new OSO HCN(1–0) observations are consistent with the relatively faint HCN emission found by @kohno+02. Using the 45m, @kohno+02 find a total line flux of 199 Jykms$^{-1}$ (using a 2.4 Jy per K conversion; @ueda+14), in conflict with their resultant interferometric flux of 340 Jykms$^{-1}$. We have measured a (1–0) line flux of 243.8$\pm$5.2 Jykms$^{-1}$, falling right between the two estimates of those authors (34% larger than the 45m, and 27% lower than the NMA line fluxes). Were some of the M51a emission to be included in the map, it would result in an overestimation of the CO(1–0) line flux for NGC5195, though @kohno+02 make note of the low velocity component likely being from the spiral arm of NGC5194 (displayed as gray contours in the first 9 channels in Figure \[fig:co\_chans\]). If we also account for the 20% absolute flux uncertainties associated with the 3mm flux calibration (for both the NMA and the CARMA observations), we consider ourselves to be in reasonable agreement with @kohno+02.
@sage90 presented (2–1) and (1–0) observations of NGC5195 from the NRAO 12m, measuring a line flux of 12.5$\pm$3.3 Jykms$^{-1}$ (using the Jy/K= 30.4 of the NRAO 12m; @ueda+14). We have detected nearly twice the total flux of @sage90, though that is likely due to signal-to-noise (our detection has six times higher signal-to-noise than @sage90). It is also possible that pointing errors and calibration uncertainties might also play a part. @matsushita+10 used the NRO 45m to measure the (1–0) of NGC5195 to be 28.8 Jykms$^{-1}$, in much better agreement (within 22%) with our measurement. Overall, our observations are within reasonable agreement with those done previously.
Molecular mass and H$_2$ surface density in NGC5195
---------------------------------------------------
We calculate the molecular mass expected in NGC5195 using the (1–0) luminosity. Assuming that NGC5195 is similar to the Milky Way, where we assume that molecular gas is distributed within giant molecular clouds (GMCs), the conversion between the CO luminosity and the H$_2$ mass (from @bolatto+13) is: $$\frac{M_{\rm H_2}}{L_{\rm CO}} = 8.75\times10^4~\frac{M_\odot}{L_\odot}$$ which corresponds to a $X_{\rm CO}$ conversion factor of 2$\times$10$^{20}$cm$^{-2}$(K kms$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$, considered the standard, holding both for the Milky Way and most normal nearby galaxies. Using this conversion, and $L_{\rm CO}$[^6] from Table \[tab:mol\_properties\], we find a total H$_2$ mass of (2.74$\pm0.06)\times$10$^8$ $M_\odot$[^7].
To calculate the H$_2$ surface density, $\Sigma_{\rm H_2}$, we use the area subtended by the (1–0) clipped moment map (listed in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\]), converted from $\Box''$ to the physical scale for the galaxy to be 3.15kpc$^2$, which corresponds to a mean H$_2$ surface density, $\langle\Sigma_{\rm H_2}\rangle = 87$$\pm$$2$$M_\odot$pc$^{-2}$. To calculate the peak $\Sigma_{\rm H_2}$, we convert the peak line intensity to the H$_2$ surface density, assuming the conversion from @bolatto+13: $$\label{eqn:sigh2}
\frac{\Sigma_{\rm H_2}}{M_\odot\,{\rm pc}^{-2}} = \frac{3.16\,I_{\rm peak}}{\rm K~km~s^{-1}}$$ where $I_{\rm peak}$ represents the peak intensity of the map, resulting in $\Sigma_{\rm H_2,peak}$=810$\pm$50$M_\odot$pc$^{-2}$, made over an area of 0.05kpc$^2$ (one beam), an order of magnitude larger than $\langle\Sigma_{\rm H_2}\rangle$, and consistent with the range seen in nearby disc galaxies [@bigiel+08; @leroy+08].
-3mm -3mm -3.5mm
{width="99.00000%"} -2mm
![The probability distribution function of the stellar populations in NGC5195 fit to the central spectrum from SDSS DR12 [@sdssdr12]. We used [ppxf]{} [@ppxf] to fit a smoothed star formation history using the [miles]{} library [@miles] with a Salpeter IMF. NGC5195 is primarily composed of older ($\gtrsim$10Gyr) stars, but has a significant fraction ($\approx$20%) of intermediate age stars ($\approx$1Gyr).[]{data-label="fig:stelpop"}](figures/stelpop.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -1.5mm
The state of the molecular gas in NGC5195 {#sec:molgas}
=========================================
The revised / ratio
-------------------
@sage90 measured the and in NGC5195 (discussed in §\[sec:comparison\]), finding a / flux ratio (hereafter, [$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{}) to be $\approx$26. This high ratio is often seen in hot dust hosts and ULIRGs [@aalto+95], suggestive of a hot, disrupted molecular disk in which the emission includes a large optically thin contribution. The CARMA-derived and fluxes shown in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\] update [$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{} in NGC5195 to be 11.4$\pm$0.5, which is more consistent with normal star-forming galaxies as well as field early-type galaxies [@a15_co13] than interacting galaxies. The revised [$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{} in NGC5195 seems to suggest that the dynamical state of the gas is not as disrupted as originally thought, having had time to settle since the last interaction.
What is CN tracing? {#sec:cn}
-------------------
The CN abundance can be enhanced either by UV fields (for example as a photo-dissociation product of HCN in the envelopes of molecular clouds) or by X-rays, that can penetrate further in the inner, denser regions. Hence, CN is a molecular tracer of photo-dissociated regions (PDRs) and X-ray dissociated regions (XDRs) depending on the environment (e.g. @lepp+96 [@rodriguez-franco+98]). The strong PAH, IR, and H$\alpha$ emission in NGC5195 (@boulade+96 [@greenawalt+98] and Fig. \[fig:pah+co\]) suggest that the CN is associated with the old starburst caused by the encounter with M51a and may be associated with PDRs.
To explore the possibility that CN could be tracing XDRs, we compared our CN intensity maps with the X-ray emission from @schlegel+16, where [*Chandra*]{} images show two recent outbursts coming out from the supermassive black hole in NGC5195. A comparison of the CN and X-ray images shows no obvious spatial correlation between them. In a barred galaxy potential, dynamical models predict 2 kinds of orbits: 1) [*x*]{}1 orbits oriented parallel to the major axis of the bar that support bar and 2) [*x*]{}2 orbits aligned perpendicular to the bar and located closer to a galaxyÕs nucleus. Gas in self-intersecting [*x*]{}1 orbits tends to shock and lose energy, eventually changing orientation and moving inward to the lower-energy [*x*]{}2 orbits. For a review, we refer readers to @alloin06. The moment maps in Fig. \[fig:moments\] show that CN arises from the inner regions of the galaxy with isovelocity contours at a different angle than those of and . The latter seem to trace a more extended gas distribution, possibly associated with the [*x*]{}1 orbits of the large-scale bar [@kohno+02], while CN could be tracing the perpendicular [*x*]{}2 orbits of the inner region. It is possible that this difference in alignment is due to resolution effects, but given the high signal-to-noise CN channels seen in Fig.\[fig:cn\_chans\], we believe the detection of differing alignments is robust.
This would be a similar scenario to that observed in the central 100pc of M82, where the CN abundance (among other PDR tracers) is enhanced by a factor of 3 in the [*x*]{}2 orbits [@ginard+15]. This result is consistent with NGC5195 being a post-burst system, with forbidden neon lines present in the IR spectrum [@boulade+96] and the optical lines (H$\alpha$ absorption and strong \[N[ii]{}\] emission; @greenawalt+98) in the nucleus but little ionized gas in the outskirts. Deep IFU imaging of the optical lines (H$\alpha$ and \[N[ii]{}\]) will be able to confirm this scenario.
Molecular line ratios
---------------------
We assume that the HCN emission is emerging from the same region as the CN emission and then estimated the line ratio by converting the CARMA flux to the appropriate brightness temperature for the NRO45m. We followed the same procedure for CS(2–1). We find line ratios of HCN(1–0)/CS(2–1)=1.2, CN(1–0)/HCN(1–0)=2.1 and CN(1–0)/CS(2–1)=3.3. Comparing different transitions of different species is not ideal because one is tracing a mixture of excitation and chemistry. In spite of this, it seems safe to say that CN is more abundant than HCN and CS in the central kpc of NGC5195.
Using RADEX [@radex][^8], and assuming a gas kinetic temperature of 65K (from the dust temperature derived by @smith82), a HCN/CS ratio of about unity can be obtained with volume densities of about 10$^4$cm$^{-3}$ and assuming similar HCN and CS abundances. This may point to a very low fraction of dense gas (i.e. gas with number density $n$$\gtrsim$10$^5$cm$^{-3}$) that is in agreement with the emission of CN and CS, as well as with the high ratio CO(1-0)/HCN(1-0) of 85.3.[^9]
Assuming that CN is tracing PDRs in NGC5195, the UV fields created by the low star formation in the galaxy (see §\[sec:sf\]) could dissociate and fragment the molecular clouds, creating larger envelopes in which most of the CN would form. The CN(1–0) line is brighter than that of HCN. The radiative transfer of CN is not straight-forward, but if we assume collisional excitation the line ratio indicates higher CN abundances that that of HCN. Since CN can be a photodissociation product of HCN this may be the result of UV irradiation of fragmented dense clumps. However, one would then expect also to see a strong HCO$^+$ line. There are some star forming regions with X(CN)$>$X(HCN)$>$X(HCO$^+$) in (for example) the Orion ridge [@blake+86] but instead this ratio may emerge from the region around an AGN. @lepp+96 suggested that X(CN)$>$X(HCN) in X-ray irradiated regions. It is possible that (at least a significant fraction of) the high density tracer emission is emerging from the nucleus instead of being scattered in a post-starburst region.
Apart from the species mentioned before, we marginally detect CH$_3$CN$(6_k-5_k)$ (located between 200 and 350km s$^{-1}$ at the red side of $^{13}$CO in Fig. \[fig:spectra\]). Its integrated flux, of 1.3 Jy km s$^{-1}$ is, however, below a 3$\sigma$ detection. This molecule is also a tracer of dense gas ($n_{\rm crit}$\[CH$_3$CN$(6_k-5_k)]\sim10^5$cm$^{-3}$), similar to those of CN(1–0) and CS(2–1). However, CH$_3$CN is easily dissociated by UV fields [@aladro+13], and thus it typically resides in the cores of the molecular clouds. Based on that, the ratio between CN and CH$_3$CN would be an rough indicator of the amount of dense gas residing in the envelopes versus the inner parts. We obtain a tentative ratio of CN/CH$_3$CN=9.0. Interestingly the circumnuclear regions of the Seyfert galaxies NGC1097 and NGC1068 [@martin+15; @aladro+13] show luminous CH$_3$CN emission. High resolution observations will reveal if also NGC5195 has a circumnuclear region of dense gas irradiated by an AGN. Such a structure may have a complex chemistry with suppressed HCO$^+$ while CN abundances can be high and also those of CH$_3$CN in warm, shielded regions.
Past and present star formation in NGC5195 {#sec:sf}
==========================================
The stellar populations of NGC5195 {#sec:stelpop}
----------------------------------
In order to classify the stellar population of NGC5195, we used the Penalized Pixel Fitting software ([ppxf]{}; @ppxf)[^10] applied to the nuclear spectrum[^11] of NGC5195 from the SDSS DR12 [@sdssdr12]. The 3$''$ spectral fiber is ideal for this study, as spectra of NGC5195 that are more extended than the nuclear region tend to be contaminated by the spiral arm of M51a (see: Figure 13.64 of @moustakas+10). Integral field spectroscopy would be able to differentiate between NGC5195 and M51a, to gain a clearer picture of the integrated stellar population properties of NGC5195, but is beyond the scope of this paper.
We used the stellar templates from the [miles]{} library [@miles], normalized to a uniform [@salpeter55] initial mass function (IMF), using models representing 50 stellar ages from 0.06–17Gyr, and 4 metallicities (-0.71$<$[*Z*]{}$<$0.22), for a total of 200 models. We included regularization within [ppxf]{} ([regul]{}=0.004) to allow us to understand the range of possible stellar populations that would match the nuclear spectrum. Figure \[fig:stelpop\] shows the probability distribution function of the [ppxf]{} model fitting, summed over the metallicity axis. The nucleus of NGC5195 clearly shows two stellar populations: 80% of nuclear stars are old ($\gtrsim$10Gyr) and 20% are of intermediate age ($\approx$1Gyr), consistent with A-stars.
As Figure \[fig:stelpop\] shows, there is some uncertainty to the age of the intermediate-aged stellar population, mostly based on degeneracies of metallicity, but also likely because the SDSS fiber only subtends a small portion (144pc) of the nucleus. This does put a significant constraint on the interaction that took place between NGC5195 and M51a, suggesting when enhanced star formation was present in NGC5195. Given that star formation is known to increase even at large radii during gravitational encounters [@scudder+12; @moreno+15], it is likely that this stellar population represents the enhanced star formation that was taking place throughout the encounter (which was suggested to take place $\approx$1/2Gyr ago; @salo+00 [@dobbs+10]). The spectral stellar population fit also agrees within errors with the photometrically-derived stellar populations [@mentuch+12], and might provide another constraint to model the complex history of interaction that has occurred in the M51 system.
Integrated star formation {#sec:int_SF}
-------------------------
The star formation rate of NGC5195 was calculated by @lanz+13 using [magphys]{} [@magphys] to model the far-UV to far-IR SED, measuring it to be 0.142 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. To estimate the contribution of the M51a to the @lanz+13 SFR, we defined a region based on the 8 PAH emission from the foreground arm and measured the 70 and 8 photometry excluding the region. We find that 8% of the PACS70 flux and 18% of the IRAC8 flux are contained in the excluded region. While this region may also contain some emission from NGC5195, the strong correlation of the luminosities in these bands to SFR enable us to estimate that 10–20% of the @lanz+13 SFR may be due to M51a, revising the integrated SFR down to 0.116M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$.
Using the revised SFR, and dividing by the moment0 area from Table \[tab:mol\_properties\], we derive a star formation rate surface density $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$$\approx$0.105 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ (renormalized to our chosen distance to NGC5195 and use of a Salpeter initial mass function; @salpeter55).
To determine if the molecular gas is inefficient globally, we investigate where NGC5195 fits on the Schmidt-Kennicutt (S-K) star formation surface density - gas surface density relation [@schmidt59; @ken98; @kennicutt+12]: $$\frac{\Sigma_{\rm SFR}}{M_\odot\,{\rm yr^{-1}\,kpc^{-2}}} = 2.5\times10^{-4}\left(\frac{\Sigma_{\rm H_2}}{M_\odot\,{\rm pc}^{-2}}\right)^{1.4}$$ If we use the average molecular surface density calculated from our observations, $\langle\Sigma_{\rm H_2}\rangle = 87$$\pm$$2$$M_\odot$pc$^{-2}$, we predict an average $\Sigma_{\rm SFR,predicted}$$\approx$0.13$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$, in good agreement with the measured $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$. We therefore conclude that the global molecular gas in NGC5195 is efficiently forming stars. Two caveats to this analysis are (1) that the @lanz+13 star formation could have been contaminated by the spiral arm in M51a (seen in PAH emission in Figure \[fig:pah+co\]) and (2) that the intermediate-aged stellar population could be providing a non-zero contribution to the far-IR luminosity. We further investigate the star formation rate to determine if either of these caveats play a significant role.
Radio-determined star formation {#sec:radio_SF}
-------------------------------
We also evaluated the SFR indicated by the centimeter- and millimeter-wave radio continuum emission using the following calibration to the radio-SFR relation from @murphy+11 [@murphy+13]:
$$\centering
\label{eqn:sfr_FF}
\begin{split}
\left(\frac{\rm SFR_\nu}{\rm M_\odot~yr^{-1}}\right) = 10^{-27} \\
\left[2.18\left(\frac{T_{\rm ex}}{\rm 10^4\,K}\right)^{0.45}
\left(\frac{\nu}{\rm GHz}\right)^{-0.1}+15.1\left(\frac{\nu}{\rm GHz}\right)^{\rm \alpha_{NT}}\right] \\
\times\left(\frac{L_\nu}{\rm ergs\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}}\right)
\end{split}$$
with excitation temperature $T_{\rm ex}$=10$^4$K and the non-thermal spectral index $\alpha_{\rm NT}$=-0.8. From the sensitive interferometric imaging provided by the SINGS project [@sings; @braun+07], NGC5195 has an integrated 1.4GHz flux density of $\sim$17 mJy within the -detected region. This corresponds to a 1.4GHz SFR of $\sim$0.14$M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, slightly higher than the revised @lanz+13 integrated SFR. We therefore conclude that the centimeter-wave radio emission associated with NGC5195 is predominantly produced by SF, rather than radio-loud AGN activity. This suggests that, if the nucleus of NGC5195 is indeed currently active (as the molecular lines seem to suggest), it may be operating in the so-called radio-quiet or “high-excitation” mode characteristic of efficiently accreting massive black holes [@heckman+14], and consistent with the weak X-rays reported by @schlegel+16. Alternatively, AGN signatures at optical and X-ray wavelengths previously reported by @moustakas+10 and @terashima+04 respectively may in fact be related to stellar processes or shocks occurring in the vicinity of the NGC5195 nucleus [@lisenfeld+10]. If such a scenario in which the massive black hole in the center of NGC5195 is in a quiescent state is indeed true, it’s not clear what mechanism is responsible for halting AGN fueling given the abundant availability of cold gas. Additional detailed studies of the gas kinematics in the ambient environment of the NGC5195 nucleus will be needed to disentangle these possibilities in the future.
At the level of the integrated flux density of $\sim$1mJy of the compact 106GHz emission, the SFR predicted by Equation \[eqn:sfr\_FF\] is $\sim$0.07$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. This is a lower limit, as it is likely that CARMA resolved out the diffuse, lower level emission (seen in the 1.4GHz map in @braun+07). Even with this caveat, the predicted SFR based on the millimeter continuum emission is similarly consistent with a pure SF origin.
Resolved star formation {#sec:resolved_SF}
-----------------------
In order to correctly differentiate star formation taking place in the molecular gas in NGC5195, we use the reduced 70$\mu$m image (see: §\[sec:ancillary\]) from [*Herschel*]{} PACS [@pacs]. The map was then converted to a $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ map using equation 21 from @calzetti+10. We were able to directly compare this map to the $\Sigma_{\rm H_2}$ map, which we derived from the (1–0) using Equation \[eqn:sigh2\], after converting the unclipped integrated intensity map using the Kelvin per Jansky factor for the CARMA map (listed in Table \[tab:mol\_properties\]). We then re-gridded the 70$\mu$m map to match the map using the [idl]{} task [hastrom]{}[^12]. We used the clipped moment maps (Figure \[fig:moments\]) to define the comparison region (which contains “real” emission far above the noise of the map, with a total area of 3.3kpc$^2$).
We first calculated the total SFR by summing the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ corresponding to emission, SFR$_{\rm tot}$=0.072M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$, that is a factor of 1.6 smaller than the revised SFR in §\[sec:int\_SF\], and consistent with the 106GHz free-free estimate for the SFR. This is possibly due to the smaller area subtended by the detected emission. We then calculated the resolved depletion time for NGC5195 by dividing the matched $\Sigma_{\rm H_2}$ by $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$, shown in Figure \[fig:tdep\]. The average depletion timescale (taken only from unmasked pixels with positive values) is 3.08Gyr (with a range between 1 and 6Gyr).
When we include Helium, this depletion time increases to 4.31Gyr. This depletion timescale is a factor of $\approx$2 larger than what is found in normal star-forming galaxies [@bigiel+11; @saintonge+11; @leroy+13]. On the other hand, this depletion time is more consistent with the molecular gas depletion time found for ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$ early-type galaxies [@davis+14]. Given that NGC5195 is an early-type galaxy, the depletion timescale consistent with early-type galaxies is fitting.
Overall, despite having taken part in the interactions with M51a a few hundred Myr ago, the gas in NGC5195 appears to have resettled and returned to forming stars at normal efficiency (for an early-type galaxy). This provides an update to the observations of @kohno+02, who suggested that the molecular disk was gravitationally stable against collapse, suppressing star formation in this system. Our data suggest that NGC5195 has returned to forming stars normally for its type (and its molecular gas content), which might include shear forces capable of reducing the star formation efficiency by $\sim$2 [@martig+13; @davis+14], consistent with other early-type galaxies.
The level of star formation we currently observe in NGC5195 is consistent with a star formation history that includes an enhancement in star formation corresponding to a near approach and subsequent interaction with M51a (possibly including a super-efficient burst of star formation) that has declined for the past 1Gyr, followed by a resettling of the molecular disk and re-establishment of efficient, normal mode star formation consistent with its early-type classification.
![The depletion time map for gas in NGC5195. The depletion time was calculated by dividing the matched $\Sigma_{\rm H_2}$ by $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$. The CARMA beam is shown in the bottom right (gray). The mean depletion time for the gas in NGC5195 is $\langle\tau_{\rm dep}\rangle$ = 3.08Gyr. The position of the radio peak is shown as a white cross, which is not spatially coincident with the highest $\tau_{\rm dep}$, but is in its vicinity.[]{data-label="fig:tdep"}](figures/SF_eff.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} -1.5mm
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We used CARMA to map four molecular gas tracers in NGC5195, detecting (1–0), (1–0), CN(1–0) and CS(2–1), and measured the 106GHz continuum emission in this galaxy, in addition to detections of HCN(1–0) and HCO$^+$(1–0) with the OSO 20m. We also fitted the SDSS DR12 nuclear spectrum of NGC5195 with stellar population models using a smoothed star formation history.
1. We find that our detections of (1–0), (1–0) and HCN(1–0) are consistent with previous observations and we provide the first measurements of CN(1–0), CS(2–1), HCO$^+$(1–0) and 106GHz continuum for NGC5195.
2. [$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{} has been updated for NGC5195 to be 11.4$\pm$0.5, which is much more consistent with a settled molecular distribution in a typical star-forming galaxy than a ULIRG, which tend to have large [$\mathcal{R_{\rm 12/13}}$]{} (due to their disrupted molecular gas distributions).
3. The CN(1–0) emission found in the center of the galaxy appears to have kinematics that are different from the other molecular gas tracers studied. We suggest that the CN is tracing a diffuse component of the molecular gas that is found along the [*x*]{}2 orbits perpendicular to the stellar bar.
4. The molecular line ratios suggest that the dense gas ($n$$\gtrsim$10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$) fraction is low.
5. The stellar population fit to the nuclear spectrum of NGC5195 contains an 80% mass fraction of old ($\gtrsim$10Gyr) stars and a 20% mass fraction of intermediate age ($\approx$1Gyr) stars, consistent (within uncertainties) with an enhancement in star formation taking place starting during first approach and through the recent interaction with M51a.
6. The centimeter and millimeter continuum observations provide evidence that NGC5195 does not contain a buried AGN (or the AGN must be weak both in X-rays and very radio quiet). The star formation rates determined using the radio emission also supports the claim that the molecular gas in NGC5195 is forming stars at normal efficiency.
7. The resolved star formation relation taken from the [*Herschel*]{} 70$\mu$m maps of NGC5195 is consistent with the molecular gas forming stars at the efficiency observed for early-type galaxies.
Although NGC5195 has undergone a substantial interaction with M51a in the recent past ($\sim$1/2Gyr), it appears in the intervening time that its molecular gas has re-settled into a disk and re-established efficient star formation for its morphological type.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank Dr Henrik Olofsson for carrying out the observations with the 20m telescope for them. KA thanks the anonymous referee for an insightful report that has markedly improved the manuscript, and M. Daprà for [gildas]{} advice. Support for KA is provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555. SA acknowledges support from the Swedish National Science Council grant 621-2011-4143. LL acknowledges support for this work provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. KN acknowledges support from NASA through the Spitzer Space Telescope.
Support for CARMA construction was derived from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norris Foundation, the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the Associates of the California Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, the states of California, Illinois, and Maryland, and the National Science Foundation. Ongoing CARMA development and operations are supported by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement, and by the CARMA partner universities. The 20m telescope is operated by Onsala Space Observatory (OSO), the Swedish National Facility for Radio Astronomy.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work is based \[in part\] on observations made with the [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. [*Herschel*]{} is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA. Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS-IV acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org.
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , ,
[^1]: http://www.mmarray.org
[^2]: Using the SDSS DR12 [*u*]{} and [*r*]{} modelmags [@sdssdr12].
[^3]: <http://sha.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Spitzer/SHA/>
[^4]: <https://casa.nrao.edu/>
[^5]: This does not include the absolute flux calibration uncertainty of 20%.
[^6]: The CO line luminosity
[^7]: Does not include the 30% mass conversion uncertainty [@bolatto+13] or 20% absolute flux uncertainty
[^8]: [http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/$\sim$moldata/radex.html](http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~moldata/radex.html)
[^9]: A HCN(1–0)/CS(2–1) line ratio close to unity may also emerge from an even denser gas component with $n$$>$10$^4$cm$^{-3}$, but this would require that the CS abundances exceed those of HCN. We assume collisional excitation only, no significant optical depth effects and that the hyperfine structure lines of HCN(1–0) can simply be added (see discussion in @aalto+15).
[^10]: [http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/$\sim$mxc/software/[\#]{}ppxf](http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~mxc/software/#ppxf)
[^11]: <http://data.sdss3.org/spectrumDetail?mjd=53063&fiber=527&plateid=1463>
[^12]: <http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp/pro/astrom/hastrom.pro>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present measurements of $B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decays in a data sample of $657 \times 10^6$ $B\bar{B}$ pairs collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ collider. We find $446^{+58}_{-56}$ events of the decay $B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ with a significance of 8.1 standard deviations, and $146^{+42}_{-41}$ events of the decay $B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ with a significance of 3.5 standard deviations. The latter signal provides the first evidence for this decay mode. The measured branching fractions are $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau ^+
\nu_{\tau})=(2.12^{+0.28}_{-0.27} ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.29 ({\rm syst})) \% $ and $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau ^+
\nu_{\tau})=(0.77\pm 0.22 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.12 ({\rm syst})) \% $.
author:
- 'A. Bozek'
- 'M. Rozanska'
- 'I. Adachi'
- 'H. Aihara'
- 'K. Arinstein'
- 'V. Aulchenko'
- 'T. Aushev'
- 'T. Aziz'
- 'A. M. Bakich'
- 'V. Bhardwaj'
- 'M. Bischofberger'
- 'A. Bondar'
- 'M. Bračko'
- 'T. E. Browder'
- 'Y. Chao'
- 'A. Chen'
- 'B. G. Cheon'
- 'I.-S. Cho'
- 'K.-S. Choi'
- 'Y. Choi'
- 'J. Dalseno'
- 'Z. Doležal'
- 'Z. Drásal'
- 'A. Drutskoy'
- 'W. Dungel'
- 'S. Eidelman'
- 'P. Goldenzweig'
- 'B. Golob'
- 'H. Ha'
- 'K. Hara'
- 'Y. Hasegawa'
- 'H. Hayashii'
- 'T. Higuchi'
- 'Y. Horii'
- 'Y. Hoshi'
- 'W.-S. Hou'
- 'H. J. Hyun'
- 'T. Iijima'
- 'K. Inami'
- 'M. Iwabuchi'
- 'Y. Iwasaki'
- 'N. J. Joshi'
- 'J. H. Kang'
- 'P. Kapusta'
- 'H. Kawai'
- 'T. Kawasaki'
- 'H. Kichimi'
- 'C. Kiesling'
- 'H. O. Kim'
- 'J. H. Kim'
- 'M. J. Kim'
- 'S. K. Kim'
- 'Y. J. Kim'
- 'B. R. Ko'
- 'S. Korpar'
- 'P. Križan'
- 'P. Krokovny'
- 'T. Kuhr'
- 'T. Kumita'
- 'A. Kuzmin'
- 'Y.-J. Kwon'
- 'S.-H. Kyeong'
- 'M. J. Lee'
- 'S.-H. Lee'
- 'J. Li'
- 'D. Liventsev'
- 'R. Louvot'
- 'A. Matyja'
- 'S. McOnie'
- 'H. Miyata'
- 'Y. Miyazaki'
- 'R. Mizuk'
- 'G. B. Mohanty'
- 'E. Nakano'
- 'M. Nakao'
- 'H. Nakazawa'
- 'S. Neubauer'
- 'S. Nishida'
- 'O. Nitoh'
- 'T. Nozaki'
- 'S. Ogawa'
- 'T. Ohshima'
- 'S. Okuno'
- 'S. L. Olsen'
- 'W. Ostrowicz'
- 'P. Pakhlov'
- 'G. Pakhlova'
- 'C. W. Park'
- 'H. K. Park'
- 'R. Pestotnik'
- 'M. Petrič'
- 'L. E. Piilonen'
- 'H. Sahoo'
- 'Y. Sakai'
- 'O. Schneider'
- 'J. Schümann'
- 'C. Schwanda'
- 'A. J. Schwartz'
- 'K. Senyo'
- 'J.-G. Shiu'
- 'B. Shwartz'
- 'R. Sinha'
- 'P. Smerkol'
- 'A. Sokolov'
- 'E. Solovieva'
- 'M. Starič'
- 'J. Stypula'
- 'T. Sumiyoshi'
- 'G. N. Taylor'
- 'Y. Teramoto'
- 'I. Tikhomirov'
- 'K. Trabelsi'
- 'S. Uehara'
- 'Y. Unno'
- 'S. Uno'
- 'G. Varner'
- 'K. E. Varvell'
- 'K. Vervink'
- 'C. H. Wang'
- 'M.-Z. Wang'
- 'P. Wang'
- 'Y. Watanabe'
- 'R. Wedd'
- 'E. Won'
- 'B. D. Yabsley'
- 'Y. Yamashita'
- 'V. Zhulanov'
- 'T. Zivko'
- 'A. Zupanc'
title: |
\
Observation of $ B^+ \to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau^+
\nu_{\tau}$ and Evidence for $ B^+ \to \bar{D}^{0} \tau^+
\nu_{\tau}$ at Belle.
---
Measurements of leptonic and semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons to the $\tau$ lepton can provide important constraints on the Standard Model (SM) and its extensions. Due to the large mass of the lepton in the final state, these decays are sensitive probes of models with extended Higgs sectors [@Itoh]. Semileptonic modes with $b \to c \tau^- {\bar\nu}_{\tau}$ [@CC] transitions provide more observables sensitive to new physics than purely leptonic $B^+\to \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decays. Of particular interest is $\tau$ polarization. The effects of new physics are expected to be larger in $B\to \bar{D} \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$ than in $B\to \bar{D}^* \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$. We note that decays to the vector meson offer the interesting possibility of studying correlations between the D\* polarization and other observables [@Garisto].
The predicted branching fractions, based on the SM, are around 1.4% and 0.7% for $B^0 \to {D}^{*-} \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$ and $B^0 \to {D}^- \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$, respectively (see [*e.g.*]{}, [@hwang]). Despite relatively large branching fractions, multiple neutrinos in the final states make the search for semi-tauonic $B$ decays very challenging. Inclusive and semi-inclusive branching fractions have been measured in LEP experiments [@lep] with an average branching fraction of $\mathcal{B}(b \to \tau \nu_{\tau} X)=(2.48\pm
0.26)\%$ [@PDG]. The exclusive decay was first observed by Belle [@Matyja] in the $B^0\to {D}^{*-} \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$ mode. Other modes have also been measured by BaBar [@BaBar-1] and Belle [@Kozakai]. The results are still statistically limited. In particular, the Belle prelimnary result [@Kozakai] is the only evidence to date for $B^+\to \bar{D}^0 \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$. Further improvements in precision could tightly constrain theoretical models.
Decays of $B$ mesons to multi-neutrino final states can be studied at $B$-factories via the recoil of the accompanying $B$ meson ($B_{\rm tag}$). Reconstruction of the $B_{\rm tag}$ allows one to calculate the missing four-momentum in the $B_{\rm sig}$ decay; this helps separate signal events from copious backgrounds. At the same time the presence of a $B_{\rm tag}$ strongly suppresses the combinatorial and continuum backgrounds. The disadvantage is the low $B_{\rm tag}$ reconstruction efficiency. To increase statistics, we reconstruct the $B_{\rm tag}$ “inclusively” from all the remaining particles after the $B_{\rm sig}$ selection (see Ref. [@Matyja]). A data sample consisting of $657 \times 10^6$ $B\bar{B}$ pairs is used in this analysis. It was collected with the Belle detector [@Belle] at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ (3.5 on 8 GeV) collider [@KEKB] operating at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance ($\sqrt{s}=10.58$ GeV).
We use Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to estimate signal efficiencies and background contributions. Large samples of the signal $B^+\to \bar{D}^{(*)0} \tau ^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decays are generated with the EvtGen package [@evtgen] using the ISGW2 model [@isgw2]. Radiative effects are modeled using the PHOTOS code [@photos]. We use large MC samples of continuum $q\bar{q}$ ($q=u,d,s,c$) and inclusive $B\bar{B}$ events to model the background. The sizes of these samples are, respectively, six and nine times that of the data.
Primary charged tracks are required to have impact parameters consistent with an origin at the interaction point (IP), and to have momenta above 50 MeV/$c$ in the laboratory frame. $K^0_S$ mesons are reconstructed using pairs of charged tracks satisfying $482 ~{\rm MeV}/c^2 < M_{\pi^+\pi^-} < 514 ~{\rm MeV}/c^2$ with a vertex displacement from the IP consistent with the reconstructed momentum vector. Muons, electrons, charged pions, kaons and protons are identified using information from particle identification subsystems [@PID]. The momenta of particles identified as electrons are corrected for bremsstrahlung by adding photons within a 50 mrad cone along the lepton trajectory.
The $\pi^0$ candidates are reconstructed from photon pairs having 118 MeV/$c^2<M_{\gamma\gamma}<150\ {\rm MeV}/c^2$. For candidates that share a common $\gamma$, we select the one with the smallest $\chi^2$ value resulting from a $\pi ^0$ mass-constrained fit. To reduce the combinatorial background, we require that the photons from the $\pi^ 0$ have energies greater than 60 MeV - 120 MeV, depending on the photon’s polar angle. Photons that are not associated with a $\pi^0$ are accepted if their energy exceeds a polar-angle dependent threshold ranging from 100 MeV to 200 MeV.
The $\bar{D}^0$ candidates are reconstructed in the $K^+\pi^-$ and $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ final states. We accept $\bar{D}^0$ candidates having an invariant mass in a $3\sigma$ window of the nominal $M_{D^0}$ mass.
The $\bar{D}^{*0}$ candidates are reconstructed from $\bar{D}^0 \pi^0$. We require that the mass difference $\Delta M = M_{D^*}-M_{D^0}$ is in a 3$\sigma$ window around its nominal value. We also accept $\bar{D}^0 \gamma$ pairs that do not fulfill the requirement on $\Delta M$ if they are kinematically consistent with the hypothesis that $\bar{D}^0$ and $\gamma$ come from the decay $\bar{D}^{*0}\to \bar{D}^0 \pi^0$ with one undetected photon ($\gamma_{\rm miss}$) from the $\pi^0$ decay (“partial reconstruction” of $\bar{D}^{*0}$). For this purpose $\cos(\theta_{\gamma,\gamma_{\rm miss}})$, the cosine of the angle between two photons from the $\pi^0~$ is calculated in the $\bar{D}^{*0}$ rest frame taking the nominal $\bar{D}^{*0}$ and $\pi^0$ masses. We require $|\cos(\theta_{\gamma,\gamma_{\rm miss}})|\:<\:1.1$ (taking into account experimental precision) and that the energy of the detected photon exceeds 120 MeV. The partial reconstruction of $\bar{D}^{*0}$ increases the reconstruction efficiency by a factor of about four, but due to higher background it is only used in the subchannels with $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ decay.
To reconstruct the $\tau$ lepton candidates, we use the $\tau^+ \to e^+\nu_e\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$, $\tau^+ \to \mu^+\nu_{\mu}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$, and $\tau^+ \to \pi^+\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ modes. In the latter case, we also take into account the contribution from the $\tau^+ \to \rho^+\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ channel. The $\tau^+\to \pi^+\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ mode has a sensitivity similar to the $\tau^+ \to e^+\nu_e\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ or $\tau^+ \to \mu^+\nu_{\mu}\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ mode, and can be used to study $\tau$ polarization. For this channel, due to the higher combinatorial background, we analyze only the decay chains with the $\bar{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ mode. In total, we consider 13 different decay chains, eight with $\bar{D}^{*0}$ and five with $\bar{D}^0$ in the final states.
The signal candidates are selected by combining a $\bar{D}^{(*)0}$ meson with an appropriately charged electron, muon or pion. In the sub-channels with the $\tau^+ \to \pi^+\bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ decay, the large combinatorial background is suppressed by requiring the pion energy $E_{\pi} > 0.6$ GeV. From multiple candidates we select a ($\bar{D}^{(*)0}d^+_{\tau}$) pair (throughout the paper $d_{\tau}$ stands for the charged $\tau$ daughter: $e$, $\mu$ or $\pi$) with the best ${\bar{D}^{(*)0}}$ candidate, based on the value of $\Delta M$ (for subchannels where $\Delta M$ is available) or $M_{D^0}$. For the pairs sharing the same ${\bar{D}^{(*)0}}$ candidate, we select the candidate with the largest vertex probability fit on the tagging side. Once a $B_{\rm sig}$ candidate is found, the remaining particles that are not assigned to $B_{\rm sig}$ are used to reconstruct the $B_{\rm tag}$ decay. The consistency of a $B_{\rm tag}$ candidate with a $B$-meson decay is checked using the beam-energy constrained mass and the energy difference variables: $M_{\rm tag} = \sqrt{E^2_{\rm beam} - {\bf p}^2_{\rm tag}},~~
{\bf p}_{\rm tag} = \sum_i {\bf p}_i$, and $\Delta E_{\rm tag} = E_{\rm tag} - E_{\rm beam}, ~~ E_{\rm tag}
= \sum_i E_i$, where $E_{\rm beam}$ is the beam energy and ${\bf p}_i$ and $E_i$ denote the 3-momentum vector and energy of the $i$’th particle. All quantities are evaluated in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame. The summation is over all particles that are assigned to $B_{\rm tag}$. We require that the candidate events have $M_{\rm tag}> 5.2 ~{\rm GeV}/c^2$ and $-0.3 ~{\rm GeV} <\Delta E_{\rm tag}<0.05 ~{\rm GeV}$. With this requirement the $M_{\rm tag}$ distribution of the signal peaks at the $B^+$ mass with about 80% of the events being contained in the signal-enhanced region $M_{\rm tag}>$ 5.26 GeV/$c^2$.
To suppress background and improve the quality of the $B_{\rm tag}$ selection, we impose the following requirements: zero total event charge; no charged leptons in the event (except those coming from the signal side); zero net proton/antiproton number; residual energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter ([*i.e.*]{}, the sum of energies that are not included in the $B_{\rm sig}$ nor $B_{\rm tag}$) should be less than 0.35 GeV (0.30 GeV or 0.25 GeV in sub-channels with higher backgrounds); the number of neutral particles on the tagging side $N_{\pi^0}+N_{\gamma}<6$, $N_{\gamma} <3$, and less than four tracks that do not satisfy the requirements imposed on the impact parameters. For decay modes with higher background, we impose further constraints on the total event strangeness and require no $K^0_L$ in the event. These criteria, which we refer to as “the $B_{\rm tag}$-selection”, reject events in which some particles were undetected and suppress events with a large number of spurious showers. In the samples of the ($\bar{D}^{(*)0}l^+$) pairs ($l=e, \mu$), the dominant background comes from semileptonic $B$ decays, $B^+\to \bar{D}^{(*)0} X l^+\nu_{l}$, whereas in the case of the ($\bar{D}^{(*)0}\pi^+$) pairs, the combinatorial background from hadronic $B$ decays dominates. Further background suppression exploits observables that characterize the signal decay: missing energy $E_{\rm miss} =
E_{\rm beam}-E_{\bar{D}^{(*)0}}-E_{d_{\tau}^+}$; visible energy $E_{\rm vis}$, [*i.e.*]{}, the sum of the energies of all particles in the event; the square of missing mass $M_{\rm miss}^2 = E_{\rm miss}^2 -
({\bf p}_{\rm sig} -
{\bf p}_{\bar{D}^{(*)0}} -
{\bf p}_{d_{\tau}^+})^2$ and the effective mass of the ($\tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$) pair, $q^2 = (E_{\rm beam} -
E_{\bar{D}^{(*)0}})^2 -
({\bf p}_{\rm sig} -
{\bf p}_{\bar{D}^{(*)0}})^2$ where ${\bf p}_{\rm sig} = -{\bf p}_{\rm tag}$ (all kinematical variables are in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame). The most useful variable for separating signal and background is obtained by combining $E_{\rm miss}$ and ($\bar{D}^{(*)0} d_{\tau}^+$) pair momentum: $X_{\rm miss} = (E_{\rm miss} - |{\bf p}_{\bar{D}^{(*)0}} +
{\bf p}_{d_{\tau}^+}|)/
\sqrt{E_{\rm beam}^2 -m_{B^+}^2}$ where $m_{B^+}$ is the $B^+$ mass. The $X_{\rm miss}$ variable is closely related to the missing mass in the $B_{\rm sig}$ decay but does not depend on the $B_{\rm tag}$ reconstruction [@Matyja]. The signal selection criteria are optimized individually in each decay chain, by maximizing the expected significance $N_S/\sqrt{N_S+N_B}$, where $N_S$ and $N_B$ are the number of signal and background events in the signal-enhanced region, assuming the SM prediction [@hwang] for the signal branching fractions. The expected background $N_B$ is evaluated using generic MC samples. We require $E_{\rm vis}< 8.3 ~{\rm GeV}$ – $8.5 ~{\rm GeV}$, $E_{\rm miss}> 1.5 ~{\rm GeV}$ – $1.9 ~{\rm GeV}$ and $X_{\rm miss}>$ 2.0 – 2.75 for leptonic $\tau$ decays, or $X_{\rm miss}>$ 1.0 – 1.5 for the modes with $\tau \to \pi \nu_{\tau}$. In the latter case, where the $\tau$ decays to a final state with a single neutrino, we further require $\cos(\theta_{\nu_1\nu_2})$ to be in the range $[-1,1]$, where $\theta_{\nu_1\nu_2}$ denotes the angle between the two neutrinos in the ($\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$) rest frame and is calculated from the $M_{\rm miss}^2$ and $q^2$ variables. In the sample with ($\bar{D}^0d^+_{\tau}$) pairs, to suppress the cross-feeds from the $B\to \bar{D}^*\tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ modes, we impose a loose requirement on $q^2< 9.5 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.
The above requirements result in flat $M_{\rm tag}$ distributions for most background components, while the distribution of the signal modes remains unchanged. The main sources of the peaking background are the semileptonic decays $B^+ \to \bar{D}^{*0}l^+\nu_l$ and $B \to \bar{D}^{(*)}\pi l^+\nu_l$ (including $\bar{D}^{**}l^+\nu_l$). In order to estimate the peaking background reliably, in particular from poorly known semileptonic modes of the type $B\to \bar{D}^{**}l\nu_l$, we divide the MC sample into the following categories: $B\to\bar{D}^*l^+\nu_l$, $B\to\bar{D}l^+\nu_l$, $B\to\bar{D}^{**}l^+\nu_l$, other $B$ decays, $c\bar{c}$ and ($u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}+s\bar{s}$) continuum. The normalizations of these components are determined from simultaneous fits to experimental distributions of $M_{\rm tag}$, $\Delta E_{\rm tag}$, $E_{d_{\tau}}$, $X_{\rm miss}$, $E_{\rm vis}$, $q^2$, and $R_2$, the ratio of the second and zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments [@FW]. These fits are performed separately for the subsamples defined by the ($\bar{D}^{(*)0}d^+_{\tau}$) pairs, excluding the region $M_{\rm tag}>5.26 ~{\rm GeV/c}^2$ and $X_{\rm miss}>2.0$, where we expect enhanced signal contributions. The signal and combinatorial background yields are extracted from an extended unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the $M_{\rm tag}$ and $P_{D^0}$ (momentum of $D^0$ from $B_{\rm sig}$ measured in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ frame) variables. The $M_{\rm tag}$ variable allows us to separate the combinatorial background from the signal, while $P_{D^0}$ helps to distinguish between the two signal modes. Correlations between these variables are found to be small.
Parameterizations of two-dimensional probability density functions (PDFs) are determined from the MC samples. They are expressed as the product of one-dimensional PDF’s for each variable. The PDF’s for $M_{\rm tag}$ of the signal and peaking background components are described using an empirical parameterization introduced by the Crystal Ball collaboration [@CB], while combinatorial backgrounds are parameterized by the ARGUS function [@ARGUS]. It has been empirically found that the PDF’s for $P_{D^0}$ are well modeled as a sum of two Gaussian distributions. The fits are performed in the range $M_{\rm tag}>5.2$ GeV/$c^2$, simultaneously to all data subsets. In each of the subchannels, we describe the data as the sum of four components: signal, cross-feed between $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$, combinatorial and peaking backgrounds. The common signal branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau})$ and $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau})$, and the numbers of combinatorial background in each subchannel are free parameters of the fit, while the normalizations of peaking background contributions are fixed to the values obtained from the rescaled MC samples (as described above). The signal yields and branching fractions for $B^+\to \bar{D}^{(*)0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ decays are related using the following formula, which assumes equal fractions of charged and neutral $B$ meson pairs produced in $\Upsilon(4S)$ decays: $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to\bar{D}^{(*)0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}) =
N_s^{D^{(*)}}/(N_{B\bar{B}}\times \sum_{k}\epsilon_{k}\mathcal{B}_{k})$, where $N_{B\bar{B}}$ is the number of $B\bar{B}$ pairs and the index $k$ runs over the 13 decay chains; $\epsilon_{k}$ denotes the reconstruction efficiency of the specific subchannel and $\mathcal{B}_{k}$ is the product of intermediate branching fractions. All the intermediate branching fractions are taken from the PDG compilation [@PDG]. The efficiencies of the signal reconstruction, as well as the expected combinatorial and peaking backgrounds are given in Table \[tab-yields\].
The signal extraction procedure has been tested by fitting ensembles of simulated experiments containing all signal and background components. These pseudo-experiments are generated using the shapes of the fitted PDF’s for the signal and background components and with the number of events are Poisson-distributed around the expected yields. The pull distributions of the extracted signal branching fractions are consistent with standard normal distributions. The small biases in the mean values are included in the final systematic uncertainties.
Mode $N_{s}$ $N_b$ $N_b^{\rm MC}$ $N_p$ $ \epsilon (10^{-6})$ $\mathcal{B}(\%)$ $\Sigma (\sigma)$
-------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- -- --
$\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ $446^{+58}_{-56} (226)$ $1075^{+37}_{-35}$ $1029\pm 20$ $31.0\pm 17.7$ $32.6\pm 0.2 (16.3)$ $2.12^{+0.28}_{-0.27}$ $8.8$
$\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ $146^{+42}_{-41} (15)$ $1245^{+40}_{-39}$ $1310\pm 19$ $78.2\pm 12.6 $ $30.0\pm 0.4 (3.2)$ $0.77\pm 0.22$ $3.6$
\[tab-yields\]
The procedure established above is applied to the data. The $M_{\rm tag}$ and $P_{D^0}$ distributions for the $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ samples in data are shown in Fig. \[pic-fit\]. The overlaid histograms represent the expected background, scaled to the data luminosity. A clear excess of events over background is visible in the signal-enhanced region. The branching fractions extracted from the fit are $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau ^+
\nu_{\tau})=(2.12^{+0.28}_{-0.27} ({\rm stat})) \% $ and $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau ^+
\nu_{\tau})=(0.77 \pm 0.22 ({\rm stat})) \% $. The signal yields are $446^{+58}_{-56}$ $B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ events and $146^{+42}_{-41}$ $B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ events. The statistical significances, defined as $\Sigma =
\sqrt{-2{\ln}(\mathcal{L}_{\rm 0}/\mathcal{L}_{\rm max})}$, corespond to 8.8 and 3.6 standard deviations ($\sigma$), respectively. Here $\mathcal{L}_{\rm max}$ denotes the maximum likelihood value and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm 0}$ is the likelihood for the zero signal hypothesis. The fitted yields of combinatorial background in the individual submodes are consistent within statistical uncertainties with the MC-based expectations. The fit results are summarized in Table \[tab-yields\]. The fit projections in $M_{\rm tag}$ and $P_{D^0}$ are shown in Fig. \[pic-fit\].
![The fit projections to $M_{\rm tag}$, and $P_{D^0}$ for $M_{\rm tag}>5.26 ~{\rm GeV}/c^2$ (a,b) for $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$, (c,d) for $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The black curves show the result of the fits. The solid dashed curves represent the background and the dashed dotted ones show the combinatorial component. The dot-long-dashed and dot-short-dashed curvess represent, respectively, the signal contributions from $B^+\to\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The histograms represent the MC-predicted background. []{data-label="pic-fit"}](fig_bdtau_1a.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![The fit projections to $M_{\rm tag}$, and $P_{D^0}$ for $M_{\rm tag}>5.26 ~{\rm GeV}/c^2$ (a,b) for $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$, (c,d) for $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The black curves show the result of the fits. The solid dashed curves represent the background and the dashed dotted ones show the combinatorial component. The dot-long-dashed and dot-short-dashed curvess represent, respectively, the signal contributions from $B^+\to\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The histograms represent the MC-predicted background. []{data-label="pic-fit"}](fig_bdtau_1b.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![The fit projections to $M_{\rm tag}$, and $P_{D^0}$ for $M_{\rm tag}>5.26 ~{\rm GeV}/c^2$ (a,b) for $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$, (c,d) for $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The black curves show the result of the fits. The solid dashed curves represent the background and the dashed dotted ones show the combinatorial component. The dot-long-dashed and dot-short-dashed curvess represent, respectively, the signal contributions from $B^+\to\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The histograms represent the MC-predicted background. []{data-label="pic-fit"}](fig_bdtau_1c.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![The fit projections to $M_{\rm tag}$, and $P_{D^0}$ for $M_{\rm tag}>5.26 ~{\rm GeV}/c^2$ (a,b) for $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$, (c,d) for $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The black curves show the result of the fits. The solid dashed curves represent the background and the dashed dotted ones show the combinatorial component. The dot-long-dashed and dot-short-dashed curvess represent, respectively, the signal contributions from $B^+\to\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$. The histograms represent the MC-predicted background. []{data-label="pic-fit"}](fig_bdtau_1d.eps "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}
As a cross-check, we extract the signal yields from an extended unbinned maximum likelihood fit to one-dimensional distributions in $M_{\rm tag}$ and obtain consistent results with the two-dimensional fit. We also examine the distributions of variables used in the signal selection, applying all requirements except those that are related to the considered variable. In all cases the distributions are well-reproduced by the sum of signal and background components with normalizations fixed from the fit to the $(M_{\rm tag},P_{D^0})$ distribution.
The systematic uncertainties in the branching fractions are summarized in Table \[tab-sys\]. They include uncertainties in the total number of $B\bar{B}$ pairs, the effective efficiencies $\sum_{k}\epsilon_{k}\mathcal{B}_{k}$, and the signal-yield extractions. The systematic uncertainties associated with the effective efficiencies include errors in determination of the efficiencies for $B_{\rm tag}$ reconstruction and ($\bar{D}^{(*)0}d^+_{\tau}$) pair selection, coming from efficiencies of tracking, neutral particle reconstruction, particle identification, and from imperfect modeling of real processes. The uncertainty in the $B_{\rm tag}$ and part of the $B_{\rm sig}$ reconstruction efficiency is evaluated from data control samples with $B^+\to\bar{D}^{*0}\pi^+$ and $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\pi^+$ decays on the signal-side. The absolute normalizations of the data and MC control samples agree to within 13%. The difference, as well as uncertainties in the relative amounts of $D^{*0}-D^{0}$ cross-feeds are included in the systematic uncertainty of $B_{\rm tag}$ and $B_{\rm sig}$ reconstruction. The remaining uncertainties in the lepton identification and signal selection are estimated separately. The latter are determined by comparing MC and data distributions in the variables used for signal selection. The uncertainties due to the partial branching fractions $\mathcal{B}_k$ are taken from the errors quoted by the PDG [@PDG].
The systematic uncertainties in the signal yield originate from the background evaluation and from the PDF parameterizations of the signal and background components. The resulting error is evaluated from changes in the signal yields obtained from fits where the PDF parameters and the relative contributions of the background components are varied by $\pm 1\sigma$. All of the above sources of systematic uncertainties are combined together taking into account correlations between different decay chains. The combined systematic uncertainty is 13.9% for the $B^+ \to \bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ mode and 15.2% for $B^+\to\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$.
Source $\bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$ $\bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}$
--------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------
$N_{B\bar{B}}$ $\pm 1.4$% $\pm 1.4$%
Reconstruction of $B_{\rm tag}$ and $B_{\rm sig}$ $\pm 12.9$% $\pm 12.8$%
Lepton-id and signal selection $^{+1.5}_{-1.6}$% $^{+4.4}_{-4.5}$%
Shape of the signal PDF’s $\pm 2.5$% $\pm 6.0$%
Comb. and peaking backgrounds $\pm 3.3$% $\pm 2.7$%
Fitting procedure $\pm 0.8$% $\pm 1.5$%
Total $\pm 13.9$% $\pm 15.2$%
: Summary of the systematic uncertainties.
\[tab-sys\]
We include the effect of systematic uncertainties in the signal yields on the significances of the observed signals by convolving the likelihood function from the fit with a Gaussian systematic error distribution. The significances of the observed signals after including systematic uncertainties are 8.1$\sigma$ and 3.5$\sigma$ for the $B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ and $B^+\to \bar{D}^{0} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ modes, respectively.
In conclusion, in a sample of 657$\times 10^6~B\bar{B}$ pairs we measure branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{*0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}) = (2.12^{+0.28}_{-0.27}
({\rm stat}) \pm 0.29({\rm syst}))$%, and $\mathcal{B}(B^+\to \bar{D}^{0}\tau^+\nu_{\tau}) = (0.77 \pm 0.22
({\rm stat}) \pm 0.12({\rm syst}))$%, which are consistent within experimental uncertainties with SM expectations [@hwang]. The result on $B^+\to \bar{D}^0\tau ^+\nu_{\tau}$ is the first evidence for this decay mode. We thank the KEKB group for excellent operation of the accelerator, the KEK cryogenics group for efficient solenoid operations, and the KEK computer group and the NII for valuable computing and SINET3 network support. We acknowledge support from MEXT, JSPS and Nagoya’s TLPRC (Japan); ARC and DIISR (Australia); NSFC (China); MSMT (Czechia); DST (India); MEST, NRF, NSDC of KISTI, and WCU (Korea); MNiSW (Poland); MES and RFAAE (Russia); ARRS (Slovenia); SNSF (Switzerland); NSC and MOE (Taiwan); and DOE (USA).
[99]{}
A. S. Cornell [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0906.1652 \[hep-ph\] and references quoted therein.
Throughout this paper, the inclusion of the charge-conjugate decay mode is implied unless otherwise stated.
R. Garisto, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1107 (1995); M. Tanaka, Z. Phys. C [**67**]{}, 321 (1995). C.-H. Chen and C.-Q. Geng, JHEP [0610]{}, 053 (2006).
G. Abbiendi [*et al.*]{} (OPAL Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**520**]{}, 1 (2001); R. Barate [*et al.*]{} (ALEPH Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C [**19**]{}, 213 (1996); P. Abreu [*et al.*]{} (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**496**]{}, 43 (2000); M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{} (L3 Collaboration), Z. Phys. C [**71**]{}, 379 (1996). C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B [**667**]{}, 1 (2008). A. Matyja [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **99**]{}, 191807 (2007).
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **100**]{}, 021801 (2008).
I. Adachi [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), BELLE-CONF-0901, arXiv:0910.4301 \[hep-ex\].
A. Abashian [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A [**479**]{}, 117 (2002).
S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani, Nucl. Instr. and. Meth. A [**499**]{}, 1 (2003), and other papers included in this volume.
D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A [**462**]{}, 152 (2001). D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 2783 (1995). E. Barberio and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**79**]{}, 291 (1994). E. Nakano [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**494**]{}, 402 (2002). G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**41**]{}, 1581 (1978).
T. Skwarnicki, Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow 1986; DESY Internal Report, DESY F31-86-02 (1986). H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**241**]{}, 278 (1990).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The most general solution of the Einstein field equations coupled with a massless scalar field is known as Wyman’s solution. This solution is also present in the Brans-Dicke theory and, due to its importance, it has been studied in detail by many authors. However, this solutions has not been studied from the perspective of a possible wormhole. In this paper, we perform a detailed analysis of this issue. It turns out that there is a wormhole. Although we prove that the so-called throat cannot be traversed by human beings, it can be traversed by particles and bodies that can last long enough.'
author:
- 'J. B. Formiga'
- 'T. S. Almeida'
date:
-
-
title: 'Wormholes in Wyman’s solution'
---
Introduction
============
Wormholes are one of the most intriguing objects that are allowed by the Einstein field equations. Theoretically, if they exist, they could perhaps be used as a shortcut to the furthest distances of our universe, connect our universe to another one or even be used to time travel [@PhysRevLett.61.1446; @PhysRevD.41.1116; @Lorentzianwormholes]. There is no empirical evidence to support them yet and they have always been associated with exotic matter (matter that violates the energy conditions). Nevertheless, a lot of attention has been paid to their geometrical properties and it is believed that quantum mechanics could provide such an exotic matter, since in the Casimir effect the null, weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions are all violated [^1]. Another empirical fact that supports this kind of exotic matter is the accelerated expansion of the universe, which can be explained by a matter that violates at least one of the energy conditions [@Nojiri20031; @Straumann:2002he]. Some methods have been developed to distinguish the gravitational lensing due to a wormhole from the ones caused by other objects [@PhysRevD.51.3117; @*Virbhadra:1998dy; @*doi:10.1142/S021773230100398X; @*PhysRevD.65.103004; @*PhysRevD.74.024020; @*doi:10.1142/S0217732308025498; @*PhysRevD.77.124014]. In short, we can say that the possibility of having wormholes in our universe is a very important aspect of general relativity.
Wyman’s solution, also known as Fisher-Janis-Newman-Winicour solution, corresponds to the most general spherically symmetric solution to the Einstein–massless-scalar-field equations [@PhysRevD.24.839; @PhysRevD.86.084031]. It contains a particular case that can be seen as describing a spherical body and which is in agreement with the solar-system experiments [@PhysRevD.83.087502]. One also finds Wyman’s solution in the context of Brans-Dicke theory as a special case of the Campanelli-Lousto solutions [@PhysRevD.86.084031; @doi:10.1142/S0218271893000325; @PhysRevD.51.2011], in an alternative version of this theory [@PhysRevD.89.064047], and even in a model with torsion and nonmetricity [@10.1007/s10773-014-2003-2]. Due to its importance, it has been studied in detail by many authors [@PhysRevD.24.839; @PhysRevD.83.087502; @PhysRevD.51.2011; @PhysRevD.31.1280; @PhysRevLett.20.878; @Roberts:1993re; @PhysRevD.40.2564; @PhysRevD.81.024035; @Fisher:1948yn; @:/content/aip/journal/jmp/46/6/10.1063/1.1920308; @OliveiraNetoSousa2008]. Some of them have even called the attention to a possible wormhole solution present in a particular case of the Wyman solution [@:/content/aip/journal/jmp/46/6/10.1063/1.1920308; @OliveiraNetoSousa2008; @OliveiraNetoSousa2008]. However, despite the great interest in this solution, as far as we know, no detailed analysis of its possible wormholes has been made so far. In this paper, we try to fill this gap by proving that there exist wormholes in Wyman solution and also by studying the properties of its throat. Our analysis is based on the properties of traversable wormholes listed in Ref. [@citeulike:5196630] and also on the definitions present in Ref. [@PhysRevD.56.4745].
We begin in Sec. \[29012014a\] with a list of properties that a wormhole should possess in order to be traversable by humans, while in Sec. \[1032014a\] we present Wyman’s solution and some of its features. Section \[1032014b\] is devoted to the analysis of a wormhole that does not satisfies all Morris-Thorne conditions [@citeulike:5196630], but does satisfy Hochberg and Visser general definition of wormhole [@PhysRevD.56.4745]. In this section, we also prove that its throat separates two regions where the curvature tensor goes to zero as we walk away from the throat, at least for certain values of one of the parameters presented in Wyman’s solution. In addition, the detailed analysis reveals that this throat cannot be traversed by humans, although it could be by something else that could last long enough. The results of this paper are summarized in Sec. \[1032014d\].
Traversable Wormholes {#29012014a}
=====================
To describe a spherically symmetric wormhole, it is convenient to write the metric in the form $$ds^2=e^{2\Phi(R)}dt^2-dR^2/\left[1-b(R)/R \right]-R^2d\Omega^2, \label{10082013a}$$ where $b$ is known as the shape function and $\Phi$ as the redshift function [@citeulike:5196630]. The orthonormal basis of reference frame of static observers are given by $$e_{\hat{t}}=e^{-\Phi}\partial_t, \quad e_{\hat{R}}=(1-b/R)^{1/2}\partial_{R}, \quad e_{\hat{\theta}}=R^{-1}\partial_{\theta},\quad e_{\hat{\varphi}}=(r\sin\theta)^{-1}\partial_{\varphi}.\label{10082013b}$$
The functions $\Phi$ and $b$ must satisfy some conditions in order for the spacetime (\[10082013a\]) to have a wormhole that can be traversed by humans. A list with such conditions was given by Morris-Thorne in Ref. [@citeulike:5196630]. However, a more general definition of wormhole can be found in Ref. [@PhysRevD.56.4745]. The latter definition is much wider and include the former as a particular case, hence, we will stick to it. Nonetheless, we write down Morris-Thorne list below so that we can cite each of these conditions properly. Of course, we have made some changes to adapt this list to the purpose of this paper.
List of properties of a human-traversable wormhole [^2]
1. Constraints on $b$ and $\Phi$:
1. General constraints: \[03032014b\]
1. Spatial geometry is that of a wormhole.\[03032014a\]
2. Throat is at minimum of $R$, denoted by $R_m$ \[in this case, we have $R_m=b_m\equiv b(R_m)$\]; \[9082013a\]
3. We must also have $1-b/R \geq 0$ everywhere; \[9082013b\]
4. As $l \to \pm \infty$ we have $b/R \to 0$, where $l=\pm $ (the proper radial distance from wormhole throat as measured by the static observers). \[9082013cc\]
5. No horizons or singularities, i.e., $\Phi$ is finite everywhere; \[9082013c\]
6. $t$ measures proper time in asymptotically flat regions $\Leftrightarrow$ $\Phi \to 0$ as $l \to \pm \infty$. \[9082013d\]
2. Description and constraints of a trip through wormhole ($v$ is the radial velocity of traveler as measured by static observers, and $\gamma\equiv [1-(v/c)^2]^{-1/2}$; $c$ is the speed of light):
1. trip begins at $l=-l_1$ with $v=0$ and ends at $l=l_2$ with the same speed; \[9082013dd\]
2. gravity is weak at $-l_1$ and $l_2$, that is, at these points
1. $b/R \ll 1$,\[9082013e\]
2. $|\Phi|\ll 1$,\[9082013f\]
3. $|\Phi'c^2| { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g$, where $'\equiv d/dR$ and $g=\textrm{(Earth gravity)}$.\[9082013g\]
3. Trip takes less than one year from the point of view of both traveler and static observers at $-l_1$ and $l_2$. As a result, we must have $$\Delta\tau = \int_{-l_1}^{l_2}(v\gamma)^{-1}dl { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1\ yr, \label{9082013h}$$ $$\Delta t = \int_{-l_1}^{l_2}(ve^{\Phi})^{-1}dl { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1\ yr. \label{9082013i}$$
4. Traveler feels “less” than $g$ acceleration, $$|e^{-\Phi} d(\gamma e^{\Phi})/dl| { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2. \label{9082013j}$$
5. Tidal-gravity accelerations between different parts of traveler’s body is less than or approximately equal to $ g$: $$\left|\left(1-b/R \right)\left[ -\Phi^{\prime\prime}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(b'-b/R)}{R-b}\Phi'-(\Phi')^2 \right] \right|{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1/(10^{10}\ \textrm{cm})^2; \label{9082013l}$$ $$\left|\frac{\gamma^2}{2R^2} \left[ \frac{v^2}{c^2} (b'-b/R)+2(R-b)\Phi' \right] \right|{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1/(10^{10}\ \textrm{cm})^2. \label{9082013m}$$
6. Traveler must not couple strongly to material that generates wormhole curvature.\[9082013n\]
2. Properties of the material that generates wormhole curvature: \[11092013a\]
1. Stress-energy tensor as measured by static observers:
1. $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\hat{t}\hat{t}}=\rho c^2=\textrm{(density of mass-energy)},\quad T_{\hat{R}\hat{R}}=-\tau= -\textrm{(radial tension)},
\\ T_{\hat{\theta}\hat{\theta}}=T_{\hat{\varphi}\hat{\varphi}}=p=\textrm{(lateral pressure)}. \end{aligned}$$
\[9082013o\]
2. Einstein field equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=\frac{b'}{8\pi Gc^{-2} R^2},\quad \tau=\frac{b/R-2(R-b)\Phi'}{8\pi Gc^{-4}R^2},
\nonumber \\ p=\frac{R}{2}\left[(\rho c^2-\tau)\Phi'-\tau' \right]-\tau. \label{9082013p}\end{aligned}$$ In the throat ($R=R_m$), we have $\tau \approx 5\times 10^{41}\ dyn\ cm^{-2}(10\ m/b_m)^2$.
2. (Field equations)+(absence of horizon at throat) $\Rightarrow$ $\tau>\rho c^2$ in throat $\Rightarrow$ traveler moving through throat at very high speed sees negative mass-energy density $\Rightarrow$ violation of weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions in throat. \[9082013q\]
3. One might wish to require $\rho \geq 0$ everywhere (static observers see nonnegative mass-energy density), which implies $b'\geq 0$ everywhere. \[9082013r\]
In Ref. [@PhysRevD.56.4745], Hochberg and Visser define a traversable wormhole throat as the two-dimensional hypersurface of minimal area taken in one of the constant-time spatial slices. When the minimal value of the area can be found by extremizing the area, one can show that the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K_{ab}$ of this two-surface vanishes. Besides, its derivative with respect to the normal coordinate $n$ (in Gaussian normal coordinates) is negative when one uses the definition $$K_{ab}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial g_{ab}}{\partial n}. \label{26062014b}$$
This definition of wormhole encompasses the Morris-Thorne one, which is limited to two asymptotically flat regions that are spherically symmetric.
Wyman’s solution {#1032014a}
================
Wyman’s solution corresponds to the spherically-symmetric solution of the following Einstein’s field equations $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu \nu}=-\mu \left( V_{,\mu}V_{,\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}V_{,\lambda}V^{,\lambda} \right),
\\
\Box V=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is a scalar field and $\mu$ is the coupling constant. This solution can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=W^Sdt^2-W^{-S}dr^2-r^2W^{1-S}d\Omega^2, \label{10082013c}
\\
V=-\frac{1}{2\eta} \ln W, \label{10082013d}
\\
W=1-r_0/r,\qquad r_0=2\eta,\qquad \eta=\sqrt{M^2+\mu/2},\qquad S=M/\eta, \label{10082013e}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is a constant and $d\Omega^2$ is the metric on a unit $2$-sphere. For $M$ and $\mu$ positive, we have a spacetime that has a naked singularity and can be thought of as representing the exterior region of a spherical body of mass $M$. The case $S=1$ corresponds to the Schwarzschild spacetime. In this paper, however, we shall deal only with the case $M>0$ and $-2M^2<\mu<0$ (the same as $S>1$).
To write the metric (\[10082013c\]) in the form given by Eq. (\[10082013a\]), we just need to compare Eqs. (\[10082013c\])-(\[10082013e\]) with Eq. (\[10082013a\]). This comparison shows that $$\begin{aligned}
R=rW^{(1-S)/2}, \label{10082013f}
\\
\Phi(R)=\frac{S}{2} \ln W(r(R)), \label{10082013g}
\\
b/R=1-\frac{1}{W(r(R))}\left[1-(1+S)\frac{r_0}{2r(R)} \right]^2, \label{10082013h}\end{aligned}$$
### the minimum of $R$
From Eq. (\[10082013f\]), one finds that the minimum value of $R$ occurs at $$r_m=\frac{S+1}{2}r_0, \label{10082013hh}$$ which yields $$R_m=r_m \left(\frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{(1-S)/2}. \label{10082013i}$$ It is clear that the relation between the radial coordinates $R$ and $r$ is one-to-one only for certain values of $r$, which depends on the possible values of $S$. For $S\geq 1$, this relation is one-to-one for $r\in [r_m,\infty)$ and the values of $R$ are those in the interval $[R_m,\infty)$. If we take $S<1$, the values of $R$ will be $(0,\infty)$. Nonetheless, unlike $R$, the domain of $r$ is always $ (r_0,\infty)$. As we shall see later, there is a throat at $r_m$ that “separates” the regions $(r_0,r_m)$ and $(r_m,\infty)$.
The wormhole in Wyman’s solution {#1032014b}
================================
Coordinate $w$ {#20022014a}
--------------
In dealing with wormholes, it is sometimes interesting to work with a coordinate that does not posses coordinate singularities. Although $r$ is not singular in the interval $(r_0,\infty)$, let us define a coordinate $w$ analogous to $l$ through the integral $$w=\int_{r_m}^{r} W^{-S/2}dr, \label{18122013a}$$ where it is clear that $w=0$ corresponds to $r_m$ (the throat). We call $A$ the region with negative values of $w$ and $B$ the other region.
Since the analytic solution of (\[18122013a\]) for an arbitrary $S$ may not exist, consider the following expansion for the integrand. $$\begin{aligned}
(1-r_0/r)^{-S/2}= 1+\frac{Sr_0}{2}\frac{1}{r}+ \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{r_0^n}{2^n n!}r^{-n}\prod_{j=1}^{n}(S+2j-2). \label{15092013d}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting the expansion (\[15092013d\]) into the integral (\[18122013a\]), we obtain the expression $$\begin{aligned}
w= r-r_m+\frac{Sr_0}{2}\ln(r/r_m) +\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{r_0^n}{2^n n!(n-1)}\left( r_m^{1-n}-r^{1-n} \right) \prod_{j=1}^{n}(S+2j-2). \label{18122013b}\end{aligned}$$ From the ratio test, one can easily prove that the series above converges for $r>r_0$ and $S>1$, but Raabe’s test shows that it diverges at $r_0$ for $S>2$ (it converges for $1<S<2$); from the integral (\[18122013a\]), we see that $w$ is infinite at $r_0$ for $S=2$.
### Choosing a value for $w_1$ {#23122013e}
Like $l_1$ and $l_2$, $w_1$ and $w_2$ will represent the places where the trip begins and ends, respectively. The ideal value for $w_1$ is the one that favors the conditions listed in Sec. \[29012014a\]. For reasons that will become clear in other sections (see, for instance, Sec. \[23122013a\]), we choose $r_1$ as $$r_1=M(1+S)^2/(2S^2). \label{29012014b}$$ One can easily check that this point is between $r_0$ and $r_m$ for $S>1$, which is the case we are interested in.
Defining $w_1$ as $-w(r_1)$ and using Eq. (\[18122013b\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
w_1=M\biggl\{ (S^2-1)/(2S^2)+\ln\left(\frac{2S}{1+S} \right) +\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{[2S/(1+S)]^{n-1}-1}{(n-1)n!S(1+S)^{n-1}} \prod_{j=1}^{n}(S+2j-2) \biggr\}. \label{22122013a}\end{aligned}$$ From Fig. \[22012014a\], which is a plot of $w_1$ as a function of $S$ from $1$ to $\infty$, we see that $w_1$ is a monotonically increasing function of $S$ with its minimum at $S=1$ (note that $w_1=0$ for $S=1$). From Eq. (\[22122013a\]), one can evaluate the maximum value of $w_1$ (take the limit $S\to \infty$) and find that $0<w_1{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }2M$.
![This figure shows a plot of $w_1$ as a function of $S$ from $1$ to $\infty$, where we have set $M=1$ and used one hundred terms of the series in Eq. (\[22122013a\]). One can verify that the qualitative behavior of the curve will not change if we increase the number of terms. []{data-label="22012014a"}](f311.jpg)
### Choosing a value for $w_2$ {#20022014b}
From the metric (\[10082013c\]), it is clear that $r_2$ has to be big enough to decrease significantly the values of terms like $M/r$. However, it cannot be too big because of the conditions (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013i\]). To accommodate these requirements, we use $r_2=10^AM$ with $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }6$ (for more details about this constraint, see Sec. \[23122013a\]). By substituting $r_2$ in Eq. (\[18122013b\]), one finds that $w_2\approx r_2$, which together with the maximum value of $r_1$ (see Sec. \[23122013e\]) leads to $w_1+w_2\approx w_2$. This result will be used later.
The behavior of the curvature far from the throat {#04022014b}
-------------------------------------------------
From Eq. (8) in Ref. [@citeulike:5196630], we see that the only nonvanishing components of the Riemann tensor in the basis (\[10082013b\]) have the form $$\begin{aligned}
Form_1= \left(1-b/R \right)\left[ -\Phi^{\prime\prime}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(b'-b/R)}{R-b}\Phi'-(\Phi')^2 \right], \label{23112013a} \\
\nonumber \\
Form_2=-\frac{(1-b/R)}{R}\Phi', \label{23112013b}\\
\nonumber \\
Form_3=\frac{b'R-b}{2R^3} \label{23112013c}\\
\nonumber \\
Form_4=\frac{b}{R^3}. \label{23112013d}\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[10082013f\])-(\[10082013h\]), one can evaluate Eq. (\[23112013a\]) at $r_0$ to obtain $$Form_1(r_0)=\frac{S}{r_0^2}[1-(1+S)/2]\lim_{r\to r_0}(1-r_0/r)^{S-2}=\Biggl\{ \begin{array}{lr} 0 & S>2,\\ \textrm{finite}\neq 0 & S=2,\\ \infty & 1<S<2. \end{array} \label{23112013e}$$ The remaining expressions take the form $$Form_2=-\frac{W_m^2}{W}\frac{\Phi'}{R}=-\frac{r_0SW_m}{2r^3}W^{S-2}, \label{23112013f}$$ $$Form_3=-\frac{Sr_0}{2r^3}\left[1-\frac{(1+S)}{2S}\frac{r_0}{r} \right]W^{S-2}, \label{23112013h}$$ $$Form_4=\frac{W-W_m^2}{r^2}W^{S-2},\label{23112013j}$$ where we are using $W_m=1-r_m/r$. It is straightforward to check that the “forms” (\[23112013f\])-(\[23112013j\]) yield the same qualitative result as that of Eq. (\[23112013e\]). Therefore, the region $A$ becomes flat far from the throat only for $S>2$. Here, we call the attention to the fact that the region $A$ may be bounded, i.e., the time to go from $r_m$ to $r_0$ from the viewpoint of the traveler may be finite. If the point $r_0$ is not a physical singularity, then one will have to maximally extend Wyman’s manifold to see what happens below $r_0$.
Condition \[9082013a\]
----------------------
The two-surface characterized by a fixed moment of time and $\theta=\pi/2$ cannot be completely embedded into a three-dimensional Euclidean space. We can see that in the following way. From Eq. (27) in Ref. [@citeulike:5196630], we have $$\frac{dz}{dR}=\pm \left(R/b-1 \right)^{-1/2}, \label{30012014c}$$ where $z$ is the “$z-$coordinate” of the cylindrical coordinate system. For $r<r_1$, the term $R/b-1$ is negative. Thus, the interval $(r_0,r_1]$ cannot be used in Eq. (\[30012014c\]). Nonetheless, we can embed the portion $(r_1,\infty)$ just to see how the two-surface looks like. In this case, Eq. (\[30012014c\]) can be written in the form $$\frac{dz}{dR}=\frac{\sqrt{W-W_m^2}}{W_m}\quad \Rightarrow \quad \frac{dz}{dr}=(W-W_m^2)^{1/2}W^{-(1+S)/2}, \label{24062014n}$$ where we have used the chain rule and $\pm |W_m|=W_m$ (the negative values of $W_m$ represent the region $z<0$).
Due to the cylindrical symmetry, we can parametrize the two-surface $t=constant$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ as $$\chi(r,\phi)=(R(r),\phi,z(R(r))). \label{26062014a}$$ The solution of Eq. (\[24062014n\]) will give us the explicit form of $\chi$.
For $S=3$, we manage to obtain the following exact solution: $$z=r_0\arctan \left(\frac{\sqrt{3r_0r-4r^2_0}}{r_0}\right)+\frac{2r-3r_0}{r-r_0}\sqrt{3r_0r-4r^2_0}-\left(\arctan\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2} \right)r_0, \label{24062014p}$$ where the constant of integration has been chosen in such a way that the throat is at $z=0$. By using Eqs. (\[10082013f\]) and (\[24062014p\]) in Eq. (\[26062014a\]), one obtains the plot in Fig. \[24062014r\].
![In this figure we exhibit the plot of the two-surface (\[26062014a\]) with $r_0=1$ and $r$ varying from $4/3$ to $8$. As one can see, this surface has the shape of a typical wormhole. []{data-label="24062014r"}](f26062014a.jpg)
With the help of a computer, we have verified that the case $S=3/2$ yields a two-surface similar to the one in Fig. \[24062014r\]. This case is different from the previous one because $r_0$ is a physical singularity for $1<S<2$ (no need for maximal extension).
Conditions \[9082013b\], \[9082013cc\], \[9082013c\] and \[9082013d\] {#19022014a}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eq. (\[10082013h\]) and the fact that $r\in (r_0,\infty)$, we have $1-b/R\geq 0$ everywhere.
The condition $w \to \infty \Rightarrow b/R \to 0$ is clearly satisfied, since $b/R \to 0$ as $r\to \infty$. However, when $w\to -\infty$, which is equivalent to $r\to r_0$, we have $b/R \to -\infty$ for $S>1$ \[see Eq. (\[10082013h\])\]. Hence, the condition \[9082013cc\] is not satisfied.
It is evident from Eq. (\[10082013g\]) that $\Phi$ is finite for $r>r_0$.
From Eq. (\[10082013g\]), we see that the condition \[9082013d\] is not satisfied because $w\to -\infty$ (the same as $r\to r_0$) implies $\Phi\to -\infty$.
It is clear that the object that we are studying is not a Morris-Thorne wormhole. Nevertheless, we are going to prove now that it is indeed a wormhole. The candidate to be the throat is the two-surface $t=constant$, $R=constant$. Applying these constraints to Eq. (\[10082013a\]), one gets $$ds^2_2=-R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \label{27062014a}$$ and $$\partial_{n_{\pm}}=\pm \sqrt{1-b/R}\ \partial_R, \label{27062014b}$$ where $\partial_{n_{\pm}}$ is the unit normal vector with plus sign for $r>r_m$ and the minus one for $r_0<r<r_m$. Finally, using Eqs. (\[27062014a\]) and (\[27062014b\]) into Eq. (\[26062014b\]), we arrive at $$tr(K)=\mp 2\frac{\sqrt{1-b/R}}{R}, \label{24062014h}$$ where $tr(K)$ stands for $g^{ab}K_{ab}$. From Eqs. (\[10082013h\]) and (\[10082013hh\]), we see that the trace of the extrinsic curvature vanishes at $r_m$. In turn, by applying $\partial_{n_{\pm}}$ to Eq. (\[24062014h\]), one obtains $$\frac{\partial tr(K)}{\partial n_{\pm}}=\frac{2}{R^2} \left[\frac{R}{2}\frac{d}{dR}bR^{-1}+1-b/R \right]. \label{24062014i}$$ Evaluating this expression at $r_m$ for the Wyman metric \[see Eqs. (\[10082013f\]) and (\[10082013h\])\], we find that $$\frac{\partial tr(K)}{\partial n_{\pm}}\Biggl|_{r_m}=-\frac{2}{r_mR_m}(1-r_0/r_m)^{(S-1)/2}<0. \label{24062014j}$$ We have now proved that the “strong flare-out condition” is satisfied and, therefore, we have a wormhole in Wyman spacetime for $S>1$.
Conditions \[9082013dd\], \[9082013e\], \[9082013f\], \[9082013g\], (\[9082013h\]), (\[9082013i\]), (\[9082013j\]), (\[9082013l\]), e (\[9082013m\]) {#13122013a}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we analyze the conditions that are “necessary” to ensure that the wormhole is traversable by humans.
### Conditions \[9082013dd\], \[9082013e\], \[9082013f\], \[9082013g\] {#23122013a}
The condition \[9082013dd\] is just a matter of convenience, hence it is not a problem. With respect to the conditions \[9082013e\], \[9082013f\] and \[9082013g\], we can assume that $r_0/r_2=2M/(Sr_2) \ll 1$ with $w_2=w_2(r_2)$ being the place where the trip ends. From Eqs. (\[10082013g\]) and (\[10082013h\]), one gets $|\Phi|\approx M/r_2$ and $b/R\approx 2M/r_2$, where all these values have been evaluated at $r_2$. Deriving Eq. (\[10082013g\]) with respect to $R$, one finds that $$\Phi'=\frac{r_0S}{2r^2} \frac{W^{(S-1)/2}}{W_m}, \label{15082013c}$$ which yields the approximation $\Phi'\approx M/r^2_2$ (Remember that we have defined $W_m=1-r_m/r$). If we use the constraint \[9082013g\] in this approximation, we will obtain $$r_2 { \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }c\sqrt{\frac{M}{g}}, \label{15082013f}$$ Writing $r_2$ in the form $r_2=10^AM$ and substituting it into Eq. (\[15082013f\]), one finds that $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }\log(c/\sqrt{Mg} )$. On the other hand, if we impose the conditions \[9082013e\] and \[9082013f\], we will have $10^{-A} \ll 1$. Based on the latter inequality, it is reasonable to take $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }6$. It can be shown that $\log(c/\sqrt{Mg} )$ is larger than $6$ only for $M< 9171\ m$, which allows us to take $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }6$ whenever $M{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }9171\ m$.
With respect to $b/R\ll 1$ evaluated at $w=-w_1$, we have to be very careful because in this case the function $b/R$ does not decrease as $w$ goes to $-\infty$ ($r\to r_0$). In fact, it diverges there. Nonetheless, this function vanishes at $r_1$. That is the reason why we are using $w_1=-w(r_1)$ with $r_1$ given by Eq. (\[29012014b\]).
Now we show that the condition \[9082013f\] is not satisfied. From Eqs. (\[29012014b\]) and (\[10082013g\]), we get $$\Phi(r_1)=S\ln\left(\frac{S-1}{S+1} \right). \label{27122013e}$$ The minimum value of $|\Phi(r_1)|$ is $2$ and occurs when $S$ goes to infinity. So we cannot have $|\Phi|\ll 1$ at $r_1$. Nevertheless, this result does not seem to be a real problem because the traveler feels force, not potential. The conditions that are related to forces are given by \[9082013g\], (\[9082013j\]), (\[9082013l\]), and (\[9082013m\]). As we will see later, there are values for which these conditions can be satisfied.
Since $\Phi'\approx M/r^2_2=10^{-2A}/M$, the constraint $|\Phi'(r_2)|{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2$ is weaker than $|\Phi'(r_1)|{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2$. This means that the possible values for $M$ have to be taken from the latter inequality. The substitution of $r_1$ into Eq. (\[15082013c\]) leads to $$|\Phi'(r_1)|=\frac{4S^4}{M(1+S)^4} \left( \frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{S-2}, \label{15082013d}$$ whose minimum occurs when $S$ goes to infinity. Taking this limit ( $M$ is fixed), we obtain $$\lim_{S\to \infty}|\Phi'(r_1)|=\frac{4}{Me^2}. \label{15082013e}$$ Using this in the inequality \[9082013g\], we find that $M{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }5\times 10^{15}\ m$. This is clearly a very large value for $M$, at least if we think of $M$ as being the mass of some spherically symmetric distribution of matter. It is worth mentioning that the above limit is equivalent to taking $\mu \to -2M^2$, that is, we must have $\mu{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }-5\times 10^{31}\ m$.
### Conditions (\[9082013h\]) e (\[9082013i\]) {#6012014a}
Let us assume that $v$ is constant. In this case, the condition (\[9082013h\]) can be rewritten as $$\Delta \tau=\frac{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}{v}10^AM { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1\ yr, \label{15122013d}$$ where we have used $w_1+w_2\approx w_2\approx r_2=10^AM$. Notice that, here, we are using $w$ rather than $l$.
With respect to the condition (\[9082013i\]), the constancy of $v$ leads to $$\Delta t=\frac{1}{v}\int_{-w_1}^{w_2}W^{-S/2}dw { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1\ yr. \label{23122013b}$$ Note that, due to the similarity between $l$ and $w$, we can simply exchange $l$ for $w$ in Eq. (\[9082013i\]) to write this condition in terms of $w$. Using \[see Eq. (\[18122013a\])\] $$dw=W^{-S/2}dr, \label{31012014b}$$ we find that $$\Delta t=\frac{1}{v}\int_{r_1}^{r_2}W^{-S}dr. \label{23122013c}$$ The integrand of this expression can be expanded in the form $$(1-r_0/r)^{-S}=1+\frac{Sr_0}{r}+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{r_0^n}{n!}r^{-n}\prod_{j=0}^{n-1}(S+j). \label{16092013h}$$ Using this expansion in Eq. (\[23122013c\]), we arrive at $$\Delta t=\frac{1}{v}\left[ r_2-r_1+Sr_0\ln(r_2/r_1)+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \frac{r_0^n}{n!(1-n)}\left(r_2^{1-n}-r_1^{1-n}\right)\prod_{j=0}^{n-1}(S+j) \right]. \label{23122013d}$$ Since the largest value of $r_1$ is $2M$, while $r_2=10^AM$ with $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }6$, we can approximate the above expression to $$\Delta t\approx \frac{r_2}{v}=\frac{10^AM}{v}.\label{23122013g}$$ The smallest value for $M$ that is allowed by the condition \[9082013g\] is $M=5\times 10^{15}\ m$. Using this value in Eq. (\[23122013g\]) with $A=6$ and taking $v$ as the speed of light, one gets $\Delta t \approx 5\times 10^5\ yr$. Since this is the best-case scenario, we can conclude from this result that it is not possible to satisfy the conditions \[9082013g\] and (\[9082013i\]) simultaneously. In Sec. \[31012014a\], we show that the conditions (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013j\]) cannot be satisfied simultaneously either.
Condition (\[9082013j\])
------------------------
The assumption that $v$ is constant allows us to rewrite the inequality (\[9082013j\]) in the form $$\gamma \left| \frac{d\Phi}{dr} \frac{dr}{dw} \right| { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2, \label{26122013a}$$ where, from now on, we denote the left-hand side of this inequality by $f$.
Substituting Eqs. (\[31012014b\]) and (\[10082013g\]) into Eq. (\[26122013a\]) gives $$f= \gamma\frac{r_0S}{2r^2}W^{S/2-1} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2. \label{26122013b}$$ To know the maximum value of $f$ during the trip, we need to calculate the local maximums and compare the respective values of $f$ evaluated at these points with the values $f(r_1)$ and $f(r_2)$. If the above inequality holds for the maximum value of $f$, then it holds for any other value. A simple calculation shows that there is only one maximum for $f$ and it is given by $$r_c=\frac{(2+S)r_0}{4}. \label{26122013c}$$ At first glance we could consider this point to be relevant because it is in the domain of $r$ for $S\geq 2$, remember that $r\in(r_0,\infty)$. However, the traveler does not reach this point, since $r_c$ is less than $r_1$. Thus, we need to compare only $f(r_1)$ with $f(r_2)$. The value of $f$ at $r_1$ is \[see Eq. (\[29012014b\])\] $$f(r_1)=\frac{4}{M\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\frac{S^4}{(S+1)^4} \left( \frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{S-2}, \label{08012014c}$$ where we have used $\gamma=(1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$. By using $r_2=10^AM$ with $A{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }6$, one can easily verifies that $f(r_2)<f(r_1)$. Therefore, the condition (\[9082013j\]) becomes $$\frac{4}{M\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\frac{S^4}{(S+1)^4} \left( \frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{S-2} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2. \label{08012014d}$$ A plot of $f(r_1)$ as a function of $S$ and $v$ is shown in Fig. \[09012014a\]. From this plot, one can see that $f(r_1)$ reaches its minimum as $S$ goes to infinity.
![This figure shows the behavior of $f(r_1)$ as a function of $S$ and $v$ in the intervals $S\in (1,10)$ and $v\in (0,1)$, where we have used $M=c=1$. It can be shown that the qualitative behavior of the above surface does not change for larger values of $S$.[]{data-label="09012014a"}](f333.jpg)
In this limit, we have $$\frac{4}{Me^2\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }g/c^2. \label{08012014e}$$ Note that this constraint is stronger than that imposed by condition \[9082013g\] \[see Eq. (\[15082013e\])\]. In addition, it requires low speed, which is not good for the inequalities (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013i\]). In what follows, we prove that the conditions (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013j\]) cannot be satisfied simultaneously.
The conflict between the inequalities (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013j\]) {#31012014a}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear in Eq. (\[15122013d\]) that the condition (\[9082013h\]) ask for high speed. However, from Eq. (\[08012014d\]), we see that the condition (\[9082013j\]) do exactly the opposite. Thus, the best case occurs when we take the largest value of $v$ allowed by Eq. (\[08012014d\]). Taking the equality in Eq. (\[08012014d\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}=\frac{4c^2}{Mg}\frac{S^4}{(1+S)^4}\left[ (S-1)/(S+1) \right]^{S-2}, \label{27122013a}
\\
\nonumber \\
v=c\sqrt{1-B^2}, \qquad B^2=\frac{16c^4}{M^2g^2}\frac{S^8}{(1+S)^8}\left[ (S-1)/(S+1) \right]^{2S-4}. \label{27122013b}\end{aligned}$$
By using Eqs. (\[27122013a\]) and (\[27122013b\]) into (\[15122013d\]), one arrives at $$\frac{4c10^A}{g\sqrt{1-B^2} }\frac{S^4}{(1+S)^4}\left[ (S-1)/(S+1) \right]^{S-2} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }1\ yr. \label{27122013c}$$ In the most favorable case, i.e., $A=6$, $S\to \infty$, and $B\to 0$ ( $M\to \infty$), the left-hand side of this inequality becomes $$\frac{4c}{g e^2}\times 10^6\approx 5\times 10^5\ yr. \label{27122013d}$$ This result is clearly in contradiction with Eq. (\[27122013c\]). Thus, we conclude that the conditions (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013j\]) cannot be satisfied simultaneously.
Condition (\[9082013l\]) {#22032014a}
------------------------
After some calculations, we find that the left-hand side of the inequality (\[9082013l\]) for the metric (\[10082013c\]) can be written as $$f_1=\frac{Sr_0}{r^3}W_mW^{S-2}. \label{07032014a}$$ One can show that $f_1$ possesses two critical points, which are given by $$r_{\pm}=\left(\frac{1+S}{2} \pm \frac{\sqrt{3S^2-3}}{6} \right)r_0. \label{22082013g}$$ A simple calculation shows that $r_+$ is in the interval $[r_1,r_2]$, but $r_-$ is not. Thus, the maximum value of $f_1$ can occur only at $|f_1(r_1)|$, $|f_1(r_+)|$ or $|f_1(r_2)|$.
Calculating $|f(r_1)|$, one finds that $$|f_1(r_1)|=\frac{16}{M^2}\frac{S^6 (S^2-1)}{(1+S)^8} \left( \frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{2S-4}. \label{08012014f}$$ It is easy to check that $f_1(r_2)\approx 2\times 10^{-3A}/M^2 < |f_1(r_1)|$. By comparing $|f_1(r_1)|$ with $|f_1(r_+)|$, we also find that $|f(r_1)|$ is always bigger (see Figs. \[3022014a\]). Hence, $|f(r_1)|$ corresponds to the largest value of the left-hand side of the inequality (\[9082013l\]) during the trip.
![In this figure the black curve represents $|f_1(r_+)|$ as a function of $S$, while the grey one is the plot of $|f_1(r_1)|$. The interval between $0$ and $1$ has been suppressed so that the qualitative behavior of these curves in the interval $(1,\infty)$ be better visualized. []{data-label="3022014a"}](f6.jpg)
From the inequality (\[9082013l\]) we see that $|f_1(r_1)|{ \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }10^{-16}/m^2$. As shown in Fig. \[3022014a\], the minimum value of $|f_1(r_1)|$ occurs when $S\to \infty$. Therefore, this limit is our best choice for $S$. By taking this limit, we get $$\frac{16}{M^2e^4} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }10^{-16}/m^2, \label{08012014h}$$ which yields $M{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }5\times 10^7\ $m.
Condition (\[9082013m\]) {#08032014b}
------------------------
Treating the left-hand side of the inequality (\[9082013m\]) as a function of $r$, which we denote by $f_2$, we find that $$f_2=\left|\frac{Sr_0}{2r^3}W^{S-2} \left[ 1-\frac{r_0}{2r}-\frac{Sr_0}{2r}\left(1-\frac{v^2}{S^2c^2} \right)\gamma^2 \right]\right|. \label{29082013c}$$ For $v$ constant, there are two critical points, namely, $$r_{\pm}=\left\{ \frac{(S+1)[ 3S-(S+2)v^2/c^2 ] \pm \sqrt{(S^2-1)[3S^2+(S^2-4)v^4/c^4]} }{6S} \right\}r_0\gamma^2. \label{29082013h}$$ As we can see from Fig. \[09012014c\], the point $r_-$ is outside the interval $[r_1,r_2]$.
![In this figure we see the plot of $r_--r_1$ as a function of $S$ and $v$, where we have used $M=c=1$. The above surface has only negative values, which suggests that $r_-<r_1$. One can verify that this qualitative behavior will not change if we increase the range of values of $S$. In this plot, we have used the interval $[0,0.9]$ for $v$. The reason why we have not used the value $v=1$ is because the program used to make this plot is not able to properly evaluate $r_-$ at this point. Nevertheless, there is no divergence there. One can verify that the limit of $r_-$ as $v$ goes to $1$ and $S$ is kept fixed is $(S+2)M/(2S)$.[]{data-label="09012014c"}](rmenosr1.jpg)
Thus, we are left with $|f_2(r_1)|$, $|f_2(r_+)|$, and $|f_2(r_2)|$.
Evaluating $f_2(r_1)$, we find that $$f_2(r_1)=\frac{8}{M^2}\frac{S^6}{(1+S)^6} \left( \frac{S-1}{S+1} \right)^{2S-4} \left[ 1-\frac{2S}{(1+S)^2}-\frac{2S^2}{(1+S)^2}\frac{1-v^2/(Sc)^2}{1-v^2/c^2} \right]. \label{08012014i}$$ By comparing this with $|f_2(r_+)|$ (see Fig. \[09012014d\]), we see that $ |f_2(r_1)|>|f_2(r_+)|$.
![ The black surface corresponds to the plot of $|f_2(r_1)|$, which has been treated as a function of $S$ and $v$. The other surface corresponds to $|f_2(r_+)|$. In this figure, we have set $c=M=1$, $v\in [0,0.5]$, and $S\in [1,3]$. As this figure suggests, we have $|f_2(r_1)|>|f_2(r_+)|$. The qualitative behavior of the surfaces does not change for a wider range of values of $v$ and $S$.[]{data-label="09012014d"}](f2.jpg)
In addition, we also have $|f_2(r_2)| <|f_2(r_1)|$ [^3]. Therefore, the maximum value of the left-hand side of Eq. (\[9082013m\]) during the trip occurs at $r_1$ and is given by (\[08012014i\]).
A natural question we may ask ourselves is what the values of $S$ and $v$ that minimize $|f_2(r_1)|$ are. Figure \[09012014d\] can be used to answer this question. As it suggests, the minimum of $|f_2(r_1)|$ happens when $S \to \infty$ and $v\to 0$. Substituting these values in Eq. (\[08012014i\]), one finds that $$\frac{8}{M^2e^4} { \put(2,0){$<$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }10^{-16}/m^2, \label{08012014j}$$ which yields $M{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }4\times 10^7\ m$. This is basically the same result yielded by the condition (\[9082013l\]).
Condition \[9082013n\]
----------------------
The condition \[9082013n\] is clearly problematic. If we image that $M$ is the mass of a body such as a star or a planet, then it is impossible to have a traversable wormhole. Nevertheless, we can still consider the possibility of having a different kind of matter that may meet the requirement \[9082013n\]. The so-called dark matter, for example, would clearly satisfy this condition, since it does not couple strongly with ordinary matter.
The matter distribution
-----------------------
To have an idea of how the matter that generates the wormhole of the Wyman solution is distributed over space, let us see how the density of mass-energy behaves in the frame of the static observers. Using the metric (\[10082013c\]) in $\rho$ as given by (\[9082013p\]), one finds that $$\rho=-\frac{S^2-1}{32\pi Gc^{-2}}\frac{r_0^2}{r^4}W^{S-2}, \label{5012014c}$$ which is negative for $S>1$. This means that the static observers see negative mass-energy density. Therefore, Wyman’s solution does not satisfies the requirement \[9082013r\]. Note that, for $S>2$, the mass-energy density goes to zero as $r$ goes to $r_0$. This is in agreement with the result of Sec. \[04022014b\].
Final remarks {#1032014d}
=============
We have shown that the Wyman solution contains wormholes for $S>1$ without using the cut-paste technique[^4]. For $S>2$, the two regions of the wormholes become flat as we walk away from the throat. In this case and also for $S=2$, there is a possibility that $r_0$ is not a physical singularity and a maximal extension may be needed. On the other hand, for $1<S<2$ we have seen that $r_0$ is an essential singularity. In all cases, the wormholes cannot be traversed by humans because Eqs. \[9082013g\] and (\[9082013i\]) cannot hold simultaneously; the same goes for (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013j\]). This problem happens because the “time conditions” (\[9082013h\]) and (\[9082013i\]) require $M$ to be small, while practically all others require the opposite. If we are to abandon these two conditions based on the assumption that time is not a problem, then we must have $M{ \put(2,0){$>$} \put(2,-5){$\sim$}\quad \ }4c^2/(ge^2\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})\geq 5\times 10^{15}\ m$, which is clearly a strong constraint on $M$. Nevertheless, these wormholes are traversable in the sense that their throats remain opened and can be traversed by anything that last long enough.
At this point one may ask why big values of $M$ have been good for the constraints, except the “time conditions”. The answer to this question is simple. The best setting for most of the constraints happens when $S$ goes to infinity, which means $\mu \to -2M^2$. While $M>0$ favors attraction, the negative values of $\mu$ produces a repulsive force. The latter can be seen from Eq. (\[5012014c\]) \[keep in mind that $S>1 \Leftrightarrow \mu<0$; see, e.g., Eq. (\[10082013e\])\]. Therefore, in this limit, big values of $M$ implies much bigger values of $|\mu|$.
The question whether $r_0$ is a physical singularity for $S\geq 2$ will be studied in the future. This study may lead to the conclusion that the throat connects two asymptotically flat regions for $S>2$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
T. S. Almeida would like to thank CAPES for financial support.
[34]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1446) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.41.1116) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.08.013) in @noop [**]{}, Vol. , (, , ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3117) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S021773230100398X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.103004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.024020) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0217732308025498) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124014) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.24.839) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084031) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.087502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0218271893000325) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.2011) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064047) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10773-014-2003-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.31.1280) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.878) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00627140) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.2564) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024035) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1920308) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1590/s0103-97332008000500008) [****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000056000005000395000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4745) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01117-X)
[^1]: See, for instance, Sec. 12.3.2 of Ref. [@Lorentzianwormholes].
[^2]: Adapted with permission from M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, American Journal of Physics 56, 395 (1988). ©1988, American Association of Physics Teachers.
[^3]: One can see this last result by plotting $|f_2(r_1)|$ and $|f_2(r_2)|$ with $A=6$. Since this plot is very similar to figure \[09012014d\], we will not show it here.
[^4]: In Ref. [@Barcelo1999127], the authors study a solution of the Einstein field equations that is conformally related to the spacetime (\[10082013c\]) for $S \in [-1,1]$. They also find wormholes without the need of the cut-paste technique. It is likely that, by following a procedure similar to the one adopted by these authors, one should be able to obtain a solution that is conformally related to (\[10082013c\]) for $S>1$ and find new wormholes, perhaps with new interesting properties.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The heating of the real polar cap surface of radio pulsars by the bombardment of ultra-relativistic charges is studied. The real polar cap is a significantly smaller area within or close by the conventional polar cap which is encircled by the last open field lines of the dipolar field $\vec{B}_d$. It is surrounded by those field lines of the small scale local surface field $\vec{B}_s$ that join the last open field lines of $\vec{B}_d$ in a height of $\sim 10^5$ cm above the cap. As the ratio of radii of the conventional and real polar cap $R_{dip}/R_{pc}\sim 10$, flux conservation requires $B_s/B_d\sim 100$. For rotational periods $P\sim 0.5$ s, $B_s\sim 10^{14}$ G creates a strong electric potential gap that forms the inner accelerating region (IAR) in which charges gain kinetic energies $\sim 3\times 10^{14}$ eV. This sets an upper limit for the energy that back flowing charges can release as heat in the surface layers of the real polar cap. Within the IAR, which is flown through with a dense stream of extremely energetic charges, no stable atmosphere of hydrogen can survive. Therefore, we consider the polar cap as a solidified “naked” surface consisting of fully ionized iron ions. We discuss the physical situation at the real polar cap, calculate its surface temperatures $T_s$ as functions of $B_s$ and $P$, and compare the results with X-ray observations of radio pulsars.'
author:
- |
M. Sznajder$^{1}$[^1], U. Geppert$^{2}$\
$^1$ German Aerospace Center, Institute of Space Systems, Robert-Hooke-Str. 7, 28359 Bremen, Germany\
$^2$ J. Gil Institute of Astronomy, University of Zielona Góra, ul. Szafrana 2, 65-516, Zielona Góra, Poland
bibliography:
- 'pulsars.bib'
title: Heating of the Real Polar Cap of Radio Pulsars
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: neutron - stars: magnetic fields - pulsars: general - stars: interiors
Introduction
============
Pulsars function as radio emitters if the complicated interplay between sufficiently fast rotation, structure, and strength of the magnetic field at the polar cap surface $\vec{B}_s$, and the local surface temperature $T_s$ are efficiently coupled. Both in the vacuum gap model [@RS75] and in the space charge limited flow model [@AS79] $\vec{B}_s$ has to have a scale of $\lesssim 10^6$ cm, significantly smaller than the scale of the dipolar field $B_d$ that determines the braking of the pulsar rotation.\
In the vacuum gap model and its refinements [@GMG03], a sufficiently large cohesive energy of the charges in the surface layer of the polar cap is necessary to allow the maintenance of an electric potential gap $\Delta V$ above it. The cohesive energy increases with $B_s$ but decreases with increasing $T_s$. [@ML07] have shown that in an iron cap surface with $T_s\sim 10^6$ K a gap can be formed only if $B_s\gtrsim 5\times 10^{13}$ G.\
There are observational evidences and theoretical arguments that indicate the existence of strong and small scale magnetic field components in the polar cap region. They are characterized by curvature radii $R_{cur}\lesssim 10^6$ cm instead of $\sim 10^8$ cm as expected for $\vec{B}_d$. The presence of small scale field structures at the surface of neutron stars has been studied by [@IEP16] who discussed both observational and theoretical arguments that these field structures can survive the fall-back episode, and be re-established by the Hall drift and maintained for $\gtrsim 10^6$ yr; a result obtained also by [@GV14]. [@LG19] studied the failing of a neutron star’s crust which can be understood only by the presence of small scale surface fields with $B_s > 10^{15}$ G. Also, the misalignment between the thermal X-ray and the radio emission peak indicates the presence of multipolar field components at the inner accelerating region (IAR) above the polar cap [@AM19; @PM20]. Recently, [@LGOP19] found in the X-ray light curves of the millisecond pulsar J0437-4715 evidences for the presence of small-scale field structures at the polar cap. Similar structures have been seen by [@LCPRR19] in the X-ray light curves of the magnetar J1745-2900. Therefore, the existence of such surface field structures is a widely observed phenomenon on neutron stars.\
The polar cap surface is heated by its bombardment with backflowing charges that acquired ultra-relativistic energies within the inner accelerating region (IAR) above the “real” polar cap. Simple estimates from the balance of heat power density input $e\Delta{V_{max}}c n_{GJ}$ ($n_{GJ}$ is the Goldreich-Julian charge density) and the blackbody power density $\sigma_{SB} {T_s}^4$ indicate a typical $T_s\sim 10^6$ K.\
What defines the “real” polar cap? The canonical radius of the polar cap area $R_{dip}$ is given by the last open dipolar field line and depends on the light cylinder radius, i.e. on the pulsar’s rotational period [@RS75].\
A few years ago, simultaneous radio and X-ray observations were performed revealing an area bombarded by the backflow of relativistic charges, i.e. the part of the cap surface where the strong and small scale field is anchored and which is responsible for the pair creation. This area is significantly smaller than the conventional polar cap area, [@H13; @SGZHMGMX17] and has a temperature $T_s \sim 2\ldots 5\times 10^6$ K. Blackbody fits of thermal X-ray spectra provide radii $R_{pc}$ of the emitting area, which is smaller by a factor $\sim 10$ than the radius of the conventional polar cap $R_{dip}$ (see Table 1 in [@G17]). Flux conservation arguments indicate that if $R_{dip}/R_{pc} \sim 10$, $B_s\sim 100 B_{dip}$ so that for a typical $B_{dip}\sim 10^{12}$ G $B_s$ at the real polar cap is in the order of $10^{14}$ G. Such field strengths cause a sufficiently high cohesive energy, in the cap surface layers, necessary for the creation of an electric potential gap sufficiently high to guarantee copious pair production. This small hot and highly magnetized bottom area of the IAR will hereafter referred to as real polar cap. Its $\vec{B}_s$ has almost poloidal magnetic field structures and joins the global dipolar field in at a height of a few $\sim 10^5$ cm, roughly the curvature radius of $B_s$. A representation of the magnetic field structure in the region of the polar cap is presented in Fig. \[fig:field\_structure\].\
![Schematic presentation of the local magnetic field structure at and above the polar cap. The figure is taken from @SMG15b. $z$ denotes the height above the polar cap surface, $x$ the distance from the pole, $\mu$ is the magnetic dipole moment; the dashed lines represent the field lines of the large scale dipolar field while the full lines indicate those of the local small scale field structure.[]{data-label="fig:field_structure"}](PC_B_structure_ver2.jpg){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Clearly, the blackbody fits which determine the radius of the real polar cap $R_{pc}$ and $T_s$ should be considered with caution. Due to the variance in the photon statistical data, both thermal and non-thermal X-ray spectra can be fitted equally well to various models [@AM19]. However, the availability of $B_d, B_s, R_{dip}, R_{pc},$ and $T_s$ for a number of radio pulsars is reason enough, albeit with caution, given the large error bars at $T_s, R_{pc},$ and $B_s$, to study the establishment of the surface temperature of the real polar cap in greater detail.\
Recently, two studies on the polar cap heating by return currents of radio pulsars have been published [@T17; @BPO19]. A basic aspect of such studies is the energy of the electrons/positrons that hit the polar cap surface. This energy is determined by the strength and structure of the local surface magnetic field at the cap $\vec{B}_s$, by the rotational period $P$ of the pulsar, and by the height $h$ of the IAR. Therefore, these parameters define the strength of the electric field that is eventually capable of accelerating charged particles. For fundamentals, see [@RS75] and [@GMG03].\
[@T17] considers a typical situation with $B_s \sim 10^{12}$ G and $P\sim 1$ s. In this model, return currents heat up a small semi-ring area along the rim of the polar cap. Besides the fact that $B_s \sim 10^{12}$ G is too weak to allow a potential gap formation, sites of heat release at the bottom of the IAR are the sparks, arranged in equidistant patterns over the whole polar cap surface (see Fig. 1 of [@GS00]). Therefore, the whole cap, not only the rim region, is at $T_s$. If the heat would be released only around the rim, the strong almost poloidal $\vec{B}_s$ would prevent the heat flux from the rim moving onto the whole polar cap surface. [@TA13] and [@BS11] have shown that for inclination angles between dipole and rotation axis, $\chi \geq 60^\circ$ super- or anti- Goldreich-Julian current regions appear within the conventional polar cap. For the oblique rotator case, these currents fill the whole cap area. These currents will enhance the pair creation, thereby enforcing the heating of the polar cap surface.\
[@BPO19] assume the existence of an atmosphere above the polar cap. While the larger area of the neutron star surface may be covered by an atmosphere, it is unlikely that within the IAR, a small cylinder of $\sim 5\cdot 10^3$ cm height with a diameter of $\sim 10^3\ldots 10^4$ cm, where extremely energetic charged particles pass through, can sustain a stable atmosphere of hydrogen. Therefore, it is plausible that neither the assumption of $B_s\sim 10^{12}$G nor the existence of an hydrogen atmosphere in the IAR, nor the Ohmic dissipation of return currents solely in the polar cap rim region are realistic expectations explaining $T_s\sim 2\ldots 5\times 10^6$ K of the real polar cap.\
The aim of this study is to prove, whether under conditions present at and above the real polar cap, if the surface temperature can be held at a few $10^6$ K over the typical lifetime of radio pulsars. Herein is considered the bombardment of the cap surface by ultra-relativistic electrons, i.e. pulsars with $\vec{\Omega} \cdot \vec{B} <0$, $\Omega$ being the pulsar’s rotational frequency. In Section 2, is the discussion of the physical situation at the real polar cap and in the IAR. Section 3 is devoted to estimate the kinetic energies, and the flux of the electrons as functions of $B_s$ and $P$. By solving the Bethe-Bloch equation, the penetration depths of the electrons, their heat release, and surface temperatures as functions of the electron kinetic energies are presented. In Section 4, comparison of the obtained results with observations of $T_s$ are made, and concluded in Section 5.\
Physical situation at the polar cap of radio pulsars
====================================================
There is perhaps no place throughout a neutron star, where the magnetic, thermal, and rotational evolutions are more intensely coupled than at the real polar cap of radio pulsars. Magneto - thermal processes at the polar cap operate on shorter timescales and within a smaller spatial region than in case of the magneto - thermal interactions, as recent thorough studies indicate; see e.g. [@VRPPAM13; @PMG09; @GV14; @GMVP14]. It is widely accepted that pulsars create their radio emission by charges which are accelerated to ultra-relativistic energies either in a space charge limited flow of electrons and positrons, [@AS79] or in a vacuum gap [@RS75] just above the pulsar’s polar cap.\
As polar cap is considered conventionally as the area at the magnetic south and north poles of pulsars encircled by the last open field lines of the dipolar magnetic field $\vec{B}_d$ [@RS75]. As discussed in the Introduction, the physical situation of the real polar cap, the bottom of the IAR, [@GMG03] and its sub-surface layers are the current focus. The radius of the real polar cap is defined by the structure of $\vec{B}_s$ whose field lines join the open field lines of $B_d$ (see Fig. \[fig:field\_structure\]). Here, the charges accelerated within the IAR reach regions close to the light cylinder where they eventually emit radio waves.\
Striking features are the large temperature differences between the polar cap and the rest of the neutron star surface. Meridional temperature gradients across the rim of the real polar cap are caused by the tremendous strength and almost radial direction of $\vec{B}_s$. A magnetization parameter $\omega_B\tau\gtrsim 100$ at a surface density $\rho_s\sim 10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$ [@G17] suppresses the meridional component of the heat conductivity resulting in the meridional heat flux being a factor of at least $10^4$ smaller relative to the radial flux [@HUY90; @GKP04]. The rest surface cools according to well understood cooling scenarios (URCA or DURCA, photons), thereby increasing the meridional temperature gradient over time. After $\sim 1$ Myr the large part of the surface has a temperature in the order of a few $10^5$ K [@PGW06; @VRPPAM13].\
These large temperature gradients, both in radial and meridional direction are restricted to a relatively shallow layer of the real polar cap beneath its surface. The kinetic energy of the backflowing charges is released as heat within a few radiation lengths, and is almost immediately re-radiated [@CR80] as practically no thermal heat is transported into deeper regions of the crust (see Fig. \[fig:pendepth\]). The lifetime of radio pulsars is typically $10^6\ldots 10^7$ yr. Over this lifetime, the real polar cap area must be significantly hotter than the remaining surface of the neutron star.\
How the electron - positron pairs are created and subsequently accelerated, and how they eventually cause the observed radio emission and the observed real polar cap heating, depends on the strength and structure of the local surface magnetic field $\vec{B}_s$, on the rotational velocity, and on the angle between the axis of rotation and magnetic field. Already [@RS75] and [@AS79] noted that for a sufficiently powerful creation of electron-positron pairs, the magnetic field at the surface of the polar cap must be significantly more curved than the far above the neutron star surface dominating dipolar field $\vec{B}_d$. The latter has a curvature radius of $\sim 10^8$cm, while copious pair production requires curvature radii $\lesssim 10^6$cm. A mechanism that creates the strong and small scale field structures, at the polar cap surface, could be the crustal Hall drift [@RBPAL07; @PG07; @GH18]. It may create the required short scale poloidal field structure out of a rich reservoir of magnetic energy stored in a toroidal field located deep in the crust and in the outer core layers. This would also enhance the surface temperature of the spot through local Ohmic dissipation [@GGM13; @GV14]. However, this hot spot is larger than the real polar cap. The latter perhaps lies within the former, or shares some overlap. While the shape of the hot spot is formed by the crustal Hall drift, the surface of the real polar cap is determined by the small scale component of $\vec{B}_s$ which joins the open field lines of $\vec{B}_d$. While the surface temperature of the Hall drift hot spot never exceeds $1.5\times 10^6$ K (see Fig. 5 in [@GV14]), the surface temperatures of the real polar cap may even reach $\sim 5\times 10^6$ K as (though with large error bars) blackbody fits of B2224 +65 [@HHTTTWC12] or B1451 -68 [@PPMKG12] indicate.\
![Penetration depth of electrons into fully ionized iron for surface densities $\rho_s=10^4, 10^5, 10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$ []{data-label="fig:pendepth"}](dpd_vs_E.jpg){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
An important subject is the surface density $\rho_s$ at the hot polar cap, where the neutron star matter is condensed; either liquid or solidified. The most recent description of the state of aggregation in that region is given by [@PC13]. The so-called zero pressure density can be considered as the surface which is hit by the bombardment with ultra-relativistic electrons/positrons. It increases with the local magnetic field strength proportional to $B_{12}^{6/5}$, and can be estimated by \_s=561A Z\^[-3/5]{}B\_[12]{}\^[6/5]{}, 0.517+0.24 B\_[12]{}\^[1/5]{} , \[eq:rho\_s\]
where $B_{12}=B/10^{12}$ G. For an Fe-surface ($A=56, Z=26$) is $\rho_s \approx 1.25\cdot 10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$ for local field strengths of $B_{12}=100$, as expected to be present at the polar cap surface.\
Whether the surface matter is liquid or solid impacts the magnetic field dependent melting value of the Coulomb coupling parameter $\Gamma_m(B)$; if it exceeds $\sim 175$ the matter is solidified, below it is liquid. According to [@PC13] is
\_m(B)(0)\^[-1]{} . \[eq:GammaB\]
$\beta$ is given by the ratio of ion cyclotron to plasma frequency, $\beta\approx 0.0094 B_{12}\rho_6^{-1/2}$ with $\rho_6=\rho/10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$. $\Gamma(0)$ is roughly the ratio of Coulomb and thermal energy
(0)=\_6Z\^2A\^[-1/3]{} , \[Gamma0\]
with $a_i$ being the spacing between ions, and $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant. Inserting typical values for the surface temperature at the polar cap $T_6\approx 3\ldots 5$ (see Table 1 in [@G17]) and $\rho_{s,6}\approx 1.25$, one finds $\Gamma_m \approx 1235$ for $T_6=3$ and $B_{12}= 100$. Thus, $\Gamma_m(B)$ is significantly greater then $175$. It is the process of magnetic condensation that appears for $B_s \gtrsim 10^{14}$ G [@LS97; @TZD04; @ML07; @PC18]. Therefore, the polar cap surface of radio pulsars is probably in a solidified state. We will consider the real polar cap surface, consisting of fully ionized iron, as that of a “naked” neutron star [@TZD04] without any atmospheric layers above it.\
Heating of the polar cap by bombardment with ultra-relativistic electrons
=========================================================================
A basic feature of radio pulsar emission is the creation of electron-positron pairs in the IAR just above the real polar cap. In the case where the rotational axis and the magnetic field axis are anti-parallel ($\vec{\Omega}\cdot \vec{B}<0$), the positrons escape and eventually generate the radio emission while the electrons are accelerated toward the cap surface, heating it up to $1...5\times 10^6$ K [@RS75; @AS79; @GMG03].\
The amount of heat that the bombarding electrons release in the surface layers of the cap depends on the rotational period $P=2\pi/\Omega$, the local surface magnetic field strength $B_s$, and the height of the inner accelerating gap $h$ (see [@GMG03], Eq. A.5 -A.9). Given these values the maximum potential drop in the inner accelerating gap is
V\_[max]{}=B\_s h\^2 . \[eq:Vmax\] For typical parameters at the real polar cap, $B_s\sim 10^{14}$ G, $P=0.5$ s, $h=5\cdot 10^3$ cm, a maximum potential gap of $\sim 3\cdot 10^{14}$ V will be created. A shielding factor that takes into account the thermal detachment if iron ions from the cap surface may reduce $V_{max}$ by a factor of ten.
The kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ gained by an elementary charge $e$ that is accelerated within this gap is given by
E\_[kin]{}=eV\_[max]{}310\^[12]{} eV , \[eq:eVmax\]
where $B_{s,12}$ is $B_s$ in $10^{12}$ G, $h_{5,3}$ the gap height in $5\cdot 10^3$ cm, and $P_{0.5}$ the rotational period in $0.5$ s. Since, the local surface magnetic field strength at the polar cap $B_{s,12}\gtrsim 100$, the kinetic energy of an elementary charge $\approx 3\cdot 10^{14}$ eV. This kinetic energy of the primary particles corresponds to a Lorentz factor $\gamma \sim 6\cdot 10^8$. Such large $\gamma$ will be reached only at the beginning of each sparking cycle that lasts $\sim 10\mu\mathrm{s}$. Towards the end of a cycle the potential drop will decrease significantly, due to separation of the large electron/positron densities which have been produced in the discharge [@RS75; @MGP00], and by the thermal release of iron ions which cause an additional screening of the potential gap [@GMG03]. The secondary particle electron/positron plasma produced either by curvature radiation, or inverse Compton scattering within the IAR is more dense but less energetic. Its $\gamma$-factor is about 4 orders of magnitude smaller than that of the primary particles. Secondary charges produced outside the IAR don’t contribute to the heating of the real polar cap surface.\
The heating of the IAR bottom proceeds via the bombardment both with primary and secondary charges; the kinetic energy given by Eq. \[eq:eVmax\] is those of the primary particles. How many secondary particles are produced by one primary charge and can hit the polar cap surface depends on the height $h$ of the IAR, and is determined by the multiplicity [@S71; @TH15]. For $B\gtrsim 3\cdot 10^{12}$ G and $R_{cur}\sim 10^7$ cm [@TH19] find a maximum multiplicity $\sim 10^6$. For stronger magnetic fields and smaller radii of curvature, no higher multiplicities will appear as photon absorption proceeds near the pair formation threshold. Thus, although the kinetic energy of the secondary charges is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the primary ones, this reduction will be counteracted by the high multiplicity. Half of the in-pairs created particles will leave the IAR. Since the kinetic energy of the primary particles is redistributed to the secondary ones, $E_{kin}$ of the primary particles gained in the IAR forms the kinetic energy budget available for the polar cap heating. Thus, $E_{kin}$ given by Eq. \[eq:eVmax\] can be considered as an upper limit of the heat source for the cap surface.\
As argued above, no atmosphere can exist within the IAR. Therefore, the total kinetic energy of the ultra-relativistic charges is assumed to be released in the surface layers of the real polar cap.\
As the penetration depth $d_{PD}$ within the surface layers of the polar cap $\rho\sim 10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$ is exceedingly small (see Fig. \[fig:pendepth\]), the total released heat is immediately radiated away.\
The backflowing charges that hit the real polar cap surface are perhaps not mono-energetic. Based on observations of gamma-ray pulsars and simulations of pulsar magnetospheres (see [@CPS16; @BKTHK18] and references therein), [@BPO19] suggest a power-law energy spectrum of the charges that form the return current given by
N() = N\_[0]{}\^, \[eq:power-law\]
where $N$ is the number of electrons for $\gamma > 1$, $N_{0}$ the normalization for $\gamma = 1$, $\eta$ is a free parameter. When $\eta$ is negative, as suggested by [@BPO19], such a structured spectrum has a strong impact on the heating of the cap surface. Charges with lower energies are more numerous as their number decreases strongly with increasing $\gamma$. Clearly, the spectrum of the charges created in the IAR has another physical origin than that considered by [@BPO19]. However, we use the same power law ansatz to check whether the spectrum of the bombarding charges is more or less mono-energetic or how much it deviates from being mono-energetic to explain the observed $T_s$.\
![Stopping power as a function of kinetic energy of electrons.[]{data-label="fig:dE_dx"}](dE_dx_up_to_1e13.jpg){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Bethe-Bloch-Equation
--------------------
Electrons while passing through matter a distance $dx$ lose their kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ by collisions ${\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}}_{coll}$ and Bremsstrahlung radiation ${\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}}_{rad}$. For electrons passing through iron and having kinetic energy of $\approx 2.7 \times 10^{7}$ eV the ${\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}}_{coll} = {\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}}_{rad}$ [@LEO87]. Within the IAR, the kinetic energy of electrons bombarding the cap surface is certainly beyond this threshold. Fig. \[fig:dE\_dx\] shows the so-called stopping power $\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}/{\rho_{s}}$ as a function of the electron kinetic energy. Clearly, above $\sim$$10^9$ eV, energy loss is dominated by Bremsstrahlung. Therefore, the only energy loss taken into account further on is due to that radiation. Hence, the Bethe-Bloch-Equation to be solved is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx} \equiv {\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}}_{rad} &=& 4 N E_s Z^2 r_e^2 \alpha \cdot \\ \nonumber
& & \left[ \ln(183 Z^{-1/3}) + 1/18 - f(Z) \right]\,,
\label{eq:BBeq}\end{aligned}$$
where $N = {\rho_{s}}N_{A} / A$ is the particle number, $E_s$ is the sum of kinetic and rest energy of an incident electron, $N_{A}$ is the Avogadro number, $r_{e}$ is classical electron radius, $\alpha \cong 1/137$ is the fine structure constant, while $f(Z)$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
f(Z) &=& a^2 [(1 + a^2)^{-1} + 0.20206 - 0.0369a^2 \\ \nonumber
& + & 0.0083a^4 - 0.002a^6]\,,
\label{eq:f(z)} \end{aligned}$$
with $a = \alpha Z$ [@DBM54]. The amount of kinetic energy loss determines the surface temperature $T_s$ of the real polar cap.
Differential electron current
-----------------------------
In order to calculate the heat input from backflowing electrons at the bottom of the IAR, an estimate of the differential electron current is necessary. It is the magnitude of the current per electron kinetic energy , i.e. in units of $N$/s/eV.\
First, the electron current ($N$/s) has to be calculated. Assuming that it scales according to the power law of Eq. \[eq:power-law\]
j() = j\_0 \^, \[eq:j\_g\]
where $j=\frac{\partial{N}}{\partial t}$, $j_0$ represents then the current for $\gamma = 1$, and $j(\gamma)$ is the current for $\gamma > 1$. [@RS75] calculated the so-called *maximum net charged particle flux* $\dot{N}_{max}$ which is the primary charge current accelerated in the IAR above the polar cap
\_[max]{} S . \[eq:Nmaxdot\]
We identify, in variance to [@RS75], $S=\pi R_{pc}^2$ not with the conventional but with the real polar cap surface and assume that $j_0 = \dot{N}_{max}$. By replacing in Eq. \[eq:j\_g\] the $\gamma$ factor by $E_{kin} = m_e c^2 (\gamma - 1)$ we obtain the differential electron current ($j_0$ divided by $E_{kin}$). Hence, it is given by
j(B\_s, E\_[kin]{}) = S ( + 1 )\^. \[eq:e\_spectrum\]
The $j(B_s,E)$ spectrum is shown in Fig.\[fig:e\_spectra\] for $P = \{0.5 \mathrm{[s]}, 1.0\mathrm{[s]}\}$ and $\eta = \{-0.01, -0.1\}$. It is a relation between the magnetic field $B_{s,12}$ and electron kinetic energy. A variation of the parameter $\eta$ has a stronger impact on the current spectrum magnitude than a variation of the pulsar’s rotational period $P$.
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Heating
-------
Assume that all of the kinetic electron energy dissipated, while stopping down within real polar cap, is transferred into heat. By use of $j(B_s,E_{kin})$, energy loss $\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx}$, and the penetration depth $d_{PD}$ given by
d\_[PD]{} = \_[E\_[electrons]{}]{}\^[0]{} ()\^[-1]{} dE, \[eq:dpd\]
we find the differential heating rate $Q'_{\mathrm{IN}}$. It is a measure how much heat is released within the real polar cap matter by the electrons per unit time and per electron kinetic energy:
Q’\_[IN]{} = d\_[PD]{} j(B\_s, E\_[kin]{}), \[eq:heat\]
The differential heating rate spectra are shown in Fig. \[fig:Q\_spectra\]. As expected, $Q'_{IN}$ depends strongly on the power law parameter $\eta$.
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The heating rate $Q_{IN}$ is calculated by integrating $Q'_{IN}$ over the whole kinetic energy range of the electrons
Q\_[IN]{} = Q’\_[IN]{} dE.
To calculate the temperature of the NS cap, assume that the $Q_{IN}$ is immediately radiated away from the very shallow polar cap surface layer into the space above it. This is justified by the smallness of $d_{PD}$ even for the highest kinetic energies (see Fig. \[fig:pendepth\]). A thermal balance will be established and maintained
Q\_[IN]{} = Q\_[OUT]{} = \_[SB]{} \_ST\_s\^4,
where $\sigma_{SB}$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant $3.54 \times 10^{-7}$ $\mathrm{eV \ cm^{-2} s^{-1} K^{-4}}$, $\epsilon_{\mathrm{Fe}}$ is the iron thermal emittance; assuming here $\epsilon_{\mathrm{Fe}}=0.6$. The temperature $T_s$ is then
$$\begin{aligned}
T_s = \left[ \frac{1}{2 \pi e \sigma_{SB} \epsilon_{\mathrm{Fe}}} \int \vec{\Omega} \cdot \vec{B_s} \frac{dE_{kin}}{dx} \frac{d_{PD}}{E_{kin}} \left(\frac{E_{kin}}{m_{e}c^2} + 1\right)^{\eta} dE\right]^{1/4}.
\label{eq:NS_T}\end{aligned}$$
Note that Eq. \[eq:NS\_T\] does not depend on target material density, since $\frac{dE_{kin}}{dx} \sim {\rho_{s}}$, while $d_{PD} \sim 1/{\rho_{s}}$. The surface temperature also does not depend on the real polar cap area as $Q_{IN}\sim j(B_s, E_{kin})\sim S$.
Model validation
================
Fig. \[fig:T\_diff\_eta\_and\_P\] shows surface temperatures $T_s$ of the neutron star real polar cap as functions of the magnetic field strength $B_{s}$. The differential current spectrum of the bombarding ultra-relativistic electrons is described by Eq. \[eq:e\_spectrum\]. Consider $\eta=-0.1, -0.01$, and for comparison a mono-energetic spectrum $\eta=0$ as well as two rotational periods $P=0.5$ and $P=1.0$ s. Obviously, an almost mono-energetic spectrum of the primary charges returns the largest $T_s$. Its magnitude reaches $3\times10^6$ K for magnetic field strength $B_s$ of $\sim10^{14}$ G, a rotational period $P$ of 0.5 s, and $\eta=-0.01$. The rotational period has a smaller impact on the temperature than the slope of the spectrum.\
Our model has been validated by comparison with observational data of 7 pulsars (see Table \[tab:model\_fit\]). The validation has been performed by implementing a *semi*-$\chi^2$ test procedure, i.e. each pulsar represents just one measuring point. Therefore, a typical $\chi^2$ fit reduces to one loop where $\eta$ was set as free parameter taken within a range from -0.5 to 0 in steps of 0.01. Hence, $\chi^2$ equals to the temperature difference of observed $T_s$ and the one calculated by Eq. \[eq:NS\_T\]. In Fig. \[fig:T\_diff\_eta\_and\_P\_FIT\] is shown the result of the validation procedure. The dashed lines represent the solutions of Eq. \[eq:NS\_T\] with the fitted $\eta$ - values. The results of the model calculations agrees well, within the error bars, with the observational values.
Ref. Name P \[s\] $T_{s,6}$ \[K\] $B_{s,14}$ \[G\] $\eta$
------ ------------ --------- --------------------- ------------------------ --------
1 J0108-1431 0.808 $1.7^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ $0.12^{+0.24}_{-0.08}$ 0.0
2 B0355+54 0.156 $3.0^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$ $0.27^{+1.27}_{-0.22}$ -0.01
3 J0633+1746 0.237 $2.3^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $2.21^{+1.83}_{-0.82}$ 0.0
4 B0834+06 1.274 $2.0^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ $1.05^{+3.19}_{-0.92}$ -0.05
5 B0943+10 1.098 $3.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ $1.99^{+0.96}_{-0.62}$ -0.01
6 B1133+16 1.188 $2.9^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ $3.9^{+1.12}_{-0.76}$ -0.05
7 B1929+10 0.227 $4.5^{+0.3}_{-0.5}$ $1.26^{+0.44}_{-0.35}$ 0.0
: Pulsar data used to fit the model parameter $\eta$ of the real polar cap surface temperature (Eq. \[eq:NS\_T\]); here $T_{s,6}$ is $T_s \times 10^6$ K and $B_{s,14}$ is $B_s \times 10^{14}$ G. Data originate from the following references (Ref.): (1) [@PAPMSK12] (2) [@MVKZCC07] (3) [@KPZR05] (4) [@GHMGZM08] (5) [@MTET13] (6) [@SGZHMGMX17] (7) [@MPG08].[]{data-label="tab:model_fit"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Some remarks about the application of these $T_s$-estimates on millisecond pulsars (MSPs). Recently, detailed NICER observation of PSR J0030+0451 were published by [@RWBRLGABBCGHHLMS19] and [@BWHRABGRGHC19]. These observations ($P\approx 4.87$ ms $\dot{P}\approx 1.02\times 10^{-20}$) return an estimate of the dipolar surface field strength $B_d\approx 2.3\times 10^8$ G and $R_{dip}\approx 2\times 10^5$ cm. The blackbody fit of the thermal X-ray spectrum assumes the existence of a hydrogen atmosphere, and indicates hot spots with $T_{s,6}\approx 1.3$. Radio emission of MSPs may originate either from an outer gap accelerator, or from the IAR above the polar cap (see e.g. discussion in [@JVHGSKCHFHLR14]). In the latter case, the requirement of potential gap formation demands a $B_s\gtrsim 5\times 10^{13}$ G (see [@ML07], Fig.7). Inferred $B_d$ close to the surface of MSPs are 3 to 4 orders of magnitude weaker than in normal pulsars while charges at these regions experience an accelerating potential similar to that of normal pulsars. Therefore, flux conservation arguments result in a very small $R_{pc}\approx 430$ cm, smaller than any hot spot radius derived by [@RWBRLGABBCGHHLMS19] for different models of J0030+0451. The smallest $R_{pc}$ is observed for the normal PSR B1133+16 (see Tab. \[tab:model\_fit\], [@SGZHMGMX17]) where a blackbody fit results in $R_{pc}\approx 1400$ cm. To estimate radii as small as deduced here for MSP J0030+0451 is presently beyond the scope of observations.
Conclusions
===========
The heat input into the surface layer and the resulting surface temperatures $T_s$ of the real polar cap were estimated and compared to available blackbody fits for seven radio pulsars. Our model assumptions were:
1. real polar cap surface fields $B_s\sim 10^{13} \dots 10^{14}$ G estimated from flux conservation;
2. corresponding surface densities of the polar cap $\rho_s \sim 10^5 \ldots 10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$;
3. the polar cap surface consists of fully ionized solidified iron;
4. in the IAR above the polar cap there was no hydrogen atmosphere;
5. the heat input was calculated from the maximum $E_{kin}$ that primary particles acquire in the strong electric field prevalent within the IAR;
6. although the bombardment of the cap surface is performed both by primary and the secondary charges created in pair cascades within the IAR, the maximum $E_{kin}$ is a reliable (upper) measure for the transfer of kinetic energy into heat and determines the total energy budget;
7. a power law energy spectrum for the current of bombarding charges with a free exponent $\eta$ was assumed;
8. due to the shallow penetration depth of bombarding charges into the cap surface, all the released kinetic energy was immediately re-radiated;
9. a thermal balance was established and maintained at the real polar cap surface over the active life time of radio pulsars.
The following results were obtained:
1. $T_s$ were calculated as functions of $B_s$ and $P$;
2. these $T_s$ were compared with “observed” $T_s$ of seven radio pulsars for which both $B_s$ and $P$ were estimated and known, respectively;
3. since the accelerating electric field increases with $B_s$ and decreases with increasing $P$, $T_s$ was largest for the strongest $B_s$ and the most rapid rotation;
4. the smaller $\mid\eta\mid$ the higher $T_s$ for given values of $B_s$ and $P$;
5. a *semi*-$\chi^2$ test by use of the observed pulsar parameters reveals that the spectrum of the bombarding charges was almost mono-energetic;
6. a relatively good agreement of model and observations was concluded.
Clearly, taking the maximum kinetic energy of the charges we consider only an upper limit for the heat release in the cap surface. The overall heating process suffers from the intrinsic intermittency of pair cascades; it is not a continuous heating. The average $T_s$ (averaged over many discharging cycles) will be lower than those calculated when starting from the maximum kinetic energy. A quantitative estimate how much the real $T_s$ is smaller than that calculated by use of the maximum $E_{kin}$ is beyond the scope of this work. [@T10] and [@TA13] performed detailed simulations of pair cascade formation in the polar cap region. The cascade repetition rate could not yet be inferred directly from simulations, however, the reduction of heating efficiency might be significant (Timokhin 2020, private communication). This reduction could be mitigated somewhat. When comparing the cooling and heating time scales at the strongly magnetized cap surface for a discharge cycle (few $\mu$s) one finds $\tau_{heat}/\tau_{cool}<1$ (see Appendix of [@GMG03]), which makes the cooling in phases when the bombardment ceases less efficient.\
Given the large error bars at the observed $T_s$ values, as shown in Fig. \[fig:T\_diff\_eta\_and\_P\_FIT\], this good agreement was certainly not a satisfying proof. However, it indicates that our model, naked surface at the bottom of the IAR and $B_{s,12}\sim 100$, reflects the physics of the real polar cap heating of radio pulsars quite well.\
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully acknowledge G. Melikidze, A. Timokhin, and R. G. Bryant for enlightening discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We report on the loading of atoms contained in a magneto-optic trap into multiple optical traps formed within the focused beam of a $\rm
CO_{2}$ laser. We show that under certain circumstances it is possible to create a linear array of dipole traps with well separated maxima. This is achieved by focusing the laser beam through lenses uncorrected for spherical aberration. We demonstrate that the separation between the micro-traps can be varied, a property which may be useful in experiments which require the creation of entanglement between atoms in different micro-traps. We suggest other experiments where an array of these traps could be useful.
address: 'Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3072 '
author:
- 'P Ahmadi, V Ramareddy and G S Summy'
title: 'Multiple micro-optical atom traps with a spherically aberrated laser beam'
---
Introduction
============
The trapping of atoms at the intensity maximum of an optical field that is far-detuned to the red of an atomic transition has been the subject of study for almost a decade now . There has been a rapid growth of interest in these far-off resonant optical traps (FORTs) because of their versatility and wide range of possible applications. For example, they have been used to create an all optical Bose-Einstein condensate [@ChapmanBEC; @CsBEC; @YbBEC], a degenerate Fermi gas [@Thomas_FermiGas] and an all optical atomic laser [@WeitzPRL_BEC]. These traps in the form of optical lattices have been employed in theoretical models to open new frontiers in quantum information research. The proposal of Brennen [*et al.*]{} [@Brennen] for quantum logic gates using neutral atoms in optical lattices, provided a way around the decoherence problem which affects schemes involving charged particles. They showed that entanglement between a collection of trapped neutral atoms can be created with a laser using the induced electric dipole-dipole interaction. The main difficulty associated with their scheme has been the need to construct a lattice FORT with sufficient separation between unit cells to address them individually and with a sufficient volume to load many atoms at each trapping site. These challenges have been the focus of another series of experimental efforts. For example, using a holographic phase plate, Boiron [*et al.*]{} [@Borion] constructed an optical lattice with a period of 29$\mu \rm m$ using a YAG laser. In other experiments, the Hannover group have developed a technique using arrays of microlenses to focus a red detuned laser beam and create a series of micro-traps for use as quantum memories [@Dumke; @Birkl; @Buchkremer]. Peil [*et al.*]{} [@peil] employed two independent optical lattices, whose spatial periods differ by a factor of three, to load a Bose-Einstein condensate of $\rm Rb \ 87$ atoms in sites having a separation approximately 30$\mu \rm
m$.
In most FORT experiments atoms are trapped at the intensity maxima formed by a focused laser beam in either a travelling or standing wave configuration. In this paper, we demonstrate a new approach in which the peaks in the diffraction pattern associated with spherical aberration in the vicinity of the focal plane of a lens are used to create a linear array of micro-traps. The primary spherical aberration pattern close to the focal plane has been studied and well documented by several authors. For example, Evans and Morgan [@Evance; @Evance-prl] theoretically produced the aberration pattern of a lens that was not corrected for spherical aberration in order to explain laser induced breakdown in gases, while Smith [@smith] experimentally verified the primary spherical aberration intensity distribution produced by a lens uncorrected for spherical aberration. The spherical aberration in our experiments is induced by the lenses in the path of a $\rm CO_2$ laser beam. It will be seen that most of the contribution to the spherical aberration comes from the final lens (primary lens) which is employed to focus the $ \rm CO_2$ laser beam onto a cold atomic cloud. We will show that varying the incident beam size on the primary lens enables us to change the aberration pattern and hence control the separation of the micro-traps over a range of about a millimeter. One of the advantages of our set up is the use of a $\rm
CO_2$ laser as a far off-resonant light source. This considerably improves the coherence time compared to some of the atom optical experiments mentioned above which use YAG lasers to create dipole traps with micron size separation. Furthermore, the ability to vary the spacing between the micro-traps over a range of about a millimeter makes the addressing of the individual traps feasible using the techniques developed by Nägerl [*et al.*]{} [@Nagerl].
This paper is constructed as follows. In section 2 we discuss the theory of the multiple trap potential that is used in simulations. Section 3 is devoted to the description of the experimental setup. In section 4 we present the experimental data and compare them with our simulation results. Our suggestions and future plans for the use of these potentials appear in the conclusion section.
Aberration effect of a lens on the incident laser light near the focus
======================================================================
Since the potential well depth of any FORT is proportional to the intensity, we now proceed to calculate the intensity distribution produced near the focus of the lens used in our experiment. Following Born and Wolf [@born] and Yoshida and Asakura [@yashida], the intensity close to the focus of a lens for an incident Gaussian beam is given by, $$I\left(u,v\right) = {1 \over w^2} \ {\Big |} \int_0^1 \rho \ \rmd
\rho \ \rme^{- \rho ^2 \over \left(w/a\right)^2}
\rme^{-\rmi\left({u \rho ^2 \over 2}+k \beta \rho^4\right)}
J_0\left(v \rho\right){\Big |}^2,$$ where $w$ is the spot size on the lens and $\rho$ is the radial coordinate on the lens normalized to the radius of the lens, $a$. $v$ and $u$ are the scaled cylindrical radial and axial coordinates of the image space (with the origin for $u$ at the Gaussian focus) and are given by $v= {2 \pi \over \lambda} {a\over R}\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and $u= {2 \pi \over \lambda} \left({a\over R}\right)^2z$. $k$ is the vacuum wave number, given by $k=2 \pi / \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the light used. $R$ is the radius of the Gaussian reference sphere from the lens, $(x,y)$ are the cartesian coordinates in the Gaussian image plane and $\beta$ is the primary spherical aberration coefficient, usually expressed in terms of the number of wavelengths. This coefficient is additive over all the elements used in an optical system. Our set up has three lenses in the path of the laser light (see Fig.\[exp\_schematic\]). The first two lenses constitute a telescope and the third one (which is placed inside the vacuum chamber) we refer to as the primary lens.
Using the thin lens approximation, we calculate the primary spherical aberration produced by such a lens of focal length $f$ to be [@welfold], $$\beta ={w^4 \over 32 f^3} \left[\left({n \over n-1}\right)^2 +
{\left(n+2\right) \over n\left(n-1\right)^2}\left(B +
{2\left(n^2-1\right) \over n+2} C\right)^2 - {n \over
n+2}C^2\right],
\label{beta}$$ where $n$ is the refractive index of the lens medium and $B$ is the shape variable given by $ B=(c_1 + c_2)/( c_1 - c_2) $ and $c_i = 1/r_i$; $i=1,2$; $r_i$ are the radii of curvature of the lens surfaces. $C$ is known as the conjugate variable and is defined as $ C=(u_1 + u_2)/( u_1 - u_2)$, where $u_1$ and $u_2$ are the divergence angles of the gaussian beam before and after passing through the lens. These angles are given by $u_i=\lambda/ \pi w_{0i}$; $i=1,2$, where $w_{01}$ and $w_{02}$ are the minimum beam waists of the beam before and after the lens. It should be noted that according to the usual sign convention, if the lens produces a converging beam, then $u_2$ is negative so that the denominator in the definition of $C$ is not zero in our experiment.
In the experimental situation we wish to model, the separation of the telescope lenses is varied by moving the second lens in the optical system and keeping the other lenses fixed. Thus the first lens of the telescope contributes a constant amount to the total spherical aberration coefficient $\beta$ as its $w$ and $C$ parameters are fixed. As the position of the second lens in the telescope is moved, the beam size on this lens and on the third (the primary) lens will change resulting in changes to the parameters $w$ and $C$ for these lenses. This leads to a variable contribution to $\beta$ by these last two lenses and therefore a variable aberration pattern near the focus of the primary lens. We have found that for our experiment the primary spherical aberration of the primary lens varies from around 0.1 up to around 18.2 wavelengths.
Experimental set up
===================
In the following, we present an experimental setup which enables us to create the spherical aberration pattern to form a series of micro optical traps. Our experimental apparatus consists of a stainless steel, octagonal vacuum chamber which is maintained at a pressure of approximately $\rm 5 \times 10^{-10}$ torr by an ion pump. A 3.1 cm diameter ZnSe viewport allows us to focus the 10.6 $\mu$m light from a $\rm
CO_{2}$ laser into the center of this chamber. The focusing lens (the primary lens) is a meniscus lens with a 3.81 cm focal length and 2.54 cm diameter placed inside the vacuum chamber and is not corrected for spherical aberration. This lens is mounted such that the convex side is towards the center of the chamber to maximize the spherical aberration effects. Before reaching the primary lens, the $\rm CO_2$ laser beam passes through a telescope composed of two plano convex lenses with 6.35 cm and 12.7 cm focal lengths placed approximately 2 meters away from the chamber. This configuration allows us to control the beam size at the lens inside the chamber by varying the separation of the telescope lenses. Consequently, we are able to change the spherical aberration pattern close to the gaussian focus inside the chamber.
The trapping light was directed into the vacuum system in a geometry such that it propagated at an angle of 45 degrees to the vertical. The light for this beam originated from a 50 Watt, RF excited $\rm CO_{2}$ laser. The total laser power was controlled by passing the output light through an acousto-optic modulator (AOM). The first order of the modulator was then directed into the telescope to expand the beam. The optical arrangement used in this experiment is as shown in Fig.\[exp\_schematic\]. For our atomic source we used a magneto-optic trap (MOT), formed with a 20 G/cm magnetic field gradient, and by two 5 cm diameter, 20 mW beams. Each beam made three passes through the chamber and was detuned 15 MHz below the $F=2\: \rightarrow \: F'=3$ transition of the D2 line of ${\rm Rb\ 87}$. Repumping light tuned to the $F=1\: \rightarrow \: F'=2$ transition propagated with one of the trapping beams. We were able to capture about $2\times 10^{7}$ atoms with this arrangement.
One of the most difficult aspects involved in the setup of a FORT is the beam alignment. Since the FORT light is so far from resonance, no fluorescence is induced and it is hard to determine whether the FORT beam is overlapping with the MOT or not. To overcome this difficulty we have devised a method which allows us to observe the position of the $\rm CO_{2}$ laser beam in real time directly on an inexpensive CCD camera that normally monitors the MOT. To accomplish this it is necessary to improve the contrast between the atoms trapped in the MOT and those trapped in the FORT. Several techniques will work, for example, increasing the detuning of the MOT light from resonance, or reducing the intensity of the MOT light. A similar effect is obtained if these operations are performed on the repumping light. With any one of these methods, the brightness of the MOT and the effect of its near resonant light on pushing atoms out of the FORT, can be lessened. However, there can still be enough near-resonant light present in the MOT beams to cause atoms that are contained in the FORT to fluoresce and hence make the FORT beam visible. Using these techniques greatly simplifies alignment of our $\rm CO_{2}$ laser beam, turning a task which could previously take several days into one that can be performed in minutes.
To load the FORT with atoms we apply the following procedure. First the MOT is loaded for $30$ seconds from the background vapor while at the same time the $\rm CO_2$ laser remains switched on. Then, as a key step in efficiently loading the FORT, we reduce the repump intensity by a factor of 50 compared to its initial value to make a temporal dark SPOT [@Wieman_Phys_Rev_A; @ketterle_darkspot]. This strong reduction in the repump power occurs $50$ to $70\thinspace \rm ms$ before switching off the MOT trapping beams. Alongside reducing the repump power, we jump the trapping beam detuning to $-80\thinspace \rm MHz$ for further laser cooling and to counteract the detuning change induced by the light shift of the ${\rm CO_2}$ beam. If we did not jump the detuning, atoms in the region of the FORT would see the MOT beams positively detuned, thus reducing the effectiveness of the MOT. Finally, after the main MOT beams have been extinguished, we adiabatically switch off the MOT magnetic field. The earliest time that we can image the FORT is $100\thinspace \rm ms$ after releasing the MOT. This ensures that any of the untrapped atoms have sufficient time to fall away from the FORT under the influence of gravity. Both the MOT and the FORT are destructively imaged by observing the absorption of a resonant probe laser which passes through the atom cloud and is incident on a CCD camera. By integrating the optical density across the atom cloud we are able to determine the number of trapped atoms. When imaging the FORT, the $\rm CO_2$ laser beams are switched off 3.5 ms before the image is taken to allow the cloud of atoms to expand to a size which is significantly above the resolution of the optical system.
Results and Discussion
======================
Using the procedure described in Section 3 we have been able to load several micro-optical traps created by the aberration pattern of the meniscus lens. Interestingly, our observations show that there are approximately 10 sites capable of holding the atoms when the beam diameter is similar to the size of the primary lens, in very good agreement with our simulation results. For a given amount of spherical aberration $\beta$, the separation between the micro-traps decreases as one moves away from the focus and towards the primary lens. Therefore the number of micro-traps being loaded from a MOT at a given time depends where the MOT and FORT overlap each other. Usually 3 micro-traps are loaded by placing the atomic cloud of the the MOT close to the gaussian focus of the lens. This can be increased to 4 or 5 micro-traps by moving the MOT a few millimeters towards the lens (to move the MOT we change the currents in the nulling coils designed to cancel out stray magnetic fields). Fig.\[fort\] shows three absorption images of the FORT and their corresponding simulated potentials at two extreme separations of the telescope lenses and one intermediate separation. The lower panel of Fig.\[fort\] shows that the central FORT and one micro-trap are loaded. This happens when there is higher spherical aberration $\beta$. Our simulations show that the separation between the peaks is greater when there is a high spherical aberration. So in the lower panel of Fig.\[fort\], the spacial extent of the MOT is such that it could load only one micro-trap along with the central FORT. For the parameters of Fig.\[fort\](c), we found from equation \[beta\] that the spherical aberration $\beta$ is around 18.2 wavelengths. The central panel of Fig.\[fort\] shows the central FORT and two micro-traps that are loaded when $\beta$ is around 12.6 wavelengths. In the upper picture, the spherical aberration is diminished by the small beam size on the primary lens so that only the highly populated central FORT remains. This higher population is due to the fact that for such cases the beam is not focused tightly so that the capture volume of the FORT is increased. In the absence of the spherical aberration the central FORT usually contains $10^6$ trapped atoms. In the presence of the spherical aberration, the other micro-traps usually have $2 \times 10^5$ atoms at $70\mu \rm K$ temperature.
According to our numerical simulations, the spherical aberration contributions from the telescope lenses can also alter the intensity pattern close to the focal plane of the primary lens. Our telescope lenses are not corrected for the spherical aberration. To demonstrate this point the meniscus lens was replaced with an aspheric lens corrected for spherical aberrations so that the primary lens did not alter the wave front because of the spherical aberration. Different combinations of lenses that made up the telescope were tested, however all of them showed a similar pattern. Thus, here we shall present only one set up in which we used two plano convex lenses, both with 12.7cm focal length. The separation of the telescope lenses was initially set equal to 24cm and was then decreased in 3mm steps. Fig.\[data\] shows the observed intensities along the optical axis of the primary lens as the telescope separation was varied. An offset has been added to each profile to improve the readability. The sequence from the top is in order of increasing distance between the telescope lenses. This figure shows that a micro trap is created from the central FORT and starts to move away from it as we increase the separation of the telescope lenses. This is because as the beam size on the second lens increases so does the spherical aberration. From Fig.\[data\] it can be noted that after the seventh step of increment in the telescope separation a second micro-trap emerges from the central FORT and moves away. This happens while the first micro-trap has travelled far enough so that atoms are no longer loaded into it. The second micro-trap moves away with increasing telescope lens separation until the fifteenth step when a third micro-trap emerges from the central trap and starts to travel towards the second micro-trap. These two micro-traps coexist for a few more increments in the separation until the second micro-trap fails to load atoms. Since less atoms are loaded into the micro-traps of Fig.\[data\] compared to Fig. \[fort\], we infer that the meniscus lens produces more spherical aberration than the telescope lenses.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that the intensity distribution produced by a lens that is not corrected for spherical aberration can be used to prepare a potential to realize micro-optical traps. A beam from a $\rm {CO_2}$ laser focused with such a lens was employed to load $\rm {Rb\ 87}$ atoms into the micro-optical traps formed by the intensity maxima of the spherical aberration pattern. Such high density ($10^{13}$ atoms/$\rm{cm}^3$) samples of cold atoms are of interest for a wide range of experimental studies including evaporative cooling, cold collisions and quantum information processing with ultra cold Rydberg atoms [@lucin]. Furthermore, the variable separation of the micro-traps could be used to control the dipole-dipole interactions between the atoms in adjacent traping sites. Also increasing the separation of the micro-traps up to a few hundred microns makes the task of individually addressing the different micro-traps relatively straight forward with existing optical techniques. These properties are of great interest for quantum information processing proposals for neutral atoms. Another possible experiment would be to construct an atom interferometer using the micro-traps. One could take a BEC formed using evaporative cooling in a single focused laser beam [@osu; @bec] and then by changing the separation of the telescope lenses split off a sub group of BEC atoms. By simply setting the telescope separation back to the initial value the two BEC groups can be recombined making an interference pattern which depends on the phase difference accumulated between the wavefunctions. An analysis of such an interference pattern releases information about the mechanisms effecting the phase of the transported BEC. For example, if the second $\rm{CO_2}$ beam propagates in the vertical direction a phase will be induced to the wavefunction proportional to the change in the gravitational potential of the moving group. Therefore the final interference pattern contains information that could be used to probe gravity.
Acknowledgements
================
We wish to acknowledge Brian Timmons for his contributions to the experimental set up.
C.S.Adams, H.J.Lee, N.Davidson, M.Kasevich, and S.Chu, Phys.Rev.Lett., 3577 (1995).
S.Friebel, C.D’Andrea, J.Walz, M.Weitz, and T.W.Hänsch, Phys.Rev.A [**57**]{}, R20 (1998).
M.D.Barrett, J.A.Sauer, and M.S.Chapman, Phys.Rev.Lett., 010404 (2001).
T.Weber J.Herbig, M.Mark, H.C.Nägerl and R.Grimm, Science [**299**]{}, 232 (2003).
Y.Takasu, K.Maki, K.Komori, T.Takano, K.Honda, M.Kumakura, T.Yabuzaki, and Y.Takahashi, Phys.Rev.Lett., 040404 (2003).
S.R.Granade, M.E.Gehm, K.M.O’Hara, and J.E.Thomas, Phys.Rev.Lett., 120405 (2002).
G.Cennini, G.Ritt, C.Geckeler, and M.Weitz, Phys.Rev.Lett. 240408 (2003).
G.K.Brennen, C.M.Caves, P.S.Jessen and I.H.Deutsch, Phys.Rev.Lett., 1060 (1999).
D.Boiron, A.Michaud, J.M.Fournier, L.Simard, M.Sprenger, G.Grynberg, and C.Salomon, Phys.Rev.A. [**57**]{}, R4106 (1998); R.Newell, J.Sebby, and T.G.Walker, Opt.Lett., 14, (2003).
R.Dumke, M.Volk, T.Müther, F.B.JBuchkremer, G.Birkl, and W.Ertmer, Phys.Rev.Lett., 097903 (2002).
G.Birkl, F.B.JBuchkremer, R.Dumke, and W.Ertmer,Opt.Commun., 67 (2001).
F.B.JBuchkremer,, Laser Phys., 736 (2002).
S.Peil, J.V.Porto, B.L.Tolra, J.M.Obrecht, B.E.King, M.Subbotin, S.L.Rolston and W.D.Phillips, Phys.Rev.A, [**67**]{}, 051603, (2003).
L.R.Evans and C.G.Morgan, Nature, [**219**]{}, 712, (1968).
L.R.Evans and C.G.Morgan, Phys.Rev.Lett., 1099, (1969).
L.M.Smith, J.Opt.Soc.Am.A., [**6**]{}, 1049 (1989)
H.C.Nägerl, D.Leibfried, H.Rohde, G.Thalhammer, J.Eschner, F.Schmidt-Kaler, and R.Blatt, Phys.Rev.A, [**60**]{}, 145 (1999).
M.Born and E.Wolf, “Principles of optics”, 7 ed., p.519, ’Cambridge University Press’ (1999).
A.Yoshida and T.Asakura, Opt.Comm., 133 (1978).
W.T.Welfold, ”Aberrations of the symmetrical optical system”, p.192, ’Academic Press’, London (1974).
S.J.M.Kuppens, K.L.Corwin, K.W.Miller, T.E.Chupp and C.E.Wieman, Phys.Rev.A, [**62**]{}, 013406 (2000).
W.Ketterle, K.B.Davis, M.A.Joffe, A.Martin and D.E.Pritchard, Phys.Rev.Lett., 2253 (1993).
M.D.Lukin, M.Fleischhauer, R.Cote, L.M.Duan, D.Jaksch, J.I. Cirac and P.Zoller, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**87**]{},037901 (2001).
We have recently realized an all optical BEC and successfully transferred it into the focus of a CO$_2$ laser beam. The details to be published elsewhere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The geometry of D-branes can be probed by open string scattering. If the background carries a non-vanishing B-field, the world-volume becomes non-commutative. Here we explore the quantization of world-volume geometries in a curved background with non-zero Neveu-Schwarz 3-form field strength $H = dB$. Using exact and generally applicable methods from boundary conformal field theory, we study the example of open strings in the SU(2) Wess-Zumino-Witten model, and establish a relation with fuzzy spheres or certain (non-associative) deformations thereof. These findings could be of direct relevance for D-branes in the presence of Neveu-Schwarz 5-branes; more importantly, they provide insight into a completely new class of world-volume geometries.'
author:
- |
[Anton Yu. Alekseev$\,$ [ ]{}, Andreas Recknagel$\,$ [ ]{},]{}\
[Volker Schomerus [ ]{} ]{}\
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Uppsala University\
Box 803, S–75108 Uppsala, Sweden\
Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut\
Am Mühlenberg 1, D–14424 Potsdam, Germany\
II. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg\
Luruper Chaussee 149, D–22761 Hamburg, Germany
date: 'July 31, 1999'
title: |
Non-commutative World-volume Geometries:\
Branes on SU(2) and Fuzzy Spheres
---
\
\
Introduction
============
It was observed by Douglas and Hull [@DoHu] that D-branes on $\T^2$ with a constant Neveu-Schwarz (NS) two-form potential $B$ give rise to an effective world-volume theory on a non-commutative torus. Even though this initial observation was re-considered and generalized by many authors [@NCTor; @ChHo; @Vol], all the subsequent work is restricted to flat backgrounds. A perturbative analysis along the lines of [@Vol], on the other hand, shows that the quantization of world-volume geometries should be a much more general phenomenon which persists in the case of curved backgrounds.
In this work we shall present the first non-perturbative (in $\alpha'$) investigation of world-volume geometries in a curved string background with non-vanishing NS 3-form field $H = dB$. [^1] An exact treatment of D-branes in curved backgrounds is possible within the framework of boundary conformal field theory. Here we illustrate the basic techniques and some general features of the resulting world-volume geometries in a particular example, namely the SU(2) WZW theory, and study D-branes in the WZW model associated with the gluing condition $J^a = \bar J^a$. We shall argue that their world-volumes may be regarded as fuzzy two-spheres when the level $\ik$ is sent to infinity, i.e. when the background becomes flat. For finite level, $H$ is non-zero and we shall find non-associative deformations of these fuzzy spheres, which are closely linked to the theory of quantum groups. While the infinite level result can be predicted from the semi-classical analysis in [@AlSc] together with the general phenomenon of world-volume quantization in flat backgrounds [@DoHu], our results on the finite level provide a non-trivial extension of the standard rules. Apparently, many features of the world-volume geometry are not captured by the perturbative treatment of D-branes on group manifolds that was suggested recently in [@CoPl].
We shall follow a general procedure which allows us to extract world-volume geometry from the world-sheet description of any (generalized) D-brane, even when it is given in purely algebraic terms. The essential input data are the operator product expansions (OPE) of boundary fields (open string vertex operators). Since they depend on the ordering of the operators, it is not surprising that the brane world-volume obtained in this way is a non-commutative space, in general. We shall see that non-associativity may show up as well.
Our approach is inspired by a project initiated by J. Fröhlich and K. in [@FG] (see also [@CF] for earlier ideas in the same direction), where it was proposed to construct non-commutative target space geometries from OPEs of closed string vertex operators. This was developed further in [@FGR; @Gr]. It appears, however, that non-commutative geometry emerges in a more natural way and on a more fundamental level in the open string case, cf. the picture below. Our findings add to the growing evidence that brane physics surpasses classical geometry – even though the emergence of a non-commutative world-volume need not necessarily mean that a D-brane behaves non-geometrically in the sense of the criterion formulated in [@BDLR]. This criterion rests on a comparison of low-energy effective field theories in the stringy and in the large-volume regime, and we do not attempt to test it in the present paper. But we would like to point out that the structures contained in the non-commutative world-volume also form the main ingredient of the effective action of the brane.
While we have chosen the SU(2)$_\ik$ example mainly because of its simplicity and because there exists a semi-classical curved background picture, it is also an important ingredient of the CFT formulation of the Neveu-Schwarz 5-brane, see e.g. [@fivebr]. Given that questions like stability of the configuration can be clarified, our findings should be relevant for the geometry of D-branes in the presence of a stack of 5-branes. Similarly, our SU(2) WZW results could be applicable in the study of branes on an AdS$_3 \times S^3$ string background, see e.g. [@GKS; @Te].
World-volume geometry – from the flat case to arbitrary backgrounds
===================================================================
Before we show how one can read off fuzzy geometry from branes in the WZW model, let us briefly review the emergence of non-commutative spaces in the more standard case of branes in flat $n$-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathR^n$, or on a flat torus $\T^n$. Consider a D-brane which is localized along a $p$-dimensional hyper-plane $V_p$ in the target, with tangent space $TV_p$. The conformal field theory associated with such a Euclidean D-brane is defined on the upper half of the complex plane. It contains an $n$-component free bosonic field $X= (X^\mu(z,\bar z)),\ \mu = 1,\dots,n,$ subject to Neumann boundary conditions in the directions along $TV_p$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions for components perpendicular to the world-volume of the brane. From the free bosons, one may obtain various new fields, in particular the open string vertex operators $$V_k (x) = \ :\exp(i k X(x)) : \ \quad \mbox{ for all } \ \ \
k \in TV_p \ \ ,$$ which can be inserted at any point $x$ on the real line. When there is no magnetic field on the brane, the OPE of these U(1)-primaries reads (with $\alpha' = \frac12$ and for $x_1 > x_2$) V\_[k\_1]{}(x\_1) V\_[k\_2]{} (x\_2) = (x\_1-x\_2)\^[k\_1k\_2/2]{} V\_[k\_1+ k\_2]{}(x\_2) + … , \[OPEB0\] where the dots indicate less singular non-primary contributions. We can rewrite this relation by introducing the objects $$f(X(x)) \equiv V[f](x) \ : = \ \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{p/2}}
\int_{TV_p} d^pk \ \hat f(k) \ V_k(x)$$ for each function $f : V_p \rightarrow \C$ with Fourier transform $\hat f(k)$. Then the boundary OPE (\[OPEB0\]) translates into a “definition” of pointwise multiplication of functions, V\[f\](1) V\[g\](0) = V\[fg\] (0) + …. \[pointw\]We have specialized to coordinates $x_1=1$ and $x_2=0$ for convenience, arbitrary insertion points can be recovered via conformal covariance.
The effect of switching on a $B$-field is described by adding the term S\_B = dz d|z B\_ X\^(z,|z) |X\^(z,|z) \[Bterm\]to the action of the original theory without $B$-field. One can easily see that this is a pure boundary term with no influence on the bulk properties of the theory. It only changes the boundary conditions. If we assume for definiteness that $V_p$ is spanned by the first $p$ coordinates $x^\mu,\ \mu = 1, \dots, p$, the new boundary conditions read (with $ z = x + i y$) \_y X\^(z,|z) = B\^\_[ ]{} \_x X\^(z, |z) z = |z ,= 1, …,p . \[Bglue\] This means that the (exact) free boson propagator becomes ($x_1,x_2
\in\mathR$) X\^(x\_1)X\^(x\_2)\_[B]{} = - (\^ + \_S\^) |x\_1-x\_2| - i \_[ A]{}\^(x\_1-x\_2) \[Xcorr\]where $ \Theta_S$ and $\Theta_A$ denote the symmetric resp. anti-symmetric part of the matrix $\Theta = (1-B)(1+B)^{-1}\,$. Explicitly, \_A= . \[magic\]In particular, when $B$ is large we obtain $\Theta_A \approx
2 B^{-1}$, which means that $\Theta_A$ is the Poisson bi-vector corresponding to the symplectic form $B$. Eq. (\[Xcorr\]) immediately yields the boundary OPE for a non-vanishing $B$-field, $$V_{k_1}(1) \, V_{k_2}(0) \ = \ e^{- i \frac{\pi}{2}\; k_1^{\rm t}
\Theta_A k_2} \;V_{k_1+k_2}(0) + \ldots\ \ .$$ As before, this can be used to define a (deformed) product $\star$ for functions through $V[f](1) V[g](0) = V[f \star g] (0) + \ldots\; ,$ where now (f g ) (x) := e\^[i \^\_A \^x\_\^y\_]{} f(x) g(y) \_[y=x]{} . \[moyal\]This is the associative, non-commutative Moyal-Weyl product of functions $f,g$ on the world-volume $V_p$ of the brane. In the context of the derivation we have given, non-commutativity of $\star$ arises because the ordering of boundary fields in general does matter, cf. the sign-term in eq. (\[Xcorr\]). The algebra of functions with product (\[moyal\]) is, of course, the non-commutative brane world-volume uncovered by Douglas and Hull using a different approach. It is a deformation of the ordinary algebra of functions, with deformation parameter(s) given by (the matrix) $\Theta_A$.
In [@Vol], the term (\[Bterm\]) was viewed as a bulk perturbation of the $B=0$ theory, i.e. techniques of conformal perturbation theory were applied to the operator $\exp(-S_B)$ being inserted into arbitrary correlation functions of the $B=0$ theory. This perturbative analysis, which can be extended to arbitrary $\sigma$-models (at least in the case $dB=0$), leads to a string theoretic picture of Kontsevich’s quantization of Poisson manifolds [@Kon], see also the work of Cattaneo and Felder [@CatFel]. It clearly displays that the quantization of world-volume geometries should be expected beyond the case of constant $B$-fields. This will be confirmed through our exact analysis of the WZW model (see discussion of the limit $\ik \rightarrow
\infty$ below). As we remarked in the introduction, new phenomena are bound to occur when $dB$ does not vanish. In such cases, the classical world-volume of a brane comes equipped with some generalization of an ordinary Poisson-structure, and there exists no general notion of “quantization” for such geometries. Hence, the investigation of branes in a non-vanishing NS 3-form field strength $H = dB$ can teach us new lessons on how to quantize certain non-Poisson geometries. In our example of branes on SU(2) we shall recover some variants of well-known quantum group algebras.
Our formulation of the simple example of flat branes in a constant $B$-field motivates the following [*general procedure*]{}: When we want to associate non-commutative spaces to branes which are given as boundary conditions on the world-sheet, we take the OPE of boundary fields (open string vertex operators corresponding to internal excitations of the brane) as a basic input. Then we choose a suitable subset of boundary fields (e.g. primaries as above) and use them as abstract generators of an algebra of “functions” on the (non-commutative) world-volume of the brane, with multiplication table given by the boundary OPE (projected onto the subset, and evaluated at $x_1=1$ and $x_2=0$, say).
Further comments on this general prescription will be given later, but now we would like to test it in the case of SU(2) WZW models, where the semi-classical picture provides certain expectations as to how the “quantized world-volume” of branes should look like.
D-branes in the SU(2) WZW model
===============================
Semi-classical analysis.
------------------------
The SU(2) WZW model at level $\ik$ describes strings moving on a three-sphere $S^3$ of radius $R \sim \sqrt{\ik}$, which is equipped with a constant NS 3-form field strength $$H \ \sim\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ik}}\; \Omega \ =\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ik}}\; f_{abc}\; \theta^a \wedge \theta^b \wedge \theta^c \ ,$$ where $\Omega$ denotes the usual volume form on the unit sphere, and $\theta^a$ are components of the 1-form $dgg^{-1}$. In superstring theory, this geometry appears in the space transverse to a stack of $\ik$ NS 5-branes. These branes act as sources for $\ik$ units of NS 3-form flux through a three-sphere surrounding their (5+1)-dimensional world-volume.
The world-sheet swept out by an open string in $S^3$ is parametrized by a map $g: {\rm H} \rightarrow {\rm SU(2)}$ from the upper half-plane H into the group manifold SU(2)$\, \cong S^3$. From this field $g$ one obtains Lie algebra valued chiral currents $$J(z) \ = \ - \ik \, (\partial g) g^{-1} \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\bar J(\bar z) \ = \ \ik \, g^{-1} \bar\partial g \ $$ as usual. We shall be interested in maximally symmetric D-branes on SU(2), which are characterized by the gluing condition $J(z ) = \bar J
(\bar z)$ along the boundary $z = \bar z$. They were analyzed from a semi-classical point of view in [@AlSc], and we shall briefly recall the findings of this approach. (For a detailed path integral description of branes in SU(2), see [@Gaw].) We first decompose the tangent space $T_h{\rm SU}(2)$ at each point $h \in \,$SU(2) into a part $T^{||}_h{\rm SU}(2)$ tangential to the conjugacy class through $h$ and its orthogonal complement $T^\perp_h {\rm SU}(2)$ (with respect to the Killing form). In [@AlSc], the following two basic observations were made:
1. With gluing conditions of the type $J = \bar J$, the endpoints of open strings on SU(2) are confined to conjugacy classes, i.e. $$(g^{-1} \partial_x g)^\perp \ = \ 0 \ \ .$$
2. Along the individual branes, i.e. along the conjugacy classes of SU(2), the gluing condition becomes $$(g^{-1} \partial_y g)^{||} \ = \ \frac{\Ad(g)+1}{\Ad(g)-1}
(g^{-1} \partial_x g)^{||} \ \ .$$
Except for two degenerate cases, namely the points $e$ and $-e$ on the group manifold, the conjugacy classes are two-spheres in SU(2). Taking into account the usual correspondence between $\sqrt{\ik} g^{-1} \partial g$ and the flat space coordinate $\partial X$, recalling that the metric on the three-sphere scales with $\ik$, and comparing with the gluing conditions (\[Bglue\]), we infer that the D-branes associated with $J = \bar J$ carry a non-vanishing 2-form potential (B-field) $$B \ = \ \frac{1 + \Ad(g)}{1- \Ad(g)} \ .
\label{Bfield}$$ In the limit $\ik \to \infty$ the three-sphere grows and approaches flat 3-space. One can parameterize it by a parameter $X$ taking values in the Lie algebra su(2), such that $g \approx 1 + X$. Then, the formula for the $B$-field reads $$B \ \approx \ - 2\; \bigl(\ad(X)\bigr)^{-1} \ .$$ This is the Kirillov 2-form on the spheres in the algebra su(2)$\, =\, \R^3$.
Extrapolating formula (\[magic\]) to our curved background, we can construct a bi-vector $$\Theta_A\ =\ \frac{2}{B-B^{-1}}\ =\
\frac{1}{2}\; \bigl(\,\Ad(g^{-1}) - \Ad(g)\,\bigr)\ .$$ Introducing an orthonormal basis $e^a$ in su(2), and the left- and right-invariant vector fields $e^a_L, e^a_R$ on the group manifold, one can give an elegant formula for the bi-vector $\Theta_A$, $$\Theta_A\ =\ \frac{1}{2}\; e^a_L \wedge e^a_R \ .$$ The Schouten bracket of $\Theta_A$ (which generally characterizes the deviation from the Jacobi identity) is of the form $$\phi\ :=\ [\,\Theta_A, \Theta_A\,]\ =\ \frac{1}{6}\; f_{abc}\;
(e^a_L- e^a_R)(e^b_L - e^a_R) (e^c_L - e^c_R)\ .$$ Here $f_{abc}$ are the Lie algebra structure constants, the same as those in the expression for the field strength $H$. This calculation makes sense for an arbitrary simple Lie group. In general, the right hand side does not vanish and gives the obstruction for the Jacobi identity. In the case of $G\,=\,$SU(2), $\phi$ vanishes for dimensional reasons: It is a 3-vector tangent to the 2-dimensional conjugacy classes. In the infinite volume limit $\ik \to \infty$, the bi-vector $\Theta_A$ becomes $$\Theta_A = \ad(X) \ ,$$ which is the Kirillov-Kostant Poisson bi-vector. Consequently, the geometry of the limiting theory $\ik = \infty$ is very close to the well-known situation of flat branes in a flat background with constant $B$-field, and we expect that the world-volume algebras of our branes in the WZW model will be quantizations of two-spheres. For finite $\ik$, however, the background is curved and carries a non-vanishing NS 3-form $H$. This will result in a non-associative deformation of the $\ik= \infty$ theory. Since the three indices of the new object $H$ can relate three-fold products with different positions of brackets, the violation of associativity will turn out to be rather mild. The semi-classical extension of the above analysis shows that, for fixed gluing conditions, only a finite number of SU(2) conjugacy classes satisfy a Dirac-type flux quantization condition [@AlSc]. These “integer” conjugacy classes are the two points $e$ and $-e$ along with $\ik - 1$ of the spherical conjugacy classes (those passing through the points ${\rm diag}(\exp(i\pi j/\ik), \exp(-i\pi j/\ik))$ for $j=1,\ldots,\ik-1$).
Exact CFT description.
----------------------
The WZW model on the upper half-plane is known in enough detail to support and specify the rather crude arguments of the previous subsection by an exact CFT analysis. In fact, for the situation we are dealing with (gluing conditions $J = \bar J$ in a “parent” CFT on the full complex plane with diagonal modular invariant partition function), Cardy [@Car] was able to list all [@PSS] possible boundary conditions. There exist $\ik +1$ of them, differing in the bulk field one-point functions (brane charges) and labeled by an index $\a = 0, \frac{1}{2},
\dots, \frac{\ik}{2}$. Without entering a detailed description of these boundary theories [@Car], we recall that their state spaces have the form \[partdec\] \_ = \_J N\_\^J \^J where $\cH^J$, $J= 0,\frac{1}{2}, \dots, \frac{\ik}{2}$, denote irreducible highest weight representations of the affine Lie algebra ${\widehat{{\rm SU}}(2)}_\ik$, and where $N_{IJ}^K$ are the associated fusion rules. Note that only integer spins $J$ appear on the right hand side of (\[partdec\]).
There exists a variant of the state-field correspondence which assigns a boundary field $\psi(x)$ to each element $|\psi\rangle \in \cH_\a$ (see e.g. [@ReSh1]). In particular, the SU(2) WZW boundary theory labeled by $\a$ contains SU(2)-multiplets associated to primary boundary fields, namely $$\Psi^J(x) \ = \ (\psi^J_m (x)) \ \ \ \mbox{ with } \ \ \
J = 0,1,\dots, {\min}(2\a, \ik-2\a)$$ and $m = -J,\dots , J$. All these boundary fields are defined for arguments $x$ on the real line and their correlators have, in general, no unique analytic continuation into the upper half-plane.
In the flat target case, we chose U(1)-primaries as generating elements of the world-volume algebra. Now, it is more appropriate not to break the group symmetry by hand and, therefore, to keep the full SU(2)-multiplets $\Psi^J(x)$. For a fixed order $x > y$ of arguments on the real line, the OPE of two such boundary fields reads \[boundOPE\] \^I\_i(x) \^J\_j(y) \~ \_[K,k]{} (x-y)\^[h\_I+h\_J - h\_K]{}
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [K]{}\
[ i]{} & [j]{}& [k]{}
c\^[,]{}\_[IJK]{} \^K\_k(y) , where $h_J$ is the conformal dimension of $\Psi^J$ and $[:::]$ denote the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the group SU(2). The latter simply compensate for the different transformation behavior of the fields on the left and right hand side under the action of the zero-mode subalgebra of ${\widehat{\rm SU}(2)}_\ik$. Hence, the non-trivial information in (\[boundOPE\]) is contained in the new structure constants $\cC = (c^{\ik,\alpha}_{IJK})$. In a consistent theory, these must obey sewing constraints, which were first analyzed by Lewellen in [@Lew]; see also [@PSS]. Recently, these constraints were reconsidered by Runkel [@Run] for the A-series of Virasoro minimal models. His findings carry over to SU(2) WZW models on the upper half-plane and show that the only possible solution to the sewing constraints is given by the fusing matrix $F$ of the WZW theory, \[cval1\] c\^[,]{}\_[IJK]{} =
F\_[[K]{}]{}
[ll]{} &\
[I]{}& [J]{}
\_ . It is one of the fundamental results on the relation between quantum groups and conformal field theory (see e.g. [@AGGS]) that the fusing matrix of the WZW model is obtained from the $6J$ symbols of the quantum group algebra $U_q({\rm su}(2))$ according to \[cval2\]
F\_[[K]{}]{}
[ll]{} &\
[I]{}& [J]{}
\_ =
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [K]{}\
& &
\_q q = e\^ . In the limit $q \rightarrow 1$, the $6J$ symbols of the quantum group algebra approach those of the classical algebra $U({\rm su}(2))$, thus the structure constants $c^{\ik,\a}_{IJK}$ of the boundary OPE become $6J$ symbols of the group SU(2) when the level $\ik$ is sent to infinity. Note that in this limit, the conformal dimensions $h_J = J(J+1)/(k+2)$ tend to zero so that the OPEs (\[boundOPE\]) of boundary fields become regular as in a topological theory.
D-brane geometry, fuzzy two-spheres, and quantum groups
=======================================================
We are now prepared to follow the procedure sketched at the end of Section 2 and to read off the world-volume geometry of branes in the SU(2)-WZW model. So let us think of the boundary fields $\psi^I_i= V(Y^I_i)$ as being assigned to elements $Y^I_i$ of some vector space, and let us use the operator product expansion (\[boundOPE\],\[cval1\],\[cval2\]) to define a multiplication by the prescription \[FSOPEk\] Y\^I\_i Y\^J\_j = \_[K,k]{}
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [K]{}\
[ i]{} & [j]{}& [k]{}
c\^[,]{}\_[IJK]{} Y\^K\_k . As in (\[boundOPE\]), the summation on the right hand side runs from $K=0$ to a maximal spin $K_{\rm max}= \min(I+J,\ik-I-J,2\a,\ik-2\a)$. First, we shall investigate this product in the limiting case $\ik =
\infty$, where it produces a familiar algebraic structure. Passing to finite levels leads to the following two changes: There is a $\ik$-dependent deformation of structure constants $\cC$, cf. (\[cval2\]), and the range of the summation in (\[FSOPEk\]) becomes a function of the level, $K_{\rm max}= K_{\rm max}(\ik)$. We shall separate these two phenomena by looking at an intermediate case where $\ik$ is non-rational and where we omit the $\ik$-dependent restriction on the $K$-summation.
[*Infinite level $\ik = \infty$*]{}:Recall that, in the case of infinite level, the structure constants $\cC$ in eq. (\[FSOPEk\]) are given by the $6J$ symbols of the group SU(2). The semi-classical analysis showed that $H \to 0$, so we expect the world-volume algebra to be associative. Indeed this can be confirmed using the Biedenharn-Elliot (or pentagon) relation for the $6J$ symbols, along with the fact that $6J$ symbols of the form (\[cval2\]) vanish whenever $K > 2\alpha $. Hence, for infinite level our relations define an infinite set of associative algebras $S^2_\alpha,\ \alpha = 0,\frac12, \dots,$ with finite linear bases consisting of dim$\,(S^2_\alpha) = (2\alpha + 1)^2$ elements. Since the dimension of each of these algebras is a perfect square, one may already suspect that they are full matrix algebras, i.e. that $S^2_\alpha
\cong M_N(\C)$ with $N = 2\alpha + 1$. To describe the isomorphism, we first note that $M_N(\C)$ admits an action of the group SU(2) by conjugation with group elements evaluated in the $N$-dimensional representation of SU(2). Under this action, the SU(2)-module $M_N(\C)$ decomposes into a direct sum of irreducible representations $V^J$, \[FSdec\] M\_N() \_[J=0]{}\^[N-1]{} V\^J . Only integer $J$ appear, so this agrees with the decomposition of the state space $\cH_\a,\ \a = (N-1)/2,$ in eq. (\[partdec\]) for boundary WZW models at sufficiently large (or infinite) level $\ik$. Thus, we can identify our elements $Y^J_j$ with a basis of the spaces $V^J$. The isomorphism (\[FSdec\]) allows to work out multiplication rules for any two such basis elements from the multiplication of $N\times N$-matrices. The result [@Hop] turns out to coincide with our formula (\[FSOPEk\]), which shows that $S^2_\alpha$ and $M_N(\C),\
N = 2\alpha + 1,$ are indeed isomorphic as associative algebras. The non-commutative spaces $S^2_\alpha$ are known as [*fuzzy spheres*]{} and are obtained when one quantizes functions on a two-sphere with the usual Poisson structure (see e.g. [@Mad] and references therein). The two-spheres may also be identified with co-adjoint orbits of SU(2). According to Kirillov, their quantization gives all representations of the Lie algebra su(2) or of its universal enveloping algebra $U({\rm
su(2)})$. Note that the size $N = 2\a + 1$ of our matrices agrees with the number of components for an su(2)-multiplet of spin $\a$. Hence, through the investigation of maximally symmetric branes on SU(2) at $\ik = \infty$, we have recovered Kirillov’s theory of co-adjoint orbits.
[*Finite non-rational level $\ik$*]{}:Let us stress that this case does not appear among the exact boundary theories above (for non-compact WZW models, it is the generic situation). We include it here merely as an intermediate step before presenting the structure for finite integer level $\ik$. To be more precise, we consider the algebras spanned by $Y^J_j$ with relations (\[FSOPEk\]) in which the structure constants $\cC$ are given by the $6J$ symbols (\[cval2\]) of the quantum group algebra $U_q({\rm su(2)})$, but with summation over the same range as in the case $\ik = \infty$. The resulting algebras $S^2_{\a,q}$ with $q = \exp(2\pi i/(\ik+2))$ not a root of unity cease to be associative. But they are still quasi-associative in the sense that Y\^I\_i (Y\^J\_j Y\^K\_k) (\^I\_[in]{} ø\^J\_[jm]{} ø\^K\_[kl]{})() = (Y\^I\_n Y\^J\_m ) Y\^K\_l \[qassoc\] where the $\tau^L$ denote representations of $U({\rm su(2)})$ and where $\varphi \in U({\rm su(2)})^{\otimes 3}$ is Drinfeld’s “re-associator” [@Dri]. The proof of this statement is sketched in the appendix.
When we perform a standard quasi-classical limit, commutators are replaced by the brackets corresponding to the bi-vector $\Theta_A$. For a general compact simple Lie group $\Theta_A$ fails to satisfy the Jacobi identity. This corresponds to the leading non-vanishing term in the $\frac{1}{\ik}$-expansion of the re-associator $\varphi$, $$\varphi = 1 + \frac{1}{6 \ik} f_{abc} e^a \otimes e^b \otimes e^c + \dots$$ where $e^a$ is, as above, an orthonormal basis in the Lie algebra, and $f_{abc}$ are the corresponding structure constants. When applied to the relation (\[qassoc\]), the Lie algebra generators $e^a$ act by the adjoint vector fields $(e^a_L - e^a_R)$. In the case of $G\,=\,$SU(2) this leads to vanishing of the first order correction to the associativity law. This is in accordance with vanishing of $[\Theta_A, \Theta_A]$ in this case. Note that even in the SU(2) case higher order corrections to the associativity law do not vanish.
Let us briefly mention that our quasi-associative algebras $S^2_{\a,q}$ are closely connected to associative deformations of the fuzzy sphere which employ the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the deformed $U_q({\rm su(2)})$ instead of their classical analogs. Some details on these algebras and their associativity can be found in the appendix. For now, let us only remark that they are factors of the quantum spheres introduced by Podleś in [@Pod]. Their relation to our algebras $S^2_{\a,q}$ is based on the fact that one can obtain the Clebsch-Gordon maps of classical Lie algebras from their $q$-deformed counterparts with the help of Drinfeld’s “twist element” $F \in U({\rm su(2)})^{\otimes 2}$. The latter provides the following factorization formula for the re-associator: $$\varphi \ = \ (\id \o \Delta)( F^{-1})\, (e \o F^{-1})
\, (F \o e)\, (\Delta \o \id)( F ) \ $$ where $\Delta$ denotes the co-product of $U({\rm su(2)})$. Combining these two roles of the twist element $F$, one can show that our algebras $S^2_{\a,q}$ are “twist equivalent” to associative factors of a Podleś sphere or, more explicitly, to the same matrix algebras $M_N(\C), \ N = 2
\alpha + 1,$ as in the case of infinite level. Hence, we simply recover the representations for the usual $q$-deformation of $U({\rm su(2)})$ at generic values of the deformation parameter.
[*Finite integer level $\ik$*]{}:The associated algebras $A^{\ik}_\a$ are spanned by the generators $Y^J_m$ with the label $J$ chosen from the set $J = 0,1,\dots, \min(2 \a, \ik-2\a)$. Multiplication of these elements is defined through eq. (\[FSOPEk\]) with structure constants $\cC$ now given by the $6J$ symbols of $U_q({\rm su(2)})$ at the root of unity $q = \exp(2\pi i/(\ik +2))$. In addition, the summation on the right hand side is now restricted to run from $K=0$ to $\min(I+J,\ik-I-J,2\a, \ik-2\a)$. Viewed as SU(2)-modules, the linear spaces $A^{\ik}_\a$ decompose as follows: $$A^\ik_\a \ \cong \ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
S^2_\a & \ \mbox{ for } \ \ 0 \leq \a \leq \frac{\ik}{4}\\[2mm]
S^2_{\ik/2 - \a} & \ \mbox{ for } \ \ \frac{\ik}{4} \leq \a \leq
\frac{\ik}{2} \end{array} \right. \ \ .$$ Again, the algebras $A^{\ik}_\a$ are only quasi-associative, and they provide examples of the geometries considered in [@MaSh]. Using the concept of representations introduced in [@Sch], it is not difficult to show that each of the quasi-associative algebras $A^\ik_\a$ possesses precisely one indecomposable representation on a vector space $W^\a$ of dimension $$\mbox{dim\/}\, W^\a \ = \ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2\a+1 & \ \mbox{ for } \ \ 0 \leq \a \leq \frac{\ik}{4}\\[2mm]
\ik - 2\a + 1 & \ \mbox{ for } \ \ \frac{\ik}{4} \leq \a \leq
\frac{\ik}{2} \end{array} \right. \ \ .$$ According to our previous discussion, the algebras $A^\ik_\a$ and their representations on $W^\a,\ \a = 0,\frac12, \dots, \frac{\ik}{2}$, generalize Kirillov’s theory of co-adjoint orbits to quantum groups at roots of unity. In other words, the algebras $A^\ik_\a$ we obtain are “quantizations” of integer conjugacy classes on SU(2). Summing over all possible brane sectors, i.e. over the index $\alpha$, we construct a deformed universal enveloping algebra.
Of course, quantum group algebras were constructed within the framework of chiral conformal field theory before, see e.g. [@FrK; @MoRe; @AlSh; @Dri]. As long as we avoid roots of unity, our new derivation from boundary conformal field theory reproduces well-known algebraic structures. Differences between the two approaches occur only when $q$ is a root of unity. In that case, boundary conformal field theory improves upon the old constructions in two respects. First of all, the theory gives “physical” representations exclusively so that there is no need for additional truncations. Furthermore, the dimensions $\dim W^\a$ of the representation spaces are invariant under the simple current symmetry which interchanges $\a$ and $\ik/2-\a$.
When we increase the level $\ik$, the radius of the three-sphere grows and we can fit more and more branes into the background. At the same time, the 3-form field strength decreases and the world-volume algebras become “more associative” – while their non-commutativity survives. This is to be compared to the non-commutative targets obtained in [@FG; @FGR; @Gr] from closed strings: The $\ik \to \infty$ limit of these targets is simply the classical group SU(2). The different behavior of closed and open string geometry may be explained as follows: Both closed and open strings feel the presence of the NS 3-form field $H$ at finite level. Open strings are also sensitive to the concrete choice of a 2-form potential $B$, while closed strings “see” only its cohomology class. In the flat space limit $\ik = \infty$, the cohomology becomes trivial while $B$ itself stays non-zero and is responsible for non-commutativity on the brane.
Summary and outlook
===================
We have derived non-commutative world-volume algebras for D-branes in the SU(2) WZW model, using a general scheme that can be applied to arbitrary branes given as conformal boundary conditions, including supersymmetric cases. In the process, we have seen how abstract objects from the CFT description, like Cardy’s boundary states and Runkel’s OPE coefficients, acquire a geometrical meaning – if in terms of non-commutative (and sometimes non-associative) spaces. The SU(2) WZW model provides just the simplest example of a string background with a non-vanishing 3-form field strength $H$, but we think that it illustrates quite nicely much of the behavior one should expect from more complicated backgrounds. In particular, the discussion of SU(2) branes carries over to boundary WZW models with other structure groups G (at least in the compact case) and leads to a quantization of integer conjugacy classes in G. It might be interesting to investigate also branes that are not maximally symmetric, i.e. where the gluing conditions respect only a subalgebra of the maximal chiral symmetry algebra [@JFCS].
Boundary CFT yields world-volumes independently of whether limiting classical pictures are available or not, and it actually provides more structure than a mere set of non-commutative algebras. Connes’ program [@Con] shows that, in order to talk about the geometry of a non-commutative space, it is necessary to fix further “spectral data”, including a Hilbert space on which the (associative) world-volume algebra and a generalized Dirac or Laplace operator act. How these data can be extracted from a CFT has been discussed, for the bulk case, in [@FG; @FGR]. The importance of the Laplace operator, which is related to the conformal Hamiltonian $L_0$, can also be seen in the context of our definition of non-commutative world-volumes: In order to re-derive the OPE of boundary operators from the algebraic structure of the world-volume, the spectrum of conformal dimensions must be known, cf. the remark after eq. (\[pointw\]). In a CFT on the upper half-plane, additional structure is available, e.g. in the form of boundary condition changing operators which induce transitions between two different boundary conditions $\a,\b$. The OPE of the boundary fields $\Psi^I(x)$ with boundary condition changing operators gives rise to bi-modules $B_{\a\b}$ over the world-volume algebras of the two associated branes. In the case of D-branes on a group manifold, these bi-modules allow to construct tensor products for representations of the associated quantum group. OPEs involving two boundary condition changing operators provide even more data, namely a full braided tensor category.
Some comments on our general scheme to extract a world-volume algebras from the boundary CFT description of branes are in order. It involves a choice of “generating elements” among the boundary fields. From a pure CFT perspective, one could restrict to primary operators only, or one could work with all boundary operators and thus with an infinite-dimensional world-volume. In a sense, the latter algebra would include all internal excitations of the “static” space defined using primary fields. The WZW case, where it proved natural to keep the full group multiplets associated with primary boundary fields, suggests that there are distinguished “intermediate” choices. For a large class of CFTs, the appropriate generalization of the lowest-dimension spaces of WZW models is likely to be given by the special subspaces introduced in [@Na]; see also [@ARS].
Placing the CFT into a string theory context can remove the arbitrariness and provide clear guidelines as to which world-volume generators to select from the boundary fields: String theory contains additional parameters like $\alpha'$, and the relevant generators of the world-volume algebra are those surviving in some limiting regime. E.g. in the flat background case, one can remove all higher excitations by sending $\alpha'$ to zero while keeping the $B$-field finite; see [@SeWi] and also [@DoHu]. It may be possible that a number of interesting limits exists; then one expects that the world-volume of a brane can look very different in different regimes, and that full string theory can “interpolate” between those geometries.
The next task would be to calculate the effective action on the – in general non-commutative – world-volume of the brane. The lowest-order terms are, of course, already given by our “multiplication table” (the OPE coefficients). In principle, higher-order contributions can be computed from the same data, but in practice one still needs to integrate over world-sheet moduli. In the context of the Douglas-Hull model, the effective field theories were found to be non-commutative supersymmetric gauge theories with some amount of non-locality [@CDS; @DoHu; @effFT; @NCTor; @ChHo; @ArVo]. Seiberg and Witten could show that these models are equivalent to ordinary gauge theories on a flat brane [@SeWi]. It remains to be seen whether classical structures are stretched further when more general CFT backgrounds are taken as a starting point. Perhaps it is worthwhile to compare the induced field theories with existing models on fuzzy geometries (see e.g. [@FFT]).
It would also be interesting to investigate further the relation between world-volume non-commutativity as introduced in [@DoHu] and non-commuting moduli as discovered by Witten [@WiBst]. Both phenomena can be traced back to failures in locality properties of boundary fields – see [@RS2; @RS3] for the case of moduli – so that there exists a direct connection between the brane’s intrinsic “fuzziness” and the way it “perceives” its ambient target.\
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We would like to thank I. Brunner, C. Chu, R. Dijkgraaf, M. Douglas, J. Fröhlich, J. Fuchs K. , O. Grandjean, P. Ho, J. Hoppe, C. Klimčík, N. Landsman, G. Moore, A. Polychronakos, G. Reiter, A. Schwarz, C. Schweigert, S. Shatashvili, I.T. Todorov and especially J. Teschner for useful and stimulating discussions. V.S. is grateful to the DAAD for support and to the AEI Potsdam for hospitality.
[**Note added:**]{} After this work was completed, another approach to the geometry of branes in WZW models based on exact CFT methods was presented in [@FFFS].
Appendix: (Quasi-)associativity {#appendix-quasi-associativity .unnumbered}
===============================
Here we collect some basic material on Clebsch-Gordan maps, $6J$-symbols and the (quasi-)associativity of various algebras mentioned in the main text. Let us denote by $\tau^I$ the irreducible representation of $U_q({\rm su(2)})$ with spin $I$. By definition, Clebsch-Gordan maps $C_q(IJ|K):
V^I \o V^J \rightarrow V^K$ intertwine between the actions of $U_q({\rm su(2)})$ on the product module $V^I \o V^J$ and the irreducible module $V^K$. $6J$ symbols enter the theory through the basic relation C\_q(MK|L) (C\_q(IJ|M) ø\^K) = \_P
[lll]{} [L]{} & [K]{} & [M]{}\
[I]{} & [J]{} & [P]{}
\_q C\_q(IP|L) (\^I øC\_q(JK|P)) .\[eqA1\]They obey a number of fundamental equations. For our purposes, the Biedenharn-Elliot (pentagon) relation is the most important one. With the spin labels set to the values that we need below, it implies \_M
[lll]{} [L]{} & [K]{} & [M]{}\
[I]{} & [J]{} & [P]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [M]{}\
& &
\_q
[lll]{} [M]{} & [K]{} & [L]{}\
& &
\_q =
[lll]{} [J]{} & [K]{} & [P]{}\
& &
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [P]{} & [L]{}\
& &
\_q \[eqA2\] Relations (\[eqA1\],\[eqA2\]) hold for generic $q$ and at the classical point $q=1$ where we are dealing with representation theory of ordinary Lie algebras.
Let us now study the algebra generated by $Y^I_i$ for $I = 0,1,
\dots 2\alpha$ and $|i| \leq I$ with the multiplication rules Y\^I\_i Y\^J\_j = \_[K,k]{}
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [K]{}\
[ i]{} & [j]{}& [k]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [K]{}\
& &
\_q Y\^K\_k . \[qfuzzy\] The Clebsch-Gordan coefficients on the right hand side are obtained from the maps $C(IJ|K)$ once we have selected a basis in each representation space $V^L$. Associativity of this algebra is rather easy to prove with the help of eqs. (\[eqA1\]) and (\[eqA2\]): ( Y\^I\_i Y\^J\_j) Y\^K\_k & = & \_[L,l,M,m]{}
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [M]{}\
[ i]{} & [j]{}& [m]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [M]{} & [K]{} & [L]{}\
[ m]{} & [k]{}& [l]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [M]{}\
& &
\_q
[lll]{} [M]{} & [K]{} & [L]{}\
& &
\_q Y\^L\_l\
& = & \_[L,l,M,P,p]{}
[lll]{} [J]{} & [K]{} & [P]{}\
[ j]{} & [k]{}& [p]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [P]{} & [L]{}\
[ i]{} & [p]{}& [l]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [L]{} & [K]{} & [M]{}\
[I]{} & [J]{} & [P]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [J]{} & [M]{}\
& &
\_q
[lll]{} [M]{} & [K]{} & [L]{}\
& &
\_q Y\^L\_l\
& = & \_[L,l,P,p]{}
[lll]{} [J]{} & [K]{} & [P]{}\
[ j]{} & [k]{}& [p]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [P]{} & [L]{}\
[ i]{} & [p]{}& [l]{}
\_q
[lll]{} [J]{} & [K]{} & [P]{}\
& &
\_q
[lll]{} [I]{} & [P]{} & [L]{}\
& &
\_q Y\^L\_l\
& = & Y\^I\_i ( Y\^J\_j Y\^K\_k) For the special case $q=1$ this computation proves the associativity of the world-volume algebra in the limit $\ik =
\infty$. When the level $\ik$ is finite and non-rational, however, the defining relation for our algebra $S^2_{\a,q}$ from Sect. 4 employs the [*undeformed*]{} Clebsch-Gordan maps along with the deformed $6J$ symbols. Hence, using relation (\[eqA1\]) for $q=1$, we generate an undeformed $6J$ symbol in our computation above. The latter cannot be absorbed with the help of the pentagon identity, since we have to deal with a product of one undeformed and two deformed $6J$ symbols.
At this point, Drinfeld’s re-associator $\varphi \in
U_q({\rm su(2)})^\o_3$ plays a decisive role because of its fundamental property C(MK|L)(C(IJ|M)ø\^K)(\^[-1]{})\^[IJK]{} &=&\_P
[lll]{} [L]{} & [K]{} & [M]{}\
[I]{} & [J]{} & [P]{}
\_q C(IP|L)(\^IøC(JK|P))\
(\^[-1]{}) \^[IJK]{} = (\^I ø\^J ø\^K) & & (\^[-1]{}): V\^I øV\^J øV\^K V\^I øV\^J øV\^K . Note that this relation involves Clebsch-Gordan maps of the Lie algebra and $q$-deformed $6J$-symbols at the same time. $\varphi$ allows to modify the proof we have given for the associativity of the algebra (\[qfuzzy\]) such that we obtain the quasi-associativity property (\[qassoc\]).
A relation between our quasi-associative algebra $S^2_{\a,q}$ and the associative $q$-deformation of the fuzzy sphere can be established with the help of Drinfeld’s twist element $F$. By definition, it maps the deformed and undeformed Clebsch Gordan maps onto each other, $$C_q(IJ|K) (\tau^I \o \tau^J) (F) \ = \ C(IJ|K) \ \ .$$ This property becomes crucial in showing that the quasi-associative algebra for non-rational $\ik$ is “twist-equivalent” to the associative $q$-deformed fuzzy sphere. Some details on the notion of twist equivalence can be found e.g. in Section 7.3 of [@AGS1].
[99]{} M.R. Douglas, C. Hull, [*D-branes and the noncommutative torus*]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 9802 (1998) 008, hep-th/9711165 Y.-K.E. Cheung, M. Krogh, [*Noncommutative geometry from D0-branes in a background $B$-field*]{}, Nucl. Phys. (1998) 185, hep-th/9803031\
F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, [*Mixed branes and M(atrix) theory on noncommutative torus*]{}, hep-th/9803067; , J. High Energy Phys. 9902 (1999) 016, hep-th/9810072\
H. García-Compeán, [*On the deformation quantization description of matrix compactifications*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B541**]{} (1999) 651, hep-th/9804188 C. Chu and P. Ho, [*Noncommutative open string and D-brane*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B 550**]{} (1999) 151, hep-th/9812219 V. Schomerus, [*D-branes and deformation quantization*]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 9906 (1999) 030, hep-th/9903205 A.Yu. Alekseev, V. Schomerus, [*D-branes in the WZW model*]{}, hep-th/9812193 H. García-Compeán, J.F. Plebański, [*D-branes on group manifolds and deformation quantization*]{}, hep-th/9907183 J. Fröhlich, K. , [*Conformal field theory and the geometry of strings*]{}, CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes Vol. [**7**]{} (1994) 57, hep-th/9310187 A.H. Chamseddine, J. Fröhlich, [*Some elements of Connes’ non-commutative geometry, and space-time geometry*]{}, in: Chen Ning Yang, a Great Physicist of the Twentieth Century, C.S. Liu and S.-T. Yau (eds.), International Press, 1995, hep-th/9307012 J. Fröhlich, O. Grandjean, A. Recknagel, [ *Supersymmetric quantum theory, non-commutative geometry, and gravitation*]{}, Les Houches Lecture Notes 1995, hep-th/9706132 O. Grandjean, [*Non-commutative differential geometry*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zürich, July 1997 I. Brunner, M.R. Douglas, A. Lawrence, C. Römelsberger, [*D-branes on the quintic*]{}, hep-th/9906200 C.G. Callan, J.A. Harvey, A. Strominger, [*World sheet approach to heterotic instantons and solitons*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B359**]{} (1991) 611\
S.-J. Rey, [*The confining phase of superstrings and axionic strings*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{} (1991) 526\
S. Förste, D. Ghoshal, S. Panda, [*An orientifold of the solitonic fivebrane*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B411**]{} (1997) 46, hep-th/9706057\
M. Bianchi, Y.S. Stanev, [*Open strings on the Neveu-Schwarz pentabrane*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B523**]{} (1998) 193, hep-th/9711069 A. Giveon, D. Kutasov, N. Seiberg, [*Comments on string theory on AdS$_3$*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 733, hep-th/9806194\
J. de Boer, H. Ooguri, H. Robins, J. Tannenhauser, [*String theory on AdS$_3$*]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 9812 (1998) 026, hep-th/9812046\
D. Kutasov, N. Seiberg, [*More comments on string theory on AdS$_3$*]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 9904 (1999) 008, hep-th/9903219 J. Teschner, [*Operator product expansion and factorization in the $H_3^+$-WZNW model*]{}, hep-th/9906215 M. Kontsevich, [*Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds I*]{}, q-alg/9709040 A.S. Cattaneo, G. Felder, [*A path integral approach to the Kontsevich quantization formula*]{}, math/9902090 K. , [*Conformal field theory: a case study*]{}, hep-th/9904145 A.Yu. Alekseev, A. Malkin, E. Meinrenken, [*Lie group valued moment maps*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**48**]{} (1998) 445 J.L. Cardy, [*Boundary conditions, fusion rules and the Verlinde formula*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B324**]{} (1989) 581 G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti, Y.S. Stanev, [*Completeness conditions for boundary operators in 2d conformal field theory*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B381**]{} (1996) 97, hep-th/9603097 A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, [*D-branes in Gepner models*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B531**]{} (1998) 185, hep-th/9712186 D.C. Lewellen, [*Sewing constraints for conformal field theories on surfaces with boundaries*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B372**]{} (1992) 654 I. Runkel, [*Boundary structure constants for the A-series Virasoro minimal models*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B549**]{} (1999) 563, hep-th/9811178 L. Alvarez-Gaumé, C. Gomez, G. Sierra, [*Quantum group interpretation of some conformal field theories*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B220**]{} (1989) 142 J. Hoppe, [*Diffeomorphism groups, quantization and $SU(\infty)$*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A4**]{} (1989) 5235 J. Madore, [*The fuzzy sphere*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. (1992) 69 V.G. Drinfel’d, [*Quasi-Hopf algebras and Knizhnik -Zamolodchikov equations*]{}, in: Problems of modern quantum field theory, Proceedings Alushta 1989, Research reports in physics, Springer Verlag, 1989\
V.G. Drinfel’d, [*Quasi-Hopf algebras*]{}, Leningrad Math. J. Vol. [**1**]{} (1990) No. 6 P. Podleś, [*Quantum spheres*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**14**]{} (1987) 193 G. Mack, V. Schomerus, [*Action of truncated quantum groups on quasi-quantum planes and a quasi-associative differential geometry and calculus*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**149**]{} (1992) 513 V. Schomerus, [*Construction of field algebras with quantum symmetry from local observables*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**169**]{} (1995) 193, hep-th/9401042 G. Moore, N. Reshetikhin, [*A comment on quantum group symmetry in conformal field theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B328**]{} (1989) 557 A.Yu. Alekseev, S. Shatashvili, [*From geometric quantization to conformal field theory*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**128**]{} (1990) 197; , Commun. Math. Phys. [**133**]{} (1990) 353 J. Fröhlich, T. Kerler, Quantum Groups, Quantum Categories, and Quantum Field Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 1542, Springer Verlag, 1993 J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert, [*Orbifold analysis of broken bulk symmetries*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B447**]{} (1999) 266, hep-th/9811211; , hep-th/9902132; , hep-th/9908025\
L. Birke, J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert, [*Symmetry breaking boundary conditions and WZW orbifolds*]{}, hep-th/9905038; A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, 1994 W. Nahm, [*Quasi-rational fusion products*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**B8**]{} (1994) 3693, hep-th/9402039 A.Yu. Alekseev, A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, [*Generalization of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**41**]{} (1997) 169, hep-th/9610066 N. Seiberg, E. Witten, [*String theory and noncommutative geometry*]{}, hep-th/9908142 A. Connes, M.R. Douglas, A. Schwarz, [ *Noncommutative geometry and matrix theory: compactification on tori*]{}, J. High Energy Phys. 9802 (1998) 003, hep-th/9711162 M. Li, [*Comments on supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on a noncommutative torus*]{}, hep-th/9802052\
M. Berkooz, [*Non-local field theories and the non-commutative torus*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B430**]{} (1998) 237, hep-th/9802069 I.Ya. Aref’eva, I.V. Volovich, [*Noncommutative gauge fields on Poisson Manifolds*]{}, hep-th/9907114 H. Grosse, C. Klimčík, P. Prešnajder, [*Towards finite quantum field theory in non-commutative geometry*]{}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**35**]{} (1996) 231-244, hep-th/9505175; , Lecture Notes Clausthal 1995, hep-th/9510177\
U. Carow-Watamura, S. Watamura, [*Noncommutative geometry and gauge theory on fuzzy sphere*]{}, hep-th/9801195 E. Witten, [*Bound states of strings and D-branes*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 335, hep-th/9510135 A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, [*Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of D-branes*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B545**]{} (1999) 233, hep-th/9811237 A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, [*Moduli spaces of D-branes in CFT-backgrounds*]{}, hep-th/9903139 A.Yu. Alekseev, H. Grosse, V. Schomerus, [ *Combinatorial quantization of the Hamiltonian Chern-Simons theory I*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**172**]{} (1995) 317, hep-th/9403066 G. Felder, J. Fröhlich, J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert, [*The geometry of WZW branes*]{}, hep-th/9909030
[^1]: Recall that the curvature is linked to the field strength $H$ by the string’s equation of motion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Quantum mechanics was not originally formulated as a general dynamical theory of the world, but as the theory of quantum microsystems interacting with classical macrosystems. In the original formulation of the theory, the interaction of a quantum microsystem $S$ with a classical macrosystem $O$ is described in terms of “quantum measurements”. If the macrosystem $O$ interacts with the variable $q$ of the microsystem $S$, and $S$ is in a superposition of states with different values of $q$, then the macrosystem $O$ “sees” only one of the values of $q$, and the interaction modifies the state of $S$ by projecting it into a state with that value.
It was noticed early that this formulation raises certain difficulties, particularly if we want to view the theory as the general dynamical theory of anything, and not just microsystems in the laboratory. These difficulties are usually referred to as the “measurement problem” and they have motivated ingenious attempts to modify either quantum mechanics or its interpretation.
In this letter, I do not discuss the measurement problem. Rather, I discuss a secondary problem, which as far as I understand, appears in most (but not all) formulations of quantum mechanics. The problem I discuss is the determination of the precise time at which the quantum measurement happens. Let me illustrate, without any ambition of precision or completeness, how this problem manifests itself in some popular interpretations of the theory. In one interpretation, a system $S$ has a wave function, which collapses during a measurement. Is the collapse of the wave function instantaneous? If so, when precisely does it happen? In another interpretation, the system is described in terms of its properties, or values of its dynamical variables. These become manifest, and take definite values when observed, in a measurement. Do properties become manifest suddenly? When precisely do they become manifest, in a realistic laboratory experiment? In another interpretation, the wave function never collapses but it branches. When precisely does the branching happens? In another interpretation, the wave function never branches, but we, observers, navigate through it and sit in one or the other of its components. When is it, precisely, that the selection of this or that component happens? In another interpretation, there is no wave function, but only probabilities assigned to sequences of (quantum) events. When is it precisely that a quantum event “happens”? Namely, when precisely can we replace the statement “this may happen with probability $p$” with the statement “this has happened”?
The most common answer to these questions is that quantum mechanics does not determine the time at which the measurement happens. As is well known, for instance, von Neumann, pointed out that we can freely move the boundary between the quantum system and the observer, and therefore also shift the measurement’s presumed time, without affecting physical predictions [@vn]; and Heisenberg insisted that we can compute probability transitions between initial and final states, but we must abstain from asking “in between” questions [@h]. According to this view, the question “when does the measurement happen” does not seem to be a well posed question.
In this letter, I claim that, contrary to that view, quantum mechanics [*does*]{} give a precise answer to this question, although a peculiar answer. More precisely, I claim that: (i) a precise (operational) sense can be given to the question of the timing of the measurement; (ii) we can then compute the time at which the measurement happens (in the sense specified) using standard quantum techniques; (iii) the (more or less realistic) interpretation of the physical meaning of this time is no more problematic than the interpretation of any other quantum result. I will also venture in suggesting that this observation might partially illuminate some aspects of the major problem – the measurement problem itself.
The answer I present here is based on two main ideas. First, that the question “When does the measurement happen?” is quantum mechanical in nature, and not classical. Therefore its answer must be probabilistic. In general, in quantum mechanics the answer to a question such as “Is the spin up?” is not “Yes” or “No”, but rather: “Yes with probability, say, $1/2$”, which implies that the spin will come out “up” in half the repetitions of the experiment. Similarly, I am roughly going to argue that “half way through a measurement” the measurement is not “partially happened”, but just “happened with probability 1/2”, or “already realized in half of the repetitions of the experiment”. The second idea is that the question “When does the measurement happen?” does not regard the measured quantum system $S$ alone, but rather the coupled system formed by the observed system $S$ and the observer system $O$. Therefore the appropriate theoretical setting for answering this question is the quantum theory of the two coupled systems. In particular, I will submit that there is no contradiction in using the quantum theory of $S$ for describing the observed behavior of $S$ and the quantum theory of the coupled $S-O$ system for answering the question of the precise timing of the measurement.
More in detail, this paper is based on a technical observation: there is an operator that has a natural interpretation as measuring whether or not the measurement has happened. I will denote this operator as $M$ (for Measurement). The operator $M$ is a projection operator, with the eigenvalue 1 meaning “the measurement has happened”, and the eigenvalue 0 meaning “the measurement has not happened”. By applying standard quantum mechanical rules to [*this*]{} operator, at every time $t$ we can compute a precise (although probabilistic) answer to the question whether or not the measurement has happened.
The description of the quantum measurement that I employ here is based on the Peres-Wootters analysis of the quantum measurements of finite duration [@pw]. Several of the ideas on which this paper is based were first introduced therein. In particular, the key idea that measurement can be defined operationally, in terms of the correlation that could be detected by a [*second*]{} external apparatus, is in [@pw]. Peres and Wootters do not introduce the operator $M$ considered here, but discuss the related idea of computing the probability distribution of the measured variable, conditionalized by the observed position of the apparatus’ pointer. The aim of Peres and Wootters was to provide a physical analysis of realistic measurements and their intrinsic limitations. Here, on the other hand, I am interested in the general notion of measurement and on what we can say on [*when*]{} we replace the statement “this may happens with probability $p$” with the statement “this has happened”.
The result described here has emerged within the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics [@rovelli]. See also the strictly related Kochen’s interpretation [@kochen], and reference [@relation], where these two interpretations are compared. This result, however, does not require such interpretations, and I present it here in a form which is independent from the interpretation of quantum mechanics one holds.
.5cm
Just to fix a language, I will refer here to a traditional (and a bit out of fashion) “wave function collapse” terminology, leaving to the reader the burden of translating what I say in his or her preferred language. Consider a physical system $S$ (an electron). Assume that $S$ interacts with another physical system $O$ (an apparatus measuring the spin of the electron), and that the interaction between $S$ and $O$ qualifies as a quantum measurement of the variable $q$ of the system $S$. Choosing the simplest setting, and following a terminology which is now standard, I assume that $q$ has only two discrete eigenvalues, $a$ and $b$, and denote by $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ the two corresponding eigenstates. The interaction between $S$ and $O$ is governed by an interaction hamiltonian $H_{I}$. A necessary condition for the interaction to be a measurement is that we can prepare $O$ in an initial state, which we denote $|init\rangle$, such that in a finite time $T$ the interaction will evolve (perhaps up to some approximation) $|a\rangle\otimes|init\rangle$ into $|a\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle$ and $|b\rangle\otimes|init\rangle$ into $|b\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle$, where $|Oa\rangle$ and $|Ob\rangle$ are states of $O$ that we can identify as “the pointer of the apparatus indicates that $q$ has value $a$”, or $b$, respectively. Up to now, I have only given definitions. As it is well known, the linearity of quantum mechanics implies that if $S$ is initially in a quantum superposition $c_{a}|a\rangle+c_{b}|b\rangle$, the combined system will evolve from $$\Psi(0)=\big(c_{a}|a\rangle
+c_{b}|b\rangle\big)\otimes| init\rangle
\label{prima}$$ into $$\Psi(T) =
c_{a}|a\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle +
c_{b}|b\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle.
\label{dopo}$$ Examples of models of interactions of the kind described are well known (see for instance [@measurements]), and are easy to construct in the case of simple experiments such as a Stern-Gerlach measurement.[^1]
For some reason, at some point we have to (or we can) replace the pure state $\Psi(T)$ with a mixed state. Equivalently, we replace $\Psi(T)$ with either $$\Psi_{a}=|a\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle,
\label{a}$$ or $$\Psi_{b}=|b\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle,
\label{b}$$ where, of course, the probability of having one or the other is $|c_{a}|^{2}$ and $|c_{b}|^{2}$ respectively. Since here I am not discussing the measurement problem, I will not address the problem of the meaning of this step (whether it is a physical event, a change in our knowledge, a mental event, a perspectival event, or other). Nor I will discuss whether, or how, or why, or under which circumstances, this wave function collapse happens.
Rather, I simply assume that in some appropriate sense the wave function changes from (\[dopo\]) to either (\[a\]) or (\[b\]) and the quantity $q$ acquires a definite value; and I focus on the question of what we can say about the precise time $t$ at which this happens.
At the time $T$, the system has reached the state (\[dopo\]), and a definite correlation between the pointer variable, with eigenstates $|Oa\rangle$ and $|Ob\rangle$, and the system variable, with eigenstates $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$, is established. Before that time, in general, this correlation is absent, or incomplete. If the wave function has collapsed, and the state is either (\[a\]) or (\[b\]), the correlation is present as well. In other words, the happening of the measurement is tied to the fact that the complete correlation is established.
This well known observation has prompted many to suggest that the measurement (of the quantity $q$, by the pointer variable) happens in the moment in which the complete correlation is established. In modal interpretations, for instance, the quantity $q$ “has value” only if the state is in the (Schmidt, or biorthogonal) form (\[dopo\]). This would lead us to say that the measurement of $q$ happens instantaneously in the moment the complete correlation is established.[^2] I consider here a different approach to the problem.
Notice that there is a precise sense in which we can [ *measure*]{} whether, at some time $t$ intermediate between $t=0$ and $t=T$, the measurement has happened or not. In fact, let us suppose that at $t$ we bring a further external apparatus $O'$ in and we measure the value of $q$ as well as the position of the pointer (the two commute, of course). Then, either ([*Case 1*]{}) we find the pointer in the correct position corresponding to the value of $q$ that we have found - namely we obtain {$a$ and $Qa$}, or {$b$ and $Qb$}; or ([*Case 2*]{}) the pointer is not on the correct position.[^3] The question “Has the pointer already measured $q$ at time $t$?” has therefore a natural interpretation: if we find [*Case 1*]{}, we can say that the pointer has already measured $q$; if we find [*Case 2*]{}, it hasn’t. Thus, the question of the timing at which a measurement happens can be given a simple operational interpretation, independent from any metaphysics, or any interpretation of quantum mechanics, one might hold. The operational procedure described assigns a precise meaning to the question. Can we then answer the question? Certainly yes, because quantum mechanics provides us the tool for predicting the outcome of the measurement described. More precisely, it provides us the tool for computing the probabilities of finding [*Case 1*]{} or [*Case 2*]{}, for any given state $\Psi(t)$ of the combined $S-O$ system. These probabilities are obtained as follows.
Define the operator $M$ on the state space of the $S-O$ system, as the projection operator on the subspace spanned by the two states $\Psi_{a}$ and $\Psi_{b}$: $$M \equiv
|\Psi_{a}\rangle\langle\Psi_{a}|+
|\Psi_{b}\rangle\langle\Psi_{b}|.$$ Namely $$\begin{aligned}
M \big(|a\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle\big)
& = & |a\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle
\\
M \big(|b\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle\big)
& = & |b\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle
\\
M \big(|a\rangle\otimes|Ob\rangle\big)
& = & 0
\\
M \big(|b\rangle\otimes|Oa\rangle\big)
& = & 0\end{aligned}$$ and $$M \big(|\psi\rangle\otimes|\phi\rangle\big) = 0$$ if $\langle\phi|Oa\rangle=0$ and $\langle\phi|Ob\rangle=0$.
$M$ is a self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space of the coupled system. Therefore it may admit an interpretation as an observable property of the coupled system. In all the eigenstates of $M$ with eigenvalue 1 the pointer variable correctly indicates the value of $q$. In all the eigenstates of $M$ with eigenvalue 0, it does not. Therefore, $M$ has the following interpretation: $M=1$ means that the pointer (correctly) measures $q$. $M=0$ means that it does not. Now, when the pointer of the apparatus correctly measures the value of the observed quantity, we say that the measurement has happened. Therefore we can say that $M=1$ has the physical interpretation “The measurement has happened”, and $M=0$ has the physical interpretation “the measurement has not happened”.
Since $M$ is a genuine self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space of the coupled system, and since it has an unambiguous physical interpretation, we can apply the standard interpretation rules of quantum mechanics to it. In particular, for all states that are not eigenstates of $M$, quantum mechanics tells us that we must not interpret these states as having “intermediate” values; but, rather, they have one or the other values with a certain probability. That is, if a state $\Psi$ of the coupled system is not a perfectly correlated state of the form (\[dopo\]), (\[a\]), or (\[b\]), then in general we must conclude that $\Psi$ is a superposition of a state in which the measurement has happened and a state in which the measurement has not happened.
In particular, if we follow the Schrödinger evolution $\Psi(t)$ of the state of the coupled system from $t=0$ to $t=T$, then at every intermediate $t$ we can compute the probability $P(t)$ that the measurement has happened $$P(t)=\langle \Psi(t)|M|\Psi(t) \rangle
\label{p}$$ For a good measurement, $P(t)$ will be a smooth function that goes monotonically from 0 to 1 in the time interval 0 to $T$. Therefore, half way through the measurement, we cannot say that the measurement has “half happened”: we must say that the measurement “has happened with probability $P(t)$”.
The last statement has a precise operational meaning: we may repeat the physical process in which $O$ measures the quantity $q$ of $S$ a large number of trials. In each trial, at a time $t<T$ after the beginning of the process, we can check whether or not the measurement has already happened by having the second “external” apparatus $O'$ measuring $q$ and the position of the pointer. If the two match, then $O$ has detected the “correct” value of $q$: “a measurement has happened”. Standard quantum mechanical arguments show that $P(T)$, defined in (\[p\]), gives precisely the fraction of the trials in which we will detect that the measurement has happened.
The correctness of this interpretation of $M$ is particularly evident in the following case. Imagine that the two pointer states $|Oa\rangle$ and $|Ob\rangle$ represent two LED’s that light up when the $O$ apparatus has measured $a$, or, respectively, $b$. Also, assume that in the measurement the “wrong” states $|a\rangle\otimes |Ob\rangle$ and $|b\rangle\otimes
|Oa\rangle$ happens with null or negligible probability (a realistic assumption for a good measurement). If we ask an experimentalist when is the measurement completed, he will probably answer: “when one of the LED’s lights up”. But the distribution probability of the time at which the LED lights up can be theoretically computed, and is given precisely by $P(t)$, because $M$ is the projector on the subspace on which one of the LED’s is on.
If $P(t)$ is the probability that the measurement has happened at time $t$, then the probability (density) $p(t)$ that the measurement happens between time $t$ and time $t+dt$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p(t) &=& \frac{dP(t)}{dt} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{d}{dt}\ \langle \Psi(t)|M|\Psi(t) \rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \langle \Psi(t)| [M,H] |\Psi(t) \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the total hamiltonian. I introduce the operator $$m = [M,H].
\label{m}$$ Its expectation value at time $t$ gives the probability density for the measurement to happen at time $t$ $$p(t) = \langle \Psi(t)| m |\Psi(t) \rangle.
\label{q}$$ For a good measurement in which $P(t)$ grows smoothly and monotonically from zero to one, $p(t)$ will a “bell shaped” curve, defining the time at which the measurement happens, and its quantum dispersion.
The operators $M$ and $m$ can be generalized to an arbitrary number of eigenvalues of the quantity measured. If the apparatus is able to distinguish the (eigen)values $a_{1}\ldots a_{n}$ of the variable $q$, by means of the pointer positions $Oa_{1}\ldots Oa_{n}$, then $M$ is given by $$M = \sum_{i=1,n} \big(|a_{i}\rangle\otimes|Oa_{i}\rangle\big)
\big(\langle a_{i}|\otimes\langle Oa_{i}|\big),
\label{genfor}$$ and this definition can easily be generalized to continuous spectra.
Thus, we can conclude that quantum mechanics provides a precise meaning and a precise answer to the question of when a measurement happens. The answer is, like any other answer to physical questions in quantum theory, a probabilistic one.[^4] Using the operator $m$ defined in (\[m\],\[genfor\]), the probability $p(t)$ that the measurement happens at time $t$ can be computed at every intermediate time from (\[q\]). This quantity can be explicitly computed from the standard quantum physics of the system.
1.3cm
I close with some observations and general comments. The first observation refers to the relation between the issue discussed here and the general measurement problem. The interpretation of the operator $M$ and of the predictions it yields are infested by the same subtle problems that infest any other quantum operator. For instance, one may ask whether $M$ measures “if the measurement has indeed really happened”, or whether “we shall find that the measurement has happened if we check”. The distinction refers to the very possibility of assigning values to quantities irrespectively from observations, and thus touches the core of the measurement problem. As I said, I do not discuss this major conundrum here. The interpretation of the time at which a measurement happens has no less and no more difficulties than the interpretation any other quantity of a quantum system. In particular, I warn the reader of not charging my claim with more meaning than what it deserves. I am not claiming that there is an “element of reality” in the fact that a measurement has happened, or that, in general “measurement having happened or not" is an [*objective property*]{} of the coupled system. I am only claiming: i) that the the time $t$ at which a measurement happens is a well defined concept in the theory (so precise that it can be defined operationally); and ii) that this time, or, more precisely its probability distribution, can be explicitly computed if the unitary dynamics of the system-apparatus dynamics is known. Thus, this time is as well defined a quantity as, say, the position of a particle: if we know the dynamics, we can, at any moment, compute its probability distribution.
The notion of measurement that I have referred to in this paper does not require that phase coherence is definitely lost. Also, I have made no reference to physical decoherence. If quantum mechanics is [*exactly*]{} correct in nature (as I assume here), then phase coherence is never definitely lost. (In principle one can always make an interference experiment between the spin up and the spin down components of the state, even after a macroscopic Stern Gerlach apparatus has registered the outcome on printed paper.) In practice, phase coherence is lost via physical decoherence, say into the environment, as beautifully realized by Zurek [@decoherence], making the pure and the mixed states effectively indistinguishable. Thus, the question of when a quantum correlation (the pure state) can be [ *effectively*]{} described as a mixed state is already solved. This, however, is not the question I have addressed here. The question I have addressed refers to the fact that one or the other of the physical values of $q$ become, at some point, part of our reality: a mystery that, as Zurek emphasizes in the conclusion of [@decoherence], remains also after understanding physical decoherence. Without addressing the issue of how this actualization of the values of $q$ may come about, I have discussed here “when” we may say it happens.
An issue often discussed in the context of the measurement problem is the one of imperfect measurements. Imagine that an interaction between a system $S$ and an “apparatus” $O$ is such that after the interaction the coupled system ends up in a state which is close, but not exactly equal, to the state (\[dopo\]). Has the measurement happened, even if perfect correlation has not been established? The approach presented here offers a solution to the conundrum. The solution is that the measurement has happened with high probability. In practical terms, this means that it has happened in almost all, but not all, the trials.
A related observation is that the existence of the $M$ operator might perhaps cause an embarrassment for the modal interpretation. In fact, quantum mechanics contains an operator corresponding to the question “When does $q$ take a definite value?”, a question addressed in detail within modal views. But the answer that quantum mechanics provides seems inconsistent with the modal view that $q$ has a definite value only when the requisite biorthogonal correlation is established.[^5]
A possible objection to the present work is that it is relevant within certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, but it is irrelevant within the interpretations in which no mention of quantum measurement is made, such as the histories interpretations [@histories]. This is a delicate issue, which requires a case by case discussion that would not fit into this brief note. I only sketch here some general considerations on this regard. Following [@pw], I have given an operational definition of the measurement’s timing. Under such a definition, measurement’s timing makes sense within any interpretation. But why would we want to discuss measurement within a measurement-free interpretation? As suggested in the beginning of the paper, I think that within most, if not all, interpretations, there is always a point in which we have to jump from the statement that something [*may*]{} happen with probability $p$, to the statement that something, in some appropriate sense, [*has*]{} happened. Otherwise, what is it that distinguishes the (probabilistic) [*predictions*]{} we [*make*]{} from the (non-probabilistic) [*data*]{} we [*have*]{} about the world, on which those predictions are based? As cleanly made clear in particular by the histories interpretation, quantum mechanical predictions do not depend just on the data: they also depend on the question asked. One can refuse to discuss the step in which predictions become data, as prescribed in the histories interpretation, and reset the theoretical machinery at every newly acquired data. This is fine. But nothing then prevents somebody else to ask the further question of whether one can predict if and when the theoretical machinery can be reset. The histories-interpretation view, I think, is that this question has no answer within quantum mechanics. This is precisely Heisenberg’s claim, mentioned above. Here, contrary to that claim, I have suggested that one can still keep the interpretation as it is, but [*add*]{} to it, coherently, a meaningful prediction on when the resetting of the theoretical machinery can be made.[^6]
The answer to the timing problem I have discussed is peculiar in one respect: it involves the simultaneous use of the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics at two levels. I have combined the use of the quantum theory of the $S-O$ system, in which the operator $M$ is defined, with the quantum theory of the system $S$ alone, in which we may talk of the collapse of the wave function due to the interaction of $S$ with $O$. There is something slightly conceptually anomalous in doing that. I think that this anomaly is not a defect of the idea proposed here. Rather, it represents its essential aspect. This procedure might shed some light on the relational aspects of quantum theory. There is a subtle point here: the fact that a “time of measurement” can be computed does not imply that the wave function collapse is an objective observer-independent event. On the contrary, to my understanding, the core of the measurement problem is the fact that if we take quantum mechanics as a general theory of mechanics, we must combine two apparently badly contradictory facts. On the one hand, the value of the variable $q$ is definitely directly observed by $O$ (by us). On the other hand, phase coherence is never really lost, and thus the “other branch” is still somehow there, even if not [*for*]{} $O$ (for us). The precise time at which the measurement happens can be observed, and can be operationally defined in the manner described above, but not by $O$. Rather, by the third system ($O'$) making measurements on the $S-O$ system. Simultaneous use of these different levels does not lead to any contradiction [@rovelli; @kochen]. And there is no regress at infinity, unless we inquire about absolute reality, an inquiry which, I suspect, is illegitimate. These ideas are discussed, in various versions, in [@kochen] and in [@rovelli; @relation]. The existence of the $M$ operator and the solution of the timing problem suggested here find a natural framework within these views, but do not require them. .5cm
I thank Rob Clifton for bringing reference [@kochen] to my attention and for a careful reading of this manuscript; Euan Squires, Jim Hartle and Bob Griffiths for a long and extremely valuable e-mail correspondence on these matters; John Earman, Chris Isham, John Baez, Bill Curry, Ted Newman, Lee Smolin and Louis Crane for comments and conversations. I also thank Asher Peres for bringing reference [@pw] to my attention, after I had posted the first version of this paper in the Los Alamos Archives. I apologize with him and with Bill Wootters for having overlooked their important work at first. Support for this work came from NSF grant PHY-95-15506.
[9]{}
J von Neumann: [*Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmeckanik*]{} (Springer, Berlin 1932).
W Heisenberg: [*Physics and Philosophy*]{} (Harper and Row 1958).
A Peres, WK Wootters: Phys Rev D32 (1985) 1968.
C Rovelli: “Relational Quantum Mechanics”, Int J of Theor Phys 35 (1996) 1637.
S Kochen: “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton University preprint, 1979.
B Curry, C Rovelli: “Relation between Kochen’s Interpretation and the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in preparation.
P Busch, P Lahti: “The Standard Model of Quantum Measurement Theory: History and Applications”, Foundations of Physics, to appear, quant-ph/9603020.
Titus Lucretius Carus: [*De rerum natura, II, 218*]{}; a modern times edition is (Clarendon press, Oxford 1922).
WH Zureck: “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”, Phys Rev D24 (1981) 1516; “Environmental induced superselection rules”, Phys Rev D26 (1982) 1826.
RB Griffiths: J Stat Phys 36 (1984) 219. R Omnes: J Stat Phys 57 (1988) 357. M Gell-Mann, J Hartle: in [*Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity*]{}, vol III, ed W Zurek (Addison Wesley, New York 1990).
ND Mermin: “What is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us?”, quant-ph/9801057.
S Saunders: “Time, Quantum Mechanics and Decoherence”, Synthese 102 (1995) 235-266.
JS Bell: “Against ‘Measurement’ ”. In this paper, Bell urges us to ban the expression “measurement” in serious discussions on quantum mechanics.
[^1]: The difficulty of describing the dynamics of quantum measurement in terms of Schrödinger evolution is not in showing how the system may evolve into a correlated state. It is in understanding how it may go from the correlated state to a mixture, or to an eigenstate of the measured quantity.
[^2]: This solution does not convince me for various reasons. First, nature is never clean, and in a realistic case the exact form (\[dopo\]) is never attained. One might reply that if the state is “close” to the form (\[dopo\]), then it will still have a Schmidt decomposition into a basis “close” to the eigenbasis of $q$; but unfortunately this is not true: Schmidt bases jump badly anytime the state passes close to a degenerate state, and a state “very close to (\[dopo\])” may defines a Schmidt basis in which a quantity completely unrelated to $q$ is diagonal. Second, quantum mechanics gives us probabilistic statements about nature. Why should it give us a sharp answer for the measurement time?
[^3]: Typically, the pointer will fail to be in the correct position not because it is in the wrong position, but because it is still in $|init\rangle$.
[^4]: Quantum events, the individual events at the basis of modern physics, happen randomly – precisely as the Democritean $\kappa\lambda\iota\nu\grave{\alpha}\mu\epsilon\nu$, the individual events at the basis of ancient physics, which, in Lucretius marvelous verses, happen “incerto tempore …incertisque loco”: at a random time and in a random place.[@lu]
[^5]: I thank John Earman for this observation.
[^6]: I add a more speculative remark. I suspect that in spite of brilliant attempts to purge quantum mechanics of any “special moment” in time in which measurements happen, such “special moments” remain in most, if not all, interpretations of quantum mechanics, sometimes in a hidden fashion. A coherent way of avoiding this problem is to relegate it to a still to be discovered theory of consciousness, as David Mermin has recently, coherently, suggested in [@mermin] (on a related vein, see [@saunders]). Short of this noble and courageous declaration of failure, we may purge quantum mechanics from the expression “measurement”, pleasing Bell [@bell], but the mystery posed by these “special moments”, whether we call them measurements, quantum events, or otherwise, or we refuse to name them, remains. Talking about their timing, as I have attempted here, is an indirect way of addressing the issue.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A complete, flux density limited sample of 96 faint ($> 0.5$ mJy) radio sources is selected from the 10C survey at 15.7 GHz in the Lockman Hole. We have matched this sample to a range of multi-wavelength catalogues, including SERVS, SWIRE, UKIDSS and optical data; multi-wavelength counterparts are found for 80 of the 96 sources and spectroscopic redshifts are available for 24 sources. Photometric reshifts are estimated for the sources with multi-wavelength data available; the median redshift of the sample is 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.84. Radio-to-optical ratios show that at least 94 per cent of the sample are radio loud, indicating that the 10C sample is dominated by radio galaxies. This is in contrast to samples selected at lower frequencies, where radio-quiet AGN and starforming galaxies are present in significant numbers at these flux density levels. All six radio-quiet sources have rising radio spectra, suggesting that they are dominated by AGN emission. These results confirm the conclusions of Paper I that the faint, flat-spectrum sources which are found to dominate the 10C sample below $\sim 1$ mJy are the cores of radio galaxies. The properties of the 10C sample are compared to the SKADS Simulated Skies; a population of low-redshift starforming galaxies predicted by the simulation is not found in the observed sample.'
author:
- |
I. H. Whittam$^{1,2}$[^1], J. M. Riley$^2$, D. A. Green$^2$, M. J. Jarvis$^{1,3}$ and M. Vaccari$^{1,4}$\
$^{1}$Physics Department, University of the Western Cape, Bellville 7535, South Africa\
$^{2}$Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, 19 J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE\
$^{3}$Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH\
$^{4}$INAF - Istituto di Radioastronomia, via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy
date: 'Accepted —; received —; in original form —'
title: 'The faint radio source population at 15.7 GHz – II. Multi-wavelength properties'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active – radio continuum: galaxies – catalogues – surveys
Introduction {#section:intro}
============
Most studies of the faint ($\lesssim 1$ mJy) radio sky have focused on frequencies around 1.4 GHz, due to the increased telescope time required to survey a field to an equivalent depth at a higher frequency. This means that while the composition of the lower-frequency radio sky is well constrained (e.g. ), the faint radio sky at higher frequencies is relatively unstudied. The Tenth Cambridge (10C; @2011MNRAS.415.2708D [@2011MNRAS.415.2699F]) survey at 15.7 GHz has covered $\approx 27$ deg$^2$ in ten different fields to a completeness limit of 1 mJy and a further 12 deg$^2$ to a completeness limit of 0.5 mJy. The 10C survey therefore provides the ideal starting point from which to study the faint, high-frequency sky. This survey has recently been extended to even fainter flux densities in two of the 10C fields by Whittam et al. (in prep), who calculated the 15 GHz source counts down to 0.1 mJy.
To investigate the nature of the extragalactic radio source population multi-wavelength studies are required, as the power-law nature of radio spectra means that radio data alone is not sufficient to classify source types or estimate redshifts. In the first paper in this series studying the faint radio source population at 15.7 GHz (@2013MNRAS.429.2080W, hereafter Paper I) we discuss a sample of sources selected from the Lockman Hole for which data over a wide range of frequencies are available. The Lockman Hole is a region of the sky centred near 10$^{\rm h}$45$^{\rm m}$, +58$^{\circ}$ (J2000 coordinates, which are used throughout this work) with exceptionally low <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hi</span> column density [@1986ApJ...302..432L]. The low infrared background (0.38 MJy sr$^{-1}$ at 100 $\muup$m; @2003PASP..115..897L) in this area of the sky makes it ideal for deep extragalactic infrared observations. As a result, as part of the *Spitzer* Wide-area Infrared Extragalactic survey (SWIRE; @2003PASP..115..897L) sensitive infrared observations of $\approx$ 14 deg$^2$ of the Lockman Hole area have been made. The availability of deep infrared observations in the Lockman Hole has triggered deep observing campaigns at optical, X-ray and radio wavelengths (e.g. ). The availability of data at such a wide range of frequencies makes the Lockman Hole a particularly good area for a multi-wavelength study of the faint radio source population.
In Paper I we selected a sample of 296 sources from the 10C sample in the Lockman Hole. By matching this catalogue to several lower frequency surveys we have investigated the radio properties of the sources in this sample; all but 30 of the 10C sources are matched to sources in one or more of these surveys. We found a significant increase in the proportion of flat-spectrum sources at flux densities below $\approx$1 mJy – the median spectral index between 15.7 GHz and 610 MHz changes from $\alpha =0.75$ for flux densities greater than 1.5 mJy to $\alpha =0.08$ for flux densities less than 0.8 mJy (the convention $S \propto \nu ^{-\alpha}$, for a source with flux density $S$ at frequency $\nu$, is used throughout this work). This suggests that a population of faint, flat-spectrum sources is emerging at flux densities $\lesssim 1 \textrm{ mJy}$ in the high-frequency sky.
In Paper I the spectral index distribution of this sample of sources selected at 15.7 GHz was compared to those of two samples selected at 1.4 GHz from FIRST and NVSS. This showed that there is a significant flat-spectrum population present in the 10C sample which is missing from the samples selected at 1.4 GHz. The 10C sample was compared to a sample of sources selected from the Square Kilometre Array Design Studies (SKADS) Simulated Sky (S$^3$) by @2008MNRAS.388.1335W [@2010MNRAS.405..447W] and we found that this simulation fails to reproduce the observed spectral index distribution and significantly under-predicts the number of sources in the faintest flux density bin. It is likely that the observed faint, flat-spectrum sources are a result of the cores of Fanaroff and Riley type I (FRI; @1974MNRAS.167P..31F) sources becoming dominant at high frequencies. These results highlight that the faint, high-frequency source population is poorly understood and therefore the importance of further study of this population.
In this paper, we select all sources from the 10C sample studied in Paper I which which have deep 1.4-GHz observations available (from the @2012rsri.confE..22G, @2006MNRAS.371..963B or @2008AJ....136.1889O surveys, see Section \[section:radio-data\] for full details) and have flux densities above the 10C completeness limit in the given region. This complete sample of 96 sources is matched to optical and infrared data available in the field. These data enable us to distinguish between different source types and estimate photometric redshifts for the objects. Crucially, by using radio-to-optical ratios we are able to separate radio-loud AGN, which we know dominate the extragalactic radio source population at higher flux densities ($S_{15~\rm GHz} \gtrsim~10~\rm mJy$) from radio-quiet AGN and starforming galaxies, which are predicted to begin to contribute to the source population at lower flux density levels (e.g. @2008MNRAS.388.1335W). The range of multi-wavelength data available in the Lockman Hole is described in Section \[section:multi-data\] and the methods used to match these catalogues to the 10C catalogue are described in Section \[section:fused-matching\]. Photometric redshifts are calculated in Section \[section:lephare\] and combined with available spectroscopic redshifts to produce a final redshift catalogue. In Section \[section:R\] the radio-to-optical ratio is estimated for all sources in this sample. The properties of the sample are discussed in light of the redshift information in Section \[section:properties\_z\]. The 10C sample is compared to the S$^3$ simulation in Section \[section:s3\_z\] and to other observational studies in Section \[section:other-studies\].
Data used {#section:multi-data}
=========
Radio data {#section:radio-data}
----------
The work in Paper I is based on a sample of sources selected from the 10C survey at 15.7 GHz. The 10C survey was observed with the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI; @2008MNRAS.391.1545Z) which has a resolution of 30 arcsec. Full details of the 10C survey can be found in @2011MNRAS.415.2708D and @2011MNRAS.415.2699F. This work uses the Lockman Hole field of the survey, which consists of 4.64 deg$^2$ complete to 1 mJy and 1.73 deg$^2$ complete to 0.5 mJy. In Paper I we investigated the radio properties of this sample by matching the catalogue to several lower-frequency catalogues available in the field; a deep Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope (GMRT) survey at 610 MHz [@2008MNRAS.387.1037G; @2010BASI...38..103G], a Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) survey at 1.4 GHz [@2012rsri.confE..22G], two deep Very Large Array (VLA) surveys at 1.4 GHz by @2006MNRAS.371..963B (BI2006) and @2008AJ....136.1889O (OM2008), the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) VLA Sky Survey (NVSS; @1998AJ....115.1693C) and Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty centimetres (FIRST; @1997ApJ...475..479W). These radio data are summarised in Table \[tab:radio-data\]. Lower-frequency counterparts were found for 266 out of the 296 sources in the sample, allowing radio spectral indices to be calculated for these 266 sources and upper limits to be placed on the spectral indices of the remaining 30 sources.
![Positions of all 296 sources in the 10C Lockman Hole sample. The positions of the 96 sources in the sample used in this paper are shown as small circles (red in the online version), and the remaining 200 sources which are not in this sample are shown as crosses (blue in the online version). The sources which fall below the 10C completeness limit, and are therefore not included in the sample used in this paper, as shown as pale blue crosses. The 10C complete areas are shown by the rectangles (the large rectangles indicate the regions complete to 1 mJy and small rectangles contained within these show the regions complete to 0.5 mJy). The WSRT survey area is shown by the large (green) circle and the BI2006 and OM2008 survey areas are shown by the (purple) small circle and small square.[]{data-label="fig:sampleW"}](sample_w-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
[lllddl]{} Catalogue & Reference(s) & Epoch of observation & & & rms noise\
& & & & & /mJy\
10C – shallow & & Aug 2008 – June 2010 & 15.7 & 30 & 0.1\
10C – deep & & Aug 2008 – June 2010 & 15.7 & 30 & 0.05\
GMRT & & Jul 2004 – Oct 2006 & 0.610 & & 0.06\
WSRT & @2012rsri.confE..22G & Dec 2006 – Jun 2007 & 1.4 & & 0.011\
OM2008 & @2008AJ....136.1889O & Dec 2001 – Jan 2004 & 1.4 & 1.6 & 0.0027\
OMK2009 & @2009AJ....137.4846O & Feb 2006 – Jan 2007 & 0.324 & 6 & 0.07\
BI2006 & @2006MNRAS.371..963B & Jan 2001 – Mar 2002 & 1.4 & 1.3 & 0.0046\
FIRST & @1997ApJ...475..479W & 1997 – 2002 & 1.4 & 5 & 0.15\
NVSS & @1998AJ....115.1693C & 1997 & 1.4 & 45 & 0.45\
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
As many of these lower frequency catalogues have higher resolutions than the 10C survey, they also provide more accurate positions which are vital when searching for multi-wavelength counterparts for the 10C. It is therefore useful to define a complete sub-sample of sources which have 1.4-GHz data available. For this purpose, we used the BI2006, OM2008 and WSRT surveys as they are the deepest in the field. OM2008 and BI2006 have rms noises of 2.7 and 6.0 $\muup$Jy/beam respectively and all the 10C sources in these fields are detected at 1.4 GHz. The majority of the @2012rsri.confE..22G WSRT map has an rms noise of $< 15~\muup$Jy/beam and parts have an rms noise of 11 $\muup$Jy/beam. This means that it should be possible to detect the faintest sources in the complete 10C sample (with $S_{15.7 \rm{GHz}} \geqslant 0.5~$mJy) in the WSRT map provided they have spectral indices $\alpha^{15.7}_{1.4} > -1$ (where $S \propto \nu ^{-\alpha}$), assuming a 3$\sigma$ WSRT detection. Sources with spectra which rise as steeply as this are very rare so the vast majority of the 10C sources in the WSRT map are detectable – in fact, all but one of the sources in the complete 10C catalogue are detected in the WSRT map. We therefore define the sample as all 10C sources in the complete catalogue in the OM2008, BI2006 or WSRT deep survey areas. This sample contains 96 sources and accurate positions and spectral index information are therefore available for all but one of the sources. The positions of the sources in the sample are shown in Fig. \[fig:sampleW\]. This sample of 96 sources with deep 1.4 GHz data available is the subject of this paper.
The spectral indices and flux density distributions of the full sample of 296 sources studied in Paper I and the sub-sample of 96 sources studied in this paper are plotted in Fig. \[fig:sample\_properties\]. The spectral index distributions of the two samples are relatively similar, although all nine of the very steeply rising sources, with $\alpha^{15.7}_{1.4} < -0.8$, in the full sample are not included in the sample studied in this paper. Seven of these nine sources are below the 10C completeness limits (0.5 mJy in the deep regions and 1 mJy in the shallow regions) and are not detected at 1.4 GHz so the spectral indices are upper limits calculated from the $3\sigma$ noise in the WSRT map. The flux density distributions of the full sample and sub-sample used in this paper are also very similar, although none of the faintest sources in the full sample appear in the sample studied here, as this sample only contains sources above the 10C completeness limits (0.5 and 1 mJy in the deep and shallow regions respectively).
The Lockman Hole SERVS Data Fusion {#section:FUSED-data}
----------------------------------
The *Spitzer* Extragalactic Representative Volume Survey (SERVS; @2012PASP..124..714M) is a warm Spitzer survey which imaged $\approx~18~\rm deg^2$ using the 3.6 and 4.5 $\muup$m IRAC bands down to an rms noise of $0.4~\muup$Jy. The SERVS Data Fusion is a multi-wavelength infrared-selected catalogue compiled by Vaccari et al. (in preparation, `www.mattiavaccari.net/df`) containing most of the multi-wavelength public photometry and spectroscopy for SERVS sources within the Lockman Hole and other SERVS fields. For inclusion in the SERVS Data Fusion, a source must be detected at either 3.6 or 4.5 $\muup$m in the SERVS images, and ancillary datasets are matched against the SERVS position using a search radius of 1 arcsec. In the Lockman Hole, the SERVS Data Fusion includes optical photometry by @2011MNRAS.416..927G (GS11), near-infrared photometry from the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS; see @2007MNRAS.379.1599L) and mid-infrared and far-infrared photometry from the Spitzer Wide-Area Infrared Extragalactic survey (SWIRE; see @2003PASP..115..897L).
The GS11 deep optical data were taken with the Wide Field Camera (WFC) at the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) and the Mosaic-1 camera on the Mayall 4-meter Telescope at the Kitt-Peak National Observatory (KPNO) in $g$, $r$, $i$ and $z$-bands. The average magnitude limits in the $g$, $r$, $i$ and $z$-bands are 24.5, 24.0, 23.3 and 22.0 (AB, 5$\sigma$ for a point-like object measured in a 2-arcsec aperture). Information about the optical morphology of the objects is included in the full published GS11 catalogue but is not in the SERVS Data Fusion catalogue. We therefore matched the full GS11 catalogue to the Data Fusion catalogue to include this information. A match radius of 1 arcsec was used and all of the objects with optical information in the Data Fusion catalogue have matches to the GS11 catalogue.
UKIDSS [@2007MNRAS.379.1599L] used the UKIRT Wide Field Camera (WFCAM) to map 7500 deg$^2$ in five different surveys in $J$, $H$ and $K$ bands. The Lockman Hole is part of the Deep Extragalactic Survey (DXS), which has a limiting $K$ magnitude of 21 (vega). The Data Fusion catalogue contains data from UKIDSS Data Release 9, which includes only $J$ and $K$ bands in the Lockman Hole.
SWIRE [@2003PASP..115..897L] is a wide-field high galactic latitude survey covering nearly 50 deg$^2$ in six different fields, one of which is the Lockman Hole. These fields have been surveyed by the *Spitzer Space Telescope* using both the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) and the Multi-Band Imaging Photometer (MIPS) far-infrared camera. The Data Fusion catalogue contains data from IRAC, which made observations at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0 $\muup$m with $5\sigma$ sensitivities of 3.7, 5.4, 48 and 37.8 $\muup$Jy respectively (the longer wavelength MIPS photometry is not included here).
Survey Reference Band Flux density limit ($5\sigma$)
-------- ---------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------
SWIRE @2003PASP..115..897L 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0 $\muup$m 3.7, 5.4, 48, 37.8 $\muup$Jy
SERVS @2012PASP..124..714M 3.6, 4.5 $\muup$m 1.3, 1.5 $\muup$Jy
UKIDSS @2007MNRAS.379.1599L $J$, $K$ 21 (AB)
GS11 @2011MNRAS.416..927G $g$, $r$, $i$, $z$ 24.5, 24.0, 23.3, 22.0 (AB)
These catalogues are summarised in Table \[tab:multi-data\]. There are a maximum of ten photometric bands available for each source. The data fusion catalogue also contains the spectroscopic redshifts from a number of different catalogues available in the field. The spectroscopic redshifts used in this paper and their references are listed in table \[tab:specz\].
Fotopoulou et al. photometric redshift catalogue (F12) {#section:F12}
------------------------------------------------------
@2012ApJS..198....1F (F12) produced a deep photometric redshift catalogue covering $0.5~\rm deg^2$ contained within the southern 10C Lockman Hole field using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> photometric redshift code . This catalogue contains 187,611 objects and has up to 21 bands available, ranging from far-ultraviolet to mid-infrared. The far-ultraviolet (FUV) and near-ultraviolet (NUV) observations used in F12 were made by the *Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX)*, with limiting magnitudes of 24.5 in both bands. At optical wavelengths, they use data from the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), Subaru, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The LBT data consists of five bands, $U,~B,~V,~Y~\rm{and}~z'$, and covers about $0.25~\rm deg^2$, the Subaru data contain $R_c,~I_c~\rm{and}~z'$-band observations and SDSS contains data in $u',~g',~r',~i'~\rm{and}~z'$-bands. F12 also use the UKIDSS and *Spitzer* data which are used in this work and described in more detail in Section \[section:FUSED-data\]. X-ray observations are available for $0.2~\rm deg^2$ of the field, and the 388 X-ray-detected sources, presumed to be AGN, are treated differently in the fitting process.
Revised SWIRE Photometric Redshift Catalogue (RR13) {#section:RR13}
---------------------------------------------------
@2013MNRAS.428.1958R (RR13) produced an updated SWIRE photometric redshift catalogue, which is a revised version of the redshift catalogue produced by @2008MNRAS.386..697R. The revised catalogue uses the Data Fusion multi-wavelength catalogue (Section \[section:FUSED-data\]), which provides deeper optical data and more photometric bands than the catalogue used in @2008MNRAS.386..697R. The redshifts are estimated using a two-pass template method based on six galaxy and three AGN templates in the first pass and 11 galaxy and three AGN templates in the second. AGNs are identified by their optical morphology – only objects which appear point-like are fitted with AGN templates. This reduces the risk of catastrophic outliers occurring when normal galaxies are erroneously fitted with AGN templates, but does mean that some AGN will be misclassified as normal galaxies. The main difference between the RR13 catalogue and the previous 2008 version is the treatment of AGNs, as dust torus emission is now included in the quasar templates. The RR13 catalogue only contains redshift values for objects which were included in the original SWIRE photometric redshift catalogue [@2008MNRAS.386..697R], so does not include redshifts for every object in the Data Fusion catalogue. There are also a small number of objects in the RR13 catalogue which are not in the Data Fusion catalogue as these appear in the original SWIRE redshift catalogue.
RR13 contains redshift estimates for 1,009,607 sources in all eight of the SWIRE fields and covers all but a small section of the 10C Lockman Hole field.
Matching the catalogues {#section:fused-matching}
=======================
Morphology of the radio sources
-------------------------------
Due to the high density of sources in the Data Fusion catalogue it is necessary to take into account the structure of the radio sources when matching the catalogues, as there may be several optical objects within the radio contours of extended sources.
In order to determine whether or not a source is extended the ratio of total flux to peak flux density ($C=S_{\rm int}/S_{\rm peak}$) was calculated for all sources with a match in either the FIRST, GMRT or WSRT surveys or the 324 MHz VLA survey by @2009AJ....137.4846O (OMK2009). Flux density values from these lower-frequency catalogues are used instead of the 10C catalogue as they have a higher resolution than the 10C catalogue (which has a beam size of 30 arcsec). FIRST, GMRT and OMK2009 all have a synthesised beam of $\approx$5 arcsec, while WSRT has a larger beam of $\approx$10 arcsec. (OM2008 and BI2006 have significantly smaller beam sizes, $\approx$1 arcsec, meaning that values of $C$ from these catalogues cannot be directly compared to the other $C$ values so they are not used in this analysis). FIRST and GMRT cover the whole field while WSRT and OMK2009 only cover part of the field. Those sources with a match in either FIRST or GMRT were classified as extended if either $C_{\rm GMRT}$ or $C_{\rm FIRST} > 1.2$, otherwise they were classified as compact for the purpose of matching. Sources without a match in FIRST or GMRT but with a match to OMK2009 were classified as extended if $C_{\rm OMK2009} > 1.2$ and compact otherwise. All sources with a match in WSRT and not in the other three catalogues used here were classified as extended for the purpose of matching as the resolution of the WSRT map is not high enough to ensure these sources are not extended.
There are six sources which are not classified as extended or compact because they do not have a counterpart in any of the four catalogues used when classifying the sources but which do have a match in OM2008 or BI2006, and therefore an accurate position. These sources all have angular sizes less than 3 arcsec in the OM2008 or BI2006 catalogues so were considered to be compact for this purpose.
There are therefore 38 sources which are compact and 57 sources which have been classified as extended for the purpose of matching but which may in fact not be significantly extended on these angular scales. These two groups of sources are treated separately when identifying optical matches.
Matching the catalogues {#section:matching-details}
-----------------------
![The separation distribution when the radio sources in the 10C catalogue and the simulated catalogue are matched to the Data Fusion catalogue, taking all matches to the radio sources within 30 arcsec. Note that the full 10C sample is matched here.[]{data-label="fig:matches"}](separation-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
The different catalogues were matched using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">topcat</span>[^2] software package. The density of sources in the Data Fusion catalogue is high compared to the potential error in the 10C source positions ($\approx 6$ arcsec) so we therefore use the more accurate positions from the lower frequency radio catalogues (typical error $\approx1$ arcsec). When there are several positions available for a source, they are used in the following order of preference: FIRST, GMRT, BI2006/OM2008, WSRT, 10C. For sources which are resolved into multiple components in FIRST or GMRT, the position from the 10C catalogue was used instead as this gives a best estimate of the centre of the flux. For the three sources which have two separate components listed in the original 10C catalogue (see Paper I for details), the average of the two 10C positions is used.
The match radius needs to be chosen carefully to avoid false matches while still maximising the number of real matches. The 10C sources were shifted by 0.2 degrees in declination to produce a simulated sample of randomly positioned sources. Both this simulated sample and the real sample were matched to the Data Fusion catalogue, and all Data Fusion objects within 30 arcsec of each source were noted. The separation between the matches is shown in Fig. \[fig:matches\]; it is clear that beyond 2 arcsec the number of real and random matches becomes comparable. (Note that the full 10C sample is used in this plot to provide better statistics.)
For those sources classified as compact, the nearest match within 2 arcsec was accepted. If there was no match within 2 arcsec then the source in question was considered to have no optical counterpart. In total, 36 of the compact sources have a match within 2 arcsec and two do not.
For sources classified as extended the positions of all the optical sources were plotted on top of the radio contours (GMRT maps were used for those sources with a GMRT match, WSRT maps were used for the remaining sources). These images were then examined and the sources were also assigned one of the following flags:
1. probable match – only source within the $3 \sigma$ radio contours (21 sources);
2. possible match – looks likely but there are other sources within the $3 \sigma$ radio contours (23 sources);
3. confused – several sources within the $3 \sigma$ radio contours so cannot identify the correct match (8 sources);
4. no match – no sources within the $3 \sigma$ radio contours (5 sources).
Examples of sources assigned each of these flags are given in Fig. \[fig:ext-matching\]. Table \[tab:optical-matches\] contains a summary of the number of matches to the Data Fusion catalogue and the flags used in the catalogue.
![Separation between the best radio position for each source and the position of its counterpart in the Data Fusion catalogue. Sources which are considered extended for the purposes of matching are shown by ‘$+$’ (blue in the online version), compact sources are shown by ‘$\times$’ (red in the online version). The circle indicates a separation of 2 arcsec (the match radius for compact sources).[]{data-label="fig:best_fused_sepn"}](FUSED_best_diff-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Description No. of sources
------------------------------------------- ----------------
Extended – probable match 21
Extended – possible match 23
Extended – confused 8
Extended – no match 5
Compact – match within 2 arcsec 36
Compact – no match within 2 arcsec 2
10C position only – no matching attempted 1
: A summary of the matches to the Data Fusion catalogue found for the 96 10C sources studied in this paper.[]{data-label="tab:optical-matches"}
In summary, we have identified possible counterparts for 80 out of the 96 sources (83 percent). A table listing the multi-wavelength counterparts for each source is included in table \[tab:all-sources\] in the appendix. 24 of these 80 sources have a spectroscopic redshift available in the Data Fusion catalogue, these redshifts and their references are listed in table \[tab:specz\]. Fig. \[fig:best\_fused\_sepn\] shows the separation between the radio position of each source and the Data Fusion object associated with it. The contour plot of the one source in the sample without an accurate position available was examined by eye; there are no possible counterparts within the radio contours. This source is therefore included in the group of sources without a match in future discussions (giving a total of eight sources without a match, and a further eight confused sources).
SERVS 3.6-$\muup$m and 4.5-$\muup$m images of the eight sources without a match were examined by eye, and in one case (source 10CJ105040+573308) there was a source visible in the SERVS images. This source lies close to a very bright ($S_{3.6~\muup \rm m} = 1.07 \times 10^{4} ~\muup \rm Jy$) source so is not included in the SERVS catalogue. The 3.6 $\muup$m-flux density for this source was estimated from the image, and although we do not have enough information to calculate a photometric redshift for this source, this value is used in Section \[section:R\] when calculating radio-to-infrared ratios.
The spectral index and flux density distributions of the sources with and without a counterpart are compared in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_matched\]. The spectral index distributions of the two groups of sources (those with and without a match) are broadly similar, except that a higher proportion of the very steep ($\alpha^{15.7}_{1.4} > 0.8$) sources are unmatched (32 percent of sources with $\alpha^{15.7}_{1.4} > 0.8$ are unmatched compared to 11 percent of sources with $\alpha^{15.7}_{1.4} < 0.8$). This is probably because these very steep sources tend to be significantly extended (all of the sources with $\alpha > 1$ have angular sizes $> 20$ arcsec, Section \[section:sizes\]) and are therefore more likely to be classified as confused when matching. The 15.7-GHz flux density distributions of the two groups of sources are similar, although all six of the brightest 10C sources have counterparts in the multi-wavelength catalogue.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
Matching to other photometric redshift catalogues {#section:matching-other}
-------------------------------------------------
The sample was matched to the F12 and RR13 photometric redshift catalogues. For the 80 sources which have a counterpart in Data Fusion the catalogues were matched using the position from the Data Fusion catalogue and the nearest match within 1.5 arcsec is accepted (the shifting procedure described in Section \[section:matching-details\] was repeated for each of the catalogues to choose these match radii). This gave a total of 53 matches to RR13 and 20 to F12.
Catalogue Number of matches to 10C sources
------------- ----------------------------------
Data Fusion 80
Spec $z^a$ 24
GS11 59
RR13 53
F12 20
: A summary of matches to multi-wavelength catalogues for 10C sources used in this work.[]{data-label="tab:other-matches"}
Notes:\
a) Spectroscopic redshift from the Data Fusion catalogue.\
Possible matches for confused sources {#section:confused-matches}
-------------------------------------
There are eight sources which were classified as confused when matching to the Data Fusion catalogue. Although it is not possible to identify a single counterpart for these sources, some useful information about their nature can be gained by looking at all possible counterparts within the radio contours. Therefore, all objects within one tenth of the peak flux in the GMRT sub-image were selected as possible counterparts for each 10C source. For the one source without a GMRT image, all objects within the $3\sigma$ contour in the WSRT map were selected instead. In total, 30 possible counterparts were identified for the eight sources. These are included in later discussion.
Photometric redshift fitting {#section:lephare}
============================
The two photometric redshift catalogues described in Section \[section:multi-data\] do not contain redshift values for all the sources in this sample with multi-wavelength data available, so we performed our own photometric redshift fitting. The publicly available photometric redshift code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span>[^3] was used to compute photometric redshifts for the sources in this sample with counterparts in the Data Fusion catalogue. The code takes an input library of spectral energy distribution (SED) templates, which are assumed to represent the SEDs of the observed sample, and shifts them to a range of redshift values. These templates are then fitted to the photometric data, and a least-squares minimisation is used to select the best-fitting SED template for each source. The redshift of the best-fitting template is then adopted as the redshift estimate. The photometric data used here was from the Data Fusion catalogue (see Section \[section:FUSED-data\]), which has up to ten photometric bands available for each source. Data at 3.6 and 4.5 $\muup$m are available from both SWIRE and SERVS for some sources, in which case values from SERVS were used for the photometric fitting, as these observations have a better signal to noise.
Each source was fitted to two different template libraries, the first containing galaxy templates and the second containing AGN templates. These two libraries, and the extinction laws applied, are the same as those used in F12. The galaxy templates used are the library produced by @2009ApJ...690.1236I. These include nine templates generated by @2007ApJ...663...81P – three elliptical galaxy SEDs and six spiral galaxy SEDs (S0, Sa, Sb, Sc, Sd, Sdm) – and 12 starburst galaxy SEDs generated using the @2003MNRAS.344.1000B models (with starburst ages ranging from 3 to 0.03 Gyr). This gives a total of 21 SED templates. @2009ApJ...690.1236I linearly interpolated between some of the @2007ApJ...663...81P templates to refine the sampling in colour-redshift space, resulting in a total of 31 templates. For templates Sb to SB3 (template IDs 11 to 23) extinction is applied according to the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) law, while for SB4 to SB11 (template IDs 24 to 31) the @2000ApJ...533..682C laws are applied. No additional extinction is applied for templates earlier than Sb. The intrinsic galactic absorption is calculated with values of $E(B - V) = 0.00, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.40$ and 0.50. Emission lines were added to the templates using the option in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> code as this has been shown to give better results, even in the case of broadband photometry [@2009ApJ...690.1236I].
The AGN template library was taken from @2009ApJ...690.1250S. This library of 30 templates contains galaxy and AGN templates, as well as a number of hybrid templates. These hybrid templates contain contributions from both galaxy and AGN templates in proportions ranging from 10%:90% to 90%:10% in steps of 10% (see @2009ApJ...690.1250S for full details). For this template library extinction is allowed to vary from $E(B - V) = 0$ to 0.5 in steps of 0.05.
For both libraries the templates are calculated at redshifts 0–6 in steps of $\Delta z = 0.01$ and in steps of $\Delta z = 0.02$ for redshifts 6–7. The absolute magnitude was restricted to the range $-28 < M < -8$, where $M$ is the absolute magnitude in the $K$-band.
Selecting a final redshift value {#section:lephare-z-used}
--------------------------------
Each of the 80 matched objects in the sample has been fitted to two SED template libraries (the galaxy template library and the AGN template library), so there are two possible redshift values produced for each source. Throughout this section the redshift value resulting from the best-fitting template from the galaxy library is referred to as $z_{\rm GAL}$ and the redshift value resulting from the AGN template library is referred to as $z_{\rm AGN}$.
To decide which value is the most appropriate one to use for each source the SEDs which provided the best fit to the photometric data from each of the two libraries were plotted for each source and examined by eye. Both the galaxy and AGN template fits were then qualitatively assigned one of the following template flags to characterise the fit:
1 = good fit;
2 = possible fit;
3 = poor fit.
One of the possible two redshift values was then selected for each source. $z_{\rm GAL}$ was selected if the fit to the galaxy template is better than the fit to the AGN template (i.e. galaxy template flag $<$ AGN template flag). If the fit to the galaxy and AGN templates were judged to be equally good (i.e. galaxy template flag $=$ AGN template flag), then $z_{\rm GAL}$ was selected if the object’s optical morphology indicated that it was extended in the optical observations, and $z_{\rm GAL}$ was also selected if there was no optical morphology information available. $z_{\rm AGN}$ was selected if the fit to the AGN template was better than the fit to the galaxy template (i.e. AGN template fitting flag $<$ galaxy template fitting flag), or if the two fits appeared equally good and the object appeared point-like in the optical. Any source with fewer than three photometric bands available was not assigned a redshift value.
In the final photometric redshift catalogue 59 sources have redshift values from the galaxy templates library and 11 have redshift values from the AGN templates library. This gives a total of 70 sources with redshift values from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> photometric redshift fitting process (the remaining ten sources with matches to the Data Fusion catalogue had fewer than four photometric band available so no redshift estimate is included for these sources).
Comparison with other redshift catalogues {#section:z-cat-comparison}
-----------------------------------------
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
The redshift values obtained from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> photometric redshift fitting were compared to the F12 and RR13 photometric redshift catalogues. First the two published catalogues were compared to each other. The two catalogues were matched using a match radius of 1.5 arcsec, giving 7895 matches; the redshift values of these matched sources from the two catalogues are compared in Fig. \[fig:z\_RR13\_F12\]. This plot shows significant scatter, demonstrating that there are some significant disagreements between the two catalogues and highlighting the difficulties in achieving reliable redshifts using photometric methods for these sources. This is demonstrated further in Fig. \[fig:z\_comparison\_hist\] which shows the percentage difference between the redshift values from the two catalogues. The percentage of ‘catastrophic’ outliers, defined as when $z_{2} - z_{1}/(1 + z) > 0.3$, where $z = (z_1 + z_2)/2$, is 20 per cent. Redshift values derived in this work are compared to the F12 and RR13 catalogues in Fig. \[fig:lephare\_RR13\_F12\]. For the majority of the sources there is a good agreement between the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> values calculated here and the values from RR13 and F12. However, for several sources there are significant differences between the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> values and the values from the other two catalogues, with the percentage of catastrophic outliers being 24 per cent when compared to the F12 catalogue and 30 per cent when compared to the RR13 catalogue. Many of the sources do not agree within the error bars, although note that these error bars simply quantify the goodness of the fit of the photometric data to the chosen template, which does not necessarily mean that the chosen template is the correct one. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:lephare\_RR13\_F12\] shows the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> photometric redshifts compared to the spectroscopic values for the 24 sources with spectroscopic values available. There is a reasonable agreement for the majority of the sources, with a catastrophic outlier percentage of 29 per cent.
![Percentage difference between the redshift values from the RR13 and F12 catalogues (i.e. $100 \times (z_{\rm RR13} - z_{\rm F12})/(1+z)$ where $z = (z_{\rm RR13} + z_{\rm F12}) / 2$).[]{data-label="fig:z_comparison_hist"}](z_RR13_F12_hist-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}
Compiling the final redshift catalogue {#section:z-used}
--------------------------------------
There are spectroscopic redshifts available for 24 sources from the Data Fusion catalogue, which are listed in table \[tab:specz\] in the appendix. For the remaining sources a photometric redshift is selescted in the following order of preference: 1) photometric redshift from RR13 (38 sources), 2) photometric redshift from F12 (6 sources) and 3) photometric redshift from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> fitting (9 sources). RR13 values were given preference over F12 values because they are available for a greater number of sources as the RR13 catalogue covers the whole 10C survey area, giving greater consistency. A full catalogue of the redshifts is given in table \[tab:all-sources\] in the appendix.
The redshift distribution of all 77 sources with a redshift estimate (or value) is shown in Fig. \[fig:z-dist\]. The median redshift is 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.84. The redshift distribution of the sample is discussed in Section \[section:properties\_z\].
![Redshift distribution for all sources with a redshift estimate. Sources with spectroscopic redshift values are shown separately.[]{data-label="fig:z-dist"}](z_dist-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Confused sources {#section:confused}
----------------
In Section \[section:confused-matches\], a total of 30 possible counterparts were identified for the eight ‘confused’ sources. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> photometric code was run on these possible counterparts in exactly the same way as detailed in Section \[section:lephare\]. The resulting redshift values for all the possible counterparts to each ‘confused’ 10C source are shown in Fig. \[fig:z-confused\_poss\].
![Redshift values for the possible counterparts for each 10C source classified as confused.[]{data-label="fig:z-confused_poss"}](z_confused_poss-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Radio to optical ratio {#section:R}
======================
The ratio of the radio and the optical flux densities of a source provides useful information about its nature, since for the same optical magnitude radio galaxies have much higher radio flux densities than either radio-quiet AGN or starforming galaxies. The radio-to-optical ratio $R$ was defined following @1980ApJ...242..894C, using: $$R = S_{1.4~\rm GHz} \times 10^{0.4(m-12.5)}
\label{eqn:R}$$ where $S_{1.4~\rm GHz}$ is the flux density at 1.4 GHz in mJy and $m$ is the optical magnitude in the $i$-band. Sources with radio-to-optical ratios $R > 1000$ are considered to be radio loud [@1999ApJS..123...41M], while those with smaller values of $R$ are classified as radio quiet (and are therefore either radio-quiet AGN or starforming sources). $i$-band magnitudes are used here, as they are the best match to the $I$-band magnitudes used by @1999ApJS..123...41M.
![The distribution of radio-to-optical ratio, $R$. Sources with an $i$-band detection are in black. Lower limits are included for those sources without an $i$-band detection (grey) and for those classified as confused (white); these sources could move to the right on this diagram. Sources with $R > 1000$, indicated by the vertical dashed line, are considered radio loud.[]{data-label="fig:ro_ratio"}](ro_hist-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The radio-to-optical ratio, $R$, was calculated using equation \[eqn:R\] for the sources which have an $i$-band magnitude available. Of the 80 sources with a match in the Data Fusion catalogue, 44 have an $i$-band magnitude, whilst 36 sources are not detected in the $i$-band. For the sources without an $i$-band magnitude, including the eight sources which are unmatched in the Data Fusion catalogue, lower limits on $R$ are calculated using a lower limit on the $i$-band magnitude of 23.3 (the limiting magnitude of the $i$-band observations). For the eight sources classified as confused when matching, $R$ was calculated using the brightest of the possible counterparts identified in Section \[section:confused-matches\], which serves as a lower limit on $R$.
The distribution of the radio-to-optical ratio of all sources is shown in Fig. \[fig:ro\_ratio\], including lower limits for unmatched and confused sources. Based on the study out to $z \sim 0.2$, @1999ApJS..123...41M found that 98 percent of normal and starburst galaxies had $R<1000$, so this is used as the cut-off point between radio-loud and radio-quiet objects. Fig. \[fig:ro\_ratio\] shows that only three sources have $R<1000$, so using this criterion the other 93 are radio loud.
There are far more detections in the SERVS mid-infrared bands than in the optical $i$-band traditionally used to calculate radio-to-optical ratios. It is therefore useful to calculate a ‘radio-to-optical’ ratio based on 3.6-$\muup$m flux densities (referred to as the radio-to-infrared ratio, $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$, from now on) from SERVS as there are far fewer lower limits. There is the additional advantage that the 3.6-$\muup$m band remains longwards of the 4000 $\AA$ break out to redshifts of $z \sim 8$. By contrast, the $i$-band samples below the break at $z \gtrsim 1$; variations in starformation rate and absorption by dust have strong effects in that part of the spectrum and can introduce uncertainties in interpreting the $R$ values based on $i$-band magnitudes at higher redshifts [@2008MNRAS.386.1695S]. Calculating 3.6-$\muup$m radio-to-infrared ratios therefore also enables us to check that this is not having a major effect on our results.
We therefore define a radio-to-infrared ratio based on 3.6-$\muup$m flux densities ($R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$) as follows:
$$R_{3.6~\rm \muup m} = \frac{S_{1.4~\rm GHz}}{S_{3.6~\rm \muup m}}$$
80 sources have a 3.6-$\muup$m flux density available, including one source where the flux density is not included in the SERVS catalogue and is estimated from the map (see Section \[section:matching-details\]). Lower limits on $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ were calculated for the eight sources without a 3.6-$\muup$m band detection using the SERVS 3.6-$\muup$m 5$\sigma$ detection limit as an upper limit on the 3.6-$\muup$m flux density of the sources. Lower limits on $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ were calculated for the eight confused sources using the highest 3.6-$\muup$m flux density of any of the possible counterparts for each confused source.
![Radio-to-optical and infrared ratios for $i$-band and 3.6 $\muup$m respectively. All sources with values of both $R$ and $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ available are shown as (blue) ’+’, those which are at redshifts of $z<1$ are circled (in red in the online version). The line of best fit to all sources is shown as a (blue) solid line, the line of best fit to the sources with $z<1$ is shown as a (red) dashed line. The vertical dotted line is at $R=1000$, the value used to distinguish between radio-loud and radio-quiet sources. The horizontal dotted line shows the $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ dividing value derived from the best fit line to sources with $z<1$ and the horizontal dot-dashed line shows the $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ cut-off derived from the best fit line to all sources with both $R$ values available.[]{data-label="fig:R_fit"}](R_fit-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![The distribution of radio-to-infrared ratio, $R_{3.6 \muup \rm m}$. Sources with a 3.6 $\muup$m-band detection are in black. Lower limits are included for those sources without an 3.6 $\muup$m-band detection (grey) and for those classified as confused (white); these sources could move to the right on this diagram. Sources with $R_{3.6 \muup \rm m} > 3.1$, indicated by the vertical dashed line, are considered radio loud.[]{data-label="fig:r36_ratio"}](r36_hist-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The sources with both $R$ and $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ values available (43 sources) were used to define the value of $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ used as the cut-off between radio-quiet and radio-loud sources. A linear best fit line was fitted to the data, and this was used to estimate an $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ cut-off equivalent to $R=1000$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:R\_fit\]. This gave a cut-off value of $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m} = 4.1$. In order to check that the sources with redshifts greater than $z \approx 1$, where there could be uncertainties due to sampling below the 4000 $\AA$ break in the $i$-band, were not having a significant effect on this choice of cut-off the analysis was repeated using sources with redshifts of $z < 1$ only. The redshifts estimated in Section \[section:lephare\] were used to perform the redshift cut, which resulted in 20 sources being excluded from the analysis. Both fits and the cut-offs derived from them are shown in Fig. \[fig:R\_fit\]. Excluding the sources with $z>1$ resulted in a lower cut-off of $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m} = 3.1$. This value is used to distinguish between radio-quiet and radio-loud sources in the following analysis. A histogram of the $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ values is shown in Fig. \[fig:r36\_ratio\].
![Radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios for all sources. Sources which only an infra-red $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ value have a lower limit on $R$ and could therefore move to the right. Sources which only have an optical $R$ value could move up. Sources with a lower limit on both values of $R$ could move up or to the right. The dashed lines show the values of $R$ used to distinguish between radio-quiet and radio-loud sources. []{data-label="fig:R_all"}](R_all-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:R\_all\] shows the radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios for all 96 sources in the sample, including lower limits where necessary. It is clear from this figure that only one source is significantly radio quiet, while several other sources lie close to the radio-loud/radio-quiet boundary. There are six sources which could be classified as radio quiet using one of the two ratios; three sources are classified as radio quiet using the $R_{3.6~\rm \muup m}$ criterion only and three are radio quiet using both criteria (one of these classifications is based on lower limits on both ratios so the source could actually be radio loud). Therefore at least 90 out of the 96 sources (94 per cent) in this sample are radio loud; in fact, given how close to the boundary five of the remaining six sources are, it is likely that they are also dominated by AGN activity. This backs up the conclusions of @2014MNRAS.440...40W, in which we used VLBI data to show that at least 65 per cent of the 10C sources are associated with an AGN. Thus at $\sim 1$ mJy the faint, high-frequency sky is still dominated by radio-loud AGN rather than by starforming galaxies or radio-quiet AGN.
Far-infrared – radio correlation
--------------------------------
Radio-loudness can also be defined in terms of the far-infrared – radio correlation (e.g. @2008MNRAS.386..953I [@2015arXiv150701144L]) which provides a useful comparison as it gives a view of radio loudness not affected by the obscuration of the AGN in the optical. The far-infrared – radio correlation is often quantified using the far-infrared – radio ratio $q_{IR}$ (e.g. @2004ApJS..154..147A [@2009MNRAS.394..105G]), where $$q_{IR} = \rm log_{10}(S_{24~\muup m} / S_{1.4~\rm GHz})$$ Starforming sources and radio-quiet AGN are expected to have positive $q_{IR}$ values, for example, @2007ApJ...663..218M found that the typical value of $q_{IR}$ for starforming galaxies was $0.83 \pm 0.31$. Radio-loud objects tend to have much lower values of $q_{IR}$, with typical values $-0.6$ to $-1.2$ [@2010arXiv1008.4918P].
23 sources have a 24 $\muup$m-flux density available from the SWIRE catalogue and these were used to calculate $q_{IR}$ values, which are shown in Fig. \[fig:qIR\]. For the undetected sources, the $5\sigma$ detection limit of 450 $\muup$Jy was used to calculate an upper limit on $q_{IR}$. Fig. \[fig:qIR\] shows that the majority of the sources have $q_{IR}$ values consistent with those expected for radio-loud AGN. Only eight sources have $q_{IR} > 0$, four of which are upper limits so could have much lower values, and only one source has $q_{IR} > 0.5$ (this is the same source that was the the only source to be identified as significantly radio quiet in Fig. \[fig:R\_all\]). This provides further evidence that this sample is entirely dominated by radio-loud sources, and shows that this result is not affected by obscuration of the AGN in the optical.
![Far-infrared – radio correlation parameter $q_{IR}$. Upper limits are shown in white and could move to the left.[]{data-label="fig:qIR"}](qIR_hist-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Correlations between $R$ and spectral index {#section:radio-to-optical-properties}
-------------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig:r\_alpha\] shows the radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios as a function of radio spectral index. There appears to be a positive correlation between both ratios and spectral index; this is, however, a selection effect as the sample is selected at 15.7 GHz but 1.4-GHz flux densities are used to calculate the ratios. To test for any real correlation between the ratios and spectral index radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios were calculated using 15.7-GHz flux density, as follows, $$R_{15} = S_{15.7~\rm GHz} \times 10^{0.4(m-12.5)}\\
R_{3.6~\rm \muup m ~ 15} = \frac{S_{15.7~\rm GHz}}{S_{3.6~\rm \muup m}}
\label{eqn:radio-to-optical15}$$ These ratios are shown as a function of spectral index in Fig. \[fig:r15\_alpha\]. The positive correlation is no longer seen, confirming that this effect was due to the sources being selected at 15.7 GHz.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:r\_alpha\] shows that all six sources classified as radio quiet using either or both ratios have rising spectra ($\alpha < 0$). This rising spectral shape means these sources have lower 1.4-GHz flux densities than the majority of the 10C sample, which could explain why they have small radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios. The three sources classified as radio quiet based on their radio-to-optical ratios and the six sources classified as radio quiet based on their radio-to-infrared ratios are circled in black on the left and right panels of Fig. \[fig:r15\_alpha\] respectively. As for the ratios determined at 1.4 GHz, only one of these radio-quiet sources has 15.7-GHz radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios significantly lower than the rest of the sample; the other radio-quiet sources all have 15.7-GHz ratios similar to the rest of the sample. This significantly radio-quiet source (10C J105028+574522) has the lowest redshift in the sample, with $z=0.072$ (spectroscopic redshift) and has a rising spectra.
This analysis shows that all of the radio-quiet sources have rising spectra. They are unlikely to be starforming galaxies, as starforming galaxies only have rising spectra at 15 GHz at $z \gtrsim 3$ [@2014arXiv1412.5677M], and although our data is very deep it is not deep enough to detect starforming galaxies at $z > 3$ unless they have a prodigious amount of star formation. These sources are therefore likely to be dominated by AGN emission.
Radio source properties {#section:properties_z}
=======================
In this section, the radio properties of the sources are considered in light of the redshift values derived in Section \[section:lephare\]. Redshift values are available for 78 sources, nearly a third of which are spectroscopic reshifts. The large errors on some of the redshift estimates, along with the significant discrepancies between catalogues in some cases, mean that photometric methods cannot be used to produce a reliable redshift for any individual source. They can, however, be used to provide valuable information about the properties of the population as a whole.
Summary of the radio properties of the sample
---------------------------------------------
The radio properties of the sources in this sample (along with those of the full 10C Lockman Hole sample) were presented in Paper I. Flux densities are available at a range of frequencies including 1.4 and 15.7 GHz, and radio spectral indices are calculated for all sources but one (an upper limit is available for the one remaining source). The sources were split into flat-spectrum sources, with $\alpha < 0.5$, and steep-spectrum sources with $\alpha > 0.5$.
Redshift distribution
---------------------
There are redshift values or estimates for 77 out of the 96 sources in this sample (Section \[section:lephare\]). The redshift distributions of steep and flat spectrum sources are shown separately in Fig. \[fig:z-dist-properties\]; the redshift distributions for the two samples appear fairly similar, although the distribution for flat spectrum sources peaks at a slightly higher redshift. A KS test was performed on the two samples and the probability of them being drawn from the same population was 0.16, indicating that the two distributions are not significantly different.
![Redshift distribution for all sources with a redshift value or estimate, with steep and flat spectrum sources shown separately.[]{data-label="fig:z-dist-properties"}](z_dist_alpha-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Luminosity distribution {#section:luminosity}
-----------------------
Luminosities were calculated for all sources with a redshift value or estimate. The luminosities were $k$-corrected based on their radio spectral index using the following expression: $$L_\nu = 4 \pi d_L(z)^2 S_ \nu [(1 + z)^{\alpha - 1}]
\label{eqn:lum}$$ where $d_L$ is the luminosity distance.
The 15.7-GHz luminosity distribution for all these sources is shown in Fig. \[fig:lum15-dist\], with steep and flat spectrum sources shown separately. The distributions for the steep and flat-spectrum sources are very similar, suggesting there is no difference in luminosity between the two populations. The sources display a large range of 15.7-GHz luminosities, comparable with those of the powerful FRI and FRII radio galaxies [@1974MNRAS.167P..31F].
![15.7-GHz luminosity distribution for all sources with a redshift estimate; the sample is divided into flat and steep spectrum sources.[]{data-label="fig:lum15-dist"}](lum15_alpha-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Linear size distribution {#section:sizes}
------------------------
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
To calculate linear sizes we need to first estimate angular sizes for the sources. Angular size information is available on a range of scales from the different radio catalogues available in the field. Best estimates of the angular sizes are compiled from these catalogues for the 96 sources in this sample. The two deep VLA surveys, BI2006 and OM2008, are the highest resolution surveys, with resolutions of 1.3 and 1.6 arcsec respectively, so provide information on the smallest angular scales. However, the angular sizes from these two catalogues may not be reliable for significantly extended sources, as some structure may be resolved out due to a lack of short baselines. Additionally, some sources may be resolved into multiple components which are then listed separately in the catalogue, so the size listed in the catalogue would be for only part of the source. For this reason, for any source which was classified as extended in Paper I the angular size was estimated from the @2008MNRAS.387.1037G GMRT observations instead. The angular sizes for these sources were measured by hand, to avoid any problems caused by fitting Gaussians to extended sources with complicated structures. For the remaining sources (which were not classified as extended) the angular size was taken from the catalogue with the highest resolution available. The maximum angular size from the relevant catalogue is used, with the catalogues being used in the following order of preference: OM2008/BI2006, FIRST, WSRT (highest to lowest resolution). A value is flagged as an upper limit on the angular size if the size listed is less than the synthesised beam size for those observations.
Two sources required different treatment. The very extended source 10CJ105437+565922 is not detected in FIRST or GMRT as it has diffuse low-brightness structure; its size is measured from the NVSS map. The other source, 10CJ104927+583830, is only in the 10C catalogue, so for this source the 10C beam size (30 arcsec) is used as an upper limit on the angular size of the source.
Linear sizes were then calculated from these angular sizes for the 78 sources with redshift information using: $$D = \frac{\theta d_L}{(1+z)^2}
\label{eqn:size}$$ where $D$ is the linear size of the source, $d_L$ is the luminosity distance and $\theta$ is the angular size of the source in radians. The angular and linear size distributions are shown in Fig. \[fig:ang\_size\]; the left panel shows the angular sizes and the right panel shows the linear sizes. Note that the 18 sources without a redshift value are not included in the linear size plot.
Fig. \[fig:linear\_size\_alpha\] shows the linear size distributions for flat and steep spectum sources. It is evident that the flat spectrum sources are on average smaller than the steep spectrum sources. This is expected as the extended lobes present in many radio galaxies have steep spectra due to optically-thin synchrotron emission, while the cores of radio galaxies generally have flat spectra due to self-absorption. The spectral index of a source therefore informs us about the relative contributions of the cores and lobes to the total flux density of the source; if a source has a steep spectrum its emission is dominated by the lobes, and it is therefore more likely to appear extended. If, however, a source has a flat spectrum it is dominated by emission from its core, so its lobes may be very weak or not visible at all, and the source appears more compact.
While this trend is true for the majority of the population, both steep and flat spectrum sources cover the full range of linear sizes ($1 \lesssim D \lesssim 1000~\rm kpc$), so there are a number of small steep spectrum sources and large flat spectrum sources. This is consistent with the findings in Paper I and @2014MNRAS.440...40W which indicate that there are small populations of both extended, flat spectrum sources and compact, steep spectrum sources in the 10C sample.
![Linear size distribution for sources with redshift values. The top panel shows flat spectrum sources and the bottom panel shows sources with steep spectra. Upper limits are shown in white, and could move to the left on these plots.[]{data-label="fig:linear_size_alpha"}](linear_size_alpha_flat-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Linear size distribution for sources with redshift values. The top panel shows flat spectrum sources and the bottom panel shows sources with steep spectra. Upper limits are shown in white, and could move to the left on these plots.[]{data-label="fig:linear_size_alpha"}](linear_size_alpha_steep-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:z\_size\] shows linear size as a function of redshift for all sources in the sample used in this paper. This shows that the sources with larger linear sizes tend to be a lower redshifts, and at $z > 2$ all but two sources are unresolved.
![Linear size as a function of redshift. Triangles (red in the online version) are upper limits on size, crosses (blue in the online version) are values.[]{data-label="fig:z_size"}](z_lin_size-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Comparison with the SKADS Simulated Sky {#section:s3_z}
=======================================
In Paper I a sample of sources with $S_{18~\rm GHz} > 0.5$ mJy was selected from the S$^3$ catalogue; this sample should be directly comparable with the 10C sample. The radio properties of this S$^3$ sample were compared to the 10C sample, which showed that the simulation fails to accurately reproduce the spectral index distribution of the observed sample. The number of flat spectrum sources is massively underpredicted; there are essentially no sources in the simulated sample with $\alpha < 0.3$, while 40 percent of the 10C sample have $\alpha^{15.7}_{0.61} < 0.3$.
The simulation predicts that the 10C sample should be dominated by FRI sources, making up 71 percent of the population, while FRII sources are the second-largest source type (13 per cent). Starforming sources make up seven per cent of the simulated sample. There is some indication that this may be an overestimate, as we find no starforming sources in the 10C sample. However, we are sampling a small area so cosmic variance is very high at low redshifts and could therefore be the cause of this discrepancy.
![Normalised redshift distribution for sources in S$^3$ and in the 10C sample. Objects with no redshift value have been omitted, but included in the normalisation.[]{data-label="fig:s_cubed_z"}](s_cubed_z-crop.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:s\_cubed\_z\] shows the normalised redshift distribution for the S$^3$ and 10C samples. The 10C sample is normalised by the total sample size (96 sources), which includes the 19 sources with no redshift value available. The redshift distributions of the two samples are similar, although the observed sample displays a sharper peak and is missing the extensive low redshift tail in the simulated sample. Eleven percent of the sources in the simulated sample have $z < 0.2$, so we would expect to find approximately ten sources in the observed sample in this range if the two distributions are similar. However, there are only three sources in the observed sample with a redshift less than 0.2. The majority of the sources with $z<0.2$ in the simulation are starforming sources, so the lack of low-redshift sources in the 10C sample is consistent with the fact that there are very few starforming sources in this sample.
It is also a possibility that some of the 18 sources which lack redshift information and are therefore missing from the observed sample have redshifts less than 0.2 and are therefore responsible for the discrepancy in the redshift distributions. It is unlikely, however, that any of the eight sources without a match are at low redshift, as they would have to be very faint in the optical to have $z < 0.2$ and not be detected in the optical or infrared observations. Only two of the 30 possible counterparts for the confused sources have $z<0.2$, so these sources cannot account for the missing sources in this redshift range.
The simulation therefore incorrectly predicts that there is a population of low-redshift starforming galaxies in the 10C sample. This could indicate that the spectra assumed for the starforming sources in the simulation is wrong, and they in fact have much steeper spectra, or that the extrapolation of the luminosity function for the starforming galaxies is not correct. Studies of the faint ($S_{1.4~\rm GHz} < 0.1$ mJy) source population at lower frequencies by @2012MNRAS.421.3060S, @2014MNRAS.440.1527L and @2015arXiv150701144L have also found fewer starforming galaxies than predicted by the simulation. These results support our suggestion that the faint end of the luminosity function for starforming galaxies in the simulation is not correct, with the number of starforming galaxies being overestimated.
The peak in the redshift distribution also appears to be shifted to slightly lower redshifts in the observed sample, with more sources in the bins $0.56 < z < 1.26$ ($-0.25 < {\rm log}(z) < 0.1$) but fewer sources in the bins $z > 1.8$ (${\rm log}(z) > 0.25$). It is plausible that some of the sources without an optical counterpart have $z > 1.8$, and are therefore the cause of this difference.
Comparison with other studies {#section:other-studies}
=============================
investigated the properties of a complete sample of 131 radio sources with $S > 0.4$ mJy observed at 1.4 and 5 GHz as part of the Australia Telescope ESO Slice Project (ATESP) 5 GHz radio survey . This sample provides a useful comparison as it has a comparable flux density limit to the 10C survey, albeit at a lower frequency. The ESO Deep Public Survey provides deep multi-colour (*UBVRIJK*) images which cover most of this field, and optical/near-infrared counterparts are found for 66 out of the 85 (78 percent) sources in the area covered. Estimates of redshift and optical object type are obtained for 56 of these 66 sources. These results showed that 78 percent of the ATESP 5 GHz sample with optical identifications had an active nucleus (i.e. they are either quasars or radio galaxies associated with early-type objects), significantly lower that the proportion of radio galaxies found in the 10C sample (94 percent). This is confirmed by looking at the radio-to-optical light ratios of the two samples; approximately $30$ percent of the full ATESP sample (131 sources) have $R < 1000$ (classifying them as radio quiet), compared to just six percent of the 10C sources. This suggests selection at a higher frequency at this flux density level preferentially selects radio galaxies, as the steep-spectrum starforming galaxies drop out of the sample.
find that those sources in the ATESP sample which have flat or inverted radio spectra and are associated with objects with early-type spectra are preferentially compact (with linear sizes $<$ 10 to 30 kpc). They suggest that these sources may be FRIs, due to their low radio powers ($P_{1.4~\rm GHz} \sim 10 ^{22-24}~\rm W\, Hz^{-1}$) and the absence of emission lines in their optical spectra. They do, however, note that they would expect FRI sources to have larger linear sizes and steeper spectra. As these sources have flat spectra, we would expect them to be present in significant numbers in the 15-GHz-selected 10C sample; these are likely to be the flat, core-dominated radio-loud sources which we observe in the 10C sample (but which are not present in, for example, the S$^3$ simulation).
followed up a sample of early-type galaxies selected from the ATESP 5 GHz survey at 4.8, 8.6 and 19 GHz to further investigate their properties. The main aim was to establish whether the AGN population of the sub-mJy sample is more closely related to efficiently accreting systems (such as radio-quiet quasars), or to systems with low accretion rates (such as FRI galaxies), or to low radiative efficiency accretion flows. They compare this AGN population to the much brighter ($>500$ mJy) 20 GHz AT20G Bright Source Sample [@2008MNRAS.384..775M] and find strong similarities in the radio spectra of the two samples. They therefore conclude that the ATESP AGN sources are lower luminosity counterparts of the AT20G FRII radio galaxies, and do not find any compelling evidence for a radio-quiet AGN population. This is consistent with the properties of the 10C sources, as the vast majority of the sources are radio loud.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have studied the multi-wavelength properties of a complete sample of 96 sources selected from the 10C survey. This sample was matched to the Data Fusion multi-wavelength catalogue, which contains up to ten photometric bands in the optical and mid-infrared, and counterparts were identified for 80 out of 96 10C sources. Spectroscopic redshifts are available for 24 sources.
Photometric redshifts were estimated for all sources with sufficient photometric information available using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> code. This produced redshift estimates for 70 of the 80 sources, albeit with large errors in some cases. The results are compared to two published photometric redshift catalogues (F12 and RR13), and are generally in good agreement, although there are some significant outliers. These catalogues were then combined to produce a final redshift catalogue, which contains redshift estimates for 77 (24 spectroscopic and 54 photometric) out of the 96 sources in the sample. The median redshift of the sample is 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.84. The large errors on some of the redshift estimates, along with the significant discrepancies between catalogues in some cases, mean that photometric methods cannot be used to produce a reliable redshift for any individual source. They can, however, provide information about the properties of a population as a whole.
The radio-to-optical and radio-to-infrared ratios (or lower limits) were calculated for all 96 sources using $i$-band magnitudes and 3.6-$\rm \muup m$ flux densities respectively. Using these ratios six sources are classified as radio quiet using at least one of the two values. Only one of these sources is significantly radio quiet; the other five lie close to the radio-loud/radio-quiet boundary. Therefore at least 90 out of the 96 sources (94 per cent) in the sample are radio loud, indicating that the 10C sample is dominated by radio galaxies. All six potentially radio-quiet sources have rising spectra, ruling out the possibility that they are starforming galaxies, so their emission is dominated by AGN activity.
These results confirm the conclusions of Paper I that the faint, flat-spectrum sources which are found to dominate the 10C sample below $\sim 1$ mJy are the cores of radio galaxies.
The overall radio properties of the sources in the sample are discussed in light of this redshift information; luminosities and linear sizes are derived for those sources with redshift estimates. There is a large range of 15.7-GHz luminosities, with values comparable to those of powerful FRI and FRII sources. There is no correlation between luminosity and spectral index.
The redshift distribution for sources in the sample is compared to the distribution of the S$^3$ catalogue; the samples have similar distributions, although the sources with $z<0.2$ which are predicted to be present by the simulation are missing from the 10C sample. These low-redshift sources in the simulated sample are starforming sources, so the fact that they are missing from the sample is consistent with the finding that there are essentially no starforming sources in the 10C sample.
The proportion of radio-loud sources in the 10C 15.7-GHz selected sample ($\gtrsim$ 94 percent) is significantly higher than the proportion in the ATESP 5-GHz selected sample ($\sim$ 60 percent), which has a comparable flux density range. High frequency surveys are therefore a very effective method of selecting sub-mJy radio-loud AGN, as the steep-spectrum starforming galaxies found in samples selected at lower frequencies are not present. The radio galaxies in this sample will be discussed further in a following paper, where they will be split into high-excitation and low-excitation radio galaxies and the properties of these two classes of sources are compared.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
IHW acknowledges a Science and Technology Facilities Council studentship. IHW, MJ, MV acknowledge support from the Square Kilometre Array South Africa project and the South African National Research Foundation. MV is supported by the European Commission Research Executive Agency FP7-SPACE-2013-1 Scheme (Grant Agreement 607254 - Herschel Extragalactic Legacy Project - HELP). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors and not necessarily attributed to the SKA SA. We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments.
Alam S., et al., 2015, arXiv, arXiv:1501.00963
AMI Consortium: Davies, et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2708
AMI Consortium: Franzen, et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2699
Appleton P. N., et al., 2004, ApJS, 154, 147
Arnouts S., Cristiani S., Moscardini L., Matarrese S., Lucchin F., Fontana A., Giallongo E., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 540
Biggs A. D., Ivison R. J., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 963
Brunner H., Cappelluti N., Hasinger G., Barcons X., Fabian A. C., Mainieri V., Szokoly G., 2008, A&A, 479, 283
Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, ApJ, 533, 682
Condon J. J., 1980, ApJ, 242, 894
Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, AJ, 115, 1693
de Zotti G., Massardi M., Negrello M., Wall J., 2010, A&ARv, 18, 1
Fanaroff B. L., Riley J. M., 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P
Fotopoulou S., et al., 2012, ApJS, 198, 1
Garn T., Green D. A., Riley J. M., Alexander P., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1037
Garn T., Alexander P., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 105
Garn T. S., Green D. A., Riley J. M., Alexander P., 2010, BASI, 38, 103
Gonz[á]{}lez-Solares E. A., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 927
Guglielmino G., Prandoni I., Morganti R., Heald G., 2012, in *Resolving The Sky - Radio Interferometry: Past, Present and Future*, available online at http://pos.sissa.it/cgi-bin/reader/conf.cgi?confid=163, id.22
Ibar E., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 953
Ilbert O., et al., 2006, A&A, 457, 841
Ilbert O., et al., 2009, ApJ, 690, 1236
Ishisaki Y., Ueda Y., Yamashita A., Ohashi T., Lehmann I., Hasinger G., 2001, PASJ, 53, 445
Lawrence A., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599
Lindsay S. N., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1527
Lockman F. J., Jahoda K., McCammon D., 1986, ApJ, 302, 432
Lonsdale C. J., et al., 2003, PASP, 115, 897
Luchsinger K. M., et al., 2015, arXiv, arXiv:1507.01144
Machalski J., Condon J. J., 1999, ApJS, 123, 41
Marleau F. R., Fadda D., Appleton P. N., Noriega-Crespo A., Im M., Clancy D., 2007, ApJ, 663, 218
Massardi M., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 384, 775
Mauduit J.-C., et al., 2012, PASP, 124, 714
McAlpine K., Jarvis M. J., Bonfield D. G., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1084
Mignano A., Prandoni I., Gregorini L., Parma P., de Ruiter H. R., Wieringa M. H., Vettolani G., Ekers R. D., 2008, A&A, 477, 459
Murphy E. J., et al., 2014, arXiv:1412.5677
Owen F. N., Morrison G. E., 2008, AJ, 136, 1889
Owen F. N., Morrison G. E., Klimek M. D., Greisen E. W., 2009, AJ, 137, 4846
Padovani P., Mainieri V., Tozzi P., Kellermann K. I., Fomalont E. B., Miller N., Rosati P., Shaver P., 2009, ApJ, 694, 235
Polletta M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 663, 81
Prandoni I., Parma P., Wieringa M. H., de Ruiter H. R., Gregorini L., Mignano A., Vettolani G., Ekers R. D., 2006, A&A, 457, 517
Prandoni I., de Ruiter H. R., Ricci R., Parma P., Gregorini L., Ekers R. D., 2010, A&A, 510, A42
Prandoni I., 2010b, *Proceedings of the ISKAF2010 Science Meeting. June 10 -14 2010. Assen, the Netherlands.* Published online at http://pos.sissa.it/cgi-bin/reader/conf.cgi?confid=112, p.47
Prevot M. L., Lequeux J., Prevot L., Maurice E., Rocca-Volmerange B., 1984, A&A, 132, 389
Rowan-Robinson M., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 697
Rowan-Robinson M., Gonzalez-Solares E., Vaccari M., Marchetti L., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1958
Salvato M., et al., 2009, ApJ, 690, 1250
Seymour N., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1695
Simpson C., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3060
White R. L., Becker R. H., Helfand D. J., Gregg M. D., 1997, ApJ, 475, 479
Whittam I. H., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2080 (Paper I)
Whittam I. H., Riley J. M., Green D. A., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 40
Wilman R. J., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1335
Wilman R. J., Jarvis M. J., Mauch T., Rawlings S., Hickey S., 2010, MNRAS, 405, 447
Wright E. L., et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
Zwart J. T. L., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1545
Multi-wavelength data {#app:A}
=====================
Table \[tab:all-sources\] shows the multi-wavelength data and redshift estimates available for the 96 10C sources studied in this paper. Table \[tab:specz\] lists the origins of the spectroscopic redshifts used.
makecaption=@makefigurecaption
[lccccccddddddcccccccc]{}10C ID & $g$ & $i$ & $r$ & $z$ & $J$ & $K$ & & & & & & & flag$^a$ & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span> $z$ & RR13 $z$ & F12 $z$ & Spec $z$ & Best $z^b$ & $z$ flag2$^c$\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
10C J104320+585621 & 21.17 & 19.62 & 20.01 & & & 17.94 & 207.74 & 168.12 & 175.33 & 152.47 & 118.58 & 96.27 & 2 & 0.51 & 0.30 & & 0.35 & 0.35 & 1\
10C J104328+590312 & & & 19.40 & & & 17.42 & 303.22 & 232.28 & 264.97 & 206.65 & 115.63 & 94.74 & 5 & 0.53 & 0.24 & & & 0.24 & 2\
10C J104344+591503 & & & & & & & 164.69 & 188.75 & 140.07 & 170.76 & 154.28 & 79.02 & 5 & 1.60 & 0.91 & & & 0.91 & 2\
10C J104428+591540 & & & & & 21.69 & 20.22 & 69.74 & 60.02 & 64.62 & 61.74 & 55.49 & 34.17 & 6 & 1.13 & & & 0.36 & 0.36 & 1\
10C J104441+591949 & & & & & 20.89 & 19.79 & 111.46 & 103.01 & 100.31 & 97.79 & 65.54 & 56.97 & 6 & 1.22 & 1.30 & & & 1.30 & 2\
10C J104451+591929 & & & & & 20.41 & 19.50 & 98.60 & 67.75 & 91.08 & 66.04 & 34.65 & & 1 & 0.87 & 0.96 & & & 0.96 & 2\
10C J104528+591328 & & & & & 21.77 & 21.06 & 34.37 & 45.52 & 31.73 & 44.83 & 86.0 & 200.26 & 5 & 3.28 & 1.79 & & 2.31 & 2.31 & 1\
10C J104539+585730 & & & 20.25 & & 18.54 & 17.90 & 192.83 & 152.48 & 168.3 & 140.06 & 96.94 & 65.49 & 1 & 0.49 & 0.38 & & 0.39 & 0.39 & 1\
10C J104551+590838 & & & 24.03 & & & 22.77 & 5.53 & 4.77 & 3.83 & & & & 5 & 4.52 & 0.75 & & & 0.75 & 2\
10C J104624+590447 & & & & & & & 2.93 & 2.89 & 3.37 & & & & 1 & & 1.86 & & & 1.86 & 2\
10C J104630+582748 & & 17.41 & 17.57 & & & 16.10 & 1355.66 & 902.51 & 1072.43 & 742.61 & 477.94 & 374.37 & 1 & 0.79 & & & 0.12 & 0.12 & 1\
10C J104633+585816 & & & 21.58 & & 20.00 & 19.44 & 160.06 & 119.52 & 134.25 & 99.1 & 110.45 & 88.94 & 5 & 4.72 & 0.79 & & 0.85 & 0.85 & 1\
10C J104648+590956 & & & & & & 21.59 & 36.78 & 41.80 & 28.45 & 35.53 & 48.72 & 36.16 & 6 & 5.88 & & & & 5.88 & 4\
10C J104700+591903 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 4 & & & & & &\
10C J104710+582821 & & 20.51 & 21.29 & & & 18.33 & 357.52 & 378.50 & 351.19 & 396.96 & 536.34 & 711.65 & 1 & 2.68 & 0.59 & & & 0.59 & 2\
10C J104718+585119 & & & 22.86 & & 20.75 & 20.12 & 42.82 & 29.45 & 35.68 & 28.47 & 32.65 & & 2 & 0.88 & 0.64 & & & 0.64 & 2\
10C J104719+582114 & & 18.84 & 18.42 & & & 18.40 & 325.51 & 443.00 & 319.68 & 434.31 & 620.55 & 973.67 & 5 & 0.56 & & & 1.22 & 1.22 & 1\
10C J104733+591244 & & & & & & 21.87 & 10.41 & 14.53 & 11.44 & 14.26 & & & 6 & & & & & & 4\
10C J104737+592028 & & & & & 20.62 & 19.53 & 131.04 & 90.74 & 114.0 & 78.66 & 68.31 & & 5 & 4.66 & 0.79 & & & 0.79 & 2\
10C J104741+584811 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 3 & & & & & &\
10C J104742+585318 & & 20.71 & 21.69 & & 19.34 & 18.58 & 189.76 & 120.75 & 166.58 & 107.98 & 105.92 & 42.34 & 2 & 0.75 & 0.58 & & & 0.58 & 2\
10C J104751+574259 & 23.47 & & 23.28 & & & & 30.24 & 36.07 & 28.25 & 35.97 & & & 5 & 1.91 & 1.63 & & & 1.63 & 2\
10C J104802+574117 & 22.59 & 22.01 & 22.70 & & & & 77.07 & 69.56 & 71.2 & 66.97 & & & 5 & 1.25 & 1.38 & & & 1.38 & 2\
10C J104822+582436 & & 22.75 & 23.20 & & & 19.90 & 77.20 & 70.49 & 69.69 & 68.42 & 43.27 & & 5 & 1.22 & 1.23 & & & 1.23 & 2\
10C J104824+583029 & & 21.07 & 22.12 & & & 18.57 & 237.95 & 152.17 & 206.9 & 134.95 & 108.09 & 71.81 & 1 & 0.76 & & & & 0.76 & 4\
10C J104826+584838 & & 23.31 & & & & 21.40 & 20.56 & 15.49 & 17.0 & 12.5 & 26.87 & & 2 & 4.94 & 0.96 & & & 0.96 & 2\
10C J104836+591846 & 20.81 & 21.35 & 21.87 & 21.38 & 20.80 & 20.65 & 39.23 & 48.12 & 35.25 & 43.57 & 56.75 & 57.49 & 5 & 0.40 & 1.94 & & & 1.94 & 2\
10C J104844+582309 & & 21.12 & 22.26 & & & 18.62 & 274.28 & 170.77 & 219.63 & 149.27 & 115.99 & 83.84 & 1 & 0.77 & 0.86 & & & 0.86 & 2\
10C J104849+571417 & 23.45 & 20.94 & 22.04 & & & & 160.51 & 101.35 & 140.16 & 91.36 & 66.5 & & 1 & 0.66 & 0.61 & & & 0.61 & 2\
10C J104856+575528 & & & & & & & 44.12 & 44.85 & 38.34 & 40.39 & & & 2 & & 4.75 & & & 4.75 & 2\
10C J104857+584103 & & 22.87 & & & & 20.20 & 58.20 & 37.14 & 46.2 & 27.28 & & & 5 & 0.82 & 0.68 & & & 0.68 & 2\
10C J104906+571156 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 3 & & & & & &\
10C J104918+582801 & & 20.10 & 20.05 & & & 19.00 & 124.20 & 142.39 & 117.07 & 138.94 & 210.61 & 270.57 & 1 & 3.16 & & & 2.30 & 2.30 & 1\
10C J104927+583830 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 6 & & & & & &\
10C J104934+570613 & & & 23.87 & & & & 90.90 & 68.82 & 83.47 & 65.03 & & & 2 & & 1.13 & & & 1.13 & 2\
$^\ast$ Value estimated from the SERVS image.
Notes:\
a) Optical matching flag. 1 = extended, probable match; 2 = extended, possible match; 3 = extended, confused; 4 = extended, no match;\
5 = compact, match; 6 = compact, no match; 7 = 10C position only.\
b) Final redshift value, description is given in Section \[section:z-used\].\
c) Origin of final redshift value. 1 = spectroscopic (see Table \[tab:specz\]) 2 = RR13, 3 = F12, 4 = <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Le Phare</span>.\
AMI ID Spec. $z$ Reference
-------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
10C J104320+585621 0.35 NED$^a$
10C J104428+591540 0.36 NED
10C J104528+591328 2.31 NED
10C J104539+585730 0.39 NED
10C J104630+582748 0.12 CfA HectoSpec Spitzer Follow-Up by Huang, Rigopoulou et al. (in prep)
10C J104633+585816 0.85 NED
10C J104719+582114 1.22 NED
10C J104918+582801 2.30 CfA HectoSpec Spitzer Follow-Up by Huang, Rigopoulou et al. (in prep)
10C J104939+583530 0.97 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J104943+571739 0.59 CfA HectoSpec Spitzer Follow-Up by Huang, Rigopoulou et al. (in prep)
10C J104954+570456 0.53 CfA HectoSpec Spitzer Follow-Up by Huang, Rigopoulou et al. (in prep)
10C J105028+574522 0.07 NED
10C J105039+572339 1.44 NED
10C J105039+585118 0.37 SDSS-DR12$^b$, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105104+575415 1.67 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105128+570901 0.54 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105132+571114 0.32 NED
10C J105148+573245 0.99 NED
10C J105206+574111 0.46 NED
10C J105225+573323 0.61 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105425+573700 0.32 ITP 2010 HerMES Follow-Up by Perez-Fournon, Page et al. (in prep.)
10C J105527+571607 0.49 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105550+570407 0.49 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
10C J105653+580342 0.60 SDSS-DR12, @2015arXiv150100963A
Notes:\
a) NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (extracted June 2013).\
b) Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12.\
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: email: `[email protected]`
[^2]: see: http://www.starlink.ac.uk/topcat/
[^3]: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu arnouts/LEPHARE/lephare.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a model for membrane-cortex adhesion which couples membrane deformations, hydrodynamics and kinetics of membrane-cortex ligands. In its simplest form, the model gives explicit predictions for the critical pressure for membrane detachment and for the value of adhesion energy. We show that these quantities exhibit a significant dependence on the active acto-myosin stresses. The model provides a simple framework to access quantitative information on cortical activity by means of micropipette experiments. We also extend the model to incorporate fluctuations and show that detailed information on the stability of membrane-cortex coupling can be obtained by a combination of micropipette aspiration and fluctuation spectroscopy measurements.'
author:
- Ricard Alert
- Jaume Casademunt
- Jan Brugués
- Pierre Sens
bibliography:
- 'Blebs.bib'
title: |
Model for probing membrane-cortex adhesion\
by micropipette aspiration and fluctuation spectroscopy
---
Introduction
============
In many cells, a thin layer of cytoskeleton called cortex underlies the plasma membrane. While the cellular membrane serves as a barrier for the cell and a mechanism to communicate with the extracellular media, the cortex, made mostly of actin cross-linked filaments and myosin II, provides rigidity and allows for active remodelling of the cell boundaries, essential for instance for cell motility. The control of membrane-cortex adhesion is crucial to many cellular processes. Indeed, membrane-cortex detachment and the formation of cellular blebs, spherical protrusions of the unbound plasma membrane, is often a sign of apoptosis [@Coleman2001; @Vermeulen2005]. Membrane blebbing is also used for motility by several cell types, including amoebae and possibly cancer cells [@Blaser2006; @Yoshida2006; @Fackler2008; @Charras2008].
It is acknowledged that membrane-cortex adhesion is obtained via specific interactions between large numbers of ligand and receptor molecules [@Sheetz2001], such as Talin [@Tsujioka2012] and ERM (Ezrin/Radixin/Moesin) Proteins [@Tsukita1999]. Spontaneous membrane detachment, also known as blebbing, has been associated to myosin activity within the cortex [@Charras2008a; @Tinevez2009]. Externally induced perturbations using micropipette aspiration or osmotic shocks, show that a sufficiently large drop of external pressure can induce membrane detachment [@Rentsch2000]. Consequently the links between the membrane and cortex are constantly under stress, which origin is ultimately related with acto-myosin cortical tension and osmotic pressure.
In this article, we present a model for adhesion based on the kinetics of the membrane-cortex ligands [@Seifert2000; @Erdmann2004; @Erdmann2008; @Brugues2010]. We describe the stability of adhesion by coupling the kinetics of the ligands to the stress exerted on them and to physical properties of the membrane. In its simplest form, the model establishes the mechanical equilibrium of the cell considering both the pressure drop across the membrane and the pre-stressed state of the cortex, and predicts the outcome of a micropipette aspiration experiment in terms of physical parameters. This predictions are then compared to experiments from the literature. We also discuss extensions of the model to include spatial modulations of the membrane and different scenarios of hydrodynamic interactions, depending on the porosity of the cortex and its actual distance to the membrane. In particular, we obtain analytical expressions for the structure factor and fluctuation spectrum of the membrane in certain limits, and show how these results may be used to obtain additional information on the density of ligands by means of fluctuation spectroscopy experiments on eukaryotic cells.
Model for membrane-cortex adhesion
==================================
The adhesion of a flexible membrane on a substrate by means of discrete linkers has been extensively studied in the past [@Rozycki2006; @Reister-Gottfried2008; @Krobath2009; @Weikl2009; @Reister2011; @Hu2013], mostly using computer simulations. It is a highly non-trivial problem due to the multiplicity of energy scales (membrane rigidity and tension, linker stiffness and binding energy) and time scales (membrane and cytosol fluidity, linker’s diffusion and binding kinetics). In particular, the role of fluctuations on the unbinding transition of a membrane possessing meta-stable bound and unbound states has been characterised numerically [@Reister-Gottfried2008], but the unbinding of a membrane subjected to a constant pressure has, to our knowledge, not been systematically investigated. Our primary goal here is to assess the role of cortical prestress on membrane-cortex detachment.
![Sketch of the system. (a) The ligands are modeled as springs that link the cortex (red) and the membrane (green). (b) Kinetic rates $k_{\rm on}$ and $k_{\rm off}$ of the ligands. $k_{\rm off}$ depends on the load [@Evans2001]. (c) Forces involved in the cell at steady state: internal pressure, $P_c$, and external pressure, $P_0$, exert a normal force on the membrane and cortex, which is compensated by the membrane and cortex tension. (d) The normal projection of the acto-myosin tension in the cortex is transmitted to the membrane through proteins that link the cortex and the membrane.[]{data-label="laplace_law"}](fig1){width="7.5cm"}
To this aim, we first adopt a highly simplified model, where we assume a nearly planar membrane subject to a normal external stress $\sigma$ and attached to the cortex by a density of linkers $\rho_b$, which is necessarily smaller than a maximal value $\rho_0$ (). The cortex is assumed to be flat and immobile, so that the model is only valid at length scales below the correlation length for cortex undulations. For a constant normal stress $\sigma$, an equilibrium state may exist with a planar membrane at position $u$ where a uniform density $\rho_b$ of bound spring-like linkers with elastic constant $k$ balances the external force. In order to find the conditions for the existence and stability of such an equilibrium state we may write dynamical equations assuming spatial uniformity, where $u$ and $\rho_b$ are only time-dependent: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \frac{du}{dt}& = \sigma - k u \rho_b, \label{bond_eq_1}\\
\frac{d\rho_b}{dt} &= k_{\rm on}\left[\rho_0-\rho_b\right] - k_{\rm off}(u) \rho_b, \label{bond_eq_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is an effective viscosity per unit length, and $u=0$ corresponds to the position for which the bound linkers are not stretched. For small membrane displacements, the relevant contribution to dissipation is due to cytosol flow through the cortex meshwork, and the effective parameter $\eta$ can be estimated as $\eta \sim \eta_c h/\xi^2$ (see section 1 in the Supporting Material for details), where $\xi\sim 30$ nm is the scale of the cortex mesh size [@Bovellan2014], $h\sim 500$ nm is the thickness of the cortex, and $\eta_c\sim3\times 10^{-3}-2\times 10^{-1}$ Pa s is the cytosol viscosity [@Charras2008a].
The linker kinetics is defined by the attachment and detachment rates $k_{\rm on}$ and $k_{\rm off}$ (), and is assumed to be much faster than the typical time scale of membrane shape relaxation. The force-dependent kinetics of the linkers then imposes a strong nonlinear coupling between the kinetics and the position of the membrane. The detachment rate is assumed to follow a Kramers-like kinetics [@Kramers1940] appropriate of thermally induced processes: $$k_{\rm off}(u)=k_{\rm off}^0 e^{ku\delta/(k_B T)},$$ where $\delta$ is a characteristic bond length in the nanometric scale [@Evans2001]. For simplicity, we assume linker attachment to be an active process occurring at a constant rate $k_{\rm on}$. Therefore, detailed balance is not obeyed, as previously considered in membrane adhesion problems [@Rozycki2006]. This assumption allows to disregard membrane fluctuations between attachment points and yield a simple analytical form for the unbinding transition. However, it does not capture binding cooperativity occuring due to the smoothing of membrane fluctuations near attachement points [@Reister-Gottfried2008; @Krobath2009; @Weikl2009; @Reister2011; @Hu2013].
Two relevant dimensionless quantities characterize the mechanics of the linkers: the kinetic ratio, $\chi$, and the ratio of the force on the membrane to an intrinsic force scale of the linkers, $\alpha$, with $$\chi\equiv \frac{k_{\rm off}^0}{k_{\rm on}} \qquad{\rm and}\qquad \alpha\equiv \frac{\sigma \delta}{\rho_0 k_BT}.
\label{alpha}$$ Equilibrium solutions to - exist only for $\alpha < \alpha^*$ where the latter is defined by: $$\alpha^* e^{1+\alpha^*}=\chi^{-1}.
\label{alphastar}$$ Taking $\chi\sim 10^{-3}$ [@Rognoni2012] and $\delta\sim 1$ nm, the critical force per link is $\sigma^*/\rho_0\sim 18$ pN, corresponding to $\sim 4.5$ times the thermal force per link $k_BT/\delta$. This fixes the condition for the detachment of the membrane from the cortex, which occurs for stresses that surpass the critical stress $\sigma^*=\rho_0\alpha^*(\chi)k_B T/\delta$.
The adhesion energy $w$ per unit area may be defined as the work necessary to bring the stress of the linkers from its rest value to the critical value for detachment in a quasi-static fashion, that is, $$\label{work}
w\left(u_{\rm eq}\right) = \int_{u_{\rm eq}}^{u^*} \sigma (u) du = \rho_0 k \int_{u_{\rm eq}}^{u^*} \frac{u}{1+\chi e^{ku\delta/(k_B T)}} du,$$ where $\sigma(u)$ is the equilibrium stress for each $u$. Note that the adhesion energy depends on the actual state of the cell $u_{\rm eq}$, which is generically unknown and incorporates the pre-stress state of the cell due to cortical tension.
Within our simplified model, the average density of bound linkers $\rho_{b,\text{eq}}$, the critical stress $\sigma^*$, and the adhesion energy $w$ all scale linearly with the density of available linkers $\rho_0$. This scaling results from our assumption of a constant binding rate. A different scaling is expected if the binding rate depends on the average position and fluctuations of the free membrane between anchoring points. If the on-rate obeys detailed balance, one expects $\rho_{b,\text{eq}}\sim\rho_0^2$ in the absence of a pressure difference [@Krobath2009; @Weikl2009]. As discussed in the following sections, the results of micropipette experiments are consistent with a linear scaling $\sigma^*\sim \rho_0$.
Results and Discussion
======================
The simplified stochastic model of adhesion outlined in the previous section is used below to analyse two different kinds of experiments that can probe membrane-cortex interaction. First, we analyse micropipette experiments where the critical suction pressure required to unbind the cell membrane from the cortex was measured in different cellular contexts, where the density of adhesion molecules and of cortical motors have been altered. Second, we derive the effect of membrane-cortex interaction on the membrane fluctuation spectrum. There is as of yet no experimental data that can be directly confronted to the latter derivation. We hope that the present paper will foster experimental spectroscopy studies that will couple membrane fluctuation analysis with cell micromanipulation, along the lines described in Sec.\[spectro\] below.
Mechanical equilibrium of the cell
----------------------------------
Force balance at the membrane involves the difference of pressure across the membrane, $\Delta P$, and the normal projection of the cortex and membrane tension, $\gamma_m$ and $\gamma$, respectively: $\Delta P=2 \left( \gamma_m + \gamma\right)/R$, where $R$ is the radius of the cell, assumed spherical. At equilibrium, the links sustain the stress needed to maintain the cortex and the membrane adhered, $\sigma_{\rm eq}=2\gamma_m/R$, which accounts for the difference between the pressure and the membrane tension stresses, $\Delta P - 2\gamma/R$. Whenever the equilibrium stress exceeds the critical value $\sigma^*$, we expect the cell membrane to detach spontaneously.
Micropipette aspiration [@Dai1999a; @Rentsch2000; @Merkel2000; @Brugues2010; @Campillo2012], amongst other techniques [@Dai1999; @Tinevez2009; @Diz-Munoz2010], allows to apply pressure perturbations of controlled intensity and area. Pressure perturbations can be supplemented with perturbations on relevant cell parameters such as myosin activity and link or cortex density, by genetics [@Dai1999a; @Merkel2000; @Campillo2012] or direct drug treatment [@Charras2008a; @Tinevez2009; @Diz-Munoz2010]. Tether pulling experiments have also been used to probe membrane-cortex adhesion [@Borghi2007], but their interpretation is rather non-trivial [@Schumacher2009]. In the following, we restrict ourselves to a quantitative interpretation of micropipette aspiration experiments.
Micropipette aspiration
-----------------------
During a micropipette experiment, a pressure drop is applied on a small region of the membrane defined by the micropipette radius $R_p$. A new equilibrium state in the micropipette requires an increase of the stress exerted on the links with respect to $\sigma_{\rm eq}$: $$\label{force_pipette_myosin}
\sigma= \Delta P_p - 2\gamma\left(\frac{1}{R_p} - \frac{1}{R}\right)+ 2\frac{\gamma_m}{R},$$ where $\Delta P_p\equiv P_0-P_p$ is the difference between the extracellular media and the aspiration pressure, and $R$ is the radius of the cell after deformation. Characteristic bounds for membrane tension $\gamma\lesssim 10^{-4}$ N/m and radius of cell $R\sim 10$ $\mu$m and pipette $R_p\sim 5$ $\mu$m allow membrane tension to compensate for a pressure of about $\sim 20$ Pa, which is small compared to the range of experimental pressures $\sim100-1000$ Pa. As a consequence, we will neglect the membrane tension contribution in the following. The last term in the right hand side accounts for the cortical stress, or pre-stressed state of the cell $\sigma_{\rm eq}$. In general, force balance does not need to be satisfied and the cell will eventually be entirely sucked inside the pipette if the suction pressure $\Delta P_p$ is too large [@Brugues2010]. Here we focus on the case where the cortex is able in principle to compensate for the pipette pressure.
Using our previous analysis for the membrane-cortex adhesion, we can relate the critical stress for the links, $\sigma^*$, with the critical aspiration pressure needed to unbind the membrane via : $$\label{pipette_vs_tension}
\Delta P_p^{*} = \rho_0\alpha^* \frac{k_B T}{\delta}-2\frac{\gamma_m}{R}.$$ The critical aspiration pressure has two contributions: the pressure needed to detach a certain number of relaxed links, given by the density of ligands and the critical force per link (first term), and the contribution from the presence of acto-myosin tension in the cortex which sets a non-zero stress on the links at equilibrium, hence reducing the amount of pressure needed to reach the critical stress (second term, a).
As in determining the critical aspiration pressure, we find that the adhesion energy per unit area measured when detaching the membrane () depends on the level of cortical rest tension, $\sigma_{\rm eq}=2\gamma_m/R$, which ultimately determines the effective number of ligands to be broken: $$\label{adhesion_energy_2}
w = w_0 \bar{\rho}_0 \int_{z_{\rm eq}}^{z^*} \frac{z}{1+\chi e^z} dz.$$ Here, $w_0 \equiv (k_B T/\delta)^2 / (k\xi^2)$ is an upper bound for the adhesion energy, that corresponds to non pre-stressed ligands, and for clarity we have used rescaled quantities for the stretching, $z\equiv u/u_0$ with $u_0\equiv k_BT/\left(k\delta\right)$, and ligand density $\bar{\rho}_0\equiv\rho_0 \xi^2$. The adhesion energy per unit area depends linearly on the saturation density of links, $w \sim w_0 \bar{\rho}_0$, but contains a correction factor that includes the pre-stressed state of the cell. In the presence of cortical tension in the cell, there is both a reduction of the number of effective bound links, and an increase of stress per link. Consequently, close to the unbinding transition, the adhesion energy is reduced in a strongly non-linear way by increasing the cortex prestress (b).
![Theoretical predictions for the critical aspiration pressure and adhesion energy in a micropipette experiment. (a) Critical pressure as a function of the density of linkers $\rho_0$ according to . Solid black and red lines correspond to cells with and without myosin II, respectively. The horizontal dashed lines are the experimentally measured value of the critical detachment pressure [@Merkel2000] for wild type cells (WT), mutants lacking myosin ($M^-$), mutants lacking talin ($T^-$) and double mutants ($M,T^-$). The slope and height of the two theoretical curves are entirely determined by these critical pressures (see text). (b) Effective adhesion energy as a function of the equilibrium cortical tension in the cell according to . Solid black and red lines correspond to cells with and without talin, respectively.[]{data-label="pressure_merkel_theory"}](fig2){width="7.5cm"}
Discussion of micropipette experiments
--------------------------------------
Our model allows to directly relate the critical perturbation pressure needed to detach the membrane from the cortex to two physiologically relevant quantities: the density of membrane-cortex ligands, and the myosin-driven cortical tension (). This relationship provides not only a rationale explanation for the membrane unbinding for a variety of cell phenotypes where either the density of ligands or myosin activity is altered, but also a method to directly probe cortex activity by measuring the critical pressure needed to unbind the membrane.
We refer to previous experimental results concerning the abrupt unbinding induced by micropipette suction to assess the validity of our model [@Rentsch2000; @Merkel2000]. In order to test the relationship between critical pressure, ligand density and cortical tension, we would ideally need to measure the critical pressure for cells whose phenotype has been quantitatively altered. Merkel et al. [@Merkel2000] considered four phenotypes of the amoebae [*Dictyostelium*]{}: wild type, myosin inhibited, talin inhibited (a membrane-cortex linker), and double mutants. These four phenotypes are sufficient to qualitatively test our model and obtain values for all the relevant parameters.
Mutations that perturbed ligand density and cortex activity should be independent within our model. Accordingly, the difference of unbinding pressure for two values of ligand density must be the same independently of the value of cortical activity (a). In Merkel et al. [@Merkel2000], the decrease of critical pressure between the wild type and talin inhibited amoebae is comparable to the corresponding decrease between the myosin inhibited and double inhibited mutants ($\sim 150-200$ Pa and $\sim 150-500$ Pa respectively), even though the actual values of the cortical tension with and without myosin differ by a factor of 5 due to cortical prestress. This suggests that the critical pressure scales linearly with the density of available bounds: $\Delta P^*_p\sim\rho_0$, as predicted by our simple model (). Comparing the critical pressures in both wild type and myosin-null cells for a fixed link density (Fig. 3b-4b in [@Merkel2000]), we can estimate the myosin-driven cortical stress in the wild type amoeba, $\gamma_m = (\Delta P_p^{*M^-} - \Delta P_p^*)R/2 \sim 5 \times 10^{-3}$ N/m. This is at least two orders of magnitude higher than the typical membrane tension of a vesicle, $\gamma$, and contributes to the $60 \%$ of the $\sim 1600$ Pa needed to unbind the membrane. This estimate of the cortical tension agrees well with direct experimental measurements in *Dictyostelium* [@Dai1999a]. Finally, introducing the obtained value of $\gamma_m$ into the rest stress $\sigma_{\rm eq}=2\gamma_m/R$, and using the stationary state solution of Eqs. \[bond\_eq\_1\]-\[bond\_eq\_2\], $z_{\rm eq}=\alpha_{\rm eq}\left(1+\chi e^{z_{\rm eq}}\right)$, the equilibrium stretching of the linkers can be found, $u_{\rm eq}\sim 100$ nm, as well as that roughly all the linkers are connected in equilibrium conditions for the wild-type cells, $\rho_{b,\rm eq}/\rho_0=\alpha_{\rm eq}/z_{\rm eq}\sim 1$.
For myosin-inhibited amoebae, the micropipette pressure is directly related to the available density of links (). Using the results from [@Merkel2000], we can estimate the relative concentration of talin with respect to the saturation link concentration: $\rho_t/\rho_0 =(\Delta P_p^{*M^-}- \Delta P_p^{*M,T^-})/\Delta P_p^{*M^-}\sim 10-30\%$. Assuming the saturation density to be $\rho_0 \sim 100$ links/$\mu$m$^2$, talin density should be roughly $\rho_t\sim 20$ links/$\mu$m$^2$. The asymmetric distribution of this small density of talin links seems to be enough to drive direct motion in amoebae [@Merkel2000]. Similar observations are reported for zebrafish cells [@Diz-Munoz2010]. For completeness, assuming a ligand length $\delta\sim 1$ nm, we find $\alpha^*=\Delta P_p^{*M^-}\delta/\left(\rho_0k_BT\right)\sim 4$, and the critical force per link $\sigma^*/\rho_0\sim 16$ pN is four times the thermal force of the link $k_BT/\delta$, which is close to our initial estimate ($\sim 18$ pN). This quantity is independent of the cell phenotype and only depends on the kinetic rate ratio $\chi$. In fact, from the experimental estimate of $\alpha^*$ we can derive the kinetic ratio of on and off rates of the membrane-cortex linkers, $\chi\sim 10^{-3}$, in agreement with [@Rognoni2012]. Moreover, using the stationary solution of our model, a critical stretching $u^*\sim 200$ nm and a critical fraction of bound linkers $\rho_b^*/\rho_0\sim 0.9$ are found. Our results show that the rest stress $\sigma_{\rm eq}=2\gamma_m/R$ is about $60\%$ of the critical unbinding value $\sigma^*$ for wild-type cells, while it is around $75\%$ in talin-null cells. This is consistent with the observation that spontaneous blebbing of migratory [*Dictyostelium*]{} is more frequent for talin-null mutants than for wild-type cells [@Zatulovskiy2014].
Symbol Description Estimate (Ref.)
-------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------
$\xi$ cortex mesh size $30$ nm [@Bovellan2014]
$h$ cortex thickness $500$ nm [@Charras2008a]
$\eta_c$ cytosol viscosity $10^{-2}$ Pa s [@Charras2008a]
$k_{\text{on}}$ linker attachment rate $10^4$ s$^{-1}$ [@Rognoni2012]
$k_{\text{off}}^0$ free linker detachment rate $10$ s$^{-1}$ [@Rognoni2012]
$\delta$ linker bond length $1$ nm [@Evans2001]
$k$ linker stiffness $10^{-4}$ N/m (text)
$\rho_0$ density of available linkers $10^{14}$ m$^{-2}$ (text)
$R$ cell radius $10$ $\mu$m [@Merkel2000]
$\gamma$ membrane surface tension $5\times 10^{-5}$ N/m [@Tinevez2009]
$\kappa$ membrane bending ridigity $10^{-19}$ J [@Dai1999]
$\gamma_m$ cortical tension $5\times 10^{-3}$ N/m (this work)
: Estimates for model parameters.[]{data-label="table-parameter"}
Finally, our model gives a prediction for the adhesion energy as a function of the ligand density and cortical activity (). In the case of the four phenotypes discussed above, the maximum adhesion energy is $w_0\rho_0\xi^2\sim 2\times 10^{-5}$ J/m$^2$, and corresponds to the mutant lacking myosin (a non pre-stressed cell, $\alpha_{\rm eq}=0$). For a mutant lacking Talin and myosin II, the adhesion energy is reduced by $10-30\%$ due to the decrease in $\rho_0$. For a wild type cell and a mutant lacking talin the adhesion energies are further reduced, by a $50\%$ and $65\%$ respectively, due to cortical pre-stress (b). The dramatic increase in the adhesion energy for a cell lacking myosin activity, which can be of the order of $200\%$, illustrates the importance of cortex activity in the cell in determining the experimental measurements of adhesion energy and detachment pressures. Table \[table-parameter\] recapitulates the numerical values used for the parameters of the model. These parameters may vary significantly depending on cell lines and experimental conditions, so this choice is somewhat arbitrary. However, we emphasize that both the cortical tension $\gamma_m$ and the fraction of bond that are associated with Talin $\rho_t/\rho_0$ do not depend on this choice and can be directly determined by confronting with the experimental results.
Membrane undulations
--------------------
The model for membrane-cortex adhesion discussed so far considers a flat membrane, disregarding possible membrane undulations. In this section, we address the linear dynamics of long-wavelength perturbations around the flat membrane state: $$\begin{aligned}
u\left(\vec{x},t\right)&=u_{\rm eq}+\delta u\left(\vec{x},t\right),\\
\rho_b\left(\vec{x},t\right)&=\rho_{b,\rm eq}+\delta\rho_b\left(\vec{x},t\right).\end{aligned}$$ The coarse-grained interface hamiltonian includes the elastic energy of bound linkers and contributions from the membrane bending rigidity and tension [@Boal2002]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq Hamiltonian}
\mathcal{H}=\int_S\left[\frac{\kappa}{2}\left[\nabla^2 u\left(\vec{x}\right)\right]^2+\frac{\gamma}{2}\left[\vec{\nabla}u\left(\vec{x}\right)\right]^2\right.\\
\left.+\frac{k}{2}\rho_b\left(\vec{x}\right)u^2\left(\vec{x}\right)-\sigma u\left(\vec{x}\right)\right]d^2\vec{x},\end{gathered}$$ where $\kappa$ is the bending modulus and where $\sigma=\rho_{b,\rm eq}ku_{\rm eq}$. As before, the restoring elastic forces exerted by the linkers is treated within a continuous approximation, and membrane fluctuations between bound linkers are not accounted for. This description is appropriate for length scales larger that the average spacing between linkers $\rho_0^{-1/2}\sim 100$ nm, and the present analysis is only valid for length scales larger than this cutoff.
Membrane deformations induce Stokes flows in the surrounding fluid. These flows mediate long-range hydrodynamic interactions in the membrane, leading to a non-local membrane dynamics that is better treated in Fourier space. The full dynamical problem requires a proper treatment of cytosol permeation through the porous cortex and the (less) porous lipid membrane at all length scales [@Gov2004a; @Strychalski2013]. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to a simplified treatment, where cytosol permeation through the cortex is only included for the lowest Fourier mode $q=0$. The other modes are treated below neglecting the effect of the cortex on hydrodynamics, as is appropriate for sufficiently large membrane-cortex distances and/or large cortex mesh size. The effect of finite cortex permeation is studied in section 4 in the Supporting Material. Using standard results of membrane hydrodynamics [@Seifert1997] together with , the dynamics of long-wavelength membrane deformations read $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{0}}& =-\frac{1}{\eta}\left[\rho_{b,\rm eq}k\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{0}}+\frac{\sigma}{\rho_{b,\rm eq}}\delta\tilde{\rho}_{b,\vec{0}}\right],\label{eq u0}\\
\partial_t\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{q}}& =-\frac{1}{4\eta_c q}\left[\left(\kappa q^4+\gamma q^2+\rho_{b,\rm eq}k\right)\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{q}}+u_{\textrm{eq}}k\delta\tilde{\rho}_{b,\vec{q}}\right], \label{eq uq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{q}$ is the wave-vector. Within our approximation, the relaxation dynamics of the mode $q=0$, , is decoupled from the other modes, , at the linear level of perturbations. can be seen as a linearized version of when transformed back to real space.
In turn, the dynamics of the long-wavelength perturbations of the density of bonds reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq linkers}
\partial_t\delta\rho_b\left(\vec{x}\right)=-\frac{k\delta}{k_BT}k_{\rm off}^0e^{ku_{\rm eq}\delta/(k_BT)}\rho_{b,\rm eq}\delta u\left(\vec{x}\right)\\
-\left[k_{\rm on}+k_{\rm off}^0e^{ku_{\rm eq}\delta/(k_BT)}\right]\delta\rho_b\left(\vec{x}\right).\end{gathered}$$ - completely specify the dynamics of linear perturbations around the flat membrane state, both for the membrane displacement $u$ and the density of bonds $\rho_b$. However, in the limit of long wavelengths, membrane deformations proceed much slower than linker kinetics. In general, membrane dynamics is slower than linkers kinetics at length scales above a crossover wavelength $\lambda_{\text{cross}}$, that is determined from an analysis of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the dynamical system -. With the parameters given in Table \[table-parameter\], this crossover occurs in the bending-dominated regime, for which $\lambda_{\rm cross}\simeq 2\pi (\kappa/(4\eta_c k_{\rm on}))^{1/3} \sim 0.4$ $\mu$m. For larger length scales, the kinetics of the linkers is always essentially equilibrated and an adiabatic approximation may be used. The system can then be described in terms of only the slow variable $\delta u$: $$\label{eq adiabatic}
\partial_t\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{q}}=-\frac{\kappa q^4+\gamma q^2+\rho_{b,\rm eq}k}{4\eta_c q}\delta\tilde{u}_{\vec{q}}.$$
Under the adiabatic approximation, the dispersion relation of membrane dynamics $\omega\left(q\right)=-\left(\kappa q^4+\gamma q^2+\rho_{b,\rm eq}k\right)/\left(4\eta_c q\right)$ features a maximum due to membrane-cortex adhesion (see section 2.1 in the Supporting Material for details). This maximum naturally defines a correlation length for shape fluctuations, $\lambda_c$, below which the membrane can be seen as essentially rigid. This correlation length depends on a combination of both mechanical properties of the membrane and of the linkers: $$\label{correlation}
\lambda_c=2\pi\left[\frac{6\kappa/\gamma}{\left(1+12\kappa\rho_{b,\rm eq}k/\gamma^2\right)^{1/2}-1}\right]^{1/2}.$$ With the values given in Table \[table-parameter\], we find $\lambda_c\sim 0.6$ $\mu$m for an unperturbed cell ($\rho_{b,\rm eq}\simeq\rho_0$). This value is larger than both the crossover wavelength of the free membrane undulations, $\lambda=2\pi\sqrt{\kappa/\gamma}\sim 0.3$ $\mu$m, and the spacing between linkers, $\rho_0^{-1/2}\sim 0.1$ $\mu$m. The computed correlation length is slightly smaller than the pipette radius, so the approximation of a rigid membrane is only marginally valid in that case. However, it becomes more accurate near the unbinding transition since the correlation length $\lambda_c$ increases with decreasing density of bonds $\rho_b$ (see section 3 of the Supporting Material for details). In the general case, including all hydrodynamic effects of the cortex, the value of $\lambda_c$ may differ from or, for low cortex porosity and short membrane-cortex distances, it may not even be well defined (see section 4 in the Supporting Material for details).
Finally, at the mean-field level, the critical stress $\sigma^*$ at which the membrane detaches from the cortex is not affected by membrane undulations since the $q=0$ mode is the first one to become unstable in the framework of -. Fluctuations of the membrane shape may however create regions of locally low linker density and high linker stress, thereby widening the unbiding transition boundary.
Fluctuation spectroscopy {#spectro}
------------------------
The formulation of an adhesion model accounting for membrane undulations provides an appropriate framework to extract additional information about membrane-cortex adhesion from the statistics of membrane fluctuations. For instance, applying the energy equipartition theorem to one obtains, under the adiabatic approximation, a membrane structure factor $$\label{eq spectrum}
S\left(q\right)=\frac{k_BT}{\kappa q^4+\gamma q^2+\rho_{b,\rm eq}k},$$ where $\rho_{b,\rm eq}$ is the equilibrium value of the density of bound linkers (see section 2.2 of the Supporting Material for details). This result is consistent with the situation of a membrane confined into an harmonic potential [@Gov2003; @Fournier2004; @Merath2006a]. Here, the confinement contribution explicitly arises from the attachment kinetics of the linkers via the adiabatic approximation. This fact allows to experimentally determine the density of bound linkers, $\rho_{b,\rm eq}$, from measurements of the static structure factor of the cell membrane [@Popescu2006]. Specifically, the long-wavelength limit $q\rightarrow 0$ needs to be measured in fluctuation microscopy experiments in order to determine $\rho_{b,\rm eq}$ from . Transforming to real space, the mean-square amplitude of membrane undulations reads (see section 2.3 of the Supporting Material for details): \~4 [nm]{}.
Finally, the model in the previous section also provides dynamical information on membrane undulations. Specifically, the power spectral density of membrane fluctuations can be shown to take the form [@Betz2009; @Betz2012] $$\label{eq_psd}
S\left(\omega\right)=\frac{4\eta_c k_BT}{\pi}\int_{q_{\rm min}}^{q_{\rm max}}\frac{dq}{\left(4\eta_c\omega\right)^2+\left(\kappa q^3+\gamma q+\rho_{b,\rm eq}k/q\right)^2},$$ where $q_{\rm min}$ and $q_{\rm max}$ are the cutoff values of the wave-vector $q$. In our model, either the perimeter of the cell, the correlation length of cortex undulations, or the radius of the pipette in the experimental setup proposed in a sets the large-wavelength cutoff, $q_{\rm min}\sim1/R$, and the short-wavelength cutoff is set by the spacing of the linkers: $q_{\rm max}=2\pi/\rho_0^{-1/2}$. In fluctuation spectroscopy experiments, the laser focal diameter sets the limitation for the latter [@Betz2009; @Betz2012].
![Density of membrane-cortex bonds from fluctuation spectroscopy experiments. (a) Illustration of a combined spectroscopy and micropipette experiment that could probe the density of membrane-cortex bonds. (b) Power spectral density calculated from in the limit of vanishing surface tension ($\gamma=0$), both for adhesion-dominated and bending-dominated membrane fluctuations. The known high-frequency limits are indicated in dashed lines. The rescaling length $u_0$ is defined as $u_0\equiv k_BT/(k\delta)$. Parameters are taken from Table \[table-parameter\], with $\rho_{b,\text{eq}}=\rho_0$, and the power spectrum is integrated from $q_{\text{min}}=1/R$ to $q_{\text{max}}=2\pi/d$, with $d=0.5$ $\mu$m the focal diameter of the optical trap [@Betz2012]. (c) Low-frequency plateau of the power spectrum for adhesion-dominated fluctuations () as a function of the pressure on the membrane. []{data-label="fig_psd"}](fig3){width="7.5cm"}
Membrane-cortex detachment induced by micropipette aspiration is a rather invasive procedure to assess the stability of the membrane-cortex cellular interface. An alternative approach could be to monitor membrane fluctuations for different aspiration pressures using fluctuation spectroscopy, as sketched in a. b shows the power spectrum density in the limit $\gamma\rightarrow 0$ both for bending-dominated and adhesion-dominated membrane fluctuations. The high-frequency limits were previously obtained: $S\left(\omega\right)\simeq k_BT/(6\left(2\kappa\eta_c^2\right)^{1/3})\omega^{-5/3}$ for $\lambda_cq_{\rm max}\gg1$, and $S\left(\omega\right)\simeq k_BTq_{\rm max}/(4\pi\eta_c)\omega^{-2}$ otherwise [@Helfer2001; @Betz2009; @Betz2012] (see more details in section 2.4 of the Supporting Material). However, our model gives an analytical expression for the full power spectrum in the adhesion-dominated regime ($q_{\text{max}}<\left[\rho_{b,\text{eq}} k/\kappa\right]^{1/4}$): $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_fit}
\lim_{\kappa,\gamma\rightarrow 0}S\left(\omega\right)=\frac{k_BT}{4\pi\eta_c\omega^2}\left[q_{\rm max}-q_{\rm min}+\frac{\rho_{b,\rm eq}k}{4\eta_c\omega}\right.\\
\left.\times\left[\arctan\left(\frac{4\eta_c q_{\rm min}\omega}{\rho_{b,\rm eq}k}\right)-\arctan\left(\frac{4\eta_c q_{\rm max}\omega}{\rho_{b,\rm eq}k}\right)\right]\right].\end{gathered}$$ The density of membrane-cortex bonds $\rho_{b,\rm eq}$ can be extracted by fitting this expression to experimental measurements. In particular, if adhesion dominates membrane fluctuations, $\rho_{b,\rm eq}$ can be simply obtained from the plateau of the power spectrum at low frequencies: $$\label{eq_plateau}
\lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}\lim_{\kappa,\gamma\rightarrow 0}S\left(\omega\right)=\frac{4\eta_c k_BT}{3\pi\left(\rho_{b,\rm eq}k\right)^2}\left(q_{\rm max}^3-q_{\rm min}^3\right).$$ The value of this plateau is plotted in c as a function of the pressure on the membrane, $\Delta P$, which modifies the density of bound linkers. Experimentally, the pressure on the membrane can be varied either decreasing cortical tension by inhibiting myosin activity or via micropipette suction. Hence, we propose combined spectroscopy and micropipette experiments, as illustrated in a., to test the predictions in and estimate the density of membrane-cortex bonds. Note that the tip of the aspirated membrane is not flat, but is on average hemispherical with a radius of curvature matching the pipette radius. A rigorous analysis of the fluctuation spectrum should be done using spherical harmonics rather than Fourier transform. Furthermore, Eq. \[eq\_psd\] does not account for the hard-wall repulsion introduced by the pipette walls. As discussed in [@Betz2012], this introduces differences in the low frequency limit of the power spectrum. However, this should not affect the pressure dependence of the zero-frequency power spectrum shown in c. The correction to due to a finite average membrane curvature can be reduced by increasing the radius of the micropipette, or by tuning mysosin activity rather than using a micropipette to modify the average density of bond linkers.
The measurement of the density of membrane-cortex linkers from fluctuation spectroscopy is complementary to the quantitative determination of the cortical activity and adhesion energy from micropipette experiments, as discussed above. Indeed, data on fluctuation spectra of generic eukaryotic cells other that red blood cells are still lacking. Peukes and Betz have recently obtained such spectra in blebs during their growth stage, while the cortex is still reforming and, thus, weak [@Peukes2014]. However, information about the full cortex could only be extracted from experiments probing the fluctuations of strongly adhered membranes instead of blebs. Peukes and Betz analyze the fluctuation spectra as that of isolated membranes, with the effect of the cortex only incorporated into an effective tension of the membrane [@Peukes2014]. In contrast, our model accounts for the effect of the adhesion to the cortex via the kinetics of the linkers, thus providing a theoretical framework in which to consistently interpret fluctuation spectroscopy experiments on strongly adhered cell membranes.
As a final comment, it is worth stressing that in this paper we have only addressed passive fluctuations of thermal origin. In general, different active processes could potentially modify the presented scenario. Typically, active processes are quantitatively most pronounced at low frequencies. At high enough frequencies it has been shown that the role of active fluctuations can be incorporated through an increased effective temperature of the membrane [@Manneville1999; @Manneville2001; @Gov2003]. A detailed analysis of this point is beyond the scope of this work and is deferred to future work.
Conclusions
===========
We have described a model for membrane-cortex adhesion that relates the unbinding pressure and adhesion energy measured in micropipette experiments to two cellular parameters, the membrane-cortex ligand density and the myosin-driven cortical activity. The validity of the model is qualitatively discussed although a complete set of experiments will be required for a complete validation. The proposed relationship between unbinding pressure and cortical activity provides a method to measure the cortical activity by means of micropipette aspiration experiments. Accounting for membrane undulations allows to relate the fluctuation spectrum of the membrane to the density of bound membrane-cortex bonds, thus providing a method for measuring this quantity in fluctuation spectroscopy experiments. Together, these experiments could give access to quantitative information about membrane-cortex adhesion in the framework of our model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
R.A. acknowledges support from Fundació “la Caixa”, J.C. acknowledges financial support of the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under projects FIS2010-21924-C02-02 and FIS2013-41144-P, and the Generalitat de Catalunya under projects 2009 SGR 14 and 2009 SGR 878, and P.S. acknowledges support from the Human Frontier Science Program under the grant RGP0058/2011.
SUPPORTING MATERIAL {#supporting-material .unnumbered}
===================
Supporting Materials and Methods, six figures, and one table are available at http://www.biophysj.org/ biophysj/supplemental/S0006-3495(15)00226-X. References [@Guyon2001; @Lin2005; @DeGennes1982; @Gov2004b; @Safran1994; @Ranft2012] appear in the Supporting Material.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe current-voltage characteristics I(V) of alkyl-ligated gold nanocrystals $\sim 5~nm$ arrays in long screening length limit. Arrays with different alkyl ligand lengths have been prepared to tune the electronic tunnel coupling between the nanocrystals. For long ligands, electronic diffusion occurs through sequential tunneling and follows activated laws, as function of temperature $\sigma \propto e^{-T_0/T}$ and as function of electric field $I \propto e^{-\mathcal{E}_0/\mathcal{E}}$. For better conducting arrays, i.e. with small ligands, the transport properties crossover to the cotunneling regime and follows Efros-Shklovskii laws as function of temperature $\sigma \propto e^{-(T_{ES}/T)^{1/2}}$ and as function of electric field $I \propto e^{-(\mathcal{E}_{ES}/\mathcal{E})^{1/2}}$. The data shows that electronic transport in nanocrystal arrays can be tuned from the sequential tunneling to the cotunneling regime by increasing the tunnel barrier transparency.'
author:
- 'H. Moreira$^1$, Q. Yu$^1$, B. Nadal$^1$, B. Bresson$^1$, M. Rosticher$^2$, N. Lequeux$^1$, A. Zimmers$^1$ and H. Aubin$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'goldBiblio.bib'
title: Electron cotunneling transport in gold nanocrystal arrays
---
Arrays of metallic, semiconducting, or magnetic nanocrystals (NC) with radii of $2-7~nm$ can now be synthesized[@Talapin2010a]. Owing to their small self-capacitance, the charging energy for adding one electron per NC is large. Thus, these systems are ideally suited for the study of correlated electronic diffusion in presence of both disorder and strong Coulomb interactions[@Tran2005; @Beloborodov2007].
In weakly conducting arrays, the large density of states at the Fermi level of metallic NC limits hopping to nearest neighbors and the large Coulomb energy opens a hard gap for electronic transport. These characteristic features led to an activated temperature dependence of the conductance where electron transport occurs by sequential tunnel hopping[@Search2002]. While activated conductance was observed in granular metals[@Neugebauer1962] and in gold NC arrays at high temperature $T>100 K$ [@Parthasarathy2004; @Wang2007], the low temperature conductance of granular metals[@Sheng1973; @Abeles1975; @Gerber1997; @Chui1981; @Simon1987] and gold NC arrays[@Tran2005; @Zabet-Khosousi2006; @Tran2008; @Sugawara2008; @Nickels2008; @Herrmann2007] has also been observed to follow the Efros-Shklovskii (ES) law :
$$\label{hoppinglawtemp}
\sigma_{ES} \simeq \sigma_0 exp[{-(T_{ES}/T)^{1/2}}]$$
This variable range hopping law is usually observed in doped semiconductors[@Shklovskii1984] where the wavefunction of dopant states decays exponentially and long range tunneling between localized electrons is possible.
The observation of the ES law in granular metals is puzzling as it implies long range tunneling of electrons beyond nearest neighbors. This issue was recently addressed in a series of theoretical works [@Zhang2004; @Feigelman2005; @Beloborodov2005a; @Beloborodov2007] which established that effective long range hopping is possible because of cotunneling, where the electron hops to large distance through a string of virtual charge states. Such cotunneling phenomena is well known from the study of the transport properties of individual quantum dots[@Aleiner2002]. In NC arrays, while the temperature dependence of the zero-bias conductance has been shown to follow Eq. \[hoppinglawtemp\] at low temperature, the question of the electric field dependence of electronic current in the cotunneling regime remains to be explored.
In this letter, we present measurements of I(V) characteristics of gold NC arrays in the limit of long screening length, where the inter-electrode distance is small and the capacitive coupling of the NC with the gate is small. In this limit, the laws describing electron transport in the regime of cotunneling are known, they follow ES type formula both for the temperature dependence, Eq. \[hoppinglawtemp\] and the electric field dependence :
$$\label{hoppinglawfield}
I_{ES} \simeq I_0 exp[{-(\mathcal{E}_{ES}/\mathcal{E})^{1/2}}]$$
We study the evolution of the I(V) characteristics of the array as the electronic tunnel coupling between the NC is tuned by changing the ligand length. For small tunnel barrier transparency, the I(V) curves follow activated laws as function of temperature and electric field; for large tunnel barrier transparency, the I(V) curves follow ES laws, Eq. \[hoppinglawtemp\] at low temperature and Eq. \[hoppinglawfield\] at low electric field.
![ \[Fig1\] TEM image of dodecanethiol ligated gold NC self-organized in compact hexagonal array deposited on TEM grids by the Langmuir-Schaefer method. Panel a) Gold NC monolayer shown on a large scale ($1~\mu m \times 1~\mu m$). Inset) Gold electrodes on which the array is deposited. Panel b) Zoom on the hexagonal compact array. Panels c, d, e) one monolayer, two monolayers and three monolayers, respectively.](Fig1Small.ps){width="8cm"}
Alkyl-ligated gold NC are synthesized by the digestive ripening method[@Lin2000]. This synthesis provides NC of radius $r\simeq 2.5~nm$ with dispersion less than $5\%$ in each batch. For this work, NC with alkylthiol-ligands of 6, 8 and 12 carbon atoms have been prepared, so-named $C6S$, $C8S$ and $C12S$ samples. The monodispersity of the NC allows for the preparation of hexagonal compact arrays with the Langmuir method[@Collier1997]. In a Langmuir trough filled with DI water, we first deposit a monolayer of dodecanethiol molecules. This amphiphile molecule improves the subsequent dispersion of gold NC. Then, a compact array is obtained upon compression of the barriers. This process is monitored optically and through measurements of the surface pressure.
After formation of the film, layers of NC are deposited with the Langmuir-Schaefer method; on substrates for conductivity measurements and on carbon grids for TEM characterization, shown Fig. \[Fig1\]. Two layers are usually deposited on the substrate to reduce pin-holes in the array. We did not find any significant differences in the transport properties as the number of layers is changed from two to four layers. The substrates are $p++$ doped silicon covered with a silicon oxide layer $500~nm$ thick. On these substrates, we fabricated $2~\mu m$ width gold electrodes separated of the length $L \simeq 150~nm$. See inset of Fig. \[Fig1\]. $C8S$ and $C6S$ samples were measured as deposited on the substrate. $C12S$ samples were dipped into isopropanol solution of alkyl-dithiol molecules during $5~min$ to cross-link the NC and increase the tunnel transparency. I(V) measurements as function of temperature were performed after cross-linking in solutions of octane-dithiol, hexane-dithiol, butane-dithiol and ethane-dithiol molecules, respectively called $C8S2$, $C6S2$, $C4S2$ and $C2S2$ samples. Despite the quality of the array, disorder remains. First, electrostatic disorder due to random offset charges, second, tunnel barrier height disorder due to random ligands density and orientation. Both types of disorder are included within the theoretical model used below[@Beloborodov2005a] to analyze the data, where electrostatic disorder is modeled by grains with random potential and the tunnel matrix element is described by a random Gaussian variable.
![ \[Fig2\] Panels a) & b) I(V) curves of hexane-thiol (C6S) and octane-thiol (C8S) ligated NC arrays, respectively. Panel c) I(V) curve of dodecanethiol ligated NC crosslinked with hexanedithiol ligands (C6S2). Panel d) Zero-bias conductance of the arrays with varying ligand lengths. The weakly conducting arrays follow the activated law (dotted line). The more conducting arrays follow the ES law (dashed line). ](Fig2.ps){width="8cm"}
Figure \[Fig2\] shows the I(V) curves of two as-deposited NC films $C8S$ and $C6S$ and one cross-linked film, $C6S2$. For all measured samples, the current increases non-linearly with voltage, as typically observed for NC arrays in the regime of Coulomb blockade[@Beloborodov2007]. Figure \[Fig2\]d shows the temperature dependence of the zero-bias conductance of all measured samples. Overall, the conductance of the arrays tends to increase as the ligands are shorter. This is expected as the conductance of N-alkanethiol ligands decreases exponentially fast with the number of carbon atoms $N$ as $G_N \simeq G_0 e^{-N}$[@Xu2003], where $G_0=2e^2/h\simeq 77.5~\mu S$. The zero-bias conductance of weakly conducting samples as $C8S2$ and $C8S$ follows an activated temperature dependence $\sigma_{seq}\simeq \sigma_0 e^{-T_0/T}$ from room temperature to the lowest temperature ($T\simeq 20~K$) below which the conductance become smaller than the instrument sensitivity. The activation temperature $T_0$ is similar for all weakly conducting samples, it is set by the Coulomb energy $E_C=e^2/2C_0$ where $C_0=4 \pi \varepsilon \varepsilon_0 r \simeq 0.8~aF$ is the self-capacitance of the NC where the dielectric coefficient $\varepsilon=3$[@Tran2005]. Using those parameters, we find that the activation law with $T_0=E_C/k_B=1110~K$ can fit the zero-bias conductance of weakly conducting array as shown Fig. \[Fig2\].
In contrast, the conductance of best conducting arrays with shorter ligands, $C4S2$, $C2S2$ and $C6S$, deviates from this activation law at low temperature, $T \lesssim 80~K$. This deviation cannot be due to a change in the activation energy. Theoretical calculations[@Beloborodov2005a] give for the activation energy of arrays of dimensionless conductance $g$, $E_A = E_C - (2gz/\pi)* E_{eh} \ln{2}$, valid when $gz<<1$, where $z=6$ is the coordination number and $E_{eh}=2E_C$ is the energy to create an electron-hole excitation in the system. As all the samples $CnS2$ are prepared from the same NC batch, there is no doubt that the NC size is the same for all arrays, as are the self-capacitance and the Coulomb energy $E_C$. Furthermore, as the conductivity of the arrays is very small, $g=G/G_0\simeq 10^{-4}$ at $T\simeq 80 K$ for the best conducting arrays, this provides only a very weak correction to the activation energy and consequently $E_A\simeq E_C$.
We show now that this deviation can be understood as a consequence of inelastic cotunneling transport of electrons[@Zhang2004; @Feigelman2005; @Beloborodov2005a][^1]. In this regime, the conductance should follow Eq. \[hoppinglawtemp\]. We find that this last formula fits the data with $T_{ES}=e^2/(4 \pi \varepsilon \varepsilon_0 <\xi> k_B) \simeq 8000~K$. The average value of the localization length $<\xi>=0.16 r$ is obtained from $\xi=\frac{2 r}{\ln{ [E_C^2/16 \pi (k_B T)^2 g ]}}$, valid when $g<<1$[@Beloborodov2005a]. This last formula shows that the localization length changes slowly with temperature and conductance : from $\xi\simeq 0.23 r$ ($T= 80~K$, $g=2\times10^{-4}$ ) to $\xi\simeq 0.09 r$ ($T = 5~K$, $g=4\times10^{-9}$ ).
We calculate that the hopping distance $r_{hop}=\sqrt{e^2 \xi/(8 k_B T\pi \varepsilon \varepsilon_0)}$, which increases with decreasing temperature, exceeds two NC below $T \sim 50~K$. This analysis confirms that electron transport occurs through cotunneling below that temperature and is in agreement with the conclusions of previous works by Tran et al. on similar gold NC arrays[@Tran2005]. We show now that an analysis of the electric field dependence of I(V) curves at low temperature allows to establish the signature of cotunneling transport in the array.
![ \[Fig3\] Panels a) to c) show that the I(V) curves are self-similar, i.e. the curves appear the same on different scales. This implies that the apparent voltage threshold $V_t$ indicated by arrows changes with the scale. This shows that $V_t$ is not a relevant parameter for the transport properties of the array. In contrast, the Arrhenius plot – panel d) – shows that the electronic current follows an activated behavior $I(V)\propto e^{-\mathcal{E}_0/\mathcal{E}}$ (dotted line).](Fig3.ps){width="8cm"}
In previous works on gold NC arrays[@Tran2005; @Tran2008; @Sugawara2008; @Nickels2008], the non-equilibrium transport properties have been analyzed in the context of Middleton and Wingreen (MW) model[@Middleton1993] of percolating currents. One essential parameter of this model is the screening length $\lambda/r=C_0/C_G$, where $C_G=4\pi \varepsilon \varepsilon_0 r^2 /d$ is the capacitive coupling of the NC with the gate electrode. Short screening lengths, $\lambda/r \propto d/r\rightarrow 0$, are obtained in arrays strongly coupled to the gate electrode such as lithographically defined quantum dots [@Rimberg1995]. In this limit, the MW model predicts the existence of a voltage threesold $V_t$ for electron transport and a power law dependence of the current with voltage, $I\propto (V-V_t)^\alpha$. As the effects of cotunneling on this model are not known theoretically[@Beloborodov2007], this prevents a reliable analysis of the effect of cotunneling on I(V) curves.
In our sample configuration, the screening length $\lambda\simeq d \simeq 500~nm$ is larger than the electrode separation $L=150~nm$, implying that the MW model does not apply[@Bascones2008]. In this long screening length regime, the laws describing the electric field dependence of the electronic current in the sequential and cotunneling regimes have been calculated theoretically[@Zhang2004; @Beloborodov2005a]. They mirror the temperature dependence and can be obtained by replacing the thermal energy $\sim k_BT$ by the electrostatic energy $\sim eV$.
Experimentally, while an activated electric field dependence has been found for the conductance of granular metals[@Sheng1972], there is no report of the observation of the ES law Eq. \[hoppinglawfield\] for the electric field dependence.
Figure \[Fig3\] shows data for a $C8S$ sample. On left panels, the data is shown on a linear plot at three different scales of increasing magnification where arrows indicate for every I(V) curve the apparent voltage threshold $V_t$. It clearly appears that $V_t$ decreases upon increasing the plot magnification, which shows that $V_t$ is not a relevant physical parameter. On the right panel, the same data on an Arrhenius plot shows that the current follows the activated law for sequential tunneling, $I_{seq} \simeq I_0 e^{-\mathcal{E}_0/\mathcal{E}}$ where $\mathcal{E}_0=k_BT_0/e l$ is set by the Coulomb energy, $l$ is the inter-nanocrystal distance on which the electron is submitted to the electric field, $\mathcal{E}=cV/L$, where $c$ takes into account the screening effects that reduce the actual electrical field from the nominal value $V/L$. A good fit of the data can be obtained with $c=0.15$ and $l=1~nm$, giving for the activation electric field $\mathcal{E}_0=1.3\times10^8~Vm^{-1}$. While there is a large uncertainty on the actual electric field applied on the electron because of the uncertainty on inter-nanocrystal distance $l$ and on screening effects, we will see now that using the same values for the parameters $\mathcal{E}_0$ and $c$, the ES law can fit the data in the cotunneling regime.
![ \[Fig4\] Panels a) shows the evolution of the I(V) curves of the arrays as the tunnel transparency between NC increases. For weakly conducting NC arrays, i.e. small tunnel barrier transparency, the I(V) curve follows an activated law, dotted line. As the conductance of the arrays increase, i.e. for larger tunnel barrier transparency, the I(V) curve follows an ES-type law, dashed line. The arrow indicates the field scale where the crossover between the two regimes occurs. Panel b) The thin red line is the hopping distance. The dotted line is the activated law, the dashed line is the ES law. As the hopping distance increases at low electric field, a crossover occurs from the activated law to ES law, as shown schematically by the thin blue line.](Fig4.ps){width="8cm"}
Figure \[Fig4\] shows the I(V) curves for all samples. The I(V) curves of weakly conducting samples, $C8S2$ and $C8S$, follow the activated electric field dependence just described on the whole measured voltage range. In contrast, the I(V) curves of best conducting arrays, $C4S2$, $C2S2$ and $C6S$, deviate from this law at low electric field. It follows the ES law Eq.\[hoppinglawfield\] with the same characteristic electric field $\mathcal{E}_{ES}=\mathcal{E}_{0}=1.3\times10^8~Vm^{-1}$. Upon increasing the voltage, a crossover is observed at an electric field $\mathcal{E} \simeq 10^7~Vm^{-1}$ and the I(V) curve recovers the activation law at high electric field. This is a remarkable observation. We find that the electric field dependence mirrors the temperature dependence and that a single characteristic electric field value, set by the Coulomb energy, can describe the I(V) curves for a set of NC arrays whose room temperature conductance changes by three orders of magnitude.
The same figure shows that the calculated hopping distance, $r_{hop}=\sqrt{e /(\mathcal{E} 4 \pi \varepsilon \varepsilon_0)}$[@Beloborodov2005a] increases rapidly about the electric field value where the crossover between the activated law and the ES law is observed. This confirms our analysis, the crossover occurs between the cotunneling regime at low electric field, where the hopping distance $r_{hop} \simeq 5 \times r$ at zero-bias, and the sequential tunneling regime, where $r_{hop} \simeq r$ at high bias.
To summarize, we studied the I(V) curves of gold NC arrays with long screening length. In this regime, the effects of cotunneling on the I(V) curves are known theoretically, whose predictions can be compared to the data. As a function of temperature, the conductance follows an activated law at high temperature in the sequential tunneling regime and an ES law at low temperature in the cotunneling regime. We find that the electric field dependence mirrors this temperature dependence. The I(V) curves follow an activated field dependence at high electric field in the sequential tunneling regime and an ES law at low electric field in the cotunneling regime. The crossover from the activated law to the ES law as array conductance is increased can be understood from the early calculations for linear NC chains where it was shown[@Averin1990; @Geerligs1990] that the cotunneling current across $j$ junctions increases with the junction conductance $G$ as $I\propto [\frac{G}{G_0}]^j$.
We acknowledge useful discussions with B. Dubertret, M. Feigel’man, A. Ioselevich, T. Pons and V. Vinokur. We acknowledge support from ANR programs “QUANTICON” and “CAMELEON”.
[^1]: Elastic cotunneling is also possible but at lower temperature and electric field range than measured here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. Callejas-Bedregal[^1],K. Houston[^2]and M. A. S. Ruas[^3]'
title: Topological Triviality of Families of Singular Surfaces
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
We study the topological triviality of families of singular surfaces in ${\mathbb C}^3$ parametrized by $\mathcal
A$-finitely determined map germs.
Finitely determined map germs $f:(\mathbb {\mathbb C}^{2},0)\rightarrow
(\mathbb {\mathbb C}^{3},0)$ can be approximated by stable maps $f_{s},$ and information on the topology of such approximations can be obtained in terms of data calculable from the original map germ $f$. In [@mond], D. Mond defines the $0$-stable invariants, $T(f)$, the number of triple points of $f_{s}$, and $C(f)$, the number of Whitney umbrellas of $f_{s}$, and shows how to compute them in terms of $f$. These two invariants together with $\mu(D^{2}(f))$, the Milnor number of the double point locus, form a complete set of invariants for ${\mathcal A}$-simple germs ([@mond]).
The following natural extension of the above result was formulated by Mond in [@mond1]. Let $f_{t} : ({\mathbb C}^{2},0)\rightarrow
({\mathbb C}^{3},0)$ be a one-parameter family of finitely determined map germs. Does the constancy of the invariants $T(f_{t})$, $C(f_{t})$ and $\mu({D}^{2}(f_{t}))$ imply the topological triviality of the family? In this work we give a positive answer to this question as a consequence of the following Lê-Ramanujam type theorem, ensuring that the constancy of the Milnor number of the double point locus characterizes the topological triviality of the family:
\[topological\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a one-parameter unfolding of an ${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined map germ $f: ({\mathbb C}^2,0)
\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0).$ The following statements are equivalent:
1. $\mu(D^{2}(f_{t}))$ is constant for $t\in T,$ where $T$ is a small neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C};$
2. $F$ is topologically trivial.
We prove that if the unfolding $F$ is $\mu$-constant, in the sense that $\mu(D^{2}(f_{t}))$ is constant for $t\in T,$ where $T$ is a small neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C},$ then $F$ is excellent, as defined by T. Gaffney in [@Gaffney]. An excellent unfolding is a Thom stratified mapping and we obtain the trivialization by integrating controlled vector fields tangent to the strata of the stratification of $F$ given by the stable types in source and target.
A natural question is whether $\mu$-constant in a one-parameter family $F$ also implies the Whitney equisingularity of the family. This is indeed the case, and it follows as a consequence of the following theorem which completely describes the equisingularity of $F$ in terms of the equisingularity of $D^2(F),$ the double point locus in source, that happens to be a family of reduced plane curves. There is a well-understood theory of equisingularity for plane curves, starting with the results of O. Zariski ([@Za]), further developed among others, by Zariski himself, H. Hironaka, M. Lejeune, Lê Dũng Tràng and B. Teissier (see [@GaffMass; @Tei] for surveys on the subject and [@FernBob] for some interesting new developments). For families of reduced plane curves, it is well known that topological triviality, Whitney equisingularity and bilipschitz equisingularity are equivalent notions. It is very surprising that this is also true for families of singular surfaces in ${\mathbb C}^3$ parametrized by ${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined map germs, as shown by the following theorem:
\[equisingularities\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a one-parameter unfolding of an ${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined map germ $f: ({\mathbb C}^2,0)
\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0).$ Then, the following are equivalent:
1. $F$ is topologically trivial.
2. $F$ is Whitney equisingular.
3. $F$ is bilipschitz trivial.
Theorems \[topological\] and \[equisingularities\] will be proved in Theorems \[topological1\] and \[bilipschitz\], respectively.
For other results related to the subject discussed in this paper, see for instance [@jonu; @Ruas].
[The authors thank A.C.G. Fernandes, V.H. Jorge-Pérez and J.J.Nuño-Ballesteros for helpful conversations. They especially thank Lê Dung Tráng for suggesting the usage of vector fields in the proof of the main result.]{}
Previous results
================
We first review some results on the geometry and classification of singularities of surfaces in 3-space.
Two map germs $f, g:({\mathbb C}^n,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^p,0)$ are ${\mathcal A}-$equivalent, denoted by $g\sim_{\mathcal A}f,$ if there exist map germs of diffeomorphisms $h:({\mathbb C}^n,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^n,0)$ and $k:({\mathbb C}^p,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^p,0),$ such that $g=k\circ f \circ h^{-1}.$
$f:({\mathbb C}^n,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^p,0)$ is finitely determined (${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined) if there exists a positive integer $k$ such that for any $g$ with $j^kg(0)=j^kf(0)$ we have $g\sim_{\mathcal A}f.$
A map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^n,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^p,0)$ is finitely determined if, and only if, for every representative $f$ (of $f$) there exist $U$, a neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$, and $V$, a neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^p,$ with $f(U)\subset V$, such that for all $y\in
V\setminus{0},$ the set $S=f^{-1}(y)\cap \Sigma(f)$ is finite and $f:({\mathbb C}^n,S) \to ({\mathbb C}^p,y)$ is stable.
Let $f:({\mathbb C}^{2},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^{3},0)$ be a finitely determined map germ. From the classical result of Whitney [@W], we know that the stable singularities in these dimensions are transverse double points, triple points and cross-caps. In this case, the above theorem implies that $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ is ${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined if and only if for every representative $f$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $0,$ such that the only singularities of $f(U)\setminus \{0\}$ are transverse double points.
A finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ has a versal unfolding
$$\begin{array}{ccl}
F:({\mathbb C}^2 \times{\mathbb C}^r,0) & \longrightarrow & ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C}^r,0) \\
(x,u) & \mapsto & (f_u(x),u).
\end{array}$$
Given a representative of the map germ $F$, which we also denote by $ F,$ defined in a neighborhood $U \times W$ of $(0,0)$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}^r,$ we can define the bifurcation set $B\subset {\mathbb C}^r$ of $F,$ by $B=\{u\in W: f_u\ \text{is not
stable}\}.$
The set $B$ is a proper algebraic subset of ${\mathbb C}^r,$ hence its complement is a connected set in ${\mathbb C}^r.$ Hence, for any $u,u' \in
W \setminus B,$ $f_u$ and $f_{u'}$ are stable and $f_u\sim_{\mathcal A}f_{u'}.$
Notice that $f_u$ has a finite number of cross-caps and triple points and these are analytic invariants of the original map germ.
Let $f_u$ be a local stable perturbation of $f$, (known as the [*[disentanglement]{}*]{} of $f$). In [@mond] D. Mond defines the following $0$-stable invariants of $f$: $$\begin{aligned}
C(f)&=& {\mbox{\# of cross-caps of }} f_u , \\
T(f)&=& {\mbox{\# of triple-points of }} f_u .\end{aligned}$$
Formulas to compute $C(f)$ and $T(f)$ as the codimension of certain algebras associated to $f$ are given in [@mond].
Double point locus
==================
To study the topology of $f({\mathbb C}^2),$ in a small neighborhood of $0,$ one needs a third invariant associated to the double point locus of $f$ which we now describe. Let $f:U\to {\mathbb C}^p$ be a holomorphic map, where $U\subset {\mathbb C}^n$ is an open subset and $n\leq p.$ We define the [*double point set of*]{} $f$, denoted by $\tilde{D}^{2}(f),$ as the closure in $U\times U$ of the set $$\{(x, y)\in U\times U: f(x)=f(y), x\neq y\} .$$
To choose a convenient analytic structure for the double point set $\tilde{D}^{2}(f),$ we follow the construction of [@Mond-Marar] which is also valid for holomorphic maps from ${\mathbb C}^n$ to ${\mathbb C}^p$ with $n\leq p.$ Let us denote the diagonals in ${\mathbb C}^n\times {\mathbb C}^n$ and ${\mathbb C}^p\times {\mathbb C}^p$ by $\Delta_n$ and $\Delta_p$ respectively and denote the sheaves of ideals defining them by ${{\mathcal I}}_n$ and ${{\mathcal I}}_p$ respectively. We write the points of ${\mathbb C}^n\times {\mathbb C}^n$ as $(x, x').$ Then, for each $i=1,
\ldots, p$, it is clear that $$f_i(x)-f_i(x')\in {{\mathcal I}}_n$$ where $f=(f_1,\ldots, f_p).$ Hence there exist $\alpha_{ij}(x,
x'),\;1\leq i\leq p,\;1\leq j\leq n,$ such that $$f_i(x)-f_i(x')=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\alpha_{ij}(x,x')(x_j-x'_j).$$ If $f(x)=f(x')$ and $x\neq x'$, then clearly every $n\times n$ minor of the matrix $\alpha=(\alpha_{ij})$ must vanish at $(x,
x').$ We denote by ${{\mathcal R}}_n(\alpha)$ the ideal in ${{\mathcal O}}_{{\mathbb C}^{2n}}$ generated by the $n\times n$ minors of $\alpha.$ Then we define the [*double point ideal*]{} as $${{\mathcal I}} ^2(f)=(f\times f)^{*}{{\mathcal I}}_p+{{\mathcal R}}_n(\alpha).$$
It is easy to verify that $V({{\mathcal I}} ^2(f))=\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ and we call this complex space the [*double point locus of*]{} $f.$ At a non-diagonal point $(x, x'),$ ${{\mathcal I}} ^2(f)$ is generated by the functions $f_i(x)-f_i(x').$ Moreover, the restriction of ${{\mathcal I}} ^2(f)$ to the diagonal $\Delta_n$ is the ideal generated by the $n\times n$ minors of the Jacobian matrix of $f$, so that $\Delta_n\cap \tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is just the singular locus of $f.$ The following property of the double point locus is a consequence of [@Buchsbaum-Eisenbud].
\[C-M\] The codimension of $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is less than or equal to $p$. Moreover, if the codimension is $p$, then $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\[reduced\] Let $f:(\mathbb {\mathbb C}^{2},0)\rightarrow (\mathbb {\mathbb C}^{3},0)$ be a finitely determined map germ. Then, $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is a reduced curve.
By Lemma \[C-M\] $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is Cohen-Macaulay, hence it is of pure dimension $1$ and satisfies Serre’s conditions $(S_1)$, that is all associated primes of ${\mathcal O}_{\tilde{D}^{2}(f)}$ are minimal (see for example [@Matsumura p. 183]). On the other hand, by the Mather-Gaffney criterion for finite determinacy, there is a representative $f:U\to {\mathbb C}^3$ of $f$ defined on some open neighborhood $U$ of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$ such that $f|_{U\setminus \{0\}}$ is stable and $f^{-1}(0)=\{0\}.$ Thus, $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)\setminus \{0\}$ is a smooth curve in $U$ and therefore ${\mathcal O}_{\tilde{D}^{2}(f)}$ satisfies Serre’s conditions $(R_0)$, that is the localization of ${\mathcal
O}_{\tilde{D}^{2}(f)}$ at every minimal prime is regular. Hence, since ${\mathcal O}_{\tilde{D}^{2}(f)}$ satisfies both Serre’s conditions $(R_0)$ and $(S_1)$, $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)$ is reduced (see for example [@Matsumura p. 183]).
Assume that $G$ is a finite group which acts linearly on ${\mathbb C}^N$. This action induces an analytic structure on the quotient ${\mathbb C}^N/G$ so that the local ring at a point $z\in{\mathbb C}^N$ is given by $$\mathcal O_{N,z}^{G}=\{h\in\mathcal O_{N,z}: gh=h, \forall g\in G\}.$$ Assume now that $I\subset\mathcal O_{N,z}$ is a $G$-invariant ideal. Then $G$ acts also on the germ of analytic set $X=V(I)\subset ({\mathbb C}^N,z)$ and gives again an analytic structure on $X/G$ with local ring $$\mathcal O_{X}^{G}=\{h\in\mathcal O_{X}:
gh=h, \forall g\in G\},$$ where $\mathcal O_X=\mathcal O_{N,z}/I$, in such a way that $X/G$ embeds naturally in $({\mathbb C}^N/G,z)$. If $I$ is generated by $G$-invariant functions $a_1,\dots,a_r\in\mathcal
O_{N,z}$, then $$\mathcal O_{X}^{G}\equiv \mathcal
O_{N,z}^{G}/I^G,$$ where $I^G$ is the ideal in $\mathcal
O_{N,z}^{G}$ generated by the same functions $a_1,\dots,a_r$. Since $\mathcal O_{X}^{G}$ is in fact a subring of $\mathcal
O_{X}$, we have that if $X$ is reduced, then $X/G$ is also reduced.
In our case, if $f$ is a holomorphic map or map germ from ${\mathbb C}^2$ to ${\mathbb C}^{3}$, then the double point ideal $\mathcal I^2(f)$ is $S_2$-invariant, where we consider the action of the group $S_2$ on ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}^2$ given by $\tau(x,x')=(x',x)$. In this way, we can define the quotient complex space or complex space germ $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$. It is a well known fact that ${\mathbb C}^2\times
{\mathbb C}^2/S_2$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb C}^2$ times a quadratic cone in ${\mathbb C}^3$. In particular, $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$ embeds in ${\mathbb C}^5.$
If $f:U\subset{\mathbb C}^2\to{\mathbb C}^3$ is stable, then $\tilde{D}^2(f)$ is a smooth curve and the quotient map $p:\tilde{D}^2(f)\to
\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$ is a 2-fold branched covering. For a finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0)$, $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$ is the germ of a reduced curve and $\pi:\tilde{D}^2(f)\to
\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$ is a finite map germ, which is generically 2-to-1.
To complete the setup, let $D^2(f)=p_{1}(\tilde{D}^2(f))\subset
{\mathbb C}^2$ and $f(D^2(f))\subset {\mathbb C}^3,$ where $p_{1}:{\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}^2\to
{\mathbb C}^2$ is the projection on the first factor. For a finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0),$ $p_{1}$ is finite when restricted to $\tilde D^2(f)$, in fact it is 1-to-1, and thus $D^2(f)$ is the germ of a one-dimensional analytic set. Analogously, $f$ is also finite when restricted to $D^2(f)$ (although in this case the map is 2-to-1 except at $0$), and thus $f(D^2(f))$ is also a germ of a one-dimensional analytic set. In both cases we consider the reduced analytic structure, so that they become germs of reduced curves.
We have the following commutative diagram $$\label{CD}
\begin{CD}
\tilde{D}^2(f) @>>> \tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2\\
@VVV @VVV\\
D^2(f) @>>> f(D^2(f)),
\end{CD}$$ where the columns are 1-to-1.
Therefore, there are $3$ double-point sets associated to the source: $\tilde D^2(f),$ $ D^2(f)$ and $ \tilde D^2(f)/{S_2},$ and each of them is a reduced curve with isolated singularity. The Milnor number of each of these sets, as defined in [@Greuel-Buchweitz], is an analytic invariant of the singularity.
\[image-milnor\] Let $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ be a finitely determined map germ, $f_s$ a stable perturbation of $f$ and $X_s=f_s({\mathbb C}^2)$, then the following results hold.
1. $\chi(X_s)= C(f)+T(f)+\mu({\tilde D^2(f)}/{S_2})$,
2. $X_s$ is simply connected and has the homotopy type of a wedge of $2$-spheres. The number of spheres in the wedge (known as the [*[image Milnor number]{}*]{}) is $$\mu_\Delta(f)= C(f)-1+T(f)+\mu( {\tilde D^2(f)}/{S_2}).$$
Families of finitely determined map germs
==========================================
Let $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ be a finitely determined map germ. A *one-parameter unfolding of* $f$ is a map germ $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ of the form $F(x,y,t)=(f_t(x,y),t)$ such that $f_t(0)=0, \, f_0=f$. We say that an unfolding $F$ is a *stabilization of* $f$ if there is a representative $F:U\times T\to {\mathbb C}^3\times T,$ where $T$ and $U$ are open neighborhoods of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}$ and ${\mathbb C}^2$ respectively, such that $f_t:U\to{\mathbb C}^3$ is stable for all $t\in T\setminus
\{0\}$.
Since we are in the range of the nice dimensions in the sense of Mather, it is well known that a stabilization of a finitely determined map germ always exists.
Given an unfolding $F$ of $f$, we can also define the double point locus $\tilde{D}^2(F)$ which is considered in $({\mathbb C}^2\times
{\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},0)$ instead of $({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C}^3,0)$ and the other set germs $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2$ in $({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}^2\times
{\mathbb C}/S_2,0)$, $D^2(F)$ in $({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},0)$ and $F(D^2(F))$ in $({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},0)$.
([@Briancon-Galligo-Granger Lemma 1.1])\[Briancon\] Let $X$ be a one parameter deformation of a reduced space curve $X_0.$ Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $X$ is a flat deformation of $X_0;$
2. $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay;
3. $X$ is of pure dimension $2.$
\[smooth\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0 )\to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be an unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0).$ Then, the projections $\tilde{D}^2(F)\to({\mathbb C},0)$, ${D}^2(F)\to({\mathbb C},0)$ and $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2\to({\mathbb C},0)$ are flat deformations of $\tilde{D}^2(f)$, ${D}^2(f)$ and $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$ respectively. Moreover, if $F$ is a stabilization, then the projection $\pi:\tilde{D}^2(F)\to({\mathbb C},0)$ is a smoothing.
Let $\pi:\tilde{D}^2(F)\to({\mathbb C},0)$ be the projection. Note that the second part of the proposition follows from the first one, since for each $t\ne0$, $\tilde{D}^2(f_t)=\pi^{-1}(t)$ which is smooth if $f_t$ is stable.
Let us show that $\pi:\tilde{D}^2(F)\to({\mathbb C},0)$ is a flat deformation of $\tilde{D}^2(f)$. Note that $\tilde{D}^2(F)$ is Cohen-Macaulay of pure dimension 2 by Lemma \[C-M\]. We also know by Proposition \[reduced\] that $\tilde{D}^2(f)$ is reduced and has pure dimension 1. Thus, $\tilde{D}^2(F)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay $1$-parameter deformation of the reduced space curve $\tilde{D}^2(f)$. Hence the result follows by Lemma \[Briancon\].
The proof for $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2$ is analogous. Suppose that $\mathcal I^2(F)^{S_2}$ is generated by $S_2$-invariant functions $H_1,\dots,H_r\in\mathcal O_5$. Then $h_1,\dots,h_r\in\mathcal
O_4$ are also $S_2$-invariant, where $h_i(x,x')=H_i(x,x',0)$, and generate $\mathcal I^2(f)^{S_2}$. Hence, $\mathcal I^2(F)^{S_2}$ restricted to $t=0$ is equal to $\mathcal I^2(f)^{S_2}$, that is $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2$ is a $1$-parameter deformation of the space curve $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$. On the other hand, since $\tilde{D}^2(F)$ is Cohen-Macaulay by Lemma \[C-M\] we also have that $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2$ is Cohen-Macaulay (see for example [@Bruns-Herzog Corollary 6.4.6]). Thus, $\tilde{D}^2(F)/S_2$ is a Cohen-Macaulay $1$-parameter deformation of the reduced space curve $\tilde{D}^2(f)/S_2$. Hence the result follows by Lemma \[Briancon\].
Finally, the flatness of $D^2(F)$ follows from the fact that $D^2(F)$ is a hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^3$, hence it is Cohen-Macaulay. Therefore, $\tilde{D}^2(F)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay $1$-parameter deformation of the reduced plane curve $\tilde{D}^2(f)$. Hence the result follows by Lemma \[Briancon\].
Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0)\to({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be an unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0)$. We will say that $F$ is $\mu$-constant if $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ is constant along $T$, for $t\in T$, where $T$ is a small neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}.$
Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0)\to({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be an unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0)$. We say that $F$ is *topologically trivial* if there are homeomorphism map germs: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi:({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},(0,0))\to ({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},(0,0)), &\Phi(x, t)=(\phi_t(x), t),\, \phi_0(x)=x,\,\phi_t(0)=0,\\
&\Psi:({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},(0,0))\to ({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},(0,0)), &\Psi(y,
t)=(\psi_t(y), t),\, \psi_0(y)=y,\, \psi_t(0)=0,\end{aligned}$$ such that $F=\Psi \circ G\circ \Phi^{-1}$, where $G(x, t)=(f(x),
t)$ is the trivial unfolding of $f$.
The following definitions were given by T. Gaffney in [@Gaffney] for finitely determined map germs in dimensions $(n,p).$ We restrict ourselves to the case $(n,p)=(2,3).$
We say that $F$ is a *good unfolding* of $f$ if there exist neighborhoods $U$ of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C}$ and $W$ of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},$ such that the following hold.
1. $F^{-1}(\{0\}\times T)=\{0\}\times T,$ that is, $F$ maps $U\setminus(\{0\}\times T)$ into $W\setminus (\{0\}\times T)$.
2. For all $(z_0,t_0)\in W\setminus (\{0\}\times T)$ the map $f_{t_0}:({\mathbb C}^2,S)\to({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ is stable, where $S=F^{-1}(z_0,t_0)\cap\Sigma F \cap U$ (which is a finite set) and $\Sigma F$ denotes the singular set of the unfolding $F$).
If there exists a curve $\alpha(s)=(x(s),y(s),t(s))$ in $({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0)$, containing $0$ in its closure, such that $(x(s),y(s))$ is a cross-cap point of $f_{t(s)}$, then we say that [*$F$ has coalescing of cross-cap singularities*]{}.
We can make an analogous definition for coalescing of triple points. The following proposition is a particular case of Proposition 3.6 in Gaffney’s paper.
Let $f:({\mathbb C}^2,0)\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ be a finitely determined map germ and $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a good unfolding of $f.$ Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $C(f_t)$ and $T(f_t)$ are constant.
2. $F$ has no coalescing of cross-caps or triple points.
A one-parameter unfolding $F$ of $f$ is an *excellent unfolding* if it is good and the $0$-stable invariants $C(f_t)$ and $T(f_t)$ remain constant.
Excellent unfoldings have a natural stratification. In the source there are the following strata: $$\left\{ {\mathbb C}^2 \setminus D^2(F), D^2(F)\setminus(\{0\}\times T),
\{0\}\times T \right\} .$$ In the target, the strata are: $$\left\{ {\mathbb C}^3 \setminus F({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C}),
F({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C})\setminus\overline{F(D^2(F))} ,
F(D^2(F))\setminus(\{0\}\times T), \{0\}\times T \right\} .$$ Notice that $F$ preserves the stratification, that is, $F$ sends a stratum into a stratum.
To finish the section, we recall the main result in T. Gaffney’s paper [@Gaffney], which gives, for any pair of dimensions $(n,p),$ the topological triviality of excellent unfoldings of finitely determined map germs for which the polar invariants associated to the stable types in source and target remain constant.
Let $F:({\mathbb C}^n\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^p\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be an excellent unfolding. Let us assume that all polar invariants of all stable types which occur in the stratification associated to $F$ are constant at the origin. Then, the unfolding is topologically trivial.
For finitely determined map germs in the nice dimensions or their boundary, Gaffney also proved ([@Gaffney], Theorem 7.3) that an excellent unfolding $F$ is Whitney equisingular if, and only if, all polar invariants of all stable types of $F$ are constant.
Properties of $\mu$-constant unfoldings
=======================================
\[teorema1\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a topologically trivial family of finitely determined map germs. Then,
1. the Milnor numbers $\mu(D^2(f_t)),\,\mu(\tilde D^2(f_t)),$ and $\mu({\tilde D^2(f_t)}/{S_2})$ are constant;
2. the $0$-stable invariants $C(f_t)$ and $T(f_t)$ are constant.
In particular, $F$ is a $\mu$-constant unfolding of $f.$
The following formulas were proved by Marar and Mond in [@Mond-Marar], Theorem 3.4: $$\mu(D^2(f_t))=\mu({\tilde D^2(f_t)})+6T(f_t)=2\mu({\tilde
D^2(f_t)}/{S_2})+C(f_t)+6T(f_t)-1.$$ From these it suffices to prove that $\mu(\tilde{D}^{2}(f_t)),\;\mu(\tilde{D}^{2}(f_t)/S_2)$ and $\mu({D}^{2}(f_t))$ are constant. (We also use the fact that all of the above invariants are upper semi-continuous.)
Since $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},0)$ defined by $F(x,y,t)=(f_t(x,y),t)$ is topologically trivial, there are homeomorphisms $\Phi:({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^2\times
{\mathbb C},0)$ and $\Psi:({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},0),$ as in the Definition 4.3, such that $ \Psi\circ F \circ \Phi^{-1}=
G, $ where $G(x,y,t)=(f(x,y),t)$ is the trivial unfolding of $f.$
It is easy to prove that these homeomorphisms give rise to homeomorphisms (respecting the $S_2$-action) on the double point locus:
1. $\tilde{\Phi}^{2}:\tilde{D}^{2}(F)\rightarrow
\tilde{D}^{2}(G)$,
2. $\overline{\Phi}^{2}:\tilde{D}^{2}(F)/S_2\rightarrow
\tilde{D}^{2}(G)/S_2$,
3. ${\Phi}^{2}:{D}^{2}(F)\rightarrow
{D}^{2}(G)$,
which obviously commute with the projections to ${\mathbb C}.$
Clearly, $\tilde{D}^{2}(G)$ is homeomorphic to $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)\times
T$, $\tilde{D}^{2}(G)/S_2$ to $\tilde{D}^{2}(f)/S_2\times
T$ and ${D}^{2}(G)$ to ${D}^{2}(f)\times
T$.
Hence, the above morphisms are topological trivializations of flat families of reduced curves with isolated singularities. Therefore, by Theorem 5.2.2 in [@Greuel-Buchweitz] we have that $\mu({D}^{2}(f_t)),\,$ $\mu(\tilde{D}^{2}(f_t))$ and $\mu(\tilde{D}^{2}(f_t)/S_2)$ are constant.
Next we will prove that $\mu$-constant unfoldings are excellent.
\[teorema2\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be an unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f.$ Then, the following statements are equivalent:
1. \[a\] $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ is constant (i.e., $F$ is a $\mu$-constant unfolding);
2. \[b\]$\mu(\tilde D^2(f_t))$ and $T(f_t)$ are constant;
3. $\mu({\tilde D^2(f_t)}/{S_2}),$ $C(f_t)$ and $T(f_t)$ are constant;
4. The image Milnor number $\mu_\Delta$ is constant.
Moreover, any of these conditions implies that $F$ is an excellent unfolding.
The equivalence of the four conditions above comes from Theorem \[image-milnor\] and from the formulas from Marar and Mond quoted in the proof of the previous theorem.
Let us assume now that $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ is constant in the deformation. To prove that $F$ is excellent, we proceed as in [@Gaffney], Theorem 8.7.
To verify the first condition of goodness, we assume by contradiction that, in any neighborhood of $0\times 0$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},$ we have $F^{-1}(\{0\}\times T)\neq \{0\}\times
T.$ If the points in $F^{-1}(\{0\}\times T)\setminus (\{0\}\times
T)$ lie in the singular set $\Sigma(F)$, of $F,$ then $C(f_t)$ must change at the origin, so we can assume they lie in $F^{-1}(t)\setminus(\{0\}\times T \cup \Sigma (F)).$
Consider the intersection of $f_t({\mathbb C}_x^2)$ with $f_t({\mathbb C}_0^2)$ where $(x,t)\in F^{-1}(\{0\}\times T)\setminus (\{0\}\times T)$. If the intersection lies in $\Sigma(f_t({\mathbb C}_0^2))$ then $T(f_t)$ is at least one dimensional. Hence $f$ would not be finitely determined if this holds for all $t$ close to $0.$ If $f_t({\mathbb C}_x^2)$ meets $ \Sigma (f_t({\mathbb C}_0^2))$ properly, then $D^2(f_t)_x$ must have a singularity, hence $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ must jump at $0.$
Considering the second condition for $F$ to be good, we suppose it fails, so there exists an arc of points $(z(t),t)$ in ${\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},$ with $(0,0)$ in its closure such that $f_t$ is not a stable map germ on $f_t^{-1}(z(t)).$ If $f_t^{-1}(z(t))$ consists of a single point or three or more points, then $z(t)\in\overline{f_t(\Sigma(f_t))\cup
f_t(T(f_t))},$ so either $C(f_t)$ or $T(f_t)$ jumps at the origin. The only possibility not so eliminated is that $f_t^{-1}(z(t))$ consists of two points, say $x_1$ and $x_2$ with $x_1\neq x_2$, at which $f_t$ is an immersion and $f(x_1)=f(x_2)$.
We now show that $x_1$ and $x_2$ are singular points of $D^2(f_t).$ The easiest way to see this is by picking disjoint neighborhoods $U_i$ of $x_i$ and choosing coordinates centered at $x_i$ so that $f_t|_{U_1}=(x_1,y_1,0)$ and $f_t|_{U_2}=(x_2,y_2,f_3(x_2,y_2))$ with $\mathrm{grad}\,f_3(0,0)=0.$ Then the equations for $\tilde
D(f_t)$ are $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
x_1-x_2&=&0,\\
y_1-y_2&=&0,\\
f_3&=&0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ So $\tilde D^2(f_t)$ has a singularity at $(0,0)\times (0,0)$ and $\tilde D^2(f_t)$ sits in the diagonal of $U_1\times U_2.$ Since the projection onto either factor is an isomorphism when restricted to the diagonal, $D^2(f_t)$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$ has a singularity at $x_i.$ Hence the constancy of $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ implies that such an arc can not exist in this case either.
The main result
===============
\[Whitney\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a $\mu$-constant unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f.$ Then, the families of curves $D^{2}(F),\,\tilde{D}^{2}(F),$ and $\tilde{D}^{2}(F)/S_2$ are Whitney equisingular along $\{0\}\times
T.$
Since $\mu(D^{2}(f_{t}))$ is constant and $D^{2}(F)$ is a flat family of reduced plane curves we have that $(D^{2}(F)\setminus
(\{0\}\times T),\{0\}\times T)$ is Whitney regular. In particular, the $D^{2}(f_{t})$ have constant multiplicity at $0$ (see [@Greuel-Buchweitz]). On the other hand, by Theorem \[teorema2\] we have that the flat family $\tilde{D}^{2}(F)$ of reduced curves have constant Milnor numbers and, since $p_1:
{\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}\to {\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}$ is a submersion which restricts to a 1-to-1 map $p_1:\tilde{D}^{2}(F)\to D^{2}(F),$ we also have that the family $\tilde{D}^{2}(F)$ has constant multiplicity at $0$. Hence, by a result of Buchweitz and Greuel [@Greuel-Buchweitz] $(\tilde{D}^{2}(F)\setminus ( \{0\}\times
T),\{0\}\times T)$ is Whitney regular. Analogously, $\tilde{D}^{2}(F)/S_2$ is also a flat family of reduced space curves which has constant Milnor number and constant multiplicity, because $p:\tilde{D}^{2}(F)\to \tilde{D}^{2}(F)/S_2$ is 2-to-1 and the source has constant multiplicity. Hence, $(\tilde{D}^{2}(F)/S_2\setminus (\{0\}\times T), \{0\}\times T)$ is Whitney regular.
\[topological1\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a one-parameter unfolding of a finitely determined map germ $f.$ The following statements are equivalent:
1. $\mu(D^{2}(f_{t}))$ is constant for $t\in T,$ where $T$ is a small neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C};$
2. $F$ is topologically trivial.
The implication $(ii) \Rightarrow (i)$ follows from Theorem \[teorema1\].
The idea of the proof of the converse statement is to construct integrable vector fields $\xi$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}$ and $\eta$ in ${\mathbb C}^3\times {\mathbb C},$ tangent to the strata of the stratifications in source and target respectively, such that $$dF(\xi)=\eta \circ F.$$ In this way, the integral curves of $\xi$ and $\eta$ will define the families of homeomorphisms $h_t:{\mathbb C}^2\to {\mathbb C}^2, \, k_t:{\mathbb C}^3 \to
{\mathbb C}^3$ such that $$k_t \circ f_t \circ h_t^{-1}=f.$$
Since ${D}^{2}(F)$ is Whitney equisingular along $\{0\}\times T$ as a family of curves in ${\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C},$ it follows from the First Isotopy Lemma [@gwpl] that the vector field ${V}_{0}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ on $\{0\}\times T$ lifts to an integrable stratified vector field ${V}$ in a neighborhood $U$ of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}.$ The restriction of $V$ to each stratum is smooth and tangent to the stratum, $d\pi_{T}(V)=V_{0}$ and $d\rho(V)=0,$ where $\pi_{T}: {\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}\to {\mathbb C}$ is the projection on the $t$-axis and $\rho$ is a control function, $\rho: {\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}\to {\mathbb C},$ $\rho \geq 0,\,\rho^{-1}(0)=
\{0\}\times T $ (see [@gwpl] for more details).
Notice that $D^2(F)$ has an analytic $S_2$-action given by $\sigma
(x,y,t)=(x',y',t),$ where $(x',y',t)$ is the unique point of $D^2(F)$ such that $F(x,y,t)=F(x',y',t).$ We can average the vector field $V$ to obtain a new controlled vector field on $D^2(F),$ $$W(x,y,t)= \frac{V(x,y,t)+ V(x',y',t)}{2},$$ satisfying $W(x,y,t)=W(x',y',t),$ whenever $F(x,y,t)=F(x',y',t)$ and $d\pi_T(W)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}.$ Notice that the function $\rho^{*}(x,y,t)= \frac{\rho(x,y,t)+ \rho(x',y',t)}{2},$ is a control function for $W,$ that is $d\rho^{*}(W)=0.$
We can extend this vector field to a controlled vector field $\xi$ defined in a neighborhood of $0$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}$, (for example using the Kuo vector field, [@kuo]).
The vector field $\eta$ given by $\eta=dF(\xi)$ is a well defined integrable vector field in the image $F(D^2(F)).$ Furthermore, since $F$ is an isomorphism outside the double point locus, $\eta$ can be extended to the whole image $F({\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C}).$ Certainly we can extend this vector field to the ambient space giving the desired topological trivialization.
Bilipschitz triviality of $\mu$-constant unfoldings
===================================================
A mapping $\phi : U\subset {K}^n\rightarrow {K}^p, \,\, K={\mathbb R}\, \text{or}\, {\mathbb C},$ is called [*Lipschitz*]{} if there exists a constant $c >0$ such that: $$\| \phi(x)-\phi(y) \| \leq c \| x-y \| \ \forall \ x,y
\in U.$$ When $n=p$ and $\phi$ has a Lipschitz inverse, we say that $\phi$ is [*bilipschitz*]{}.
Two map germs $f,g :({K}^n,0)\rightarrow ({K}^p,0)$ are called [ *bilipschitz equivalent*]{} if there exists a bilipschitz map-germ $\phi
:({K}^n,0)\rightarrow ({K }^n,0)$ such that $f=g\circ \phi .$
A one-parameter unfolding $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ of a finitely determined map germ $f: ({\mathbb C}^2,0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3,0)$ is [*bilipschitz trivial*]{} if it is topologically trivial as in Definition 4.3 and the families of homeomorphisms in source and target are families of bilipschitz homeomorphisms.
When the bilipschitz trivialization is obtained by integrating bilipschitz vector fields, we say that $F$ is [*strongly bilipschitz trivial*]{}.
Before proving the next theorem, we state a result of McShane ([@MacShane]), which is a weak version of a Theorem of Kirszbraun on the extension of Lipschitz functions:
\[Mac\] ([@MacShane]) Let $X \subset {\mathbb R}^n$ be a metric subspace of the Euclidean space and $f: X \to {\mathbb R}$ be a $c$-Lipschitz mapping, that is, $||f(x)-f(y)|| \leq c ||x-y||.$ Then, $$F(z)=sup_ {\{x \in X\}}(f(x)-c||x-z||),\, z\in {\mathbb R}^n$$ is a $c$-Lipschitz extension of $f.$
[If $f$ depends continuously on parameters $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_s),$ i.e., $f(x,t), \, x\in X$ is continuous in $(x,t)$ and is $c$-Lipschitz in $x,$ with the constant $c$ not depending on $t,$ then it follows from the above result that there exists a Lipschitz extension $F(x,t), \, x\in {\mathbb R}^n.$ Moreover, if $v$ is a vector field on $X,$ depending continuously on parameters, we can also apply Theorem \[Mac\] to each coordinate function of $v$ to obtain an extension $c\sqrt{n}$-Lipschitz $V$ to ${\mathbb R}^n.$]{}
\[bilipschitz\] Let $F:({\mathbb C}^2\times{\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^3\times{\mathbb C},0)$ be a one-parameter unfolding of an ${\mathcal A}$-finitely determined map germ $f: ({\mathbb C}^2,0)
\to ({\mathbb C}^3,0).$ Then, the following are equivalent:
1. $F$ is topologically trivial.
2. $F$ is Whitney equisingular.
3. $F$ is bilipschitz trivial.
To get the result it is sufficient to prove that $(a)$ implies $(c),$ since the conditions $(c) \Longrightarrow (b)
\Longrightarrow (a) $ hold in general. We do this following the same steps as in Theorem \[topological\], constructing Lipschitz vector fields $\xi$ in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},$ and $\eta$ in ${\mathbb C}^3\times
{\mathbb C}$ such that $dF(\xi)=\eta \circ F$.
As the set $D^2(F)$ is a family of reduced plane curves, then the following are equivalent (cf. [@Greuel-Buchweitz; @Za]):
- $\mu(D^2(f_t))$ is constant;
- $D^2(F)$ is topologically trivial;
- $D^2(F)$ is Whitney equisingular;
- $D^2(F)$ is strongly bilipschitz trivial.
As in Theorem \[topological\], there is a vector field $V$ defined in a neighborhood of the origin in ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\mathbb C},$ $d\pi_T(V)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}.$ Since $D^2(F)$ satisfies $(4)$, we now assume that $V$ is a Lipschitz vector field.
We now lift $V$ to a controlled vector field $\tilde V$ in $({\mathbb C}^2
\times {\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C},0),$ which is tangent to the strata of $\tilde D^2(F).$ Clearly, $d\pi_T(\tilde
V)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}.$
Since the set $\tilde D^2(F)$ is $S_2$-invariant, we can average the vector field $\tilde V$ to obtain a new controlled vector field $$\tilde W(x,y,x',y',t)= \frac{\tilde V(x,y,x',y',t)+\tilde
V(x',y',x,y,t)}{2},$$ tangent to the strata of the stratification in $({\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C},0),$ which is invariant under the $S_2$ action on $\tilde D^2(F).$
Let $p_i: ({\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C},0) \to ({\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C},0),\,
i=1,2, $ be the canonical projections: $p_1(x,y,x',y',t)=(x,y,t)$ and $p_2(x,y,x',y',t)=(x',y',t).$ The restriction of $p_1$ to $\tilde D^2(F)$ is a $1$-to-$1$ generic projection in the sense that the limit of all secant lines in $\tilde D^2(F)$ does not live in the kernel of $p_1.$ Then, it follows from [@T], page $354,$ (see also [@alex]) that $p_1^{-1}: D^2(F) \to \tilde
D^2(F)$ is a bilipschitz homeomorphism. Then, $p_2\circ p_1^{-1} :
D^2(F) \to D^2(F)$ is also a bilipschitz homeomorphism. Notice that $p_2\circ {p_1}^{-1}$ is the map-germ $\sigma$ defined in the proof of Theorem \[topological\] and which gives the $S_2$ action in $D^2(F).$
Then the vector field $W$ defined in $D^2(F)$ by $W(x,y,t)=
\tilde W(x,y, \sigma(x,y,t),t),$ is a Lipschitz vector field in $D^2(F).$ We now use McShane’s result to obtain a Lipschitz vector field $\xi$ in ${\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C}$ which extends $W.$ The rest of the proof follows as in Theorem 6.3, noticing that $\eta$ is clearly a Lipschitz vector field, and that all the necessary extensions can be made Lipschitz, applying again McShane’s result.
[It is clear that Theorem \[topological\] could be obtained as a corollary of Theorem \[bilipschitz\]. However, we present Theorem \[topological\] as our main result, because it has a more general setting, while Theorem \[bilipschitz\] express properties which do not hold in other dimensions.]{}
As a consequence of the above theorem, it follows that the rich theory of invariants of plane curves translate into results for singular surfaces parametrized by finitely determined map germs. We restrict ourselves to the following corollary, which follows from the above result, and Gaffney’s Theorem 7.1, in [@Gaffney].
Let $F$ be as before and $m_{0}(f_t)$ be the multiplicity of $f_t$ at zero. If $F$ is topologically trivial, then $m_0(f_t)$ is constant.
[99]{}
J. Briançon; A. Galligo; M. Granger [*Déformations équisingulières des germes de courbes gauches réduites*]{}. (French) \[Equisingular deformations of the germs of reduced space curves\] Mém. Soc. Math. France (N.S.) (1980/81), no. 1.
W. Bruns; J. Herzog, [*Cohen-Macaulay rings*]{}. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1993).
D. A. Buchsbaum; D. Eisenbud, [*Generic free resolutions and a family of generically perfect ideals.*]{} Advances in Math. 18 (1975), no. 3, 245–301.
R. O. Buchweitz; G. M. Greuel, [*The Milnor number and deformations of complex curve singularities*]{}. Invent. Math. 58 (1980), no. 3, 241–281.
J. Damon, [*Topological triviality and versality for subgroups of ${\mathcal A}$ and ${\mathcal K}$. II. Sufficient conditions and applications*]{}. Nonlinearity 5 (1992), no. 2, 373–412.
A. C. G. Fernandes, [*Topological equivalence of complex curves and bi-Lipschitz maps*]{}, Michigan Mathematical Journal, Michigan, 51, no 3, (2003), 593–606.
J. Fernández de Bobadilla, [*[Answers to some equisingularity questions]{}*]{}, Invent. Math. 161, no 3, (2005) 657–675.
T. Gaffney, [*Polar multiplicities and equisingularity of map germs*]{}, Topology 32 no 1, (1993), 185–223.
T. Gaffney; D.B. Massey, [*[Trends in Equisingularity]{}*]{}, in Singularity Theory, eds J.W.Bruce and D. Mond, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes 263, Cambridge University Press 1999, 207-248.
C. G. Gibson, K. Wirthmüller, A. A. du Plessis, E. J. N. Looijenga, [*Topological stability of smooth mappings*]{}, Springer LNM 552, Springer-Verlag, 1976.
V. H. Jorge-Pérez; J. J. Nuño-Ballesteros, [*Finite determinacy and Whitney equisingularity of map germs from ${\mathbb C}^n$ to ${\mathbb C}^{2n-1}$,*]{} pre-print.
T. C. Kuo , [*On $C\sp{0}$-sufficiency of jets of potential functions,*]{} Topology 8, (1969), 167–171.
E. McShane, [*Extensions of range of functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40, (1934), 837–842.
H. Matsumura, [*Commutative ring theory*]{}. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1986).
D. Mond, [*Some remarks on the geometry and classification of germs of map from surfaces to $3$-space.*]{} Topology 26, (1987), 3, 361–383.
D. Mond, [*Singularities of mappings from surfaces to $3$-space.*]{} Singularity theory (Trieste, 1991), 509–526, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1995.
D. Mond; D. van Straten, [*Milnor number equals Tjurina number for functions on space curves.*]{} J. London Math. Soc. (2) 63 (2001), no. 1, 177–187.
W. L. Marar; D. Mond, [*Multiple point schemes for corank $1$ maps*]{}. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 39 (1989), no. 3, 553–567
M. Ruas, [*On the equisingularity of families of corank 1 generic germs*]{}. Differential Topology, Foliations and Group Action. Contemporary Mathematics, Vol.161, 113-121, (1994).
B. Teissier, [*The hunting of invariants in the geometry of discriminants. Real and complex singularities.*]{} Proc. Ninth Nordic Summer School/NAVF Sympos. Math., Oslo, 1976, 565–678.
B. Tessier, [*Vari' et' es Polaires 2: Multiplicités Polaires, Sections Planes, et Conditions de Whitney*]{}, Actes de la conference de g' eometrie alg' ebrique ' ala Rábida, Sringer Lecture Notes, 961 (1981), pp.314-491.
C. T. C. Wall, [*Finite determinacy of smooth map germs*]{}. Bull. London Math. Soc. 13 (1981), no. 6, 481–539.
H. Whitney, [*The singularities of a smooth $n$-manifold in $(2n-1)$-space*]{}, [Ann. of Math. (2)]{}, 45, (1944), [247–293]{}.
O. Zariski, [*Studies in Equisingularity, I, II, III,*]{} Am. J. of Math. 87, 507-536, 972-1006 (1965), Am. J. of Math. 90, 961-1023 (1968).
[Roberto Callejas Bedregal Kevin Houston\
[*[email protected]*]{}\
Universidade Federal da Paraíba-DM University of Leeds\
Cidade Universitária s/n School of Mathematics\
58.051-900 João Pessoa, PB, Brazil. Leeds, LS2 9J, United Kingdom.]{}
[^1]: Work partially supported by PADCT/CT-INFRA/CNPq/MCT - Grant 620120/04-5
[^2]: The second named author thanks the ICMC at São Carlos for their hospitality. His research was partially supported by EPSRC, Grant reference GR/S48639/01
[^3]: The third named author thanks the ICTP for its hospitality and financial support during her visit to Trieste, and CNPq, Brazil, grant \#300066/88-0 and FAPESP, grant \#03/03107-9, for partial support. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 58K40(primary), 58K65(secondary).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Over the past few years, symmetric positive definite matrices (SPD) have been receiving considerable attention from computer vision community. Though various distance measures have been proposed in the past for comparing SPD matrices, the two most widely-used measures are affine-invariant distance and log-Euclidean distance. This is because these two measures are true geodesic distances induced by Riemannian geometry. In this work, we focus on the log-Euclidean Riemannian geometry and propose a data-driven approach for learning Riemannian metrics/geodesic distances for SPD matrices. We show that the geodesic distance learned using the proposed approach performs better than various existing distance measures when evaluated on face matching and clustering tasks.'
author:
- 'Raviteja Vemulapalli, David W. Jacobs'
title: Riemannian Metric Learning for Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices
---
Notations {#notations .unnumbered}
=========
- $I$ denotes the identity matrix of appropriate size.\
- $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ denotes an inner product.\
- $S_n$ denotes the set of $n \times n$ symmetric matrices.\
- $S_n^{++}$ denotes the set of $n \times n$ symmetric positive definite matrices.\
- $\mathcal{T}_p\mathcal{M}$ denotes the tangent space to the manifold $\mathcal{M}$ at the point $p \in \mathcal{M}$.\
- $\|\ \|_F$ denotes the matrix Frobenius norm.\
- Chol(P) denotes the lower triangular matrix obtained from the Cholesky decomposition of a matrix P.\
- exp() and log() denote matrix exponential and logarithm respectively.\
- $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ and $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}$ represent partial derivatives.\
Introduction
============
Many computer vision applications involve features that obey specific constraints. Such features often lie in non-Euclidean spaces, where the underlying distance metric is not the regular $\ell_2$ norm. For instance, popular features like shapes, rotation matrices, linear subspaces, symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices, etc. are known to lie on Riemannian manifolds. In such cases, one needs to develop inference techniques that make use of the underlying manifold structure.
Over the past few years, manifolds have been receiving considerable attention from the computer vision community. In this work, we focus our attention on the set of SPD matrices. Examples of SPD matrices in computer vision include diffusion tensors \[1\], structure tensors \[2\] and covariance region descriptors \[3\]. Diffusion tensors arise naturally in medical imaging \[1\]. In diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI), water diffusion in tissues is represented by a diffusion tensor characterizing the anisotropy within the tissue. In optical flow estimation and motion segmentation, structure tensors are often employed to encode important image features, such as texture and motion \[2\]. Covariance region descriptors are used in texture classification \[3\], object detection \[4\], object tracking, action recognition and face recognition \[5\]. There are several advantages of using covariance matrices as region descriptors. Covariance matrices provide a natural way of fusing multiple features which might be correlated. The diagonal entries of a covariance matrix represent the variance of individual features and the non-diagonal entries represent the cross correlations. The noise corrupting individual samples is largely filtered out with an averaging filter during covariance computation. Covariance matrices are low dimensional compared to joint feature histograms. Covariance matrices do not have any information regarding the ordering and the number of points. This implies a certain level of scale and rotation invariance over the regions in different images.
Various distance measures have been proposed in the literature for the comparison of SPD matrices. Among them, the two most widely-used distance measures are the affine-invariant distance \[1\] and the log-Frobenius distance \[6\] (also referred to as log-Euclidean distance in the literature). The main reason for their popularity is that they are geodesic distances induced by Riemannian metrics.
The log-Euclidean framework \[6\] proposed by Arsigny *et. al.* defines a class of Riemannian metrics, rather than a single metric, called log-Euclidean Riemannian metrics. According to this framework, any inner product $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ defined on $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++} = \{\text{log}(P)\ |\ P \in S_n^{++} \} = S_n$ extended to $S_n^{++}$ by left- or right- multiplication is a bi-invariant Riemannian metric. Equipped with this bi-invariant metric, the space of SPD matrices is a flat Riemannian space and the geodesic distance corresponding to this bi-invariant Riemannian metric is equal to the distance induced by $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ in $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++}$. Surprisingly, this remarkable result has not been used by the computer vision community. Since $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++} = S_n$ is a vector space, this result allows us to learn log-Euclidean Riemannian metrics and corresponding log-Euclidean geodesic distances from the data by using Mahalanobis distance learning techniques like information-theoretic metric learning (ITML) \[7\] and large margin nearest neighbor distance learning \[8\] in $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++}$. In this work, we explore this idea of data driven Riemannian metrics/geodesic distances for the set of SPD matrices. For learning Mahalanobis distances in $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++}$ we use the ITML technique.
**Organization:** In section 2, we provide a brief overview of various distance measures used in the literature to compare SPD matrices. We briefly explain the ITML technique in section 3 and present our approach for learning log-Euclidean Riemannian metrics/log-Euclidean geodesic distances from the data in section 4. We provide some experimental results in section 5 and conclude the paper in section 6.
Distances to compare SPD matrices
=================================
Various distance measures have been used in the literature to compare SPD matrices. Each distance has been derived from different geometrical, statistical or information-theoretic considerations. Though many of these distances try to capture the non-linearity of SPD matrices, not all of them are geodesic distances induced by Riemannian metrics. Tables 1 and 2 summarize these distances and their properties. Among them, the log-Frobenius distance\[6\] and the affine-invariant distance\[1\] are the most popular ones.
Mahalanobis distance learning using ITML
========================================
Information theoretic metric learning \[7\] is a technique for learning Mahalanobis distance functions from the data based on similarity and dissimilarity constraints. Let $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be a set of $N$ points in $\mathcal{R}^d$. Given pairs of similar points $S$ and pairs of dissimilar points $D$, the aim of ITML is to learn an SPD matrix $M$ such that the Mahalanobis distance parametrized by $M$ is below a given threshold $l$ for similar pairs of points and above a given threshold $u$ for dissimilar pairs of points.\
Let $D_{ld}$ denote the LogDet divergence between SPD matrices defined as $$D_{ld}(P, Q) = \text{trace}(PQ^{-1}) - \text{log det}(PQ^{-1}) - n;\ P,\ Q \in S_n^{++}.$$ ITML formulates the Mahalanobis matrix learning as the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
& \underset{M \succ 0,\ \zeta}{\text{minimize}}\ \ D_{ld} (M, M_0) + \gamma D_{ld}(\text{diag}(\zeta), \text{diag}(\zeta_0))\\
& \text{subject to}\ \ (x_i - x_j)^\top M (x_i - x_j) \leq \zeta_{c(i,j)},\ \forall (i,j) \in S\\
& \hspace{59pt} (x_i - x_j)^\top M (x_i - x_j) \geq \zeta_{c(i,j)},\ \forall (i,j) \in D,
\end{aligned}$$ where $c(i,j)$ denotes the index of the $(i,j)-$th constraint, $\zeta$ is the vector of variables $\zeta_{c(i,j)}$, $\zeta_0$ is a vector whose components equal $l$ for similarity constraints and $u$ for dissimilarity constraints, $M_0$ is an SPD matrix that captures the prior knowledge about $M$, and $\gamma$ is a parameter controlling the tradeoff between satisfying the constraints and minimizing $D_{ld}(M, M_0)$. This optimization problem can be solved efficiently using Bregman iterations. In this work, we use the publicly available ITML code provided by the authors of \[7\].
**ITML parameters:** We need to specify the values for the following parameters while using ITML: $M_0,\ \gamma,\ l,\ u$. We choose the constraint thresholds $l$ and $u$ as the $a^{th}$ and $b^{th}$ percentiles of the observed distribution of distances between pairs of points within the training dataset. Hence, the parameters for the ITML algorithm are $M_0,\ \gamma,\ a$ and $b$.
[| m[2.3cm]{} | c | c | m[1.7cm]{} | c |]{}Distance & Formula & Symmetric & Triangle inequality & Geodesic\
Frobenius & $\|P_1 - P_2\|_F$ & Yes & Yes & No\
Cholesky-Frobenius \[13\] & $\|\text{Chol}(P_1) - \text{Chol}(P_2)\|_F$ & Yes & Yes & No\
J-divergence \[12\] & $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\text{trace}(P_1P_2^{-1} + P_2P_1^{-1}) - 2n}$ & Yes & No & No\
Jensen-Bregman LogDet Divergence\[11\] & $\sqrt{\text{log det} \left(\frac{P_1 + P_2}{2}\right) - \frac{1}{2} \text{log det}\left(P_1P_2\right)}$ & Yes & No & No\
Affine-invariant \[1\] & $\|\text{log}\left(P_1^{-1/2}P_2P_1^{-1/2}\right)\|_F$ & Yes & Yes & Yes\
Log-Frobenius \[6\] & $\| \text{log}(P_1) - \text{log}(P_2) \|_F$ & Yes & Yes & Yes\
[| m[3cm]{} | m[1.3cm]{} | m[1.5cm]{} | m[1.5cm]{} | m[1.5cm]{} | m[1.5cm]{} |]{} Distance & Distance from $S_n^+$ & Affine invariance & Scale invariance & Rotation invariance & Inversion invariance\
Frobenius & Finite & No & No & Yes & No\
Cholesky-Frobenius \[13\] & Finite & No & No & No & No\
J-divergence \[12\] & Infinite & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes\
Jensen-Bregman LogDet Divergence\[11\] & Infinite & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes\
Affine-invariant \[1\] & Infinite & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes\
Log-Frobenius \[6\] & Infinite & No & Yes & Yes & Yes\
Log-Euclidean Riemannian metric learning
========================================
The log-Euclidean framework \[6\] proposed by Arsigny *et. al.* defines a class of Riemannian metrics called log-Euclidean metrics. The geodesic distances associated with log-Euclidean metrics are called log-Euclidean distances. Let $\odot$ be an operation on SPD matrices defined as $P_1 \odot P_2 = \text{exp}\left(\text{log}(P_1\right) + \text{log}(P_2))$. We have the following result based on the log-Euclidean framework introduced in \[6\]:\
**Result 4.1:** Any inner product $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ defined on $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++} = \{\text{log}(P)\ |\ P \in S_n^{++} \} = S_n$ extended to the Lie group $\left(S_n^{++}, \odot \right)$ by left- or right- multiplication is a bi-invariant Riemannian metric. The corresponding geodesic distance between $P_1 \in S_n^{++}$ and $P_2 \in S_n^{++}$ is given by $$d(P_1, P_2) = \| \text{mlog}_I(P_1) - \text{mlog}_I(P_2) \|_I = \| \text{log}(P_1) - \text{log}(P_2) \|_I,$$ where $\|\ \|_I$ is the norm induced by $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$. Note that here $\text{mlog}_I$ is the inverse-exponential map at the identity matrix which is equal to the usual matrix logarithm in this case.\
The set of all $n \times n$ symmetric matrices form a vector space of dimension $d = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Let $vec(P)$ denote the column vector form of the upper triangular part of a matrix $P$. This $vec()$ operation provides a $d$ dimensional vector representation for $S_n$. Let $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ be an inner product defined on the vector space $S_n$ and $M \in S_d^{++}$ be the corresponding matrix of inner products between the $d$ basis vectors corresponding to $vec()$ representation. Note that $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle$ is uniquely characterized by $M$. The distance between two matrices $P_1 \in S_n$ and $P_2 \in S_n$ induced by this inner product is given by $$d(P_1, P_2) = \left(vec(P_1) - vec(P_2)\right)^\top M \left(vec(P_1) - vec(P_2)\right).$$ **Result 4.2:** Let $M \in S_d^{++}$ , where $d = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Then, $M$ defines a unique inner product denoted by $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle_M$ on $\mathcal{T}_IS_n^{++} = \{\text{log}(P)\ |\ P \in S_n^{++} \} = S_n$. This inner product $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle_M$ also defines a log-Euclidean Riemannian metric which can be obtained by simply extending $\left\langle\ ,\ \right\rangle_M$ to the Lie group $\left(S_n^{++}, \odot \right)$ by left- or right- multiplication. The corresponding log-Euclidean geodesic distance between $P_1 \in S_n^{++}$ and $P_2 \in S_n^{++}$ is given by $$d_M(P_1, P_2) = \left(vec(\text{log}(P_1)) - vec(\text{log}(P_2))\right)^\top M \left(vec(\text{log}(P_1)) - vec(\text{log}(P_2))\right).$$ The above result follows directly from result 4.1. Result 4.2 says that any Mahalanobis distance defined in the vector space $\{vec(\text{log}(P))\ |\ P \in S_n^{++} \}$ is a geodesic distance on $S_n^{++}$ and the corresponding Riemannian metric is uniquely defined by the Mahalanobis matrix $M$. Hence, we can learn Riemannian metrics/geodesic distances for $S_n^{++}$ from the data by learning Mahalanobis distance functions in the vector space $\{vec(\text{log}(P))\ |\ P \in S_n^{++} \}$. Table 3 summarizes our approach for leaning geodesic distances on $S_n^{++}$. In this work, we use ITML technique for Mahalanobis distance learning.
[|m[11.2cm]{}|]{}**Input:** $\{P_i \in S_n^{++}\}_{i=1}^N$\
**for** $ i = 1$ to $N$\
$v_i = vec(\text{log}(P_i))$\
**end**\
Learn a Mahalanobis distance function using $\{v_i\}_{i=1}^N.$ This gives a Mahalanobis matrix $M \in S^{++}_d$, where $d = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$.\
**Output:** Geodesic distance between $P_1$ and $P_2$:\
$\left(vec(\text{log}(P_1)) - vec(\text{log}(P_2))\right)^\top M \left(vec(\text{log}(P_1)) - vec(\text{log}(P_2))\right)$.\
Experiments
===========
In the section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed Riemannian metric/geodesic distance learning approach on two applications: (i) Face matching using Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) dataset and (ii) Semi-supervised clustering using ETH80 dataset.
Face matching using LFW face dataset
------------------------------------
In this experiment our aim is to predict whether a given pair of face images correspond to the same person or not.\
**Dataset:** The LFW dataset \[9\] is a collection of face photographs designed for studying the problem of unconstrained face recognition. This dataset consists of 13233 labeled face images of 1680 subjects collected from the web. This dataset consists of two subsets:
- **Development subset:** The development subset consists of 2200 training image pairs, where 1100 are similar pairs and 1100 are dissimilar pairs, and 1000 test image pairs, where 500 are similar pairs and 500 are dissimilar pairs. An image pair is said to be similar if both the images correspond to the same person and dissimilar if they correspond to different persons.
- **Evaluation subset:** The evaluation subset consists of 3000 similar image pairs and 3000 dissimilar image pairs. It is further divided into 10 subsets each of which consists of 300 similar pairs and 300 dissimilar pairs.
All the image pairs were generated by randomly selecting images from the 13233 images in the dataset. The development subset is meant for model and parameter selection. The evaluation subset should be used only once for final training and testing. To avoid overfitting, the image pairs in the development subset were chosen to be different from the image pairs in the evaluation subset.
### Feature extraction
We crop the face region in each image and resize it to a $64 \times 64$ image. Following \[3\], we convert each pixel in an image into a 9-dimensional feature vector given by $$\tiny
\left[x,\ y,\ R(x,y),\ G(x,y),\ B(x,y),\ \left| \frac{\partial W(x,y)}{\partial x} \right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial W(x,y)}{\partial y}\right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial^2 W(x,y)}{\partial x^2}\right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial^2 W(x,y)}{\partial y^2} \right| \right]^\top,$$ where $x,\ y$ are the column and row coordinates respectively, $R, G$ and $B$ are the color coordinates and $W$ is the grayscale image. We use the $9 \times 9$ covariance matrix of the feature vectors to represent the image.
### Experimental protocol
Following the standard experimental protocol for this dataset, we use the development set for selecting the parameters of ITML and then use the evaluation set only once for final training and testing. Following steps summarize our experimental procedure:
- **Parameter selection:** We train the ITML algorithm using the 2200 training pairs of the development subset and then test it on the 1000 test pairs of the development subset. We select the ITML parameters that give the best test accuracy.
- **Final training and testing:** The evaluation set consists of 10 splits and we perform 10-fold cross-validation. In each fold, we use 9 splits (2700 similar pairs and 2700 dissimilar pairs) for training ITML and 1 split (300 similar pairs and 300 dissimilar pairs) for testing. For training ITML, we use the parameters that were selected in the previous step. Since our task is face matching, we need to threshold the learned distance function. In each fold, we find the threshold that gives best training accuracy and use the same threshold for test image pairs.
### Comparative methods
We compare the performance of the proposed log-Euclidean metric learning approach with the following approaches:
- Directly use any of the following distances for matching:
- Frobenius, Cholesky-Frobenius, J-divergence, Jensen-Bregman LogDet divergence, Affine-invariant and Log-Frobenius.
- Use ITML directly with the covariance matrices by treating them as elements of the Euclidean space of symmetric matrices.
- Use ITML with the lower triangular matrix obtained by Cholesky decomposition.
In all these methods the distance threshold is obtained in each fold independently based on the training data.
### Parameters
The following parameter values were used for ITML:
- $M_0 = I,\ \gamma = 10^{3.5},\ a = 5,\ b = 95.$
These parameters were selected using the development subset of the dataset.
[| m[1.4cm]{} | m[1.7cm]{} | m[1.9cm]{}| m[1.8cm]{} | m[2.4cm]{} | m[1.5cm]{} |]{}Frobenius & Cholesky-Frobenius & Log-Frobenius & J-divergence & Jenson-Bregman LogDet divergence & Affine invariant\
53.77 & 56.62 & 60.43 & 60.92 & 61.62 & 61.15\
[| m[1.3cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[1.3cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[1.3cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} |]{} & &\
Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain & Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain & Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain\
53.77 & 57.58 & 3.81 & 56.62 & 63.53 & 6.91 & 60.43 & **69.37** & 8.94\
### Results
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the prediction results for various approaches on the LFW data set. We can draw the following conclusions from these results:
- The proposed Riemannian metric/geodesic distance learning approach outperforms the other approaches for comparing covariance matrices.
- The log-Euclidean geodesic distance learned from the data performs much better than the standard log-Frobenius distance.
- Distance learning with original covariance matrices or Cholesky decompositions performs poorly compared to distance learning in the logarithm domain.
Semi-supervised clustering using ETH80 object dataset
-----------------------------------------------------
In this experiment, we are interested in clustering the images in the ETH80 dataset into different object categories.
### Dataset
The ETH80 object dataset \[10\] consists of $256 \times 256$ images of 8 object categories with each category including 10 different object instances. Each object instance has 41 images captured under different views. So, each object category has 410 images resulting in a total of 3280 images.
### Feature extraction
We convert each pixel in an image into a 9-dimensional feature vector given by $$\tiny
\left[x,\ y,\ R(x,y),\ G(x,y),\ B(x,y),\ \left| \frac{\partial W(x,y)}{\partial x} \right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial W(x,y)}{\partial y}\right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial^2 W(x,y)}{\partial x^2}\right|,\ \left|\frac{\partial^2 W(x,y)}{\partial y^2} \right| \right]^\top,$$ where $x,\ y$ are the column and row coordinates respectively, $R, G$ and $B$ are the color coordinates and $W$ is the grayscale image. We compute the $9 \times 9$ covariance matrix of the feature vectors over the entire image and use it to represent the image.
### Experimental protocol and parameters
For every object category, we randomly select 4 images from each instance for training. Hence, we use 40 samples from each object category for training, resulting in a total of 320 training images. From each pair of training images, we generate either a similarity constraint or a dissimilarity constraints based on their category labels. We use all such constraints in learning the Mahalanobis distance function. Once we learn the Mahalanobis distance function, we use it for clustering the entire dataset of 3280 images.\
We repeat the above procedure 5 times and report the average clustering accuracy. In each run, we select the value of ITML parameter $\gamma$ using two fold cross-validation on the training data. We use the following values for other ITML parameters in all the 5 runs: $M_0 = I,\ a = 5,\ b = 95$.\
We use K-means algorithm for clustering. To handle the local-optimum issue, we run K-means with 20 different random initializations and select the clustering result corresponding to the minimum K-means cost value.
### Comparative methods
We compare the performance of the proposed log-Euclidean metric learning approach with the following approaches:
- **Unsupervised:** Directly perform K-means clustering using any of the following distances: Frobenius, Cholesky-Frobenius and Log-Frobenius.
- Use ITML directly with the covariance matrices by treating them as elements of the Euclidean space of symmetric matrices.
- Use ITML with the lower triangular matrix obtained by Cholesky decomposition.
Computation of mean doesn’t have a closed form solution in the case of J-divergence or Jensen-Bregman LogDet divergence or Affine-invariant distance. Hence, we need to use some optimization procedure for computing the mean. This makes K-means algorithm highly computational. Hence, we do not use these distances for comparison in this work.
### Results
Table 6 summarizes the clustering results for various approaches on the ETH80 dataset. We can draw the following conclusions from these results:
- The proposed Riemannian metric/geodesic distance learning approach performs better than other approaches for clustering SPD matrices.
- The log-Euclidean geodesic distance learned from the data performs much better than the standard log-Frobenius distance.
- Distance learning with original covariance matrices or Cholesky decompositions performs poorly compared to distance learning in the logarithm domain.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we have explored the idea of data-driven Riemannian metrics or geodesic distances. Based on the log-Euclidean framework \[6\], we have shown how geodesic distance functions can be learned for $S_n^{++}$ by simply learning Mahalanobis distance functions in the logarithm domain. We have conducted experiments using face and object data sets. The face matching and semi-supervised object categorization results clearly show that the learned log-Euclidean geodesic distance performs much better than other distances.
[| m[1.4cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} | m[0.9cm]{} | m[1.4cm]{} |]{} & &\
Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain & Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain & Frobenius & ITML & ITML gain\
35.58& 70.50 & 34.92 & 51.13 & 70.36 & 19.24 & 55.70 & **73.79** & 18.09\
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
1. X. Pennec, P. Fillard, and N. Ayache, A Riemannian Framework for Tensor Computing, *IJCV*, 2006.\
2. A. Goh and R. Vidal, Clustering and Dimensionality Reduction on Riemannian Manifolds, *In CVPR*, 2008.\
3. O. Tuzel, F. Porikli, and P. Meer, Region Covariance: A Fast Descriptor for Detection and Classification, *In ECCV*, 2006.\
4. O. Tuzel, F. Porikli, and P. Meer, Pedestrian Detection via Classification on Riemannian Manifolds, *PAMI*, 2008.\
5. M. Harandi, C. Sanderson, R. Hartley, and B. Lovel, Sparse Coding and Dictionary Learning for Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices: A Kernel Approach, *In ECCV*, 2012.\
6. V. Arsigny, P. Fillard, X. Pennec, and N. Ayache, Log-Euclidean Metrics for Fast and Simple Calculus on Diffusion Tensors, *Magnetic Resonance in Medicine*, 2006.\
7. J. V. Davis, B. Kulis, P. Jain, S. Sra, and I. S. Dhillon, Information-Theoretic Metric Learning , *In ICML*, 2007.\
8. K. Q. Weinberger and L. K. Saul, Distance Metric Learning for Large Margin Nearest Neighbor Classification, *JMLR*, 2009.\
9. G. B. Huang, M. Ramesh, T. Berg, and E. L.-Miller, Labeled Faces in the Wild: A Database for Studying Face Recognition in Unconstrained Environments, *University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Technical Report 07-49*, October, 2007.\
10. B. Leibe and B. Schiele, Analyzing Appearance and Contour Based Methods for Object Categorization, *In CVPR*, 2003.\
11. A. Cherian, S. Sra, A. Banerjee, and N. Papanikolopoulos, Efficient Similarity Search for Covariance Matrices via the Jensen-Bregman LogDet Divergence, *In ICCV*, 2011.\
12. Z. Wang and B. C. Vemuri, An Affine Invariant Tensor Dissimilarity Measure and its Applications to Tensor-valued Image Segmentation, *In CVPR*, 2004.\
13. I. L. Dryden, A. Koloydenko, and D. Zhou, Non-Euclidean Statistics for Covariance Matrices, with Applications to Diffusion Tensor Imaging, *The Annals of Applied Statistics*, 2009.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Reza Tavakol[^1]'
- 'Eurico Covas[^2]'
- 'David Moss[^3]'
- 'Andrew Tworkowski[^4]'
date: 'Received ; accepted '
title: Effects of boundary conditions on the dynamics of the solar convection zone
---
Introduction
============
Recent analyses of the helioseismic data, both from the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft (Howe et al. 2000a) and the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project (Antia & Basu 2000), have provided strong evidence that the previously observed solar torsional oscillations (e.g. Howard & LaBonte 1980; Snodgrass, Howard & Webster 1985; Kosovichev & Schou 1997; Schou et al. 1998), with periods of about 11 years, penetrate into the convection zone (CZ) to depths of at least 10 percent in radius.
These studies have also produced rather conflicting results concerning the dynamical behaviour near the bottom of the convection zone. Thus Howe et al. (2000b) find evidence for the presence of torsional oscillations near the tachocline situated close to the bottom of the convection zone, but with a markedly shorter period of about $1.3$ years, whereas Antia & Basu (2000) do not find such oscillations. Given the uncertainties in the helioseismic data, what is not certain so far is (i) whether torsional oscillations do extend all the way to the bottom of the CZ and (ii) whether there are different oscillatory modes of behaviour at the top and the bottom of the CZ.
Work is in progress by a number of groups to repeat these analyses in order to answer these observational questions. In parallel, attempts have been made to approach these questions theoretically by modelling variations in the CZ within the framework of nonlinear dynamo models which include a nonlinear action of the azimuthal component of the Lorentz force of the dynamo generated magnetic field on the solar angular velocity (Covas et al. 2000a,b; Covas et al. 2001a,b, see also erratum in Covas et al. 2002). According to these results, for most ranges of dynamo parameters, such as the dynamo and Prantdl numbers, the torsional oscillations extend all the way down to the bottom of the convection zone. In addition, [*spatiotemporal fragmentation/bifurcation*]{} (STF) has been proposed as a dynamical mechanism to account for the possible existence of multi-mode behaviour in different parts of the solar CZ (Covas et al. 2000b, 2001a,b, 2002). In all these studies the underlying zero order angular velocity was chosen to be consistent with the recent helioseismic data.
As in much astrophysical modelling, an important source of uncertainty in these models is the nature of their boundary conditions. Given this uncertainty, and the fact that boundary conditions can alter qualitatively the behaviour of dynamical systems, it is important to see whether employing different boundary conditions can significantly change the dynamics in the CZ, and in particular whether the two dynamical modes of behaviour mentioned above are robust with respect to plausible changes in the boundary conditions. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, in the absence of precise knowledge about such boundary conditions, it is important that the dynamical phenomena of interest predicted by such models can survive reasonable changes in ill-known boundary conditions. Secondly, it may in principle be possible for qualitative changes found as the boundary conditions are altered to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine the range of physically reasonable boundary conditions in the solar context.
Here, by considering a number of families of boundary conditions, we show that the penetration of torsional oscillations to the bottom of the CZ is indeed robust with respect to a number of plausible changes to the boundary conditions. We also find spatiotemporal fragmentation in these models with a variety of, but not all, choices of boundary conditions. Given the observational importance of the amplitudes of the torsional oscillations, we also make a comparative study of their magnitudes as a function of the boundary conditions.
The model
=========
We shall assume that the gross features of the large scale solar magnetic field can be described by a mean field dynamo model, with the standard equation $$\frac{\partial{\vec B}}{\partial t}=\nabla\times({\vec u}\times {\vec B}+\alpha{\vec
B}-\eta\nabla\times{\vec B}).
\label{mfe}$$ Here ${\vec u}=v\mathbf{\hat\phi}-\frac{1}{2}\nabla\eta$, the term proportional to $\nabla\eta$ represents the effects of turbulent diamagnetism, and the velocity field is taken to be of the form $
v=v_0+v'$, where $v_0=\Omega_0 r \sin\theta$, $\Omega_0$ is a prescribed underlying rotation law and the component $v'$ satisfies $$\frac{\partial v'}{\partial t}=\frac{(\nabla\times{\vec B})\times{\vec B}}{\mu_0\rho
r \sin\theta} . \mathbf{\hat {\vec \phi}} + \nu D^2 v',
\label{NS}$$ where $D^2$ is the operator $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{1}
{r^2\sin\theta}(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}(\sin\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial
\theta})-\frac{1}{\sin\theta})$ and $\mu_0$ is the induction constant. The assumption of axisymmetry allows the field ${\vec B}$ to be split simply into toroidal and poloidal parts, ${\vec B}={\vec B}_T+{\vec B}_P = B\hat\phi +\nabla\times A\hat\phi$, and Eq. (\[mfe\]) then yields two scalar equations for $A$ and $B$. Nondimensionalizing in terms of the solar radius $R$ and time $R^2/\eta_0$, where $\eta_0$ is the maximum value of $\eta$, and putting $\Omega=\Omega^*\tilde\Omega$, $\alpha=\alpha_0\tilde\alpha$, $\eta=\eta_0\tilde\eta$, ${\vec B}=B_0\tilde{\vec B}$ and $v'= \Omega^* R\tilde v'$, results in a system of equations for $A,B$ and $v'$. The dynamo parameters are $R_\alpha=\alpha_0R/\eta_0$, $R_\omega=\Omega^*R^2/\eta_0$, $P_r=\nu_0/\eta_0$, and $\tilde\eta=\eta/\eta_0$, where $\Omega^*$ is the solar surface equatorial angular velocity. Here $\nu_0$ and $\eta_0$ are the turbulent magnetic diffusivity and viscosity respectively and $P_r$ is the turbulent Prandtl number. Our computational procedure is to adjust $R_\omega$ so as to make the cycle period be near the solar cycle period of about 22 years for the marginal dynamo number, and then to allow $R_\alpha$ and, to some extent, $P_r$ to vary. The density $\rho$ is assumed to be uniform.
Eqs. (\[mfe\]) and (\[NS\]) were solved using the code described in Moss & Brooke (2000) (see also Covas et al. 2000b) together with the boundary conditions given below, over the range $r_0\leq r\leq1$, $0\leq\theta\leq \pi$. We set $r_0=0.64$, and with the solar CZ proper being thought to occupy the region $r {\;
\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$
}}\;\hskip-2pt }0.7$, the region $r_0 \leq r {\;
\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$
}}\;\hskip-2pt }0.7$ can be thought of as an overshoot region/tachocline. In the following simulations we used a mesh resolution of $61 \times 101$ points, uniformly distributed in radius and latitude respectively.
In this investigation, we took $\Omega_0$ in $0.64\leq r \leq 1$ to be given by an interpolation on the MDI data obtained from 1996 to 1999 (Howe et al. 2000a). We set $\alpha=\alpha_r(r)f(\theta)$, where $f(\theta)$ was chosen to be $\sin^2\theta\cos\theta$ or $\sin^4\theta\cos\theta$. The angular structure of $\alpha$ is quite uncertain, and both these forms have been used in the literature (see e.g. Rüdiger & Brandenburg 1995) and their choice here is simply to make the butterfly diagrams more realistic. We took $\alpha_r=1$ in all or part of the CZ (see below for details), with cubic interpolation to zero at $r=r_0$ and $r=1$ in the cases where $\alpha_r\neq 1$ everywhere. Throughout we take $\alpha_r\ge 0$ and $R_\alpha < 0$. Also, in order to take some account of the likely decrease in the turbulent diffusion coefficient $\eta$ in the overshoot region, we allowed a simple linear decrease from $\tilde\eta=1$ at $r=0.8$ to $\tilde\eta=0.5$ in $r<0.7$.
The choice of boundary conditions
=================================
Boundary conditions on magnetic fields are often rather ill–determined when modelling astrophysical systems. This is certainly true in the case of the Sun and solar-type stars. Given this uncertainty, we shall consider a number of physically motivated families of boundary conditions and investigate the consequences of each on the dynamics of the CZ. In particular we shall study whether they allow penetration of torsional oscillations all the way to the bottom of the CZ as well as supporting spatiotemporal fragmentation. We note that at $\theta=0$ and $\pi$ symmetry conditions imply $A=B=0$. In this article we shall concentrate on the changes to the outer boundary conditions only.
Boundary conditions at $r=r_0$
------------------------------
The detailed physics is uncertain near the base of the computational region ($r=r_0$). Given that the angular momentum flux out of a region with boundary ${\vec{S}}$ from the magnetic stresses is $\int_{\vec{S}} (\vec{B} B r \sin \theta)d{\vec{S}}$, we set $B=0$ on $r=r_0$ in order to ensure zero angular momentum flux across the boundary and, correspondingly, stress-free conditions were used for $v'$. The condition $\partial A/\partial r=A/\delta$ crudely models $A$ falling to zero at distance $\delta$ below $r=r_0$ (cf. Moss, Mestel & Tayler 1990; Tworkowski et al. 1998). We chose $\delta=0.03$, but the general nature of the results is insensitive to this choice. Taking $\delta>0$ is computationally helpful as it reduces somewhat the field gradients near $r=r_0$, although it is not essential.
The outer boundary conditions
-----------------------------
At the outer boundary $r=R$, we shall, in view of the uncertainties regarding the outer boundary conditions, consider a number of different but physically reasonable choices.
One of the common choices for the outer boundary conditions adopted in literature is the ‘vacuum’ boundary condition, in which the poloidal field within $r=R$ is smoothly joined, by a matrix multiplication, to an external vacuum solution; the azimuthal field $B=0$.
Given the dynamic nature of the solar surface, the usual vacuum conditions can, to some extent at least, be regarded as a mathematically convenient idealization. Some aspects of this issue have recently been discussed at length by Kitchatinov, Mazur & Jardine (2000), who derive ‘non-vacuum’ boundary conditions on both $B$ and ${\vec B}_P$. We also consider families of boundary conditions which deviate from the vacuum conditions and refer to these as ‘open’. As a convenient and flexible general form for the boundary conditions at the surface, we write $$\label{general}
r \frac{dA}{dr} + n_1 A =0,~~~~
r \frac{dB}{dr} + n_2 B =0$$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are constants that parameterize the boundary conditions and, to some extent, their degree of openness. With $n_1 = 1$, $ n_2 =0$ the two conditions for $A$ and $B$ reduce to $\frac{d(rA)}{dr} = B_\theta = 0$ and $\frac{dB}{dr} =0$ respectively. The condition $B_\theta=0$ has been adopted previously by some investigators. The limit $n_2 \rightarrow \infty$ gives the often used $B=0$. As $n_1$ increases, the penetration of the poloidal field through the surface decreases, and in the limit $n_1\rightarrow \infty$ the boundary condition is $A=0$, and all the poloidal field lines then close beneath the surface $r=R$, which is thus the limiting field line. Using the vacuum boundary condition for ${\vec B}_P$ gives poloidal field lines that mostly make a modest angle with the radial direction, and so we can anticipate that, by taking small values of $n_1$ and large values of $n_2$, we will obtain solutions that resemble in some ways those found by using the vacuum boundary conditions mentioned above. (But note that Eq. (\[general\]) gives strictly [*local*]{} conditions on the field components, whereas the vacuum condition on the poloidal field is essentially [*nonlocal*]{}.)
We note one further technical point. The angular momentum flux through $r=R$ is non-zero if both ${\vec B}_P$ and $B$ are non-zero there. Whilst the Sun certainly is losing angular momentum, we are not trying to model this process here, and so will only consider models in which the angular momentum ‘drift’ of the dynamo region is small enough that we can consider it to be a unchanging background for the dynamo calculations.
Now in order to find the range of values of $n_1$ and $n_2$ such that the resulting ‘partially open’ boundary conditions are physically plausible, we need to ensure that the chosen boundary conditions result in appreciable poloidal flux penetrating the surface. Thus we calculated the average over the dynamo cycle of the ratio of the flux of the poloidal field at the surface to the corresponding value within the CZ, given by
$$\label{ratioA}
F_s =\frac{[R \sin(\theta) A(R,\theta)]_{\rm Surface}}{[r \sin(\theta) A(r,\theta)]_{\rm Inner}},$$
as a function of $n_1$ say. Here $R$ is the model radius, the numerator is evaluated at the surface $r=R$, and the denominator is evaluated inside the dynamo region (‘CZ’) $ r_0 \le r \le R $. As $n_1$ increases we would expect this ratio to decrease. We consider a boundary condition to be, in principle, viable if the ratio $F_s$ is not too small compared with the corresponding value in the ‘standard’ vacuum case.
Results
=======
Using the above model, we studied the dynamics in the convection zone subject to three sets of boundary conditions; namely, the vacuum boundary condition and two families of open boundary conditions which we shall refer to as boundary conditions (1) and (2). Also in order to demonstrate that penetration of the torsional oscillations, as well as spatial fragmentation, can occur with various changes in other ingredients of the model, we have chosen examples with different forms for these ingredients.
Vacuum boundary conditions
--------------------------
With this choice of boundary conditions, we found that for critical and moderately supercritical regimes, the torsional oscillations extend all the way down to the bottom of the CZ (see also Covas et al. 2000a, where the critical value of the dynamo number for the onset of dynamo was found to be $R_\alpha \approx -3.16$). In addition we found ranges of dynamo parameters for which supercritical models showed spatiotemporal fragmentation. As an example of such fragmentation, we show in Fig. \[ivac=1.velocity\_radial\_latitude=25.eps\] the radial contours of the angular velocity residuals $\delta \Omega$ as a function of time for a cut at $25$ degrees latitude. In this case we took $f(\theta)= \sin^4 \theta\cos\theta$, with $\alpha_r=1$ throughout the computational region. The parameter values used were $R_\alpha = -5.5, P_r = 0.6$ and $R_\omega =60000$. We also show in Fig. \[ivac=1.butterfly\_bp.R=0.90.eps\] the magnetic butterfly diagram.
\#1\#2[0.43\#1]{}
\#1\#2[0.44\#1]{}
We note that this is the first time STF has been obtained with vacuum boundary conditions. This is despite the fact that the range of parameter values for which STF is present for this model is rather wide, as is the case with the boundary conditions considered below. What seems to occur here is that the onset of spatiotemporal fragmentation is close to a bifurcation point, which disrupts the butterfly diagram and rather confuses the diagnosis of the situation.
Open boundary conditions (1)
----------------------------
We now take boundary conditions at $r=R$ to be given by Eq. (\[general\]), where $n_2 =0$ and $n_1$ is varied.
In order to find the range of values of $n_1$ which can be considered as physically plausible, we calculated the ratio of the poloidal fluxes $F_s$ given by (\[ratioA\]) as a function of $n_1$. The results are given in Fig. \[amplitudes.flux.nfac.MDI.eps\]. To give an idea of how this ratio compares to that of models with vacuum boundary conditions, we also calculated $F_s$ with vacuum boundary conditions with the same parameter values as for Fig. \[ivac=1.velocity\_radial\_latitude=25.eps\], and found that $F_s \sim 0.25$. As can be seen from Fig. \[amplitudes.flux.nfac.MDI.eps\] this is comparable in magnitude to the values obtained with the above open boundary conditions for a wide range of values of $n_1$ given by $n_1{\;
\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$
}}\;\hskip-2pt }40$.
\#1\#2[0.43\#1]{}
\#1\#2[0.43\#1]{}
\#1\#2[0.44\#1]{}
\#1\#2[0.38\#1]{}
\#1\#2[0.38\#1]{}
With these open boundary conditions, we again found that for slightly and moderately supercritical dynamo regimes, the torsional oscillations extend all the way down to the bottom of the CZ. There are also ranges of dynamo parameters for which spatiotemporal fragmentation is found. When $n_1$ is close to 1 there is appreciable angular momentum drift, and so we do not consider these solutions further here. As an example of a case with STF (and with negligible angular momentum drift over the integration interval), we show in Fig. \[ivac=7.velocity\_radial\_latitude=25.eps\] the radial contours of the angular velocity residuals $\delta \Omega$ as a function of time for a cut at $25$ degrees latitude. In this case $f(\theta)= \sin^4 \theta\cos\theta$ and $\alpha_r$ is given by $\alpha_r=1$ for $0.7 \leq r \leq 0.8$ with cubic interpolation to zero at $r=r_0$ and $r=1$. The parameter values used are $R_\alpha = -5.0, P_r = 0.7, R_\omega =50000$ and $n_1=25$.
Fig. \[ivac=7.velocity.R=0.92.eps\] shows the angular velocity residuals at $R=0.92$ (i.e. the near-surface torsional oscillations), with latitude and time, for the same parameter values as in Fig. \[ivac=7.velocity\_radial\_latitude=25.eps\]. The poloidal field lines and toroidal field contours for this case are presented in Figs. \[ivac=7.a.r.sin.theta\_snapshot\_lines.eps\] and \[ivac=7.bp\_snapshot\_lines.eps\]. In Fig. \[ivac=7.bp\_snapshot\_lines.eps\], the effect of the open boundary condition on $B$ is seen to be relatively minor – most of the toroidal field is concentrated near the tachocline, and far from the surface. The poloidal field (Fig. \[ivac=7.a.r.sin.theta\_snapshot\_lines.eps\]) is more uniformly distributed.
Open boundary conditions (2)
----------------------------
We now consider boundary conditions given by Eq. (\[general\]), with $n_1$ of order one and $1 \le n_2 \le 500$ (so $B\approx 0$ for large $n_2$). We found that for $n_1$ values close to one our model again has significant angular momentum drift, which increases as $n_1$ decreases to $1$. For larger values of $n_1$ the drift is negligible, and the ratio $F_s$ is again ‘reasonable’, being comparable with the vacuum case. We found that putting $n_1=2$ gave satisfactory behaviour, and this is the case that we discuss in detail below.
\#1\#2[0.43\#1]{}
For all such cases we again found that for slightly and moderately supercritical dynamo numbers, the oscillations extend all the way down to the bottom of the CZ. In addition we found ranges of dynamo parameters for which the supercritical model show spatiotemporal fragmentation. An example, which has negligible angular momentum drift over the integration interval, is shown in Fig. \[ivac=9.velocity\_radial\_latitude=20.eps\]. Here $\alpha_r=1$ for $0.7 \leq r \leq 0.8$ with cubic interpolation to zero at $r=r_0$ and $r=1$ and $f(\theta)= \sin^2 \theta\cos\theta$. The parameter values used were $R_\alpha = -16.0, P_r = 0.22$ and $R_\omega =48000$, and boundary conditions were given by (\[general\]) with $n_1 =2$ and $n_2=400$.
Amplitudes of oscillations as a function of boundary conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another important issue from an observational point of view is the way the amplitudes of the torsional oscillations vary as a function of model ingredients and parameters, as well as with depth in the CZ.
To begin with, we verified that for a given boundary condition the amplitudes of the oscillations increase as the dynamo number $R_\alpha$ and the Prantdl number $P_r$ are increased (see also Covas et al 2001a). For orientation, we recall that the observed surface amplitudes in the case of the Sun are latitude dependent and of order of one nHz (see e.g. Howe et al. (2000b)).
We also made a comparative study of the amplitudes as a function of changes in the boundary conditions. Briefly we found that typically the solutions with vacuum boundary conditions have rather smaller amplitudes of oscillations, especially near the surface. For example, for the model of Fig. 1 (which has a high $R_\alpha$, spatiotemporal fragmentation and thus would be expected to have higher amplitudes), we found the mean averaged amplitudes to be $0.72, 0.19, 0.09$ nHz at the depths $r_0= 0.70, 0.88$ and $0.95$ respectively.
For the models with open boundary conditions, we found the amplitudes to be on average higher than the vacuum case, specially near the surface. We have summarised in Fig. \[amplitudes.nfacb.MDI.sin4.ivac=9.clean.eps\] our calculations of the amplitudes of oscillations for the models with open boundary conditions given by Eq. (\[general\]) and $n_2=0$, for a range of $n_1$ given by $ 1 <n_1 < 150$. Here the dynamo parameters were $R_\alpha = -5.0, P_r = 0.7$, $R_\omega =50000$ and $f(\theta)= \sin^4 \theta\cos\theta$, with $\alpha_r=1$ for $0.7 \leq r \leq 0.8$, with cubic interpolation to zero at $r=r_0$ and $r=1$. As can be seen, the amplitudes grow at all depths with increasing $n_1$ and saturate around $n_1 \sim 50$. As an example, the models with $n_1$ values around $n_1=25$, (corresponding to Fig. \[ivac=7.velocity\_radial\_latitude=25.eps\], with STF), have amplitudes that are more than double those found above with vacuum boundary conditions, down to the level $r_0= 0.88$.
\#1\#2[0.44\#1]{}
Discussion
==========
We have made a detailed study of the effects of the boundary conditions on the dynamics in the solar convection zone, by employing various forms of outer boundary conditions.
In all the models considered here (as well as other results not reported), we find that in near-critical and moderately supercritical dynamo regimes the torsional oscillations extend all the way down to the bottom of the CZ. In this way our results, taken altogether, demonstrate that such penetration is extremely robust with respect to all the changes we have considered both to the boundary conditions, and the dynamo parameters such as the dynamo and Prantdl numbers, in addition to variations in the model ingredients such as the $\alpha$ and $\eta$ profiles and the rotation inversion.
We deduce, that if our dynamo model (which is basically a standard mean field dynamo) has any validity, then observers should expect to find that the solar torsional oscillations penetrate to the tachocline. However, given the significant uncertainties that still remain in helioseismic measurements, especially the limited temporal extent of the data available, this issue may not be resolvable at present (see e.g. Vorontsov et al. 2002).
In all cases we have found supercritical dynamo regimes with spatiotemporal fragmentation for a range of, but not all, dynamo parameters. This, together with our previous work, shows that fragmentation occurs with a variety of forms of $\alpha$ (and also that it is not confined to a particular inversion for the solar angular velocity). For still more supercritical dynamo regimes we find a series of spatiotemporal fragmentations, leading eventually to spatiotemporal chaos, i.e. disappearance of coherence in the dynamo regime.
These results are of potential importance in interpreting the current observations, especially given their difficulty in resolving the dynamical regimes near the bottom of the convection zone. However given the variety of dynamical behaviour possible theoretically near the bottom of the CZ, we cannot comment definitively on the reported $1-3$ yr oscillations.
Finally, given the observational importance of the amplitudes of the torsional oscillations, we have made a comparative study of their magnitudes as a function of the boundary conditions. We found that on average the amplitudes are smaller for the models with vacuum boundary conditions than for those with open boundary conditions. An important ingredient that our model omits and which seems bound to have an effect on the amplitudes of torsional oscillations throughout the CZ, is that of density stratification. We intend to return to this issue in a future publication.
RT benefited from UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Grant PPA/G/S/1998/00576. EC and DM acknowledges the hospitality of the Astronomy Unit, QM.
Antia H.M., Basu S., 2000, ApJ, 541, 442
Covas E., Tavakol R., Moss D. & Tworkowski A., 2000a, A&A, 360, L21
Covas E., Tavakol R. & Moss D., 2000b, A&A, 363, L13
Covas E., Tavakol R. & Moss D., 2001a, A&A, 371, 718
Covas E., Tavakol R., Vorontsov, S. & Moss, D., 2001b, A&A, 375, 260
Covas E., Moss, D., & Tavakol R., 2002, Erratum, A&A, to appear
Howard R. & LaBonte B. J., 1980, ApJ Lett. 239, 33
Howe R., et al., 2000a, ApJ Lett., 533, 163
Howe R., et al., 2000b, Science, 287, 2456
Kitchatinov L.L., Mazur M. V. & Jardine M., 2000, A&A, 359, 531
Kosovichev A. G. & Schou J., 1997, ApJ, 482, 207
Moss D., Mestel L. & Tayler R.J., 1990, MNRAS, 245, 550
Moss D. & Brooke J., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 521
Rüdiger R. & Brandenburg A., 1995, A&A, 296, 557
Schou J., Antia H. M., Basu S. et al., 1998, ApJ, 505, 390
Snodgrass H. B., Howard R. F. & Webster L. 1985, Sol. Phys., 95, 221
Tworkowski A., Tavakol R., Brooke J.M., Brandenburg A., Moss D. & Tuominen, I., 1998, MNRAS, 296, 287 Vorontsov, S., Tavakol, R., Covas, E. & Moss, D., (2002) ‘Solar cycle variation of the solar internal rotation: heleioseismic inversion and dynamo modelling’, To appear in ‘Proceedings of Granada Workshop on ‘The evolving Sun and its influence on planetary environments’, ASP (Astronomical Society of the Pacific) Conference Series, A. Gimenez, E. Guinan and B. Montesinos (eds), astro-ph/0201422, also available at http://www.eurico.web.com
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The bilateral filter has diverse applications in image processing, computer vision, and computational photography. In particular, this non-linear filter is quite effective in denoising images corrupted with additive Gaussian noise. The filter, however, is known to perform poorly at large noise levels. Several adaptations of the filter have been proposed in the literature to address this shortcoming, but often at an added computational cost. In this paper, we report a simple yet effective modification that improves the denoising performance of the bilateral filter at almost no additional cost. We provide visual and quantitative results on standard test images which show that this improvement is significant both visually and in terms of PSNR and SSIM (often as large as $5$ dB). We also demonstrate how the proposed filtering can be implemented at reduced complexity by adapting a recent idea for fast bilateral filtering.'
author:
- 'Kollipara Rithwik and Kunal N. Chaudhury [^1]'
title: A Simple Yet Effective Improvement to the Bilateral Filter for Image Denoising
---
Image denoising, bilateral filter, box-filter, improvement, fast algorithm.
Introduction
============
Linear smoothing filters, such as the classical Gaussian filter, typically work well in applications where the amount of smoothing required is small. For example, they are very quite effective in removing small dosages of additive noise from images. However, when the noise floor is large and one is required to average more pixels to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, linear filters tend to to over-smooth sharp image features such as edges and corners. This over-smoothing can be alleviated using some form of data-driven (non-linear) diffusion, where the quantum of smoothing is controlled using the image features. A classical example in this regard is the anisotropic diffusion of Perona and Malik [@Perona1990]. The insight of the authors was to take the standard diffusion equation and turn it into a non-linear differential equation by controlling its diffusivity using the gradient information. This automatically attenuated the blurring in the vicinity of edges. In practice, the associated differential equation is numerically solved using an iterative solver. While the Perona-Malik diffusion is known to be mathematically ill-posed [@Kichenassamy1997], it is known to be numerical stable in practice and performs reasonably well on real data. A delicate aspect of this scheme is the choice of the stopping criteria which often critically determines the final result.
Bilateral Filter
----------------
The bilateral filter was proposed by Tomasi and Maduchi [@Tomasi1998] as a simple, non-iterative alternative to the Perona-Malik diffusion. The origins of the filter can be traced back to the work of Lee [@Lee1983] and Yaroslavsky [@Yaroslavsky1985]. The SUSAN framework of Smith and Brady [@Smith1997] is also based on a similar idea.
For a discrete image $( f(\i) )_{\i \in \Z^2}$, the bilateral filter is given by $$\label{BF}
f_{\text{BF}}(\i)= \frac{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(f(\i-\j)-f(\i)) \ f(\i-\j)}{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(f(\i-\j)-f(\i)) }.$$ In this formula, $g_{\sigma_s}(\i)$ is the *spatial* filter defined on some neighbourhood $\Omega$ and $g_{\sigma_r}(t)$ is the *range* filter. Typically, $\Omega$ is a square neighbourhood, $\Omega=[-W,W] \times [-W,W]$, and both the spatial and range filters are Gaussian: $$g_{\sigma_s}(\i) = \exp\left(- \frac{\lVert \i \rVert^2}{2\sigma_s^2}\right) \quad \text{and} \quad g_{\sigma_r}(t) = \exp\left(- \frac{t^2}{2\sigma_r^2}\right).$$ The support $W$ of the spatial filter is usually set to be $3\sigma_s$.
The spatial filter puts larger weights on pixels that are close to the pixel of interest compared to distant pixels. On the other hand, the range filter operates on the intensity differences between the pixel of interest and its neighbors (which makes the overall filter non-linear). The role of the range filter is to restrict the averaging to neighbouring pixels whose intensities are similar to that of the pixel of interest. In particular, $f(\i-\j)-f(\j)$ in is close to zero when both $\i$ and its neighbors $\{\i-\j : \j \in \Omega\}$ belong to a homogenous region. In this case, $g_{\sigma_r}(f(\i-\j)-f(\i)) \approx 1$, and effectively acts as a standard Gaussian filter. On the other hand, consider the situation in which the pixel of interest $\i$ is in the vicinity of an edge. If $\i - \j$ and $\i$ are on the opposite sides of the edge, then $g_{\sigma_r}(f(\i-\j)-f(\i))$ is relatively small compared to what it is when $\i - \j$ and $\i$ are on the same side of the edge. This effectively prohibits the mixing of pixels from different sides of the edge during the averaging, and hence avoids the blurring that is otherwise induced by linear filters.
Present Contribution
--------------------
The bilateral filter has found widespread applications in image processing, computer vision, and computational photography. We refer the interested reader to [@Book2009] and the references therein for an exhaustive account of various applications.
Our present interest is in the image denoising applications of the filter [@Elad2002; @Aleksic2006; @Liu2006]. The bilateral filter has received renewed attention in the image processing community in the context of image denoising [@Knaus2014; @Morel2014]. It is well-known that, while the filter is quite effective in removing modest amounts of additive noise, its denoising performance is severely impaired at large noise levels [@Book2009; @Buades2005]. To overcome this drawback, different iterative forms of the filter were proposed in [@Elad2002], for example. In a different direction, it was shown by Buades et al. [@Buades2005] that a patch-based extension of the filter can be used to bring the denoising performance of the filter at par with state-of-the-art methods. However, this and other advanced patch-based methods [@Kervrann2006; @KSVD; @BM3D] are much more computation-intensive than the bilateral filter.
In this paper, we demonstrate how the denoising performance of the bilateral filter can be improved at almost no additional cost by incorporating a simple pre-processing step into the framework. To the best of our knowledge, this improvement has not been reported in the literature on bilateral filtering-based denoising. Although the present improvement is not of the order of the improvement provided by K-SVD and BM3D, we will demonstrate that the improved bilateral filter is often competitive with the Non-Local Means (NLM) filter [@Buades2005], while being significantly cheaper. Moreover, we also describe a fast algorithm for the modified filter which should be of interest in real-time denoising.
Organization
------------
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:IBF\], we briefly describe the denoising problem and the standard metrics that are used to quantify the denoising performance. We then introduce the proposed improvement of the bilateral filter in the context of denoising. In this section, we also report a fast algorithm for the proposed filtering. Experimental results on synthetic and natural images are provided in Section \[sec:experiments\], and we conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Improved Bilateral Filter {#sec:IBF}
=========================
We consider the problem of denoising grayscale images that are corrupted with additive white Gaussian noise. In this setup, we are given the *corrupted* (or *noisy*) image $$\label{noise}
f(\i) = f_0(\i) + \sigma \cdot n_{\i} \qquad (\i \in I),$$ where
- $ I$ is some finite rectangular domain of $\Z^2$,
- $(f_0(\i))_{\i \in I}$ is the unknown *clean* image, and
- $(n_{\i})_{\i \in I}$ are independent and distributed as $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$.
The goal is find a *denoised* estimate $\hat{f}(\i)$ of the clean image from the corrupted samples. The denoised image should visually resemble the clean image. To quantify the resemblance, two standard metrics are widely used in the image processing literature, namely the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and the structural similarity index (SSIM) [@SSIM2004]. The PSNR is defined to be $10 \log_{10}(255^2/\text{MSE})$, where $$\text{MSE}= \frac{1}{|I|} \sum_{\i \in I} (\hat{f}(\i) - f_0(\i))^2.$$
Proposed Improvement
--------------------
In linear diffusion, the clean image is estimated by linearly averaging the noisy samples. The averaging process successfully brings down the noise floor in homogenous regions by a factor of $\sqrt{L}$, where $L$ is the length of the filter [@Buades2005]. However, the filter also implicitly acts on the underlying clean image in the process. As a result, it introduces blurring in the image features besides reducing the noise floor. This can precisely be overcome by applying the bilateral filter on the corrupted image [@Elad2002; @Aleksic2006; @Liu2006]. In this regard, note that the range filter operates on the noisy samples. In other words, the corrupted image is used not just for the averaging but also to control the blurring via the range filter. What if the range filter could directly operate on the clean image? That is, instead of , suppose we consider the formula $$\label{OBF}
f_{\text{OBF}}(\i)= \frac{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(f_0(\i-\j)-f_0(\i)) \ f(\i-\j)}{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(f_0(\i-\j)-f_0(\i)) }.$$ The denoising result obtained using this “oracle” filter is compared with that obtained using in Figure \[OracleBF\]. It is not surprising that the result obtained using the oracle filter is visibly better and has higher PSNR.
Of course, the problem is that we do not have access to the clean image in practice, and thus the oracle bilateral filter cannot be realized. Nevertheless, one could consider some form of proxy for the clean image. For example, one could use an “iterated” bilateral filter [@Elad2002] where the output of the bilateral filter is used as a proxy. However, this requires us to compute twice, which doubles the run time of the filter. Our present proposal is simply to use the box-filtered version of the noisy image as a proxy. In other words, the proposed improved bilateral filter (in short, IBF) is given by $$\label{IBF}
f_{\text{IBF}}(\i)= \frac{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(\bar{f}(\i-\j)- \bar{f}(\i)) \ f(\i-\j)}{\sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) \ g_{\sigma_r}(\bar{f}(\i-\j)-\bar{f}(\i)) }.$$ where $$\label{box}
\bar{f}(\i)= \frac{1}{(2L+1)^2} \sum_{\j \in [-L,L]^2} \!\!\! f(\i-\j).$$ Clearly, the amount of smoothing induced by the box-filter is controlled by $L$. When $L$ is very small, $ \bar{f}(\i) \approx f(i)$, and behaves as . At the other other end, the image structures are over-smoothed when $L$ is large and this makes $\bar{f}(\i)$ a bad proxy for the original image. Thus, $L$ should not be too small and neither too large. We will report the appropriate choice of $L$ in the sequel.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
Fast Implementation {#sec:fast}
-------------------
The cost of computing is almost identical to that of computing , since the additional cost of computing is negligible in comparison. More precisely, the cost of computing is $O(|\sigma_s^2|)$ per pixel, since the support $\Omega$ of the spatial filter is proportional to $\sigma_s^2$. On the other hand, it is well-known that the box-filter in can be computed using $O(1)$ operations per pixel [@Deriche1993]. We now explain how we can implement using $O(1)$ operations (with respect to $\sigma_s$) as a straightforward extension of the algorithm proposed in [@Chaudhury2011; @Chaudhury2013].
For completeness, we present the main ideas behind the fast algorithm in [@Chaudhury2011]. Note that the effective domain of the range filter in is the interval $[-T,T]$, where $T$ is the maximum value of $\bar{f}(\i-\j) - \bar{f}(\i)$ over all $\i \in I$ and $\j \in [-W,W]^2$. In other words, $T$ is the maximum “local” dynamic range of $\bar{f}(\i)$ over square boxes of length $2W$. Note that the complexity of computing $T$ is comparable to that computing the filter, namely $O(W^2)$ operations per pixel. A fast algorithm for computing $T$ was however later proposed in [@Chaudhury2013], which we will use in this paper.
It was observed in [@Chaudhury2011] that $$\label{approx}
g_{\sigma_r}(t) = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \ \left[ \cos\left( \frac{t}{\sigma_r \sqrt{N}} \right) \right]^N.$$ The functions on the right are called *raised cosines*, and we refer to $N$ as its order. Note that while holds for every $t$, we only require a good approximation for $t \in [-T,T]$. Moreover, the raised cosine should ideally be positive and monotonic on this interval. In particular, one can verify that if $N$ is larger than $N_0 = 0. 405 (T/\sigma_r)^2$, then the raised-cosine is positive and monotonic on $[-T,T]$. In other words, any raised-cosine of order $N \geq N_0$ is an acceptable approximation of the Gaussian range filter. The approximation process in demonstrated in Figure \[approximation\].
Now, using the identity $2\cos \theta = e^{\imath \theta} + e^{-\imath \theta}$ (where $\imath$ denotes the imaginary unit $\sqrt{-1}$) and the binomial expansion, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shiftability}
\begin{aligned}
\left[ \cos\left( \frac{t}{\sigma_r \sqrt{N}} \right) \right]^N= \sum_{n=0}^N c_n \exp \left(\imath \omega_n t \right),
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{coeff}
c_n = \frac{1}{2^N}\binom{N}{n} \quad \text{and} \quad \omega_n=\frac{(2n-N)}{\sigma_r \sqrt{N}}.$$ Plugging into , using the multiplication-addition property $\exp(u + v)=\exp(u)\exp(v)$, and exchanging the summations, we can express the numerator of as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{num}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^N c_n \exp \left(-\imath \omega_n \bar{f}(\i)\right) (F_n \ast g_{\sigma_s})(\i),
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $$F_n(\i) = \exp(\imath \omega_n \bar{f}(\i)) f(\i),$$ and $$(F_n \ast g_{\sigma_s})(\i) = \sum_{\j \in \Omega} g_{\sigma_s}(\j) F_n(\i-\j)$$ denotes the Gaussian filtering of $F_n(\i)$. Similarly, we have the following approximation for the denominator of : $$\label{denom}
\sum_{n=0}^N c_n \exp \left(-\imath \omega_n \bar{f}(\i)\right) (G_n \ast g_{\sigma_s})(\i),$$ where $$G_n(\i) = \exp(\imath \omega_n \bar{f}(\i)).$$
To summarize then, by using the raised-cosine approximation of the Gaussian range filter, we can express the numerator and denominator of as a linear combinations of Gaussian filters applied on the images $F_n(\i)$ and $G_n(\i)$. It is well-known that Gaussian filtering can be computed using $O(1)$ operations per pixel (i.e., independent of $\sigma_s$) using recursions [@Deriche1993]. As a result, we can compute and , and hence the overall filter , using $O(1)$ operations per pixel.
In fact, it is further possible to cut down the run time without appreciably sacrificing the approximation using truncation [@Chaudhury2013]. In particular, it can be verified that the contribution of the central terms in to the overall approximation is less compared to the other terms. Indeed, the distribution of the normalized binomial coefficients $(c_n)$ is bell-shaped with a peak around $N/2$. As a result, one can truncate the sum away from the central peak and tradeoff speed versus accuracy. In particular, given some tolerance $\varepsilon >0$, we incrementally find the largest $M$ such that $$\label{trunc}
c_M + \ldots + c_{N - M} > 1- \varepsilon/2.$$ We can then further approximate using the truncated sum $$\label{approx1}
\sum_{n=M}^{N-M} c_n \exp \left(\imath \omega_n t \right).$$ Note that the error between and is $$\sum_{n=0}^{N} c_n \exp \left(\imath \omega_n t \right) - \sum_{n=M}^{N-M} c_n \exp \left(\imath \omega_n t \right),$$ whose magnitude is, by construction, at most as large as $2(c_0+\ldots+c_M) \leq \varepsilon$. Using , we can further cut down the run time of by a factor of about $2M/N$, without any appreciable change in denoising performance. For large $N$, one can test for the condition $c_M + \ldots + c_{N - M} > 1- \varepsilon/2$ without having to compute all the $c_n$. In particular, the Chernoff-inequality for the binomial distribution gives us the estimate $$\label{Chernoff}
M = \frac{1}{2}\left(N - \sqrt{4N\log(2/\varepsilon)}\right),$$ which is quite accurate when $N>100$ [@Chaudhury2013].
The complete algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[algoIBF\]. Here, we have used $[N]$ to denote the set of numbers $0,1,\ldots,N$, and $[N/M]$ to denote the set of numbers $0,\ldots,M$ and $N-M,\ldots,N$. In step $6$ (c), we have used $G^{\ast}_n(\i)$ to denote the complex conjugate of $G_n(\i)$.
**Initialize**: Images $P(\i)=0$ and $Q(\i)=0$ for all $\i$ Compute box-filtered image $\bar{f}(\i)$ using Compute local dynamic range $T$ of $\bar{f}(\i)$ $N = 0. 405 (T/\sigma_r)^2$ $f_{\text{IBF}}(\i)=P(\i)/Q(\i)$ for all $\i$
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Complexity and Run Time
-----------------------
The complexity of the direct implementation of the proposed filter is identical to that of the standard bilateral filter, namely $O(\sigma_s^2)$. On the other hand, for an image with maximum local dynamic range $T$, the complexity of the fast implementation proposed in Section \[sec:fast\] is $O(T^2/\sigma^2_r)$. The final run time is however determined by the constants that are implicit in the above complexity estimates. In practice, the main speed-up is due to the fact that Gaussian filtering can be implemented very efficiently using standard packages. For example, the image filtering in step $6$ (d) and (e) can be done using the optimized “imfilter” routine in Matlab. In Table \[table1\], we compare the run times of the fast implementation and the direct implementation (for typical filter parameters) on the *Barbara* image.
[l\*[6]{}[c]{}r]{} & $(2,15)$ & (4,20) & $(3,25)$ & $(5,30)$ & $(3,35)$ & $(4,40)$\
Direct & 16.5s & 60.5s & 35.3s &93.8s &35.5s & 60.5s\
Fast & 0.52s &0.61s & 0.52s &0.47s &0.43s &0.47s\
\[table1\]
All computations were performed using Matlab on a quad-core 2.70 GHz Intel machine with 16 GB memory. It is clear from the table that a significant acceleration is achieved using the fast algorithm. In particular, notice that the fast implementation takes about $0.5$ seconds for different parameter settings. On the other hand, notice the run time of the direct implementation scales up quickly with the increase in the width of the spatial filter. We note that the run time of the fast implementation can be further cut down using a parallel (multithreaded) implementation of step $6$ in Algorithm \[algoIBF\].
Optimal Choice of $L$
---------------------
We now come to question about the choice of the optimal length $L$ for the box-filter in . We performed exhaustive some simulations in this direction, the results of some of which are reported in Figure \[PSNRvsL\]. For these simulations, we conclude that a box-filter with $L=1$ ($3 \times 3$ blur) is optimal for most settings. A possible way to explain this is that this small filter is able to suppress the noise without excessively blurring the image features.
Denoising Results
-----------------
We now present some denoising results to demonstrate the superior denoising performance of the proposed filter. In Figure \[ckb\], we compare the proposed filter with the standard and the oracle filter on a synthetic test image. Notice that the improvement in PSNR over the standard filter is more than $10$ dB. This does not come as a surprise since this particular test image has a lot of sharp intensity transitions. While the bilateral filter is already known to work well for such images, what this result demonstrates is that we can further improve its performance using the proposed modification. Moreover, note the PSNR of the proposed filter is close to that of the oracle bilateral filter (which uses the clean image to compute the range filter). In Figure \[house\], we compare the proposed filter with the iterated bilateral filter. Notice that while the PSNR from the iterated filter is within a dB of that obtained using the proposed filter, the denoised image from the latter looks visibly better. This is also confirmed by the SSIM indices reported in the figure.
We next compare the denoising performance of the proposed modification with the standard bilateral filter on certain standard test images [@USCdatabase]. The PSNR and SSIM indices of the proposed modification and the standard bilateral filter are reported in Table \[table2\]. We independently optimize the standard and the improved bilateral filter with respect to $\sigma_s$ and $\sigma_r$. Also, we use $L=1$ for the improved bilateral filter. Notice that the proposed filter starts to perform better beyond a certain noise level ($\sigma \approx 20$). On the other hand, the SSIM improvement is already evident for all the images beyond $\sigma=15$. This is because, at low noise levels, the proposed box-filtering does more blurring than noise suppression, which brings down the overall signal-to-noise ratio. Indeed, when the noise floor is small, the corrupted image is already a good proxy for the clean image. However, notice that the improvement in SSIM is quite significant for all the images at large noise levels, and the PSNR improvement is often as large as $5$ dB. For a visual comparison, some of the results of the denoising experiments are shown in Figures \[visualComp1\], \[visualComp2\], and \[visualComp3\]. In Table \[table2\], we compare the proposed filter with some sophisticated image denoising methods cited in the introduction, namely, NLM [@Buades2005], K-SVD [@KSVD], and BM3D [@BM3D]. NLM is essentially a patch-based extension of the bilateral filter, in which image patches (groups of neighbouring pixels) are used for comparing neighbouring pixels. The latter methods are based on sparse-coding and collaborative filtering and are significantly more sophisticated. What we find quite interesting is that, beyond a certain noise level, the proposed filter is competitive with NLM for most of the test images in Table \[table2\], except for *Barbara* and *Cameraman*. The denoising performance is in general inferior to K-SVD and BM3D. We do not find this surprising since (among other things) they heavily rely on the sparsity of natural images (in appropriate bases) to improve the PSNR by few extra dBs. However, we believe that the present work is relevant in the context of the recent results in [@Knaus2014] and [@Morel2014], where the bilateral filter is used to obtain state-of-the-art denoising results.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We demonstrated that by using a box-filtered image in the range filter, one can substantially improve the denoising performance of the bilateral filter, at almost no additional cost. While the basic idea is quite simple, it is nevertheless quite effective in improving the denoising performance of the filter. Exhaustive denoising results on test images were provided in this direction. This address a well-known pathology of the bilateral filter, namely, that its denoising performance begins to degrade quickly with the increase in noise level. An interesting finding was that the proposed filter is often competitive with the computation-intensive non-local means filter. We also presented a fast algorithm for the proposed filter that can dramatically cut down the run time. As future work, we plan to investigate how one can combine the standard and the proposed filter so as to consistently obtain the best denoising performance at all noise levels.
Image Filter
------------- -------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
SBF 31.41 28.78 27.13 25.51 23.63 21.93 20.30 18.76 17.40 16.21 15.10
IBF 25.60 25.45 25.18 24.85 24.47 24.15 23.89 23.60 23.42 23.24 22.96
*Barbara* NLM 33.04 30.86 29.27 27.99 27.16 26.42 25.74 25.04 24.50 24.04 23.67
K-SVD 34.42 32.27 30.76 29.44 28.40 27.43 26.61 25.87 25.23 24.72 24.18
BM3D 34.98 33.05 31.68 30.55 29.63 28.76 27.88 27.63 26.99 26.54 26.13
SBF 33.58 31.60 29.74 27.30 24.78 22.70 20.80 19.15 17.66 16.36 15.25
IBF 33.27 **32.49** **31.49** **30.59** **29.79** **29.19** **28.66** **28.05** **27.62** **27.17** **26.62**
*Lena* NLM 34.06 32.33 30.99 29.89 29.07 28.39 27.74 27.18 26.72 26.23 25.85
K-SVD 35.50 33.65 32.40 31.27 30.44 29.67 29.01 28.38 27.79 27.31 26.90
BM3D 35.88 34.20 33.02 32.03 31.16 30.47 29.76 29.44 28.96 28.57 28.16
SBF 33.73 33.70 29.64 27.18 24.67 22.62 20.74 19.06 17.61 16.36 15.22
IBF 33.17 32.39 31.38 30.50 **29.79** **29.11** **28.49** **27.72** **27.26** **26.82** **26.28**
*House* NLM 34.63 33.00 31.63 30.56 29.34 28.47 27.69 26.93 26.36 25.70 25.00
K-SVD 35.89 34.39 33.07 32.15 31.29 30.36 29.59 28.89 27.90 27.28 27.08
BM3D 36.80 35.05 33.71 32.86 32.15 31.30 30.88 30.16 29.99 29.12 28.69
SBF 32.97 30.74 28.80 26.54 24.14 22.01 20.20 18.64 17.32 16.08 15.00
IBF 31.31 30.61 **29.80** **28.72** **27.93** **27.03** **26.34** **25.69** **25.14** **24.65** **24.22**
*Peppers* NLM 32.91 30.71 29.23 28.06 27.14 26.26 25.51 24.98 24.40 23.82 23.35
K-SVD 34.27 32.34 30.87 29.73 28.87 28.10 27.33 26.79 26.13 25.66 25.00
BM3D 34.70 32.68 31.27 30.21 29.21 28.54 27.67 27.23 26.75 26.26 25.89
SBF 32.03 29.90 28.40 26.39 24.21 22.24 20.52 18.93 17.50 16.26 15.17
IBF 29.96 29.55 **28.90** **28.15** **27.46** **26.90** **26.45** **25.93** **25.56** **25.16** **24.81**
*Boat* NLM 31.93 29.93 28.57 27.60 26.90 26.25 25.68 25.12 24.58 24.19 23.84
K-SVD 33.63 31.69 30.36 29.24 28.42 27.67 27.01 26.46 25.95 25.49 25.07
BM3D 33.88 32.09 30.79 29.81 29.06 28.35 27.69 27.10 26.73 26.27 25.98
SBF 32.65 30.25 28.54 26.33 24.23 22.24 20.44 18.91 17.40 16.19 15.08
IBF 27.58 27.35 26.98 26.49 25.91 25.41 24.96 24.63 24.27 23.89 **23.62**
*Cameraman* NLM 32.61 30.00 28.57 27.70 27.01 26.26 25.39 24.75 24.28 23.92 23.22
K-SVD 33.73 31.37 29.96 28.87 28.00 27.33 26.69 26.30 25.74 25.16 24.92
BM3D 34.16 31.84 30.41 29.53 28.60 27.84 27.07 26.63 25.98 25.72 25.38
-- ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
SBF 89.51 82.24 75.21 64.01 51.54 42.2 35.15 29.51 24.77 21.29 18.39
IBF 76.36 75.16 73.00 69.87 67.61 65.44 63.71 61.97 59.87 59.30 56.51
SBF 88.45 84.12 74.56 60.29 45.20 34.22 26.54 21.18 16.69 13.80 11.55
IBF 87.80 86.27 83.52 81.68 79.89 78.51 77.14 75.38 72.84 71.49 68.01
SBF 86.92 83.50 74.02 59.27 45.17 34.45 27.19 21.78 17.69 15.04 12.86
IBF 86.45 84.94 82.37 81.33 80.12 78.78 76.89 73.50 72.19 70.69 67.83
SBF 90.86 86.06 78.37 66.02 52.56 42.49 34.40 27.26 23.14 19.77 17.23
IBF 89.83 88.44 86.01 82.09 80.29 75.76 73.52 71.98 72.03 70.29 66.98
SBF 85.62 79.31 73.39 62.01 50.20 38.88 31.67 25.85 21.42 17.97 15.42
IBF 80.51 79.47 77.30 74.20 71.86 69.30 67.72 65.61 63.22 61.70 59.99
SBF 88.91 82.21 75.15 61.39 49.36 39.14 32.06 27.23 23.05 20.21 17.59
IBF 84.07 82.83 80.09 76.18 73.76 73.83 73.61 68.85 69.46 64.46 62.49
-- ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
\[table2\]
[9]{}
P. Perona and J. Malik, “Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion,” *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 629-639, 1990.
S. Kichenassamy, “The Perona–Malik paradox,” *SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics*, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1328-1342, 1997.
C. Tomasi and R. Manduchi, “Bilateral filtering for gray and color images,” *Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision*, pp. 839-846, 1998.
J. S. Lee, “Digital image smoothing and the sigma filter,” *Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing*, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 255-269, 1983.
L. P. Yaroslavsky, *Digital Picture Processing*. Secaucus, NJ: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
S. M. Smith, J. M. Brady, “SUSAN - A new approach to low level image processing,” *International Journal of Computer Vision*, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 45-78, 1997.
P. Kornprobst and J. Tumblin, *Bilateral Filtering: Theory and Applications*. Now Publishers Inc., 2009.
M. Elad, “On the origin of the bilateral filter and ways to improve it,” *IEEE Transactions in Image Processing*, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1141-1151, 2002.
M. Aleksic, M. Smirnov, and S. Goma, “Novel bilateral filter approach: Image noise reduction with sharpening,” *Proceedings Digital Photography II Conference*, vol. 6069, SPIE, 2006.
C. Liu, W. T. Freeman, R. Szeliski, and S. Kang, “Noise estimation from a single image,” *Proceedings IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, vol. 1, pp. 901-908, 2006.
C. Knaus and M. Zwicker, “Progressive Image Denoising,” *IEEE Transactions on Image Processing*, vol. 23, no.7, pp. 3114-3125, 2014.
N. Pierazzo, M. Lebrun, M. E. Rais, J. M. Morel, and G. Facciolo, “Non-local dual denoising,” *Proc. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing*, 2014.
A. Buades, B. Coll, and J.-M. Morel, “A non-local algorithm for image denoising," *Proceedings IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, vol. 2, pp. 60-65, 2005.
C. Kervrann and J. Boulanger, “Optimal spatial adaptation for patch-based image denoising,” *IEEE Transactions on Image Processing*, vol. 15(10), 2866-2878, 2006.
M. Elad and M. Aharon, “Image denoising via sparse and redundant representations over learned dictionaries,” *IEEE Transactions on Image Processing*, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3736-3745, 2006.
K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian, “Image denoising by sparse 3-D transform-domain collaborative filtering,” *IEEE Transactions on Image Processing*, vol. 16, pp. 2080-2095, 2007.
Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,” *IEEE Transactions in Image Processing*, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600-612, 2004.
K. N. Chaudhury, D. Sage, and M. Unser, “Fast $O(1)$ bilateral filtering using trigonometric range kernels,” *IEEE Transactions in Image Processing*, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 3376-3382, 2011.
R. Deriche, “Recursively implementing the Gaussian and its derivatives,” *Research Report* INRIA-00074778, 1993.
K. N. Chaudhury, “Acceleration of the shiftable algorithm for bilateral filtering and nonlocal means,” *IEEE Transactions in Image Processing*, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1291-1300, 2013.
The USC-SIPI Image Database, http://sipi.usc.edu/database/.
[^1]: K. Rithwik is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, India (e-mail: [email protected]). K. N. Chaudhury is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India (e-mail: [email protected]). R. Kollipara was supported by the Indian Academy of Sciences under the SRPF program, and K. N. Chaudhury was partially supported by a Startup Grant from the Indian Institute of Science.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the generation time – a notion usually described in a biological context – can be defined in a general way as a return time in a conveniently constructed finite Markov chain. The simple formula we obtain agrees with previous results derived for structured populations projected in discrete time, and allows to define the generation time of any process described by a weighted directed graph whose matrix is primitive.'
author:
- François Bienvenu
- Lloyd Demetrius
- 'Stéphane Legendre [^1]'
date: '10/06/2013'
title: |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A General Formula for the\
Generation Time</span>
---
Introduction
============
The generation time $T$ is a biological notion, intuitively thought of as the time between two generations. In age-classified population models, $T$ is the mean age of the mothers at the birth of their offspring.
However, for many organisms, the pertinent stages of life history are not classified by age but by other biological parameters, like size. This is the case in many animal species (e.g., in reptiles, fishes, and arthropods) and most often the case in plants. For example, plant phenotypes may stay in a size class for an indefinite length of time until favorable light conditions allow them to grow and get to another size class. Moreover, on top of the main stage-descriptive parameter (age, size), population dynamics models often consider stages indexed by other descriptive variables (morphotype, behavioral category). For example, in metapopulation models, the sites of the local populations connected by migrations are indexing the age- or size- classes.
As the generation time is a fundamental biological descriptor, linked with the cycle time of biochemical reactions within the organism [@Demetrius_2006; @DemetriusLegendre_2009; @Demetrius_2013], it is desirable to compute it for a large class of models, i.e., for life cyles more complex than age-classified ones. This has been done notably by Lebreton [@Lebreton_1996] for age-classified metapopulation models, and by Cochran and Ellner [@CochranEllner_1992] for complex life cycles. These articles describe the computation of many useful demographic descriptors, but the formulas for $T$ are rather complicated.
A multicellular organism can be envisioned as a set of germ cells (producing the gametes), that are carried by a body made of somatic cells – the vehicle of the germ cells. The generation time can then be seen as the mean time by which the germ cells shift vehicle. $T$ can therefore be defined as the mean time of first return to the transition leading to the creation of a novel organism (by fusion of the gametes in sexual organisms). We call *reproductive* such a transition.
In this study, we develop a general setting for computing the generation time $T$ as the mean time of first return in a conveniently constructed finite Markov chain. The formula is surprisingly simple: $$T = \frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{[j \to i] \in R} e_{ij}}.$$ In this expression, $R$ is the set of reproductive arcs $j \to i$ in the weighted directed graph representing the life cycle of the population, and the $e_{ij}$’s are the elasticities of the matrix associated with the digraph.
Matrix population models {#matrixpop}
========================
In its life history, an organism goes through different stages, typically developmental stages toward a mature form, followed by reproductive stages where offspring is produced. A population is considered as a set of identical individuals sharing the same life cycle, parameterized by average demographic parameters (survival, fecundity).
Matrix population models [@Caswell_2000] allow to project in discrete time $t = 0, 1,2, \dots$ populations structured by age, size or other classifying parameters. In this framework, an individual within the population is represented by the life cycle graph, a weigthed directed graph $\mathcal{A}$. The nodes of $\mathcal{A}$ represent the stages traversed by individuals during their lives and the arcs are weigthed by the demographic parameters (Fig. \[fig\_leslie\]). The weight $a_{ij}$ associated with the arc $j \to i$ represents the contribution of stage $j$ at time $t$ to stage $i$ at time $t+1$. We note that the adjacency matrix of the weighted digraph $\mathcal{A}$ is the transpose $^t\mathbf{a}$. The population matrix $\mathbf{a} = (a_{ij})$ allows to compute the number of individuals in the stages from one time step to the next: $$\label{popi}
n_i(t+1) = \sum_{j} a_{ij} n_j(t).$$ Here $n_i$ is the number of individuals in stage $i$. In matrix form, $$\mathbf{n}(t+1) = \mathbf{a}\mathbf{n}(t),$$ with $\mathbf{n}(t) = (n_i(t))$ the population vector at time $t$.
We assume that the non negative population matrix $\mathbf{a}$ is primitive (irreducible and aperiodic). Under this assumption, the Perron-Frobenius theorem garantees the existence of a dominant eigenvalue $\lambda > 0$, a real eigenvalue that is largest in modulus than all other eigenvalues [@Seneta_2006]. The dominant eigenvalue $\lambda$ is the asymptotic growth rate of the population. Indeed, for large $t$, the total population size at time $t$, $n(t) = \sum_i n_i(t)$, verifies $$n(t+1) \sim \lambda n(t).$$ The left and right eigenvectors of $\mathbf{a}$ with respect to $\lambda$, $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{w}$, have positive entries. The right eigenvector $\mathbf{w} = (w_i)$, when normalized $\sum_i w_i=1$, is called the *stable stage distribution*. Indeed, for all $i$, the proportion of individuals in stage $i$ at time $t$ converges toward $w_i$: $$\label{wi}
\frac{n_i(t)}{n(t)} \to w_i.$$ In the Leslie model [@Leslie_1945], the stages correspond to age classes. The first row of the population matrix is constituted of fertility transitions ($f_i$) leading to the newborn stage 1, and the subdiagonal contains survival transitions ($s_i$) (Fig. \[fig\_leslie\]). The growth rate $\lambda$ is the largest root of the characteristic equation $$f(X) = \sum_{i} l_i f_i X^{-i} = 1,$$ where $l_1 = 1$ and $l_i = s_1 \ldots s_{i-1}$ for $i>1$ [@Euler_1760; @Caswell_2000]. Therefore, the quantities $q_i = l_i f_i \lambda^{-i}$ verify $\sum_i q_i = 1$ and form a distribution. The mean of this distribution, $$\label{gentime1}
T = \sum_{i} i l_i f_i \lambda^{-i},$$ is the generation time, interpreted as the mean age of the mothers at the birth of their daughters when the population is at the stable age distribution.
(14,6)(0,0) (0,0)[![The life cycle graph of the age-classified Leslie model and the corresponding matrix. Stages $1,2,\ldots ,\omega$ correspond to individuals aged $1,2,\ldots ,\omega$. Reproductive transitions are in red and point to the newborn stage 1. $s_i$ is the survival rate from age $i$ to age $i+1$ and $f_i$ is the fertility rate of individuals aged $i$. When age at first reproduction $\alpha > 1$, the fertilities $f_1, \ldots, f_{\alpha-1}$ are set to 0.[]{data-label="fig_leslie"}](leslie.jpg "fig:")]{} (14.5,2) [$\begin{bmatrix}
f_1 & f_2 & \cdots & f_{\omega-1} & f_\omega\\
s_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
0 & s_2 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
\vdots & & & &\vdots\\
0 & & \cdots & s_{\omega-1} & 0
\end{bmatrix}$]{}
The Markov matrix {#markovmatrix}
=================
To perform random walks in the digraph $\mathcal{A}$, and compute the generation time as a return time, we first normalize the matrix $\mathbf{a}$ into a matrix $\mathbf{p}$ so that the weights $p_{ij}$ associated with the out-arcs $i \to j$ from any stage $i$ sum to 1: $\sum_j p_{ij} = 1$. Thus $\mathbf{p}$ will be a Markov matrix.
The convenient Markov matrix $\mathbf{p}$, see [@Demetrius_1974; @Demetrius_1975; @Tuljapurkar_1982], is given by $$\label{pij}
p_{ij} = \frac{a_{ij}w_j}{\lambda w_i}.$$ We check that the rows of $\mathbf{p}$ sum to 1: as $\mathbf{w}$ is a right eigenvector of $\mathbf{a}$, $$\sum_j a_{ij}w_j = \lambda w_i,$$ we have $$\sum_j p_{ij} = \frac{1}{\lambda w_i} \sum_j a_{ij}w_j = 1.$$ An informal argument for formula (\[pij\]) is the following. There are $n_i(t)$ individuals in stage $i$ at time $t$, $a_{ij} n_j(t-1)$ of which come from stage $j$. Hence the probability of coming from stage $j$ for an individual in stage $i$ is $$\frac{a_{ij} n_j(t-1)}{n_i(t)}.$$ Assuming the population at the stable stage distribution, we have from (\[wi\]), $n_j(t-1) \sim w_j n(t-1)$ and $n_i(t) \sim \lambda w_i n(t-1)$, giving (\[pij\]). Moreover, the apparent absence of transposition in (\[pij\]) comes from the fact that two transpositions have actually been performed: one to reverse the time as we explore the genealogy, the second to switch from the formalism of matrix population models to that of Markov chains.
To the digraph $\mathcal{A}$ is associated the digraph $\mathcal{P}$ that has the same nodes and arcs as $\mathcal{A}$, but where the weight associated with the arc $i \to j$ is $p_{ij}$, i.e., $\mathbf{p}$ is the adjacency matrix of $\mathcal{P}$.
\[stationary\_p\] The stationary distribution $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ of the Markov chain $\mathbf{p}$ associated with the population matrix $\mathbf{a}$ is given by $$\label{pi_j}
\pi_j = \frac{v_j w_j}{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}},$$ where $\mathbf{v} = (v_j)$ and $\mathbf{w} = (w_j)$ are left and right eigenvectors of $\mathbf{a}$ with respect to the dominant eigenvalue.
The entries $\pi_j$ of the row vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ sum to 1 because of the normalization by the dot product $$\mathbf{v}\mathbf{w} = \sum_j v_jw_j.$$ We show that $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ is a left eigenvector of $\mathbf{p}$ with respect to the eigenvalue 1. Using the relation $\mathbf{v}\mathbf{a} = \lambda \mathbf{v}$, we have $$(\mathbf{v}\mathbf{w}) \sum_i \pi_i p_{ij} = \sum_i v_i w_i p_{ij} = \sum_i v_i w_i \frac{a_{ij}w_j}{\lambda w_i} = \frac{w_j}{\lambda} \sum_i v_i a_{ij} = v_j w_j = (\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}) \pi_j.$$ Hence $\boldsymbol{\pi}\mathbf{p} = \boldsymbol{\pi}$, and $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ is the stationary distribution of the Markov chain [@Seneta_2006].
As the digraph $\mathcal{P}$ is irreducible, there is a directed path from any stage to any other. In particular, any stage is contained in a directed cycle. The mean time of first return to stage $j$ is given by $$\label{1surpi1}
\tau_j = \frac{1}{\pi_j}.$$ More generally, if $B$ is a subset of the set of stages, the mean time of first return to $B$ is $$\label{1sursompi}
\tau_B = \frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{j \in B}^{} \pi_j}.$$ Indeed, the quantity $\sum_{j \in B} \pi_j$ is the asymptotic proportion of particles in the stages $j \in B$ after they have traversed the digraph according to the probabilities of $\mathbf{p}$. The inverse of this quantity is the mean time of first return of the particles to $B$.
\[example\_leslie\] For the Leslie matrix, left and right eigenvectors $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ are given by $$v_i = \frac{\lambda^{i-1}}{l_i}\sum_{j=1}^{\omega} l_j f_j \lambda^{-j}, \quad w_i = l_i \lambda^{-(i-1)}, \quad i = 1, \ldots, \omega.$$ Here $\omega$ is the total number of age classes. After some algebra, $$\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w} = \sum_i i l_i f_i \lambda^{-i} = T.$$ As (\[pi\_j\]) is independent of the scaling of the eigenvectors, we may rescale $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ so that $v_1 = 1$ and $w_1 =1$, and we recover (\[1surpi1\]): $$T = \frac{1}{\pi_1}.$$
Reproductive arcs {#reproarcs}
=================
Newborn stages are characterized by the fact that they are entered by reproductive arcs. By *reproductive arc*, we mean any transition $j \to i$ in the life cycle graph such that individuals in stage $j$ contribute to *novel* individuals in stage $i$. These arcs are determined by the biology of the species. In animals, reproductive arcs are usually identified as transitions leading to the production of offspring, but organisms may also reproduce by fission, as is often the case in plants. In this case, the corresponding arcs may be considered as reproductive or not depending on the biological question.
Newborn stages are ambiguously defined because non reproductive arcs (survival, migration) can also lead to such stages. This is for example the case in the life cycle graph of the teasel *Dipsacus sylvestris* [@Caswell_1978b; @CochranEllner_1992; @Caswell_2000] (Fig. \[fig\_teasel\]). In this annual plant, the arc *Small rosette* $\to$ *Medium rosette* together with a self-loop enter the *Medium rosette* stage. These transitions correspond to a probability of changing size class and of staying in the size class, respectively, and are not reproductive. Nevertheless, the stage *Medium rosette* is a newborn stage because of the reproductive transition *Flowering plant* $\to$ *Medium rosette*.
![The life cycle graph of the teasel *Dipsacus sylvestris*. Newborn stages are in grey and reproductive arcs are in red.[]{data-label="fig_teasel"}](teasel.jpg)
Thus, we wish to compute the generation time not as the mean time of first return to a newborn stage, but as the mean time of first return to a reproductive arc. To this end, we construct a convenient weighted digraph $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ from the digraph $\mathcal{P}$. The nodes of $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ are the arcs $i \to j$ of $\mathcal{P}$, and we create an arc between 2 nodes $a = [i \to j]$, $b = [k \to l]$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ if and only if $k = j$, in which case the weight $$\tilde{p}_{ab} = \tilde{p}_{i \to j, j \to l} = p_{jl}$$ is associated with the arc $a \to b$ (Fig. \[fig\_ptilde\]). In other words, there is an arc joining $a = [i \to j]$ to $b = [k \to l]$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ if and only if $a$ is an in-arc of node $j$ and $b$ an out-arc of this node in $\mathcal{P}$ (thus $k = j$). The weight associated with $a \to b$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ is the weight $p_{jl}$ associated with the out-arc $j \to l$ in $\mathcal{P}$. By construction, in $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$, all arcs entering the node $b = [j \to l]$ bear the same weight $p_{jl}$.
The adjacency matrix of the digraph $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ is denoted $\tilde{\mathbf{p}} = (\tilde{p}_{ab})$.
![The digraph $\mathcal{P}$ associated with a 2 stages life cycle, and the corresponding digraph $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ whose nodes are the arcs of $\mathcal{P}$. Reproductive arcs are in red.[]{data-label="fig_ptilde"}](ptilde.jpg)
\[ptilde\]
- The matrix $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ is a Markov matrix that is irreducible (primitive) if and only if the Markov matrix $\mathbf{p}$ is irreducible (primitive).
- The return time to the transition $i \to j$ in the digraph $\mathcal{P}$ is the same as the return time to the node $a = [i \to j]$ in the digraph $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$.
Let the index $a = [i \to j]$ be fixed. As the entries of the row of index $j$ of $\mathbf{p}$ sum to 1, we have $$\sum_b \tilde{p}_{ab} = \sum_l \tilde{p}_{i \to j, j \to l} = \sum_l p_{jl} = 1.$$ Hence, the entries of the row of index $a$ of $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ sum to 1, and $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ is a Markov matrix.
Let $a = [i \to j]$ and $b = [k \to l]$ be any 2 nodes in $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$. Since $\mathbf{p}$ is irreducible, there is a directed path from $j$ to $k$ in $\mathcal{P}$, say $$\label{path_p}
j \to j_1 \to j_2 \to \cdots \to j_{m-1} \to k.$$ By irreducibility of $\mathcal{P}$, $j$ belongs to a cycle, so that there exists an arc $i \to j$ for some node $i \neq j$. In $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$, we now have the path $$\label{path_ptilde}
a = [i \to j] \to [j \to j_1] \to [j_1 \to j_2] \to \cdots \to [j_{m-1} \to k] \to [k \to l] = b.$$ This shows that $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ is irreducible. Moreover, the path (\[path\_ptilde\]) as the same length $m$ and the same weights as the original path (\[path\_p\]). Conversely, from a path (\[path\_ptilde\]) in $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ we can construct a path (\[path\_p\]) in $\mathcal{P}$ that has the same length and weights as the path (\[path\_ptilde\]). The second assertion of Proposition \[ptilde\] is a direct consequence of the fact that paths in $\mathcal{P}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ have the same lengths and weights (though they are not in the same number). As a result, the greatest common divisor of cycle lengths in $\mathcal{P}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ are equal, implying the equivalence of $\mathbf{p}$ primitive and $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ primitive.
\[stationary\_ptilde\] The stationary distribution of the Markov chain $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ associated with the Markov chain $\mathbf{p}$ is given by $$\label{wa}
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}} = (\tilde{\pi}_b), \quad \tilde{\pi}_b = \tilde{\pi}_{j \to l} = \pi_j p_{jl},$$ where $\boldsymbol{\pi} = (\pi_j)$ is the stationary distribution of $\mathbf{p}$.
The entries $\tilde{\pi}_b$ of the row vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ sum to 1 because $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ is a left eigenvector of $\mathbf{p}$: $$\sum_b \tilde{\pi}_{b} = \sum_{j,l} \tilde{\pi}_{j \to l} = \sum_{j,l} \pi_j p_{jl} = \sum_l \left( \sum_j \pi_j p_{jl} \right) = \sum_l \pi_l = 1.$$ Let the index $b = [j \to l]$ be fixed. Then, $$\sum_a \tilde{\pi}_a \tilde{p}_{ab} = \sum_{i} \tilde{\pi}_{i \to j} \tilde{p}_{i \to j,j \to l} = \sum_i \pi_i p_{ij}p_{jl} = \left( \sum_i \pi_i p_{ij} \right) p_{jl} = \pi_j p_{jl} = \tilde{\pi}_b,$$ so that $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ is a left eigenvector of $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$.
Generation time {#gentime}
===============
Before giving the main result of this study, we recall tools of perturbation analysis. For a primitive matrix $\mathbf{a}$ with dominant eigenvalue $\lambda$, the *sensitivity* of $\lambda$ to changes in the parameter $x$ is $$s_\lambda(x) = \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial x}.$$ The sensitivity of $\lambda$ to changes in the matrix entry $a_{ij}$ is given by [@Demetrius_1969; @Caswell_1978a] $$s_{ij} = \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial a_{ij}} = \frac{v_i w_j}{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}}.$$ The *elasticity* of $\lambda$ to changes in $x$ quantifies proportional changes: $$e_\lambda (x) = \frac{x}{\lambda} \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial x},$$ i.e., if $x$ changes by a proportion $\alpha$ then $\lambda$ changes by the proportion $\alpha e_\lambda(x)$. The elasticity of $\lambda$ to changes in the matrix entry $a_{ij}$ is then given by $$\label{elas_ij}
e_{ij} = \frac{a_{ij}}{\lambda} \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial a_{ij}} = \frac{a_{ij}}{\lambda} \frac{v_i w_j}{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}}.$$
\[main\] Let $\mathbf{a}$ be a non negative primitive matrix associated with a weighted directed graph $\mathcal{A}$ so that $^t\mathbf{a}$ is the adjacency matrix of $\mathcal{A}$. Let R be a subset of the set of arcs of $\mathcal{A}$. Then the mean time of first return to R is $$\label{T_R}
T_R = \frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{[j \to i] \in R} e_{ij}},$$ where $e_{ij}$ is the elasticity of the dominant eigenvalue of $\mathbf{a}$ to changes in the entry $a_{ij}$.
In particular, if $R$ is the set of reproductive arcs of $\mathcal{A}$, then the generation time $T$ is given by $$\label{T}
T = \frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{[j \to i] \in R} e_{ij}}.$$
Arc $[j \to i]$ in $\mathcal{A}$ corresponds to arc $[i \to j]$ in $\mathcal{P}$. By (\[1sursompi\]) and Proposition \[ptilde\], the mean time of first return to the arcs of $R$ is $$\label{1surpi}
\frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{[j \to i] \in R} \tilde{\pi}_{i \to j}}.$$ Using (\[pij\]), (\[wa\]), (\[elas\_ij\]), we have $$\label{eij}
\tilde{\pi}_{i \to j} = \pi_i p_{ij} = \frac{a_{ij}w_j}{\lambda w_i} \frac{v_i w_i}{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}} = \frac{a_{ij}}{\lambda} \frac{v_i w_j}{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{w}} = e_{ij}.$$
\[example\_teasel\] For *Dipsacus sylvestris* (Fig. \[fig\_teasel\]), the matrix of elasticities is $$\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \underline{0.0667}\\
0.0007 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0.0238 & 0.0007 & 0.0004 & 0 & 0 & \underline{0.0045}\\
0.0073 & 0 & 0.0025 & 0.0271 & 0 & \underline{0.2285}\\
0.0563 & 0 & 0.0051 & 0.1875 & 0.0226 & \underline{0.0439}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0.0509 & 0.2928 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ where the underlined entries correspond to the 4 reproductive transitions. The generation time is $$T = \frac{1}{0.0667 + 0.0045 + 0.2285 + 0.0439} = 2.91 \mbox{ years},$$ in accordance with the computation of Cochran and Ellner [@CochranEllner_1992].
The matrix $\mathbf{a}$ can be decomposed $$\mathbf{a} = \mathbf{r} + \mathbf{s},$$ where $\mathbf{r}$, $\mathbf{s}$ correspond to the reproductive and non reproductive arcs respectively (in the Leslie matrix, the matrix of fertility and survival rates respectively). A convenient formula for computing the generation time is then $$T = \lambda \frac{\mathbf{v}\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{v}\mathbf{r}\mathbf{w}}.$$ In this expression, the terms are matrix products (the denominator is the matrix product of the row vector $\mathbf{v}$, the matrix $\mathbf{r}$, and the column vector $\mathbf{w}$).
Theorem \[main\] provides a novel interpretation of the elasticity $e_{ij}$ of the growth rate $\lambda$ to changes in a matrix entry $a_{ij}$. Let us consider a particle traversing the digraph $\mathcal{A}$, i.e., performing a random walk in $\mathcal{P}$. Then by (\[eij\]), the elasticity $e_{ij}$ is the frequency at which the particle traverses the arc $[j \to i]$.
Generation time distribution
============================
We provide a formula for the distribution of the random variable $\mathcal{T}$ whose expectation is the generation time, $T = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{T}]$.
The matrix $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ representing the transition probabilities between arcs of $\mathcal{A}$ can be decomposed $$\tilde{\mathbf{p}} = \left[ \begin{array}{c | c}
\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RR} & \tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RS} \\
\hline
\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SR} & \tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SS}
\end{array} \right],$$ with $R$ the set of reproductive arcs, $S$ the set of non reproductive arcs. In this decomposition, the submatrix $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RR}$ maps $R$ to $R$, and similar definitions hold for the other submatrices.
The stationary distribution of $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}$ can also be decomposed $$\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}} =
\left[
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_R \,
\vline \,
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_S
\right].$$ Using (\[1surpi\]), the subvectors $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_R$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_S$ are now scaled so that their entries sum to 1: $$\boldsymbol{\varpi} = \left[ \boldsymbol{\varpi}_R \, \vline \, \boldsymbol{\varpi}_S \right] = \left[ T_R \tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_R \, \vline \, T_S \tilde{\boldsymbol{\pi}}_S \right].$$
\[distribT\] The distribution of $\mathcal{T}$ is given by $$\mathbb{P}[\mathcal{T} = k] = \left\{
\begin{array}{c c}
\boldsymbol{\varpi}_R \, \tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RR} \, \mathbf{e}, &\quad k = 1,\\
\\
\boldsymbol{\varpi}_R \, \tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RS} \, (\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SS})^{k - 2} \, \tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SR} \, \mathbf{e}, &\quad k \geqslant 2.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Here, $\mathbf{e}$ is a vector of ones of the same dimension as $\boldsymbol{\varpi}_R$.
When $\mathcal{T} = 1$, we have traveled directly from a reproductive arc to another. The probability of this event is the sum of the probability of being on a reproductive arc, given by the entries of $\boldsymbol{\varpi_R}$, times the probability of going from this arc to another reproductive arc, given by the entries of $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RR}$. When $\mathcal{T} = k \geqslant 2$, starting from an arc of $R$ (probabilities $\boldsymbol{\varpi}_R$), we first go to an arc of $S$ (probabilities $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{RS}$) before spending $k - 2$ time intervals on $S$ (probabilities $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SS}$), and then return to $R$ (probabilities $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_{SR}$).
Lebreton’s formula {#lebreton}
==================
\[c\_arcs\] Let $c$ be a common parameter multiplying the entries $a_{ij}$ associated with the reproductive arcs, then $$\label{1surT}
e_\lambda(c) = \frac{1}{T}.$$ Let $d$ be a common parameter multiplying the entries $a_{ij}$ associated with the non reproductive arcs, then $$\label{1moins1surT}
e_\lambda(d) = 1 - \frac{1}{T}.$$
For a reproductive arc $[j \to i] \in R$, we have $a_{ij} = c b_{ij}$, hence $\frac{\partial a_{ij}}{\partial c} = b_{ij} = \frac{a_{ij}}{c}$ for $[j \to i] \in R$, and $\frac{\partial a_{ij}}{\partial c} = 0$ otherwise. Now, $$e_\lambda(c) = \frac{c}{\lambda} \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial c} = \frac{c}{\lambda} \sum_{i,j} \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial a_{ij}}\frac{\partial a_{ij}}{\partial c} = \sum_{[j \to i] \in R} \frac{a_{ij}}{\lambda} \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial a_{ij}} = \sum_{[j \to i ] \in R} e_{ij} = \frac{1}{T},$$ where the last equality comes from Theorem \[main\]. For the non reproductive arcs, as the elasticities sum to 1, $e_\lambda(d) = 1 - e_\lambda(c)$, giving (\[1moins1surT\]).
Formulas (\[1surT\]) and (\[1moins1surT\]) were shown by Lebreton [@HoullierLebreton_1986; @Lebreton_1996] in the case of the Leslie matrix for a common parameter multiplying the fertilities $f_i$ in the first row, and for a common parameter multiplying the survival rates $s_i$ in the subdiagonal. In the pre-breeding census, fertilities are written $f_i = \sigma s_0 g_i$ with $\sigma$ the primary female sex-ratio, $s_0$ the juvenile survival (from birth to age 1), and $g_i$ the fecundity at age $i$. The demographic parameters $\sigma$ and $s_0$ are common factors of the fertilities.
These formulas have important consequences for life history evolution. For example, short-lived species have small generation time, hence large sensitivity in juvenile survival and primary sex-ratio. By constrast, long-lived species have large generation time, low sensitivity in juvenile survival and large sensitivity in adult survival.
Concluding remarks {#conclusion}
==================
Though we have used a biological formalism to describe the generation time, the setting we have developed is quite general. If a process can be described by a primitive weighted digraph $\mathcal{A}$, and if some arcs of $\mathcal{A}$ can be identified as reproductive in the sense that they lead to the renewal of the entities described by the process, then the generation time can be defined by (\[T\]). More generally, Theorem \[main\] provides a way to compute the return time with respect to any property shared by specific transitions of the process.
The generation time can be seen as the mean time by which novelty is brought to a system by its internal dynamics. It remains to explore the consequences of this definition for dynamical systems more general than the linear ones we have considered here.
[99]{}
Caswell H. 1978. A general formula for the sensitivity of population growth rate to changes in life history parameters. Ecology 59:53–66.
Caswell H and P Werner. 1978. Transient behavior and life history analysis of teasel (*Dipsacus sylvestris* Huds.). Theoretical Population Biology 14:215–230.
Caswell H. 2000. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation. 2nd edition, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachussets.
Cochran ME and S Ellner. 1992. Simple methods for calculating age-specific life history parameters from stage-structured models. Ecological Monographs 62:345–364.
Demetrius L. 1969. The sensitivity of population growth rate to perturbations in the life cycle components. Mathematical Biosciences 4:129–139.
Demetrius L. 1974. Demographic parameters and natural selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 71:4645–4647.
Demetrius L. 1975. Natural selection and age-structured populations. Genetics 79:535–544.
Demetrius L. 2006. The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology 243:455–-467.
Demetrius L, S Legendre and P Harremöes. 2009. Evolutionary entropy: A predictor of body size, metabolic rate and maximal life span. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 71:800–818.
Demetrius L. 2013. Boltzmann, Darwin and directionality theory. Physics reports.
Euler L. 1760. Recherches générales sur la mortalité et la multiplication du genre humain. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres de Belgique, 144–164.
Houllier F and J-D Lebreton. 1986. A renewal equation approach to the dynamics of stage-grouped populations. Mathematical Biosciences 79:185–197.
Lebreton J-D. 1996. Demographic models for subdivided populations. Theoretical Population Biology 49:291–313.
Leslie PH. 1945. On the use of matrices in population mathematics. Biometrika 33:183–212.
Seneta E. 2006. Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, USA.
Tuljapurkar S. 1982. Why use population entropy? It determines the rate of convergence. Journal of Mathematical Biology 13:325-337.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 *Mathematics Subject Classification*: Primary 05C38, 92D25; Secondary 05C50, 60J20.\
*Keywords*: generation time, life cycle, weighted directed graph, matrix population model, Markov chain, return time, sensitivity, elasticity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The infrared detection of a $z>7$ quasar [@mortlock11] has opened up a window to directly probe the inter-galactic medium (IGM) during the epoch of reionization. It is anticipated that future observations will yield more quasars extending to higher redshifts. In this paper we theoretically consider the possibility of detecting the ionized bubble around a $z=8$ quasar using targeted redshifted 21-cm observations with the GMRT. The apparent shape and size of the ionized bubble, as seen by a distant observer, depends on the parameters $\dot{N}_{phs}/C$, $\xh1/C$ and $\tau_Q$ where $\dot{N}_{phs}$ and $\tau_Q$ are respectively the ionizing photon emission rate and age of the quasar, and $\xh1$ and $C$ are respectively the neutral fraction and clumping factor of the IGM. The 21-cm detection of an ionized bubble, thus, holds the promise of allowing us to probe the quasar and IGM properties at $z=8$.
In the current work we have analytically calculated the apparent shape and size of a quasar’s ionized bubble assuming an uniform IGM and ignoring other ionizing sources besides the quasar, and used this as a template for matched filter bubble search with the GMRT visibility data. We have assumed that $\dot{N}_{phs}$ is known from the observed infrared spectrum, and $C=30$ from theoretical considerations, which gives us the two free parameters $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ for bubble detection. Considering $1,000$ hr of observation, we find that there is a reasonably large region of parameter space bounded within $(\xh1,\,\tq) = (1.0,\,0.5)$ and $(0.2,\,7.0)$ where a $3\sigma$ detection is possible if $\np=3$. The available region increases if $\dot{N}_{phs}$ is larger, whereas we need $\xh1 \ge 0.4$ and $\tq \ge
2.0$ if $\np=1.3$. Considering parameter estimation, we find that in many cases it will be possible to quite accurately constrain $\tau_Q$ and place a lower limit on $\xh1$ with $1,000$ hr of observation, particularly if the bubble is in the early stage of growth and we have a very luminous quasar or a high neutral fraction. Deeper follow up observations ($4,000$ and $9,000$ hr) can be used to further tighten the constraints on $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$. We find that the estimated $\xh1$ is affected by uncertainty in the assumed value of $C$. The quasar’s age $\tau_Q$ however is robust and is unaffected by the uncertainty in $C$.
The presence of other ionizing sources and inhomogeneities in the IGM distort the shape and size of the quasar’s ionized bubble. This is a potential impediment for bubble detection and parameter estimation. We have used the semi-numerical technique to simulate the apparent shape and size of quasar ionized bubbles incorporating these effects. If we consider a $9,000$ hr observation with the GMRT we find that the estimated parameters $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ are expected to be within the statistical uncertainties.
author:
- |
Suman Majumdar$^1$[^1], Somnath Bharadwaj$^1$[^2] and T. Roy Choudhury$^{2,3}$[^3]\
$^1$Department of Physics and Meteorology & Centre for Theoretical Studies, IIT, Kharagpur 721302, India\
$^2$Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211019, India\
$^3$National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, TIFR, Post Bag 3, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India
title: 'Constraining Quasar and IGM Properties Through Bubble Detection in Redshifted 21-cm Maps'
---
1[x\_[[H [i]{}]{}]{}]{} [U]{}
methods: data analysis - cosmology: theory: - diffuse radiation
Introduction
============
The epoch of reionization is one of the least known periods in the history of our Universe. According to the present understanding, reionization of neutral hydrogen () is an extended process spanning over the redshift range $6 \lesssim z \lesssim 15$ [@mitra]. The intergalactic medium (IGM) during this period is characterised by bubbles of ionized hydrogen (), centred around luminous sources. Stars forming within early galaxies are believed to be the major sources of ionizing photons during this era (for reviews see @choudhury06 [@choudhury09a]). Quasars are expected to be very rare during this epoch, but they are capable of generating larger bubbles around them with respect to their stellar counterpart. Detection of these bubbles will directly probe the state of the local IGM around the ionizing sources. It will also constrain the properties of the quasar, such as its luminosity and age.
The highest redshift at which a quasar has been detected till date is $z = 7.085$ [@mortlock11]. The Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectrum of this object reveals a highly ionized near zone of radius $2.1 \pm 0.1$ Mpc (physical). The observed near zone size is unexpectedly small when compared with the other high redshift quasars observed in the redshift range $6.0 < z < 6.4$ [@fan03; @willott07; @willott10]. The ionizing photon emission rate estimated for this quasar is $1.3 \times
10^{57} {\rm sec^{-1}}$ assuming a power law for the unabsorbed continuum emission blueward of Ly-$\alpha$ line. The quasar’s age ($\tau_Q$) and local volume averaged neutral fraction ($\langle \xh1
\rangle_V$) can be estimated from the size of the quasar’s near zone, however the estimated $\tau_Q$ and $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V$ are strongly correlated. For the same observation @bolton11 have constrained the $\tau_Q$ and $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V$ using simulated Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectra. This study shows that there are several combinations of the $\tau_Q$ and $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V$ all of which can reproduce the observed data. They find that the spectrum observed by @mortlock11 is consistent with $\tau_Q \sim 10^6$ yr with either $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V \sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-3}$ provided there is a proximate damped Ly-$\alpha$ absorber (DLA) or $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V \sim 0.1$ without a proximate DLA. The same observation is also consistent with $\tau_Q \sim 10^7$ yr and either $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V \leq 10^{-4}$ with a proximate DLA or a fully neutral IGM $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V \sim 1$ without a proximate DLA. It is quite clear that observations of Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectra are limited in their ability to determine the age of the quasar and the local neutral fraction. This limitation essentially arises from two reasons. The first being that the IGM becomes nearly opaque at a very low neutral fraction $\langle \xh1 \rangle_V \approx
10^{-4}$. It is not possible to distinguish between a neutral fraction of $10^{-4}$ from a completely neutral medium, and the actual ionized bubble around the quasar may extend far beyond the region inferred from the Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectra. The second limitation arises from the fact that the Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectrum is a pencil beam observation along a line of sight (LoS) to the quasar. The presence of a proximate DLA can completely change the interpretation of the spectrum.
The redshifted 21-cm emission from neutral hydrogen in the epoch of reionization is believed to be a powerful tool to detect bubbles around quasars. The intensity is directly proportional to the density, and it is in principle possible to probe the entire ionization profile of the bubble. It may be possible to overcome the limitations of Ly-$\alpha$ absorption spectra using redshifted 21-cm observations, and place better constraints on the quasar parameters and the state of the IGM. This is particularly motivated by the fact that the presently functioning [GMRT[^4]]{} [@swarup] and LOFAR[^5], and the upcoming [MWA[^6]]{} and [21CMA [^7]]{} are all sensitive to the signal from the epoch or reionization. However, redshifted observations have their own limitations in that the signal is extremely small relative to the sensitivities of the present and upcoming telescopes. Further, the signal will be buried deep in foregrounds which are a few orders of magnitude larger than the signal [@ali08; @bernardi09].
@datta2 (hitherto Paper I) have proposed a matched filter technique to detect ionized bubbles in radio-interferometric observations of redshifted 21-cm emission. The matched filter optimally combines the entire signal of an ionized bubble while minimizing the noise and the foreground contributions. The redshift $z
\sim 8$ is most optimal for bubble detection [@datta09], and at this redshift a $3\sigma$ detection is possible for bubbles of comoving radius larger than $24$ and $28$ Mpc with $1000$ hr of observation using the GMRT and MWA respectively, assuming that the neutral hydrogen fraction is $\sim 0.6$ outside the bubble. This technique, however, is limited by the density fluctuations in outside the bubble, and analytical estimates (Paper I) and simulations [@datta3] show that it is not possible to detect bubbles of comoving radius $\leq 6$ and $\leq 12$ Mpc using the GMRT and MWA respectively, however large be the observation time.
The matched filter technique mentioned above assumes the bubble to be spherical. However, a growing spherical bubble will appear anisotropic along the LoS to a present day observer due to the finite light travel time (FLTT) [@wyithe04; @yu05; @wyithe05; @sethi08] and also due to the evolution of global ionization fraction [@geil2]. In an earlier work (@majumdar11; hitherto Paper II), we have analytically quantified this anisotropy and studied the possibility of detecting such a bubble in a targeted search around a known quasar. We find that the bubble appears elongated along the LoS during the early stages of its growth, whereas it appears compressed in the later stages when the growth slows down. In addition to this, the apparent centre of the bubble also shifts towards the observer. We find that a spherical filter is adequate for bubble detection even when the apparent anisotropy of the bubble’s shape is taken into account, the centre of the best matched filter will however be shifted relative to the quasar. We also propose that the measured shift and the radius of the best matched filter can together be used to constrain the age and luminosity of the quasar.
In this work we consider the detection of an bubble in a targeted 21-cm search centred on a known quasar at $z = 8$ and we investigate the possibility of using such an observation to constrain the properties of the quasar and the IGM. For this purpose we improve upon the spherical filter by calculating the apparent, anisotropic shape of the quasar bubble and using this as a template for the filter.We expect this to give a better match to the bubble that is actually present in the data. Further, we also expect improved parameter estimation using the improved filter.
Our earlier work (Paper II) was entirely based on analytic estimates which do not take into account the presence of ionizing sources other than the quasar and the inhomogeneities in the IGM. We have overcome this limitation here by using the semi-numerical technique [@choudhury09b] to simulate the ionization field.
This paper is arranged as follows – In Section 2 we briefly discuss the model for bubble growth around a quasar, and the matched filter technique for detecting such a bubble. We also present the improved filter based on the calculated apparent shape of the bubble. In Section 3 we use analytic estimates, based on the bubble growth equation, to study the SNR for bubble detection. We use this to determine the parameter range where a $3\sigma$ detection is possible in $1,000$ hr of observation with the GMRT. We then consider parameter estimation, and explore the kind of limits that can be placed on the quasar and IGM properties using the matched filter technique. Section 4 briefly describes how we have simulated the apparent shape of quasar bubbles, and we present our results and summarize our findings in Section 5.
Our entire analysis is restricted to the redshift $z=8$. We have used the values from the WMAP 7 year data [@komatsu; @jarosik] $h= 0.705
$, $\Omega_m = 0.2726$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.726$, $\Omega_b h^2 =
0.0223$ for the cosmological parameters.
Bubble Detection
================
Model for Bubble Growth
-----------------------
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[C]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Q]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[A]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[B]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[D]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[E]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[LoS]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[${\boldsymbol \phi}$]{}**]{}]{} ![This shows the apparent shape of the bubble around a quasar Q as seen by a distant observer located in the direction indicated by the arrows. The apparent anisotropy of the bubble arises from the fact that photons received from different parts of the bubble had been emitted at different stages of of its growth. The apparent centre of the bubble is shifted by $QC$ from the quasar Q to the point C. The bubble’s apparent radius is $EC = CB =
R_{\parallel}$ along the LoS and $CD = R_{\perp}$ perpendicular to LoS. []{data-label="fig:shape"}](ani_dia.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
The growth of a spherical region around a quasar which is isotropically emitting ionizing photons at a rate $\dot{N}_{phs}$ is governed by the equation [@shapiro87; @white03; @wyithe04; @wyithe05; @yu05; @sethi08], $$\frac{4\pi}{3} \frac{d}{d\tau}\left(x_{HI} \langle n_H \rangle
r^3\right)=\dot{N}_{phs} -\frac{4}{3}\pi \alpha_B C \langle n_H
\rangle^2 r^3 \,,
\label{eq:yu}$$ \[eq. (1) of Paper II and eq (7) of @yu05\]. It is assumed that the quasar is triggered at a cosmic time $t_i$, and $\tau = t - t_i$ denotes the quasar’s age at any later time $t$. The variable $r(\tau)$ denotes the radius of the spherical ionizing front at the instant when a photon that was emitted from the quasar at $\tau$ catches up with the ionizing front. The term $\alpha_B(=2.6\times 10^{-13} \, {\rm
cm}^3 \, s^{-1})$ is the recombination coefficient to excited levels of hydrogen at $T=10^4 \, {\rm K}$, $\langle n_H \rangle$ and $\langle
n_{\HI} \rangle$ are the average hydrogen and neutral hydrogen densities respectively, $\xh1$ is the neutral fraction of the IGM and $C \equiv \langle n^2_{\HI} \rangle/\langle n_H \rangle^2$ is the clumping factor which quantifies the effective clumpiness of the hydrogen inside the bubble. Eq. (\[eq:yu\]) tells us that the growth of the bubble is determined by the ionizing photon emission rate after accounting for the photons required to compensate for the recombinations inside the existing ionized region.
For a constant $\dot{N}_{phs}$ the solution to the above growth model (eq. (\[eq:yu\])) takes the form $$r(\tau)=r_S
\left[1-\exp\left(-\frac{\tau}{\tau_{rec}}\right)
\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}\,,
\label{eq:growth}$$ \[eq. (2) of Paper II and eq. (8) of @yu05\] where $\tau_{rec} = \xh1
\left(C\,\langle n_H \rangle\,\alpha_B\right)^{-1}$ and $r_S = \left(3\dot{N}_{phs} \tau_{rec}/(4 \pi \xh1 \langle n_H \rangle
) \right)^{1/3}$. The apparent shape of the growing bubble that is perceived by a present day observer will be distorted due to the fact that photons received by the observer from different parts of the bubble had been emitted at different stages of the bubble’s growth (see Figure \[fig:shape\]). To visualize this apparent shape one need the relation between $r$ and the angle $\phi$ between the LoS and the point A (Figure \[fig:shape\]) under consideration on the ionization front. Consider a quasar observed at an age $\tau_Q$. The light travel time starting from the quasar at $\tau$ to the point A and then to the observer is $[r(\tau)/c](1-\cos \phi)$ more compared to the photon that was emitted from the quasar at $\tau_Q$ and travels straight to the observer. This gives $$\tau_Q=\tau +\frac{r(\tau)}{c}(1-\cos\,\phi)\,,
\label{eq:shape}$$ \[eq. (7) of Paper II and eq. (3) of @yu05\]. We use eq. (\[eq:growth\]) and eq. (\[eq:shape\]) to determine $r$ as a function of $\phi$. This gives the quasar’s apparent shape shown in Figure \[fig:shape\].
The apparent shape of a quasar’s bubble has been studied in detail in Paper II. We find that the FLTT has two effects, 1. the bubble appears to be anisotropic along the LoS and 2. the bubble’s apparent centre shifts along the LoS away from the quasar towards the observer. We now briefly discuss how we parametrize these two effects. Referring to Fig \[fig:shape\], we use $R_{\perp} = {\rm
CD}\,$ to quantify the overall comoving size of the bubble. The bubble centre C is located mid way between EB. We use the dimensionless shift parameter $s$ defined as, $$s = \frac{{\rm QC}}{R_{\perp}} \,,$$ to quantify the shift in the bubble’s centre as a fraction of its radius. We find (see Paper II for details) that $s$ can be greater than $1$ during the early stages of the bubble’s growth and it approaches $0$ in the later stages of evolution.
We use the dimensionless anisotropy parameter $\eta$ defined as, $$\eta =\frac{{\rm CB}}{R_{\perp}} - 1 \,,$$ to quantify the anisotropy in the apparent shape of the bubble. A value $\eta > 0$ indicates that the bubble is elongated along the LoS and a value $\eta <0$, indicates that it is compressed along the LoS. Our earlier work (Paper II) shows that $\eta$ has values in the range $0.1$ to $0.5$ during the early stages of growth when the bubble appears elongated along the LoS. We also find that $\eta$ has values in the range $0.0$ to $-0.2$ in the later stages of evolution when the bubble may appear compressed along the LoS.
Matched filter bubble detection {#subsec:ani_filt}
-------------------------------
The basic observable quantity in the radio interferometry is the visibility ${\mathcal V}(\u,\nu)$ which is related to the specific intensity pattern on the sky $I_{\nu}(\th)$ as $${\mathcal V}(\u,\nu)=\int d^2 \theta A(\th) I_{\nu}(\th)
e^{ 2\pi \imath \th \cdot \u}
\label{eq:vis}$$ The baseline $\u ={\vec d}/\lambda$ denotes the antenna separation ${\vec d}$ projected in the plane perpendicular to the LoS in units of the observing wavelength $\lambda$, $\th$ is a two dimensional vector in the sky plane with the origin at the centre of the FoV (the phase centre) and $A(\th)$ is the beam pattern of a single antenna. For the GMRT $A(\th)$ can be well approximated by a Gaussian $A(\th)=e^{-{\theta}^2/{\theta_0}^2}$ where $\theta_0 \approx
0.6 ~\theta_{\rm FWHM}$ and we use $2.28^{\circ}$ for $\theta_0$ at $157.77$ MHz [*i.e.*]{} $z = 8$. We consider a situation where the observation is spanned across several frequency channels around the central frequency of $157.77$ MHz.
The visibility recorded in a radio-interferometric observation is actually a combination of several contributions, $${\mathcal V}(\vec{U},\nu)=S(\vec{U},\nu)+HF(\vec{U},\nu)+N(\vec{U},\nu)+F(\vec{U},\nu)\,,
\label{eq:vis_comp}$$ where the first term $S(\vec{U},\nu)$ is the signal from the ionized region that is actually present in the observational data, $HF(\vec{U},\nu)$ is the contribution from fluctuations in the distribution outside the ionized bubble, $N(\vec{U},\nu) $ is the system noise which is inherent to the measurement and $F(\vec{U},\nu)$ is the contribution from astrophysical foregrounds.
The signal $S(\vec{U},\nu)$ from an ionized region will appear as a decrement with respect to the background 21-cm radiation. A spherical bubble embedded in an uniform IGM with a neutral fraction $\xh1$ is parametrized by its comoving radius $R_b$, the redshift $z_c$ and the angular position $\th_c$ corresponding to the centre of the bubble. The quantity $\rn$ is the comoving distance to the redshift where the emission received at $\nu=1420 \, {\rm MHz}/(1+z)$ originated, and $\rnp=d \, \rn/d \, \nu$. A plane perpendicular to LoS and passing through the centre of the bubble at a comoving distance $\rn$ will cut a disk of comoving radius $R_{\nu}=R_b \sqrt{1- (\Delta
\nu/\Delta \nu_b)^2}$ from the bubble, where $\Delta \nu=\nu_c-\nu$ and $\Delta \nu_b=R_b/r'_{\nu_c}$, and $\theta_{\nu}=R_{\nu}/r_{\nu}$ is the angular extent corresponding to $R_{\nu}$. For a bubble located at the centre of the FoV we have, $$\begin{aligned}
S(\u,\nu) = -\pi \bar{I_{\nu}} \xh1 \theta^2_\nu
&\left [ \frac{2 J_1(2 \pi U \theta_\nu
)}{2 \pi U \theta_\nu}\right ] \nonumber \\
&\Theta \left(1- \frac{\mid \nu -\nu_c \mid}{\Delta \nu_b} \right) \,,
\label{eq:signal}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{I}_{\nu}=2.5\times10^2\frac{Jy}{sr} \left (\frac{\Omega_b
h^2}{0.02}\right )\left( \frac{0.7}{h} \right ) \left
(\frac{H_0}{H(z)} \right )$, $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function, and $J_1(x)$ is the Bessel function of first order. The expected signal has a peak value (Paper I) of $S(0,\nu)=1.12\, {\rm
mJy}$ for a bubble with $R_b = 40$ Mpc, and $S(0,\nu) \propto R_b^2$.
The expected signal is very weak, so much so that the contribution $HF(\vec{U},\nu)$ from fluctuations outside the bubble may, in some cases, exceed the expected signal. We consider the system noise $N(\vec{U},\nu)$ in each baseline and frequency channel to be an independent Gaussian random variable with zero mean and r.m.s. $$\sqrt{\langle \hat{N}^2 \rangle} = C^x \left( \frac{\Delta \nu}{1 {\rm
MHz}} \right)^{-1/2} \left( \frac{\Delta t}{1 sec}\right)^{-1/2}
\label{eq:noise}$$ where the constant $C^x$ is different for different interferometric arrays, $\Delta \nu$ is the channel width and $\Delta t$ is the correlator integration time. Following Paper I, we use $C^x = 1.03$ Jy for the GMRT. We note that the r.m.s. noise $\sqrt{\langle \hat{N}^2
\rangle}$ will actually vary with $\vec{U}$, we have ignored this baseline dependence in order to keep the analysis simple. Further we do not expect this to be a very significant effect compared to the various other uncertainties arising from the lack of knowledge about the IGM and the quasar properties. The astrophysical foregrounds $F(\vec{U},\nu)$ are expected to be several orders of magnitude larger than the signal. But they are predicted to have a featureless, continuum spectra whereas the signal is expected to have a dip around $\nu_c$ (central frequency of the target bubble). This difference holds the promise of allowing us to separate the signal from the foregrounds.
The visibility based matched filter technique, proposed in Paper I, optimally combines the signal from an ionized region while minimizing the other contributions. In this technique we use the signal expected from a spherical bubble centered at redshift $z_b$ and comoving radius $R_b$ as a template, and search for the presence of this signal in the data using the estimator, $$\hat{E}(z_b, R_b )= \sum_{a,b} S_{f}^{\ast}(\u_a,\nu_b) \hat{{\mathcal
V}}(\u_a,\nu_b)\,.
\label{eq:estim0}$$ Here $S_{f}(\u,\nu)$ is the filter and $\hat{{\mathcal
V}}(\u,\nu)$ are the measured visibilities. The filter is defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{f}(\u,\nu) =& \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c}\right)^2 \left[S(\u,\nu)
- \right.\nonumber\\
&\left. \frac{\Theta(1 - 2|\nu - \nu_c|/B^{\prime})}{B^{\prime}} \int^{\nu_c
+B^{\prime}/2}_{\nu_c - B^{\prime}/2} S(\u,\nu^{\prime})
d\nu^{\prime} \right]\,,
\label{eq:filter}\end{aligned}$$ where $S(\u,\nu)$ is the signal expected from the bubble that we are trying to detect. The filter eliminates any frequency independent component of the foreground from the frequency range $\nu_c + B^{\prime}/2$ to $\nu_c - B^{\prime}/2$. All the contributions to ${\mathcal V}$, except the signal $S(\u,\nu)$, are assumed to be random variables of zero mean, uncorrelated to the filter whereby the estimator has expectation value, $$\langle \hat{E} \rangle=\sum_{a,b} S_{f}^{\ast}(\u_a,\nu_b) \,
S(\u_a,\nu_b)\, .$$ The other terms in eq. (\[eq:vis\_comp\]) contribute only to the variance, $$\langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2 \rangle
= \langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2 \rangle_{{\rm HF}} +\langle (\Delta
\hat{E})^2\rangle_{{\rm N}} + \langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2\rangle_{{\rm
F}}\,.$$ The signal to noise ratio for the estimator is $${\rm SNR}=\frac{\langle \hat{E} \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle (\Delta
\hat{E})^2 \rangle}}$$ Matched filter bubble detection is carried out by analyzing the SNR for different values of the filter parameters $z_f$ and $R_f$. We expect the SNR to peak when the filter parameters $z_f$ and $R_f$ exactly match the parameters $z_b$ and $R_b$ of the bubble that is actually present in the data. We have a statistically significant ($3\sigma$) bubble detection if the peak ${\rm SNR} \ge 3$. Note that the two angular coordinates $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ are already known in a targeted search around a quasar. In general, $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ have also to be treated as free parameters in a blind search.
The filter $S_f(\u,\nu)$ is defined in such a way \[eq. (\[eq:filter\])\] that it is insensitive to the presence of a smooth frequency independent foreground component. Under the assumed foreground model (Paper I), the residual foreground contribution $\langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2\rangle_{{\rm F}}$ is predicted to be much smaller than the other contributions to $\langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2
\rangle$ and we do not consider it here. In the absence of patchy reionization outside the bubble, the fluctuations trace the dark matter fluctuations. This imposes a lower bound $R_b > 12$ Mpc for the GMRT on the smallest bubble that can be detected [@datta3]. Considering patchy reionization outside the bubble, we expect galaxies to produce ionized regions with a typical radius of $6
\, {\rm Mpc}$ or smaller. The quasar bubbles that we can detect using the GMRT $(\ge 20 \, {\rm Mpc})$ are much larger than these ionized patches. Earlier work [@datta3] shows that the fluctuations do not play a very important role if the quasar bubble is much larger than the typical size of the ionized patches outside the bubble, and we have ignored this contribution in our estimates in this paper. We have only considered the system noise $\langle (\Delta
\hat{E})^2\rangle_{{\rm N}}$ which is the most dominant component in $\langle (\Delta \hat{E})^2 \rangle$. The resulting SNR is inversely proportional to the square root of the total observation time SNR $\propto t_{obs}^{1/2}$.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7$ yr$=0.5$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7$ yr$=2.0$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7$ yr$=4.0$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{}
--------------- -------- ------------- --------- --------
$\tau_Q/10^7$ $\xh1$ $R_{\perp}$ $\eta$ $s$
(yr) (Mpc)
$0.5$ $0.75$ $17.9$ $0.05$ $0.66$
$0.5$ $0.50$ $19.4$ $0.07$ $0.71$
$0.5$ $0.25$ $22.0$ $0.11$ $0.79$
$2.0$ $0.75$ $36.3$ $-0.05$ $0.27$
$2.0$ $0.50$ $39.4$ $-0.07$ $0.29$
$2.0$ $0.25$ $44.5$ $-0.11$ $0.29$
$4.0$ $0.75$ $46.3$ $-0.03$ $0.12$
$4.0$ $0.50$ $49.3$ $-0.04$ $0.11$
$4.0$ $0.25$ $52.8$ $-0.06$ $0.07$
--------------- -------- ------------- --------- --------
: This tabulates the size ($R_{\perp}$), and the anisotropy and shift parameters ($\eta$ and $s$ respectively) corresponding to the shapes shown in Figure \[fig:shape\_xh1\].[]{data-label="tab:eta_s"}
Anisotropic filter
------------------
The matched filter technique considered in earlier works \[Paper I; @datta3 [@datta09]\] and briefly described above uses the signal expected from a spherical bubble \[eq. (\[eq:signal\])\] as a template for the filter \[eq. (\[eq:filter\])\]. The actual bubble is however anisotropic due to the FLTT, and we expect a mismatch between the template and the actual signal. We can avoid this if we use the apparent anisotropic shape as the template for the filter $S_f(\u,
\nu)$. This is done by numerically determining the bubble radius $r$ as a function of $\phi$ (Figure \[fig:shape\]) by solving eq. (\[eq:growth\]) and (\[eq:shape\]). A section through the anisotropic bubble continues to be a circular disk, and eq. (\[eq:signal\]) still holds for the signal. The only difference is that the comoving radius $R_b$ now varies along the LoS, and we have to use the calculated $r(\phi)$ instead of a fixed $R_b$. An inspection of eq.s (\[eq:yu\]), (\[eq:growth\]) and (\[eq:shape\]) shows that the apparent shape is completely specified by three free parameters $\dot{N}_{phs}/C$, $\xh1/C$ and $\tau_Q$. It is therefore necessary to analyze the SNR for different values of these three parameters and determine the values of $\dot{N}_{phs}/C$, $\xh1/C$ and $\tau_Q$ for which the SNR peaks.
Here we consider a targeted search around a known quasar whose infrared spectrum has been measured. It is possible to extrapolate the observed quasar’s infrared spectrum blueward of the Ly-$\alpha$ line and estimate $\dot{N}_{phs}$ (example @mortlock11). It is reasonable to assume that $\dot{N}_{phs}$ is known in a targeted search for bubble detection. Further, the analysis of numerical simulations indicate that the clumping factor has a value $C=30$ at $z=8$ [@gnedin97; @yu05; @yu05b]. With this assumption the apparent shape of the bubble is completely specified by only two parameters the mean neutral fraction $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ the age of the quasar. Our entire analysis of bubble detection is in terms of these two parameters, $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$. For a quasar with a constant luminosity $\np=3$, Figure \[fig:shape\_xh1\] shows how the shape and size of the bubble vary with $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$. The bubble grows as $r(\tau) \propto (\tau/\xh1)^{1/3}$ in the early stages when $\tau \ll \tau_{rec}$ (eq. \[eq:growth\]) and saturates at $r(\tau)=r_s$, which is independent of $\xh1$, when $\tau/\tau_{rec}\sim 1$. Figure \[fig:shape\_xh1\] and Table \[tab:eta\_s\] show that the size of the bubble decreases with increasing $\xh1$ during the early stage of growth, and this effect becomes less noticeable at the later stage of growth. The bubble appears elongated along the LoS in the early stage, whereas it becomes compressed in the later stage. We see that the size $R_{\perp}$, anisotropy $\eta$ and shift $s$ all vary with $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$.
Analytic Estimates
==================
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$4000$ hr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$8000$ hr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$3\sigma$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$5\sigma$]{}**]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$20$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$30$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$40$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$50$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$54$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$60$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$70$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$75$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$1\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$3\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$5\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$7\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$9\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$11\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$13\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$15\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$17\sigma$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$19\sigma$]{}]{} {width="1.\textwidth"} {width="1.\textwidth"}
In this section we present analytic estimates of bubble detection in a targeted search around a known high redshift quasar. For this purpose the outside the bubble is assumed to follow the dark matter. For the growth of the quasar bubble we ignore the effect of other ionizing sources and inhomogeneities in the distributions. The bubble’s evolution is assumed to be exactly described by eq. (\[eq:growth\]) discussed earlier. For bubble detection we use the apparent shape obtained using eqs. (\[eq:growth\]) and (\[eq:shape\]) to calculate the filter $S_f(\u, \nu)$. The search has two parameters $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$, and we expect a perfect match when these have the same value as the bubble actually present in the data.
Quasars typically have a luminosity of around $\dot{N}_{phs} \sim
10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}$. The highest redshift quasar detected till date has a luminosity of $\dot{N}_{phs} \sim 1.3 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm
sec^{-1}}$ [@mortlock11]. Very little is known about the luminosity distribution of very high redshift quasars. The more luminous quasars are expected to produce larger ionized bubbles, and the prospect of a 21-cm detection is also expected to be higher for a more luminous quasar. In much of our analysis we have used two different quasar luminosities $\dot{N}_{phs} = 3 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm
sec^{-1}}$ and $8 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}$. The typical quasar age is expected to be in the range $10^6 - 10^8$ yrs [@haehnelt98; @haiman01]. The analysis of the proximity zones in the Ly-$\alpha$ spectra of high redshift quasars yield quasar ages which are larger than $1 - 3 \times 10^7$ yrs [@worseck06; @lu11]. We have considered quasar ages in the range $10^6 - 10^8$ yrs in our analysis.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.10$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.05$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.00$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$-0.05$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$-0.10$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$-0.15$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$-0.20$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.1$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.2$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.3$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.4$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.5$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.6$]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[$0.7$]{}]{} {width="1.\textwidth"} {width="1.\textwidth"}
Detectability
-------------
We first consider the possibility of detecting the bubble around the quasar ULASJ1120+0641 [@mortlock11] using GMRT redshifted 21-cm observation. The size and shape of the bubble depend on $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$, and we have determined the observation time that will be required for different values of these parameters. The left and right panels of Figure \[fig:mort\] show the observation time that will be required for a $3\sigma$ and $5\sigma$ detection respectively. We find that for $1,000$ hr of observation a $3\sigma$ detection is possible in a considerable region of parameter space where $\xh1>0.4$ and $\tq>1.5$, and a $5\sigma$ detection is possible in a relatively smaller region of parameter space where $\xh1>0.7$ and $\tq>3.5$ . A $3\sigma$ detection is possible for a considerably large region of the parameter space ($\xh1>0.2$ and $\tq>1.0$) with $4,000$ hr of observation, and we require approximately $8,000$ hr of observation for a $5\sigma$ detection in this region of parameter space.
The possibility of a 21-cm detection is quite favourable if the quasar luminosity is of the order of $\dot{N}_{phs} = 3 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}$ or larger, and in much our analysis we use two different quasar luminosities $\dot{N}_{phs} = 3 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm
sec^{-1}}$ and $8 \times 10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}$. Here we present estimates of the SNR for bubble detection considering $1000$ hr of GMRT observation around a known quasar. The right panels in Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\] show the peak SNR, which corresponds to the situation when the filter and the signal are exactly matched. And the left panels in Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\] show the corresponding quasar bubble size ($R_{\perp}$ in Mpc). An ionized bubble grows as $r(\tau)
\propto (\tau \dot{N}_{phs}/\xh1)^{1/3}$ in the early stages when $\tau \ll \tau_{rec}$ (eq. \[eq:growth\]) and saturates at, $$r(\tau)= r_s = 54 \,{\rm Mpc}\, \left( \frac{\dot{N}_{phs}}{3 \times 10^{57} {\rm sec}^{-1}}
\right)^{1/3} \,,$$ for $$\tau > \tau_{rec} = 3.3 \times 10^7 \,{\rm yr}\, \xh1^{-1}\,.$$ We see that both these stages are distinctly visible in the apparent size of the bubble shown in Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\]. Note that the value of $r_s$ where the growth saturates, is independent of $\xh1$.
The SNR from an bubble scales as $\xh1 R_b^{3/2}
\dot{N}_{phs}^{1/3}$ (Paper I), which implies that SNR $\propto \left(
\xh1 \tau \dot{N}_{phs} \right)^{1/2}$ when $\tau \ll \tau_{rec}$ and SNR $\propto \xh1 \dot{N}_{phs}^{1/2}$ and independent of $\tau$ when $\tau > \tau_{rec}$ .
We observe that the SNR contours are roughly hyperbolas in the $\xh1 - \tau_Q$ plane, and the hyperbolas flatten out at large $\tau$. We mainly focus on the SNR$=3$ contour, a $3\sigma$ (or higher) detection is possible in the parameter region to the right of this contour. We first consider the case where $(\dot{N}_{phs}/10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}) = 3$. We find that a $3\sigma$ detection is possible over a reasonably large region of the parameter space. For a high neutral fraction ($0.6 \le
\xh1$), it will be possible to detect an bubble even if it is small ($R_{\perp} \approx 20 $ Mpc) and in an early stage of its growth $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm yr} \ge 0.5)$. However, it will not be possible to detect the bubble if the quasar’s age $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm
yr})$ is less than $0.5$, even if the IGM is completely neutral outside the bubble. In contrast, a $3 \sigma$ detection is possible for a low neutral fraction only if the bubble is very large and in a later stage of its evolution. The lowest neutral fraction where a $3 \sigma$ detection is possible is $\xh1 \approx 0.2$. The quasar’s age should be $\sim 3.0 \times 10^7$ yr (or more) for which the bubble radius is $R_{\perp} \sim 45 \, {\rm Mpc}$. For a quasar of this luminosity, a $3 \sigma$ detection is not possible if the neutral fraction is lower than $0.2$. We find that a $5\sigma$ detection also is possible for a reasonably large region of the parameter space roughly covering $\xh1>0.3$ and $\tq> 1$.
We next consider the case where $(\dot{N}_{phs}/10^{57}\, {\rm
sec^{-1}}) = 8$. The scaling behaviour discussed earlier leads us to expect that $R_{\perp}$ and the SNR will increase by a factor of $1.38$ and $1.63$ respectively if $\np$ is increased from $3$ to $8$. Note however that, the scaling relations actually hold for the bubble seen from the rest frame of the quasar, and we do no expect them to be exactly valid for the bubble’s apparent shape when the FLTT is taken into account. The effect of FLTT is expected to be larger for $\np=8$ where the bubble is predicted to be larger in comparison to $\np=3$.
We see that there is a increase in the region of parameter space where a $3\sigma$ detection is possible for the more luminous quasar. The smallest age for which a $3 \sigma$ detection is possible is now reduced to $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm yr}) = 0.3$ compared to $0.5$ when $(\dot{N}_{phs}/10^{57}\, {\rm sec^{-1}}) = 3$. This however requires a completely neutral IGM. It is not possible to detect the bubble if the quasar’s age $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm yr})$ is less than $0.3$, even if the IGM is completely neutral outside the bubble. At the other end, a $3\sigma$ detection is possible if the neutral fraction is $\approx
0.1$, provided the quasar’s age is $2.5 \times 10^7$ yr or more. For a quasar of this luminosity, it is not possible to detect bubbles if the neutral fraction is less than $0.1$.
There are indications that the neutral fraction could have a value $\xh1 \approx 0.5$ at $z = 8$ [@mitra]. For this neutral fraction a $3 \sigma$ detection is possible for $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm
yr}) \ge 0.75$ and $0.5$ for $(\dot{N}_{phs}/10^{57}\, {\rm
sec^{-1}}) = 3$ and $8$ respectively. The corresponding bubble radii are $25$ and $30$ Mpc in these two cases respectively. We find that a $5\sigma$ detection is possible provided that the quasar’s age exceeds $(\tau_Q/10^7 {\rm yr}) \ge
2.0$ and $1.0$ respectively in these two cases.
We note that, the peak SNR does not increase very significantly when we use the anisotropic filter instead of the spherical filter used in earlier works. The anisotropic filter however has the advantage that it parametrises the bubble in terms of $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ both of which are physically relevant and interesting quantities in their own right. We next consider the possibility of using matched filter technique to observationally determine $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$.
----- -------- ---------------
set $\xh1$ $\tau_Q/10^7$
(yr)
a0 $0.75$ $1.0$
b0 $0.75$ $1.8$
c0 $0.75$ $2.8$
d0 $0.50$ $1.2$
e0 $0.50$ $2.8$
f0 $0.25$ $2.8$
----- -------- ---------------
: This tabulates the quasar and IGM parameters for which we have analytically considered parameter estimation.[]{data-label="tab:par"}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[a0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[b0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[c0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[d0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[e0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[f0]{}**]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[a0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[b0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[c0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[d0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[e0]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[f0]{}**]{}]{}
Parameter Estimation
--------------------
Once an bubble has been detected in $1,000$ hr of GMRT observation around a known quasar, it is natural to explore the possibility of using this to estimate the quasar’s age and the IGM neutral fraction, $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ respectively. In most cases the $1,000$ hr observation considered earlier is barely adequate for a detection, and we do not expect very significant parameter estimation from such an observation. Here we also consider deeper follow up observations of $4,000$ and $9,000$ hr specifically carried out for the purpose of parameter estimation once the bubble has been detected.
Parameter estimation is based on the idea that $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ are uniquely imprinted in the bubble’s apparent size and shape (Figure \[fig:shape\_xh1\]). Here we use $R_{\perp}$ (Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\]) to quantify the bubble’s apparent size, and $\eta$ and $s$, introduced earlier, to quantify the bubble’s apparent shape. Figure \[fig:contour\_eta\_s\] shows the behaviour of $\eta$ and $s$ for different values of the parameters $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$. Due to the FLTT the light reaching a present day observer was emitted earlier from the back side of the bubble in comparison to the light coming from the front side. For a bubble in the rapid stage of growth ($\tau \ll \tau_{rec}$) the back side appears to have a much smaller radius compared to its front side, causing the bubble to appear elongated along the LoS. The centre of the apparent shape of the bubble also shifts towards the observer. Both these features are clearly seen in the parameter range $\tq \leq 1$ (Figure \[fig:contour\_eta\_s\]) where the bubble appears elongated ($\eta >
0$). We see that both $\eta$ and $s$ are extremely sensitive to $\tau_Q$ in this stage, however we do not see any significant $\xh1$ dependence. Though much of this region is outside the parameter range where a $3\sigma$ detection is possible for $1000$ hr of GMRT observation. For $\np=3$ and $8$, there are small regions with high neutral fraction ($\xh1 \ge 0.65$) and $\tq > 0.5$ and $0.3$ respectively where it may be possible to detect an elongated bubble.
Most of the region ($\tq > 1$) of the $\xh1 - \tau_Q$ parameter space where the bubble is detectable, corresponds to the late stages of its growth where the bubble appears compressed. The bubble is no longer in the phase of rapid growth, and it appears mildly compressed ($\eta \leq 0$) along the LoS. There is however still a considerable shift in the apparent centre of the bubble in this stage of growth. In this stage the anisotropy $\eta$ is sensitive to both $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$. The shift $s$ is mainly sensitive to $\tau_Q$ and largely insensitive to $\xh1$ (Figure \[fig:contour\_eta\_s\]). The bubble’s radius (Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\]) also is sensitive to both $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ in this stage of the bubble’s growth. The period $0.6 - 4.0 \times 10^7$ yr which is just after the rapid growth of the bubble appears to be the most suitable for parameter estimation as the apparent size and shape of the bubble are sensitive to both $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$. The bubble’s apparent shape and size are only weakly sensitive to $\tau_Q$ beyond $\tq > 4.0$. However, the bubble’s size remains sensitive to $\xh1$, and it may be possible to constrain this parameter in the very late stage of growth.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$C=20$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$C=40$]{}**]{}]{}
Ideally we expect the SNR to peak when the parameters ($\xh1$, $\tau_Q$) of the filter exactly match those of the bubble that is actually present in the data. However the statistical fluctuations will cause the position of the peak to shift introducing an uncertainty in the parameter estimation. We use the criteria $\Delta$SNR $=1$ to estimate the uncertainty in the estimated values of the parameters $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$. Table \[tab:par\] shows the sets of parameters for which we have considered parameter estimation in this section. The parameter sets a0, b0 and c0 have a high neutral fraction $(\xh1=0.75)$, d0 and e0 have $\xh1=0.5$ and f0 has a low neutral fraction $(\xh1=0.25)$. Figure \[fig:snr\_contour1\] and \[fig:snr\_contour2\] show the uncertainties in parameter estimation for all these cases assuming that $\np=3$ and $8$ respectively.
There are indications that the neutral fraction could have a value $\xh1 \approx 0.5$ at $z = 8$ [@mitra]. We have considered two sets of parameter values (d0 and e0) for this neutral fraction. Considering $1,000$ hr of observation for the set d0, where the bubble is in its early stage of growth ($\tq = 1.2$), we find that it is possible to put both lower and upper limits on the quasar age ($0.5 \leq \tq \leq 3.5$) for a quasar with $\np = 3$. In this case no limits on $\xh1$ can be placed with $1,000$ hr of observation. The limits on $\tau_Q$ improves further and a lower limit can be placed on $\xh1$ when the observation time is increased to $9,000$ hr. These limits now are $1.0 \leq \tq \leq 2.0$ and $\xh1 \ge 0.2$. We see that there is a considerable improvement in parameter estimation if we have a brighter quasar with $\np = 8$. We now have the limits $0.5
\leq \tq \leq 2.5$ and $\xh1 \ge 0.1$ for $1000$ hr of observation, and $1.0 \leq \tq \leq 1.75$ and $\xh1 \ge 0.25$ for $9000$ hr of observation.
We next consider the set e0 which corresponds to a later stage of growth ($\tq = 2.8$). We see that in this case the constraints on $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ are weaker compared to the set d where the quasar bubble is in an earlier stage of its growth. Here it is possible to place only a lower limit on $\tau_Q$ ($\tq > 1.5$) for a quasar with $\np = 3$ and $1,000$ hr of observation. These limits become $2.0 \leq \tq \leq 5$ and $\xh1 \ge 0.15$ for $9,000$ hr of observation. In case we have a brighter quasar ($\np = 8$), the limits are $1.75 \leq \tq \leq 5$ and $2.25 \leq \tq \leq 3.75$ for $1,000$ and $9,000$ hr of observation respectively, and $\xh1$ can only be constrained ( $0.25 \leq \xh1 $) with $9,000$ hr of observation.
We next consider the possibility of a high neutral fraction ($\xh1=0.75$) for which a0, b0 and c0 respectively correspond to progressively increasing quasar age. Comparing the results with those for $\xh1=0.5$, we find that in it is possible to place tighter constraints on $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ if the neutral fraction is higher. We find that it is possible to place an upper and a lower limit on $\tau_Q$, and a lower limit on $\xh1$ in all the cases that we have considered.The constraints are tightest if the bubble is in the early stage of its growth, and we have $0.5 \le \tq \le 2.25$ and $\xh1
\ge 0.1$ for $1,000$ hr of observation for a quasar with $\np=3$ and $\tq=1.0$. The constraints are further improved if we have longer observations or a brighter quasar.
We finally consider the set f0 which corresponds to a low neutral fraction ($\xh1=0.25$). In this case the bubble is not large enough for a detection in the early stage of its growth (Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\]), and we have considered $\tq = 2.8$ which is in a later stage of its growth. We find that the prospects of constraining $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ are worse in comparison to the situation where we have a high neutral fraction. For a quasar with $\np=3$ it is not possible to constrain $\xh1$ even with $9,000$ hr of observation, and it is possible to place only a lower limits $\tq \ge
1$ and $ \tq \ge 1.75$ with $1,000$ and $9,000$ hr respectively. For a bright quasar $(\np=8)$, it is possible place constraints $2 \le
\tq \le 4$ and $\xh1 \le 0.75$ with $9,000$ hr of observation.
In summary, we find that the situation is most favourable for constraining $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ if we can detect a very luminous quasar in the early phase of its growth and also in the early stage of reionization when the neutral fraction is high.
As mentioned earlier in this section the anisotropy in the bubble’s shape is determined by three parameters $\dot{N}_{phs}/C$, $\xh1/C$ and $\tau_Q$. We have assumed $C = 30$ for both the filter and the bubble. It is quite possible that the actual clumping factor is different from $C = 30$. This will introduce a systematic uncertainty in parameter estimation. We consider two situations where the actual value of $C$ for the bubble is different ($C = 20$ and $40$) than the filter ($C = 30$) but the bubble and the filter both have same photon emission rate ($\np = 8$) in their models. Top and bottom panels of Figure \[fig:diff\_C\] (corresponding to $C = 20$ and $40$ respectively) show the estimated values of parameters in these two different situations. We find that errors in $C$ mainly affect the $\xh1$, $\tau_Q$ is largely unaffected by this. In a situation where the $C$ in the IGM of the bubble is less ($C = 20$) than what is assumed for the filter ($C = 30$), the filter severely underestimates $\xh1$ and this underestimation becomes more in the late stage ($\tq = 2.8$) of the growth than the early stage ($\tq =
1.2$). On the other hand when the $C$ in the bubble’s IGM is more ($C
= 40$) than that of the filter, the $\xh1$ is severely overestimated and this overestimation is more in the late stage ($\tq = 2.8$) of the bubble’s growth.
Similarly $\dot{N}_{phs}$ estimated from the spectrum of the quasar could be off from the actual value. It will also have similar effects as the errors in $C$ in parameter estimations.
Simulating the ionization map
=============================
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\] {width="100.00000%"}
For our analytic estimates in the previous section we have considered that the density is uniform in the IGM around the quasar and there is no other ionizing source in the IGM except the target quasar. It is expected that in reality the IGM density will not be uniform and the stellar sources in the vicinity of the quasar will also contribute in ionizing the IGM. To study the detectability and parameter estimation in a more realistic situation when all these effects are taken into account we have simulated the ionization map around the quasar using a semi-numerical formalism.
We have implemented the semi-numerical formalism proposed by @choudhury09b for generating the ionization field at a given redshift. This uses an excursion-set formalism as introduced by @furlanetto1.
It is currently believed that stars residing in galaxies are the major source of photons to reionize the universe [@choudhury06; @choudhury09a]. The early stages of reionization are driven by stars within halos of mass $\sim 10^8 \,h^{-1}\,
M_{\odot}$. As the IGM becomes ionized, star formation within the smaller halos ($M < 10^9 \,h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}$) is inhibited because of radiative feedback. Hence, it is sufficient to only include halos of mass $M \geq 10^9 \,h^{-1}\, M_{\odot}$ to simulate the final stages of reionization. The smallest halo that is resolved in the simulation should be of mass $M \leq 10^9 \,h^{-1}\,
M_{\odot}$. If at least $10$ particles are required to constitute the smallest halo, then the particle mass should be $\leq 10^8 \,h^{-1}\,
M_{\odot}$. This decides the mass resolution of our simulation.
We have generated the dark matter distribution at $z = 8$ using a Particle Mesh Nbody code developed by @Bharadwaj04. The volume of the simulation is constrained by the $16$ Gigabytes of memory available in our computer. We perform our simulation in a periodic box of size $85.12$ Mpc (comoving) with $1216^3$ grid points and $608^3$ particles, with a mass resolution $M_{part} = 7.275 \times
10^7\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$.
We identify halos within the simulation box using a standard Friend-of-Friend algorithm [@davis], with a fixed linking length $b=0.2 $ (in units of mean inter particle distance) and minimum halo mass $ = 10 M_{part}$. We also compare the comoving number density of halos per unit logarithmic mass interval $dn/d\,ln\,M$ with the theoretical mass function at $z=8$ as predicted by @sheth using the fitting function adopted from @jenkins. A good agreement is found over a wide mass range $10^9 \lesssim M/(h^{-1} M_{\odot}) \lesssim 5
\times 10^{11}$. The lower mass limit corresponds to the smallest halo mass.
The relation between the ionizing luminosity of a galaxy and its properties is not well known from observations. In the semi-numerical formalism adopted here, we assume that the ionizing luminosity from a galaxy is proportional to the mass of its halo. The number of ionizing photons contributed by a halo of mass $M$ is given by, $$N_{\gamma}(M) = N_{ion} \frac{M}{m_H}\,,
\label{eq:nion}$$ where $m_H$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom and $N_{ion}$ is a dimensionless constant. The value of $N_{ion}$ is tuned so as to achieve the value $\xh1$ desired in the simulation. In the semi-numerical formalism, a region is said to be ionized if the average number of photons reaching there exceeds average neutral hydrogen density at that point. We have used a $256^3$ grid with a grid spacing of $0.3325$ Mpc for simulating the ionization maps.
The semi-numerical formalism provides a snapshot of the ionized IGM at a fixed instant of time $t_s$. We now briefly discuss how we have incorporated a quasar as an extra ionizing source in the simulation. The quasar is assumed to have ionizing luminosity $\dot{N}_{phs}$ and age $\tau$ at the instant $t_s$. We have identified the most massive halo ($M \sim 5 \times 10^{11} h^{-1}
M_{\odot}$) in the simulation as the quasar’s location. We also shift the entire box with periodic boundary condition so as to bring the quasar into the centre of the field of view (FoV). In order to incorporate the quasar’s bubble it is necessary to provide the simulation with a $N_{\gamma,QSO}$, the number of photons corresponding to the quasar at the instant $t_s$. We have used, $$N_{\gamma,QSO} = \frac{4}{3} \pi \langle n_{H} \rangle \xh1
r^3(\tau) \,,
\label{eq:qso}$$ where $r(\tau)$ is determined using eq. (\[eq:growth\]), [ *i.e.*]{} the bubble would have a comoving radius $r(\tau)$ if the hydrogen is uniformly distributed and there were no ionizing sources other than the quasar.
The quasar bubble actually produced in the simulation differs from this because of inhomogeneities in the hydrogen distribution and the presence of other ionizing sources. Further the density dependent non-uniform recombinations also change the bubble’s size and shape in the cases where this effect is included. In general, we find the simulated bubbles are bigger than predicted by the eq. (\[eq:growth\]), mainly because of the contributions of other ionizing sources near the quasar. Figure \[fig:growth\] provides a visual impression of a suite of simulations with $\np = 1.3$, $\xh1 =
0.5$ and different values of $\tau$. We notice that there is a particularly large deviation from the expected bubble size at the early stages of the bubble’s growth. The actual bubble is much larger than that expected from the $N_{\gamma,QSO}$ that we have assigned to the quasar. The massive halos, which are the only other ionizing sources besides the quasar, are preferentially clustered in the vicinity of the quasar which is located in the most massive halo in the simulation. The ionizing photons from these halos outnumber those from the quasar in the early stages, and consequently the actual bubble is much larger than expected. This discrepancy persists even in the later stages, however it is not so pronounced. A similar observation has been reported by @datta12 in their radiative transfer simulations.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{}
A distant observer sees different parts of the bubble in different stages of its growth. We have assumed that the dark matter distribution and the global $\xh1$ do not change within the look back time across the bubble. We have used eq. (\[eq:growth\]) and (\[eq:shape\]) to determine $r$ as a function of $\phi$. We then choose sections each through a different member of the suite of simulations (Figure \[fig:growth\]). Each section corresponds to a different value of $r$ and $\tau$ as determined by eq. (\[eq:growth\]) and (\[eq:shape\]). These sections are stacked together to produce the bubble’s apparent shape as seen by the distant observer. Figure \[fig:ani\_shape\] shows the apparent shape generated by stacking sections selected from the Figure \[fig:growth\].
Our simulations spans a redshift interval $\Delta z = 0.28$ along the LoS. We have made a simplifying assumption that the dark matter distribution and the variation in $\xh1$ across our simulation box can be ignored. Analytic estimates (for details see Appendix A and Results of Paper II) show that the effects ignored here make a $5\%$ or less contribution. Further, simulations [@datta11] also reveal similar findings, justifying the assumptions made here.
The GMRT FoV at $151$ MHz has a full width at half maxima (FWHM) $=
2.28^{\circ}$ while our simulation box only subtends an angle $0.53^{\circ}$ on the sky and $4.8$ MHz along the LoS at redshift $z =
8$. Thus the simulation box will not be able to replicate the full GMRT FoV and can accommodate a bubble of maximum radius $\sim 40$ Mpc, which subtends $\sim 0.5^{\circ}$. @maselli07 predict the comoving radius of quasar generated regions to be $\sim 45$ Mpc at $z = 6.1$ with $\xh1 =0.1$. The size is expected to be less at $z =
8$. Our simulation box is thus large enough to host bubbles in the relevant size range at this redshift. The simulation adequately replicate the fluctuations in the vicinity of the bubble, however the fluctuations at large angular separation from the bubble’s centre are missing. The fluctuations are some what underestimated as a consequence (see @datta3 for more details).
The simulated maps were converted to GMRT visibilities which were then used for matched filter bubble detection following the procedure detailed in @datta3.
Results
=======
----- ------------------------- -------- ---------------
set $\dot{N}_{phs}/10^{57}$ $\xh1$ $\tau_Q/10^7$
(${\rm sec^{-1}}$) (yr)
A $1.3$ $0.50$ $2.00$
B $1.3$ $0.50$ $3.00$
C $1.3$ $0.75$ $1.50$
D $1.3$ $0.75$ $3.50$
E $3.0$ $0.50$ $0.75$
F $3.0$ $0.75$ $0.50$
----- ------------------------- -------- ---------------
: This tabulates the quasar and IGM parameters for which the bubbles have been simulated.[]{data-label="tab:sim"}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[****]{}]{}
We have created six different realizations of the dark matter distribution using the PM Nbody code. These were used to generate six independent realizations of the quasar bubble for each of the parameter sets given in Table \[tab:sim\]. We have seen that it is possible to constrain different regions of the $\xh1 - \tau_Q$ parameter space by observing quasars in different stages of growth. Ideally we would like to simulate bubbles in different stages of the growth for a variety of $\dot{N}_{phs}$ and $\xh1$. However our choice of parameters are restricted by the condition that the bubble should be small enough ($< 40$ Mpc) to be contained within the simulation box, while it should also be large enough for a $3\sigma$ detection (Figure \[fig:contour\_snr\_rperp\]). Figure \[fig:diff\_eta\_u\] shows the simulated bubble for each set of the parameters listed in Table \[tab:sim\]. The images shown in the figure all correspond to the same realization, with uniform recombination. Three sets of simulations A, B and E have $\xh1=0.5$. The sets C, D and F have a higher neutral fraction ($\xh1=0.75$). We are unable to simulate any situation with a low $\xh1$ because the bubble size would have to be larger than our box for a detection to be possible. The sets A, B, C and D have a quasar luminosity $\np=1.3$ which is the same as the quasar detected by @mortlock11. This luminosity is relatively low in comparison to the values that we have considered earlier. The quasar has to be observed at a late stage for a detection to be possible, and we expect a large bubble. The bubble centre will be shifted from the quasar for A and C where the quasar is somewhat younger with $\tq=2.0\, {\rm
and}\, 1.5$ respectively compared to B and D which have $\tq = 3.0
\, {\rm and}\, 3.5$ respectively. The bubbles are also expected to be compressed in sets A and C, which is distinctly visible in these images. The bubble is expected to be nearly spherical in sets B and D.
We see that the simulated bubbles are in reasonable agreement with what is expected, though the simulated bubbles are nearly always larger. This discrepancy arrises due to the extra ionizing photons contributed by the halos located within the bubble. The number of ionizing photons contributed by these halos is proportional to the ionization fraction ($1 - \xh1$). Consequently the discrepancy between the expected bubble size and that obtained in the simulations is larger for $\xh1 =0.5$ in comparison to $\xh1 = 0.75$. Further, the bubble’s boundary is distorted because the bubble gets merged with the ionized regions produced by halos located in the periphery of the bubble. These distortions are particularly important when the halos located near the bubble’s boundary contribute a significant fraction of the total ionizing photons within the bubble. We thus expect these distortions to be relatively important when the bubble is in the early stage of growth and we have a low neutral fraction, whereas we expect the distortions to be relatively less important when the bubble is in a later stage and in an IGM with a higher $\xh1$.
The sets E and F have $\np=3$, and the quasar’s ages are smaller ($\tq = 0.75\, {\rm and}\, 0.50$) in comparison to sets A,B,C and D discussed earlier. We expect the bubbles to be elongated along the LoS in these two sets, and this is clearly visible in Figure \[fig:diff\_eta\_u\]. However, the bubble’s shape is severely distorted in E where the neutral fraction is less compared to F. We expect such distortions to severely affect parameter estimation. We see that the distortion present in E also persists for F, however the relative contribution is smaller. We may expect the impact of this distortion on parameter estimation to be less severe in F as compared to E.
Figure \[fig:diff\_eta\_n\] shows images from simulations with inhomogeneous recombination. We see that the bubbles are larger in comparison to the situation with uniform recombination. It is possible to understand this by noting that in these models the dense regions in the IGM remain neutral through enhanced recombination, and only the low density regions are ionized. Consequently, a larger volume has to be ionized in order to achieve a particular value of the mass averaged neutral fraction $\xh1$. Further, the contrast between the bubble and the IGM outside is reduced, and the bubble’s boundary is more distorted.
For a fixed set of parameters, we expect the simulated bubble to differ from one realization to the next. Figure \[fig:diff\_rel\] shows two different realizations of the simulated bubble for the parameter set A in addition to the realization shown in Figure \[fig:diff\_eta\_u\]. We see that in all the realizations the bubble appears larger than expected. The distortions, we notice, can vary significantly from one realization to the next. In particular, the right panel of Figure \[fig:diff\_rel\] shows a realization where an extraneous ionization source is so aligned that it causes the ionized bubble to appear elongated along the LoS. Recollect that the bubble is expected to appear compressed in set A. Such distortions are a source of concern for parameter estimation.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Mpc]{}**]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Simulation]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[SNR]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[A]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[B]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[C]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[D]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[E]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[F]{}**]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[Simulation]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$R_{\perp}$ in Mpc]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[A]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[B]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[C]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[D]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[E]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[F]{}**]{}]{}
\[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\xh1$]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[$\tau_Q / 10^7\,$ yr]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[A]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[B]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[C]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[D]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[E]{}**]{}]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][[**[F]{}**]{}]{}
Distortions in the bubble and fluctuations in the distribution outside the bubble will affect the SNR for bubble detection and also the radius $R_{\perp}$ estimated from the best matched filter. Figure \[fig:SNR\] shows a comparison of the expected SNR from our analytic estimates and the SNR obtained from the simulations. We note that the expected SNR has values $2.46$ and $2.26$ for the parameters sets E and F, and a $3\sigma$ detection is not possible with $1,000$ hr of observation. We need $1,500$ and $1,750$ hr of observation for a $3\sigma$ detection for E and F respectively.
We find that the SNR is below the expected value in cases A and B, whereas it is comparable to the expected value in D and E, and it is larger than the expected value in C and F. We note that the reduction in SNR seen in A and B may be an artifact of the limited volume of our simulation where the bubble becomes comparable to the box size. The sets C and F where the SNR is larger than the expected value both correspond to an early stage of the growth in an highly neutral IGM ($\xh1 = 0.75$). We also find that there is a significant scatter in the SNR values amongst the different realizations. This scatter is relatively smaller for the sets which have a higher neutral fraction $\xh1 = 0.75$ where we expect the halos to make a relatively smaller contribution to the ionizing photons. The scatter in the SNR remains the same even when we consider non-uniform recombination. However, the overall values of the SNR obtained from the different realizations are now slightly reduced with respect to uniform recombination. The fact that the SNR goes down if we introduce non-uniform recombination is a consequence of the lower contrast between the ionized bubble and the IGM outside.
Figure \[fig:rperp\] shows the bubble radius $R_{\perp}$ estimated from the best matched filter for the simulations compared with the analytic estimates. As discussed earlier, we find that the simulated bubble is nearly always larger than what is expected from estimates. This discrepancy is particularly noticeable ($\sim 15 - 20
\%$) in the cases which have a lower neutral fraction $\xh1 = 0.5$ and where we expect the halos to make a relatively larger contribution. Further as noted earlier the discrepancy is larger in the simulations with non-uniform recombination in comparison to those with uniform recombination.
We next use the simulated bubbles to analyze parameter estimation. Figure \[fig:ani\_filter\_search\] shows the parameter values corresponding to the peak SNR for the different realizations of the simulations. We see that the values of $\tau_Q$ and $\xh1$ recovered from the simulations are different from the actual age and neutral fraction. Reason for these deviations are the distortions in the bubble due to the other ionizing sources and the inhomogeneities in the IGM. Figure \[fig:ani\_filter\_search\] also shows analytic predictions of the uncertainties ($\Delta$SNR $=1$) in the estimated values of $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ for the different sets (Table \[tab:sim\]) considering $4,000$ and $9,000$ hr of observation. We have not shown $1,000$ hr observation as bubble detection is not possible in this observation time for a few of the cases (E and F) that we have considered. We find that most of the simulations give parameter estimates which lie within the region corresponding to $\Delta$SNR $=1$ for $9,000$ hr of observation. We first discuss the sets E and F where the bubble is at a very early stage of its growth and is rather small. We require more than $1,000$ hr of observation for a $3 \sigma$ detection. We find that in these two sets the neutral fraction is underestimated in almost all the realizations. This is a consequence of the fact that the actual bubble is almost always larger than expected (Figure \[fig:rperp\]) due to the presence other ionizing sources within the bubble. This effect is more pronounced when the IGM neutral fraction is low ($\xh1 = 0.5$ in set E). This discrepancy in the bubble size only affects the estimated neutral fraction. The bubble in its early stage is very sensitive to $\tau_Q$ through the anisotropy $\eta$ and the shift parameter $s$ (Figure \[fig:contour\_eta\_s\]) which are not severely affected by the overall size of the bubble. We find that in sets E and F the quasar age inferred from the simulations is quite close to the actual value.
We next consider A, B, C and D which correspond to later stages of the bubble’s growth. We find that the scatter in the values of $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ inferred from the simulations is considerably smaller for a high neutral fraction $\xh1 = 0.75$ (C and D) as compared to $\xh1 =
0.5$ (A and B) where the halos make a relatively larger contribution to the ionizing photons. In sets A and B the estimated $\xh1$ is found to be uniformly scattered around the actual value. However, the value of $\tau_Q$ is overestimated in the majority of the simulations. In set D we find that both $\xh1$ and $\tau_Q$ are slightly overestimated in the simulations, while nearly all the simulated values lie very close to the actual value in set C.
In summary, our analysis is based on the assumption that the SNR of the estimator will peak when the parameters of the filter exactly match those of the bubble that is actually present in the data. The statistical uncertainty of the estimator will, however, cause the peak to shift introducing an uncertainty in parameter estimation. Further, distortions in the shape and size of the bubble due to other ionizing sources and the inhomogeneities in the IGM will also cause the peak SNR to shift, introducing further uncertainties in parameter estimation. In our work we have used the criteria $\Delta$SNR $=1$ to analytically estimate the statistical uncertainties. Further, we have used simulations to assess the effect of the distortions. We find that the statistical uncertainties are large in most of the situations that we have considered, and hence these can be used to determine the uncertainties in the estimated parameter. We find that reliable parameter estimation is possible using bubbles for which a $3
\sigma$ detection is possible in $1,000$ hr of observation. Smaller bubbles, which require longer observations, do not provide very reliable estimates of $\xh1$, they can however be used to obtain a reliable estimate of $\tau_Q$.
At the moment we do not have a rigorous justification for the criteria $\Delta$SNR $=1$ which we have adopted here. A more detailed statistical analysis involving extensive simulations with large number of realizations of both the statistical fluctuations as well as the distortions are required. At the moment this is beyond the computational power available to us. However, 21-cm observations of ionized bubbles hold the promise of allowing us to probe the age of the quasar and the neutral fraction of the IGM, and we plan to pursue such simulations in future.
acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for providing us with constructive comments and suggestions which helped to improve the paper. Suman Majumdar would like to thank Kanan Kumar Datta for useful discussions and programing related helps during this work. Suman Majumdar would like to acknowledge Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for providing financial assistance through a senior research fellowship (File No. 9/81 (1099)/10-EMR-I). Suman Majumdar would also like to thank Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, for their warm hospitality during a visit in February, 2011, when this work was initiated.
[99]{}
Ali, S. S., Bharadwaj, S., & Chengalur, J. N. 2008, , 385, 2166
Bernardi, G., de Bruyn, A. G., Brentjens, M. A., et al. 2009, , 500, 965
Bharadwaj, S., & Srikant, P. S. 2004, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 25, 67
Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., Warren, S. J., Heweet, P. C., Mortlock, D. J., Venemans, B. P., McMahon, R. G., Simpson, C. 2011, , 416, L70
, T. R., [Ferrara]{}, A., 2006, Cosmic Polarization, Editor - R. Fabbri(Research Signpost), p. 205, arXiv:astro-ph/0603149
Choudhury, T. R., 2009, Current Science, 97, 6, 841
Choudhury, T. R., Haehnelt, M. G., & Regan, J. 2009, , 394, 960
Datta, K. K., Bharadwaj, S., & Choudhury, T. R., 2007,, 382, 109
Datta, K. K., Majumdar, S., Bharadwaj, S., & Choudhury, T. R., 2008,, 391, 1900
Datta, K. K., Bharadwaj, S., & Choudhury, T. R. 2009, , 399, L132
Datta, K. K., Mellema, G., Mao, Y., Iliev, I. T., Shapiro, P. R., Ahn, K. 2012, , 424, 1877
Datta, K. K., Friedrich, M. M., Mellema, G., Iliev, I. T., & Shapiro, P. R. 2012, , 424, 762
Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, , 292, 371
Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, , 125, 1649
, S. R., [Zaldarriaga]{}, M. & [Hernquist]{}, L. 2004, , 613, 1
Geil, P. M., Wyithe, J. S. B., Petrovic, N., & Oh, S. P. 2008, , 390, 1496
Gnedin, N. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, , 486, 581
Haehnelt, M. G., Natarajan, P., & Rees, M. J. 1998, , 300, 817
Haiman, Z., & Hui, L. 2001, , 547, 27
Jarosik, N. et al. 2011, , 192, 14
Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Colberg, J. M., Cole, S., Evrard, A. E., Couchman, H. M. P., & Yoshida, N. 2001, , 321, 372
Komatsu, E. et al. 2011, , 192, 18
Lu, Y., & Yu, Q. 2011, , 736, 49
Majumdar, S., Bharadwaj, S., Datta, K., K., & Choudhury, T. R. 2011, , 413, 1409
Maselli, A., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., & Choudhury, T. R. 2007, , 376, L34
Mitra, S., Choudhury, T. R., & Ferrara, A. 2011, , 413, 1569
Mortlock, D., J., et al. 2011, , 474, 7353
Sethi, S., & Haiman, Z. 2008, AJ, 673, 1S
Shapiro, P. R., & Giroux, M. L. 1987, , 321L, 107S
Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 2002, , 329, 61
Swarup G., Ananthakrishnan S., Kapahi V.K., Rao A.P., Subramanya C.R., Kulkarni V.K.,1991 Curr.Sci.,60,95
White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Fan, X., & Strauss, M. A. 2003, AJ, 126, 1
Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Omont, A., et al. 2007, , 134, 2435
Willott, C. J., Albert, L., Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2010, , 140, 546
Worseck, G., & Wisotzki, L. 2006, , 450, 495
Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2004, , 610, 117
Wyithe, J. S. B., Loeb, A., & Barnes, D. G. 2005, , 634, 715
Yu, Q. & Lu, Y. 2005, , 620, 31
Yu, Q. 2005, , 623, 683
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: http://www.gmrt.ncra.tifr.res.in
[^5]: http://www.lofar.org/
[^6]: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/mwa/
[^7]: http://21cma.bao.ac.cn/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent observation shows that the Higgs mass is at around 125 GeV while the prediction of the minimal supersymmetric standard model is below 120 GeV for stop mass lighter than 2 TeV unless the top squark has a maximal mixing. We consider the right-handed neutrino supermultiplets as messengers in addition to the usual gauge mediation to obtain sizeable tri-linear soft parameters $A_t$ needed for the maximal stop mixing. Neutrino messengers can explain the observed Higgs mass for stop mass around 1 TeV. Neutrino assistance can also generate charged lepton flavor violation including $\mu \to e \gamma$ as a possible signature of the neutrino messengers. We consider $S_4$ discrete flavor model and show the relation of the charged lepton flavor violation, $\theta_{13}$ of neutrino oscillation and muon $g-2$.'
author:
- 'Hyung Do Kim, Doh Young Mo, Min-Seok Seo'
title: '**Neutrino Assisted Gauge Mediation**'
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
The observation of the Standard Model Higgs-like new boson with mass at around 125 GeV [@:2012gk; @:2012gu] changes the current understanding of new physics at the weak scale. The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) can explain 125 GeV with a relatively light stop of 1 to 2 TeV in the context of maximal stop mixing. From the model building point of view, it is quite difficult to realise the maximal stop mixing scenario starting from ultraviolet (UV) theory. In minimal gauge mediation (MGM) [@Dine:1993yw; @Dine:1994vc; @Dine:1995ag; @Giudice:1998bp], soft tri-linear A term is not generated at the messenger scale and the radiatively generated A term at the weak scale is not large enough to realise the maximal stop mixing. As a result, colored superpartners should be as heavy as 5 to 10 TeV to explain 125 GeV mass of the Higgs boson [@Ajaib:2012vc; @Feng:2012rn]. Therefore, the explanation of 125 GeV Higgs boson mass needs an extra help in minimal gauge mediation. Next to the minimal supersymmetric standard model (NMSSM) can use the extra contribution from the Yukawa F-term of the singlet. For instance, look at [@Bae:2012am]. Extra vector-like fermions are added in minimal gauge mediation [@Martin:2009bg; @Martin:2012dg; @Bae:2012ir]. Direct coupling of visible sector fields with messengers can help. Higgs-messenger mixing [@Kang:2012ra; @Craig:2012xp] and matter-messenger mixing [@Shadmi:2011hs; @Albaid:2012qk; @Abdullah:2012tq; @Evans:2012hg; @Evans:2011bea] can generate Yukawa mediated contribution including A term at the messenger scale. However, at the same time the virtue of gauge mediation is gone and they would spoil nice flavor preserving spectrum and can possibly cause the flavor problem at the weak scale. For the Higgs-messenger mixing, $A/m^2$ problem[@Kang:2012ra; @Craig:2012xp] which is analogous to $\mu/B\mu$ problem can arise and the electroweak symmetry breaking is difficult to achieve if the mixing coupling is large. General gauge mediation [@Buican:2008ws] can avoid this problem by using the mechanism of radiatively generated maximal stop mixing [@Dermisek:2006ey; @Dermisek:2006qj].
In this paper we consider the right-handed neutrino supermultiplets as the messengers of supersymmetry breaking in addition to the messengers charged under the Standard Model (SM) gauge group, e.g. ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ of $SU(5)$. The setup is motivated from [@Choi:2011rs] which provides a solution to $\mu$ problem in gauge mediation (more precisely $\mu/B\mu$ problem) [@Dvali:1996cu; @Giudice:2007ca]. For the solution in [@Choi:2011rs] to work, the messenger scale should be higher than the Peccei-Quinn breaking scale, $10^9 \sim 10^{11}$ GeV. For the gauge mediation to be the dominant contribution compared to the Planck suppressed higher dimensional contribution, the messenger scale should be lower than $10^{15}$ GeV. Therefore, the See-Saw scale with order one neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings, $10^{13} \sim 10^{14}$ GeV, is well motivated as the messenger scale if we accept [@Choi:2011rs] as a solution of the $\mu$ problem in gauge mediation. If the messenger scale is at around the See-Saw scale, the natural question is why the right-handed neutrino supermultiplets do not serve as messengers of supersymmetry breaking. Apparently there is no harm to couple the right-handed neutrino superfields directly to the messengers. Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino and the messenger mass of ordinary ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ might have the same origin in this case. In summary, the minimal set of messengers are ${\bf 5}$, ${\bf \bar{5}}$ and ${\bf 1}$. This is different from previous studies relating gauge mediation and See-Saw mechanism [@Joaquim:2006uz; @Mohapatra:2008wx; @FileviezPerez:2009im]. They employ particles relevant to See-Saw mechanism as messengers, and these particles are also charged under the SM gauge group, which can be seen in the Type-II or Type-III See-Saw. Therefore, gauge mediation and neutrino Dirac Yukawa mediation have a common messenger. In our case, in contrast, neutrino Dirac Yukawa messenger is the right-handed neutrino, the SM singlet.
If the right-handed neutrinos couple to the supersymmetry breaking field, neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling generates the A term and soft scalar mass of lepton doublet and up-type Higgs at the See-Saw scale after integrating out the neutrino messengers. 125 GeV Higgs mass can be explained with stop lighter than 2 TeV in this setup. At the same time the stop mass gets an extra Yukawa mediation and maximal stop mixing can be easily realised.
As there is a neutrino Dirac Yukawa contribution to the soft parameters in addition to the ordinary gauge mediation, interesting new physics signature is expected. The mechanism of the charged lepton flavor violation is different from that in mSUGRA [@Borzumati:1986qx] or SUSY GUT [@Ciuchini:2007ha] in which the origin is the running of soft parameters above the See-Saw scale. Though the origin is different, the spectrum looks similar. The crucial difference is that here the flavor violation appearing in lepton doublet soft scalar mass is $16\pi^2$ bigger than the one in mSUGRA. Therefore, the naive expectation is that order one neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling would be incompatible with the current bounds of various charged lepton flavor violation constraints including $\mu \to e \gamma$.
The computation of the charged lepton flavor violation needs a complete flavor model. Current observation of the charged lepton mass and lepton mixing matrix (PMNS) can be explained in a consistent way with the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix which is proportional to the identity matrix. This is not an ad hoc assumption but can be explained in the context of non-Abelian discrete flavor symmetry, e.g., tribimaximal PMNS[@Harrison:2002er] from $S_4$. Therefore, order one neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling can generate order one A term at the messenger scale and at the same time can be consistent with the charged lepton flavor violation constraints as long as it is proportional to the identity matrix.
$S_4$ flavor symmetry is the most natural and/or simple if $\theta_{13} =0$ as the tribimaximal mixing can be nicely realised. However, small but sizeable $\theta_{13}$ ($\sin \theta_{13} \sim 0.15$) can be accommodated with the extra complication[@Lin:2009bw; @Ishimori:2012fg; @Altarelli:2012bn; @King:2012vj]. If the origin of $\theta_{13}$ is the modification of Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino, there would be no off-diagonal element in the lepton doublet soft scalar masses as the neutrino Dirac Yukawa would be still proportional to the identity. In this case the model is free from the cLFV constraints. Nevertheless, the sparticle spectrum needed to explain the observed Higgs mass is heavy enough such that it is hard to explain the muon anomalous magnetic moment at the same time. If $\theta_{13}$ is due to the deviation of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix from the identity, sizeable charged lepton flavor violation is expected. We compute the charged lepton flavor violating processes in both cases and show that interesting parameter space exists if $\theta_{13}$ is a combination of two contributions from neutrino Dirac Yukawa and Majorana mass matrix.
The contents of the paper is following. In section 2, we explain the setup for neutrino assisted gauge mediation in which the right-handed neutrino is added as messengers in addition to the ordinary SM charged messengers. Also we discuss the implication for the Higgs mass. In section 3, we explain our $S_4$ flavor model as a representative example to discuss possible phenomenological implication. In section 4, we discuss charged lepton flavor violation in connection with muon anomalous magnetic moment, the neutrino mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ and the Higgs mass. Then we conclude.
Neutrino Assisted Gauge Mediation and The Higgs Mass
====================================================
Soft terms generated from right-handed neutrino messengers {#sec:softterms}
----------------------------------------------------------
The extremely small masses of neutrinos can be explained through the See-Saw mechanism[@Minkowski:1977sc; @Yanagida:1979as; @Yanagida:1980xy; @GellMann:1980vs; @Mohapatra:1979ia], in which lepton number is violated at around the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) scale. In this paper, we consider the simplest model, type-I See-Saw. For this, we extend the MSSM superpotential by including right-handed Majorana neutrinos, [$$\begin{split}W&=\epsilon_{ab}\Big[(Y_U)_{ij}\bar{U}_iQ^a_jH_u^b-(Y_D)_{ij}\bar{D}_iQ^a_jH_d^b
-(Y_E)_{ij}\bar{E}_iL^a_jH_d^b+(Y_\nu)_{ij} {N}_iL^a_jH_u^b
\\
& + \mu H_u^a H_d^b\Big] + \frac{1}{2} M_N^{ij} {N}_i {N}_j ,\end{split}$$]{} where $\epsilon_{ab}$ is a totally antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon_{12}=1$. The superfields in the superpotential represent right-handed neutrino-sneutrino pairs, in addition to the SM particles and their superpartners. They have the following SM gauge group SU(3)$_c \times$SU(2)$_L \times$U(1)$_Y$ quantum numbers: [$$\begin{split}&Q: (3,2,\frac16),~~\bar{U}: (\bar{3}, 1, -\frac23),~~\bar{D}: (\bar{3}, 1, \frac13)
\\
& L : (1, 2, -\frac12),~~\bar{E}: (1,1,1),~~N: (1,0,0)
\\
&H_u: (1,2,\frac12),~~H_d: (1,2,-\frac12).\end{split}$$]{} Relative minus signs of Yukawa terms are given to make the sign of terms responsible for the fermion Dirac masses to be the same.
The relevant soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking terms are given by [$$\begin{split}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{soft}} =& - (m_{N}^2)^i_j \tilde{N}^\dagger_i \tilde{N}_j - (m_L^2)^j_i \tilde{L}^{\dagger i} \tilde{L}_j - m_{H_u}^2 H_u^{\dagger} H_u \\-& \Big[ \frac{1}{2} (B_N M)^{ij} \tilde{N}_i \tilde{N}_j + (\tilde{A_U})_{ij} \tilde{U}^{i} \tilde{Q}^{j} H_u -(\tilde{ A_D})_{ij} \tilde{D}^{i}\tilde{Q}^{j} H_d -(\tilde{A_E})_{ij} \tilde{E}^i\tilde{L}^j H_d +B\mu H_u H_d + h.c. \Big] .\end{split}$$]{}
We consider two origins of soft terms. The first one is gauge mediation. In the gauge mediation, sfermions obtain soft masses given by [@Giudice:1998bp] [$$\begin{split}m_{\tilde{f}}^2=4 \sum_a\Big(\frac{g_a^2}{16\pi^2}\Big)^2 C_a \sum_i \Big(\frac{F}{M_i}\Big)^2\ T_a({\cal R}_i) f(x_i)\end{split}$$]{} at the messenger scales $M_i$, where $C_a$ is the quadratic Casmir $\sum_\alpha T^\alpha T^\alpha$ of the sfermion representation ${\cal R}_i$ under the corresponding gauge group labeled by $a$, which is given by $(N^2-1)/(2N)$ for SU(N) and $Y^2$ for U(1)$_Y$, $T_a$ is defined by ${\rm Tr}T^\alpha T^\beta = T_a({\cal R}_i)\delta^{\alpha \beta}$, and $f(x_i)$ is the loop function of $x_i=F/M_i^2$ which is close to one for small $x_i$. On the other hand, the 2-loop tri-linear A term is very small and can be neglected at the messenger scale.
For the second origin of soft terms, we introduce a SUSY breaking spurion $X$ which couples to the right-handed neutrinos. Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino comes from the scalar vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the SUSY breaking spurion $X$, [$$\begin{split} W \supset \lambda X N N.\end{split}$$]{} Then $N$ acts as the messengers of supersymmetry breaking, and the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling, [$$\begin{split}W \supset Y_\nu N L H_u,\end{split}$$]{} is interpreted as the direct mixing term among the messengers, Higgs and matter (leptons).
The SUSY breaking effects at the See-Saw scale $M_N=\lambda \langle X \rangle$ is studied in [@Giudice:2010zn]. When right-handed neutrinos couple to the SUSY breaking sector, Majorana mass matrix is analytically continued to be $M_N \rightarrow (1+ \theta^2 B_N)M_N$, as in the case of gauge mediation[@Giudice:1997ni; @ArkaniHamed:1998kj; @Chacko:2001km]. Here, we assume that the flavor structure of the right-handed neutrinos is fully determined by $M_N$, so $B_N=F_X/X$ is a constant.
Then, SUSY breaking is transferred to the visible sector through the neutrino Dirac Yukawa interaction. Wave function renormalization from the interaction with right-handed neutrinos is given by [$$\begin{split} \delta Z_L = \frac{Y_{\nu}^{R \dagger} }{16 \pi^2} \Big( 1- \ln \frac{M^{R \dagger}M^R}{\Lambda^2} \Big) Y_{\nu}^{R}, ~~~~~ \delta Z_{H_u}= \mathrm{Tr} \delta Z_L \label{eq:wavere}\end{split}$$]{} where [$$\begin{split} \lambda_N^R = [Z_N^{-1/2}]^T \lambda_N Z_L^{-1/2 } Z_{H_u}^{-1/2},~~~~~ M^R = [Z_N^{-1/2 }]^T M_N Z_N^{-1/2},\end{split}$$]{} then analytically continued Majorana masses give the soft masses. From field redefinitions [$$\begin{split}& L \rightarrow \big( 1- \frac{\delta Z_L \vert_0}{2} \big)(1- \theta^2 \delta Z_L \vert_{\theta^2})L
\\
& H_u \rightarrow \big( 1- \frac{\delta Z_{H_u} \vert_0}{2} \big)(1- \theta^2 \delta Z_{H_u} \vert_{\theta^2})H_u,\end{split}$$]{} supersymmetric kinetic terms can be written in the simple form, [$$\begin{split}\Phi^{\dagger}(1+ \delta Z_{\Phi}) \Phi \rightarrow \Phi^{\dagger}(1+ \theta^2 \bar{\theta}^2 \delta Z_{\Phi} \vert_{\theta^2 \bar{\theta}^2}) \Phi \end{split}$$]{} then we can read off the one-loop corrections to the soft masses [$$\begin{split} \delta m_L^2 = - \delta Z_L \vert _{\theta^2 \bar{\theta}^2}~~~ \mathrm{and}~~~ \delta m_{H_u}^2 = - \delta Z_{H_u} \vert _{\theta^2 \bar{\theta}^2} \label{eq:smass}.\end{split}$$]{} In the expression, $B_N$ is just a constant, not a matrix. So $\ln(M_N^\dagger M_N)$ in the wave function renormalization is separated into holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts, respectively. Since $\theta^2\bar{\theta}^2$ term is not generated, we do not have one-loop soft masses.
Hence, as in minimal gauge mediation, soft masses are generated at two loop level. In [@Kang:2012ra], it was shown that soft scalar masses of the fields which directly couple to messengers and those which do not are different. In our model, the slepton $\tilde{L}$ and the up-type Higgs $H_u$ couple to messengers $N$ directly to give soft terms,
[$$\begin{split}&\delta m_{L}^2 = \frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} \Big[ \Big({\rm Tr} [Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger]+3{\rm Tr} [Y_U Y_U^\dagger] - 3 g_2^2 - \frac{1}{5} g_1^2 \Big) Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} + 3 Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} \Big]
\\
&\delta m_{H_u}^2 = \frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} \Big[ 4{\rm Tr} [Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu}] -\Big( 3 g_2^2 + \frac{1}{5} g_1^2 \Big){\rm Tr} [Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger] \Big]. \label{eq:mlsqaure}\end{split}$$]{}
On the other hand, $\tilde{Q}$ and $\tilde{U}$ obtain two-loop soft scalar masses through the wave function renormalization of $H_u$ and the corrections are given by [$$\begin{split}&\delta m_{Q}^2=-\frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} {\rm Tr}[Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger]Y_U^\dagger Y_U
\\
&\delta m_{U}^2=-\frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} {\rm Tr}[Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger]Y_U Y_U^\dagger\end{split}$$]{} while the soft masses of $\tilde{E}$ and $H_d$ come out of the wave function renormalization of $L$ and the corrections are given by [$$\begin{split}
&\delta m_{E}^2=-\frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} Y_EY_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu Y_E^\dagger
\\
&\delta m_{H_d}^2=-\frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} {\rm Tr}[Y_EY_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu Y_E^\dagger].\end{split}$$]{}
By replacing $Y_E \to Y_E(1+\delta A_E)$, $Y_U \to Y_U(1+\delta A_U)$, and $Y_D \to Y_D(1+\delta A_D)$, we have following soft terms at one loop level, [$$\begin{split}&\delta A_E = -\delta Z_L \vert_{\theta^2},~~~\delta A_U = - \mathbb{I} \delta Z_{H_u} \vert_{\theta^2},
\\
&\delta A_D = 0,~~~\delta B = - \delta Z_{H_u} \vert_{\theta^2}.\label{eq:msoft}\end{split}$$]{} Unlike gauge mediation, right-handed neutrino mediation generates one-loop $A-$terms, [$$\begin{split}&A_E = \frac{B_N}{16 \pi^2 } Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu}
\\
&A_U = - {\rm Tr} A_E \times \mathbb{I}_{3 \times 3}
\\
&B = {\rm Tr} A_E.\end{split}$$]{}
While gauge mediation contributions are flavor universal, See-Saw Yukawa mediation is flavor dependent and one of the virtue of the gauge mediaion would disappear. In the absence of See-Saw Yukawa mediation, cLFV can appear when the messenger scale is higher than the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass scale. See-Saw Yukawa contributes to the slepton soft mass through the renormalization group equation (RGE) , [$$\begin{split}\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}m_L^2=\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}m_L^2\Big|_{\rm MGM}+\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\Big[(m_L^2 Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu+Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu m_L^2)+2(Y_\nu^\dagger m_N^2 Y_\nu +m_{H_u}^2Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu +\tilde{A}_\nu^\dagger \tilde{A}_\nu)\Big]\end{split}$$]{} which should be restricted by cLFV constraints [@Grossman:2011fz]. Here $\tilde{A}_\nu=A_\nu Y_\nu$ is used. Since $m_L^2$ is two-loop generated, cLFV effects are further loop suppressed (at three loop level). Unlike mSUGRA, this effect is known to be small in gauge mediation as the messenger scale is at most comparable to the See-Saw scale and the running can be made in a very short interval. This is not the cLFV that we are interested in.
In neutrino assisted gauge mediation, neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings can introduce two-loop generated cLFV effects on $m_L^2$ as a result of gauge-Yukawa or Yukawa mediation, [$$\begin{split}\delta m_{L}^2 = \frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} \Big[ \Big({\rm Tr} [Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger]+3{\rm Tr} [Y_U Y_U^\dagger] - 3 g_2^2 - \frac{1}{5} g_1^2 \Big) Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} + 3 Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} \Big]\end{split}$$]{} in the charged lepton mass basis. If the two loop generated slepton mass squared has a nonzero off-diagonal element, it would generate cLFV. Parametrically, this effect is much larger than the expected cLFV in mSUGRA or similar scenarios in which the effect comes from the running above the See-Saw scale. We simply assume that both messengers ${\bf 5}, {\bf \bar{5}}$ and ${\bf 1}$ have the same masses at the See-Saw scale. In principle these two masses can be different and cLFV can arise if the singlet messenger is lighter than ${\bf 5}, {\bf \bar{5}}$. However, this effect is loop suppressed compared to the Yukawa mediation we would not consider it in this paper.
Further discussion on cLFV is possible only when there is an explicit flavor model providing the neutrino Dirac Yukawa and charged lepton Yukawa matrices. As a simple and illustrative example of the explicit model, we consider $S_4$ flavor symmetry in Sec. \[sec:FlavorModel\]. It will be shown that various types of See-Saw Yukawa $Y_\nu$ would predict different sizes of effects on cLFV. Before moving onto the flavor discussion, let us consider the implication on the Higgs mass first.
Higgs mass and superparticle spectrum {#sec:higgs}
-------------------------------------
![Higgs mass with respect to $X_t$ for $\tan\beta=10$, stop mass $M_{\tilde{t}} \sim 2 {\,\textrm{TeV}}$. []{data-label="fig:xHiggs"}](Xthiggsmass.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Minimal gauge mediation does not generate $A_t$ at one loop and the weak scale $A_t$ is radiatively generated by the gluino loop. However, the same gluino contribution appears in stop soft scalar mass and the relative ratio of $|A_t|$ and $m_{\tilde{t}}$ can not be large. On the other hand, the physical light CP even Higgs mass in the MSSM is affected by $\hat{X_t} \equiv (A_t -\mu /\tan \beta)/m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $\hat{X_t} \sim 2$ (or $\sqrt{6}$ more precisely) gives the maximum finite threshold correction as shown in Fig. \[fig:xHiggs\].
One way to make $|\hat{X_t}| > 1$ at the weak scale is to start from tachyonic stop boundary condition [@Dermisek:2006ey] which is explicitly realised in gauge messenger model [@Dermisek:2006qj]. However, this option is not available in minimal gauge mediation. The other possibility is to couple messengers directly to the visible sector fields such that large negative $A$ term can be generated at the messenger scale. If $A$ term is positive, the gluino contribution from the running cancels the $A$ term at the messenger scale. Matter-messenger mixing [@Shadmi:2011hs; @Albaid:2012qk; @Abdullah:2012tq; @Evans:2012hg; @Evans:2011bea] also has been considered recently. Messenger-matter-matter Yukawa coupling would generate the needed $A_t$ term at the messenger scale. However, the full Yukawa couplings are written as $3\times 3$ matrices and why all other dangerous Yukawa couplings between matters and messengers are absent except $33$ component remains to be a puzzle. One way out is to consider Higgs-messenger mass mixing [@Chacko:2001km] and to generate all the wanted Yukawa couplings between matter and messengers from ordinary Yukawa couplings of matter with Higgs. There would be a direct modification of squark spectrum if squark couples directly to the messenger.
![ Phase diagrams indicating stop tachyonic and no EWSB region for $\tan \beta = 10$, $\tan \beta = 30$, respectively. $B_N$ is set to be $5 \times 10^5 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$. []{data-label="fig:phase"}](phase10.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"} ![ Phase diagrams indicating stop tachyonic and no EWSB region for $\tan \beta = 10$, $\tan \beta = 30$, respectively. $B_N$ is set to be $5 \times 10^5 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$. []{data-label="fig:phase"}](phase30.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}
Higgs-messenger mixing through Higgs-messenger-messenger coupling or Higgs-Higgs-messenger coupling has been considered in [@Kang:2012ra; @Craig:2012xp]. In this case, we often encounter $A/m^2$ problem. To understand this, it is worth to emphasize that, the two-loop soft mass squared of the Higgs field $H_u$ which has direct coupling to messenger $\Phi$ has a structure of $m_{H_u}^2 \sim c \lambda^4-c^\prime \lambda^2 g^2$ where $\lambda$ is a coupling constant of Higgs and messenger fields and $g$ is the gauge coupling(s). On the other hand, the two-loop soft mass squared of fields $Q,\bar{U}$ which does not have a direct coupling with messenger has a form of $m_{Q_3,\bar{U}_3}^2 \sim -c_3\lambda^2 y_t^2$. This fact was extensively studied in [@Kang:2012ra]. For sufficiently large $\lambda$, large one-loop A terms are generated. At the same time, $m_{H_u}^2$ becomes positive so the soft mass of $H_u$ can be much larger than that in the pure gauge mediation. Moreover, the soft mass of $Q_3,\bar{U}_3$ can be much smaller. If the Higgs $H_u$ superfield directly couples to messengers whereas the top superfields do not, relatively light stop in natural SUSY can be easily obtained as we can have the small stop soft mass from the effect explained above and the large LR mixing from large A term. $A/m^2$ problem appears in $H_u$ soft terms such that large $A$ term at the same time generate large $m_{H_u}^2$ at the messenger scale and it can make the electroweak symmetry breaking difficult. It is analogous to the famous $\mu/B\mu$ problem in gauge mediation. To avoid this but to allow the large $\lambda$ for maximal mixing, large $-c_2 \lambda^2 g^2$ part in $m_{H_u}^2$ is required. This can be achieved by introducing new gauge bosons or making strong interaction involved [@Kang:2012ra]. On the other hand, one loop, negative contribution to $m_{H_u}^2$ can be considered if the messenger scale is low as analysed in detail in [@Craig:2012xp].
![ Higgs mass as a function of $y_{\nu}$ for $B_N = 5 \times 10^{5} {\,\textrm{GeV}}$, $\rho = 0.1$. Higgs mass can be achieved with the help of Yukawa mediation for large $\tan \beta$ region. At $y_{\nu} \sim 0.7$, stop mass is approximately $1 {\,\textrm{TeV}}$. []{data-label="fig:Higgsmass"}](YHiggsMass.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Neutrino assisted gauge mediation uses the Yukawa coupling among messengers (neutrinos), Higgs and lepton doublets. As a result, Higgs and lepton doublet soft scalar masses get extra contribution from Yukawa mediation. The same $A/m^2$ problem applies here and neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling can not be taken to be a large value for successful electroweak symmetry breaking in principle. On the other hand, too large $m_{H_u}^2$ and too large A term may drive stop tachyonic through renormalization group running with top Yukawa. The problem becomes worse as the stop soft scalar mass squared at the messenger scale gets a negative contribution from Yukawa mediation. The situation is shown in Fig. \[fig:phase\]. For the running mass of the top quark 160 GeV (the central value), the tachyonic stop appears before the real $A/m^2$ problem prevents the successful electroweak symmetry breaking as we increase $y_\nu$. The crucial difference compared to the previous work in which $A/m^2$ problem is emphasized [@Kang:2012ra; @Craig:2012xp] comes from the number of messengers. In neutrino assisted gauge mediation, the number of messengers is three, $N=3$. The $y^2$ contribution is effectively replaced by $N y_\nu^2$. Large $N$ effectively reduces the $A/m^2$ problem by $1/N$. At the same time smaller $y_\nu$ can provide the same impact with the aid of $N > 1$. If tachyonic stop appears as $y_\nu$ gets larger, it would be easy to realise the maximal stop mixing by making the stop soft scalar mass sufficiently small.
![ $X_t / M_{\tilde t}$ as a function of $y_{\nu}$ for $B_N = 5 \times 10^{5} {\,\textrm{GeV}}$, $\rho = 0.1$, $\tan \beta = 10$. []{data-label="fig:XtMt"}](LambdaMt.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![ $X_t / M_{\tilde t}$ as a function of $y_{\nu}$ for $B_N = 5 \times 10^{5} {\,\textrm{GeV}}$, $\rho = 0.1$, $\tan \beta = 10$. []{data-label="fig:XtMt"}](LambdaXtMt.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:Higgsmass\] shows the contribution assisted by neutrino messengers, compared to the minimal gauge mediation which corresponds to $y_\nu=0$ with stop mass at around 1 TeV. In the minimal gauge mediation, the Higgs mass is computed to be at around $121 \sim 122$ GeV for $\tan \beta = 10 \sim 30$. For $y_\nu = 0.7$, the Higgs mass can be as large as $125 \sim 126$ GeV. 4 to 5 GeV gain in the Higgs mass is obtained in neutrino assisted gauge mediation. The gain does not look impressive but has an impact on allowed superparticle spectrum. In the absence of $A_t$ at the messenger scale as is the case in minimal gauge mediation, this extra 5 to 6 GeV can be achieved by making the logarithmic contribution large and the stop mass should be as heavy as 5 to 10 TeV rather than 2 TeV.
Note that the plot stops at $y_\nu=0.72$. Neutrino assisted gauge mediation is classified as Higgs-messenger mixing scenario as the right-handed neutrino is the messenger and the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling connects Higgs, lepton doublet and the messenger (right-handed neutrino). The stop soft scalar mass squared gets smaller and becomes tachyonic as the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling is increased as in Fig. \[fig:stopmass\]. The logarithmic correction to the Higgs mass also rapidly drops beyond $y_\nu \sim 0.7$ as the stop mass becomes too light (and becomes tachyonic) as is shown in Fig. \[fig:Higgsmass\]. The maximal mixing is realised around this point, as shown in Fig. \[fig:XtMt\]. This also corresponds to the corner of the parameter space next to the critical point as in [@Giudice:2006sn].
![ $\tilde{A}_t \equiv A_t Y_t$ as a function of $y_\nu$ for $\tan \beta = 10$, $B_N = 5 \times 10^5$GeV. Without Yukawa mediation, one can obtain $\tilde{A}_{t} \sim -2700{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ at the weak scale by RG running effects. With help of neutrino mediation at the messenger scale, one can obtain $\tilde{A}_{t} \sim -4500{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ at weak scale. This drives more stop mixing, which helps $125 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$ Higgs mass. []{data-label="fig:At"}](lambdaA.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:At\] compares $A_t$ in the minimal gauge mediation and the neutrino assisted gauge mediation both at the messenger scale and the weak scale. Note that $A_t$ by itself is enhanced by 1.5 at the weak scale with the help of messenger scale $A_t$.
![Maximum values of Higgs mass as a function of $B_N$. For $\tan \beta = 10$, at least $B_N = 360 {\,\textrm{TeV}}$ is required to obtain $125{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ Higgs mass. For $\tan \beta = 30$, $B_N = 300 {\,\textrm{TeV}}$ is required. At two points $( \tan \beta = 10 , B_N = 360 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$, $( \tan \beta = 30 , B_N = 300 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$, we display sparticle spectrums in Table \[table:Spectrum125\]. Also spectrums with $123 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$ Higgs mass are given for $(\tan \beta = 10, B_N = 240 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$, $(\tan \beta = 30 , B_N = 200 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$. Sparticle spectrums are displayed in Table \[table:Spectrum123\].[]{data-label="fig:BNHiggs"}](maxhiggs.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:BNHiggs\] shows the relation between $B_N$ and the Higgs mass. The neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling $y_\nu$ is chosen to be close to $0.72$ which can maximize the Higgs mass for given $B_N$.
In summary, the minimal gauge mediation needs stop mass at around 5 to 10 TeV to raise the Higgs mass up to 125 GeV. If the right-handed neutrinos are the messengers of the supersymmetry breaking, so called ‘neutrino assisted gauge mediation’, we can explain 125 GeV Higgs mass with lighter than 2 TeV stop mass.
Flavor Model {#sec:FlavorModel}
=============
In this section, we consider models which can explain neutrino oscillations successfully. Since the SUSY breaking mediation through the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling is flavor dependent in general, sizable cLFV could be generated. To avoid this, the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling is set to be proportional to the idenitity. In the right-handed neutrino mass basis, it would be proportional to the unitary matrix so soft mass $m_L^2$, which depends on the combination $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ is flavor universal. It is easily achieved by employing the non-abelian discrete symmetry for the tri-bi maximal mixing of the PMNS matrix. Since the tri-bi maximal mixing should be modified to make $\theta_{13}$ nonzero, as reported by several observations[@Abe:2011fz; @Hartz:2012np; @Adamson:2012rm; @An:2012eh; @Ahn:2012nd], small corrections should be added. When the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling has such corrections, such that it has a deviation from identity, cLFV is generated. We look for several ways to suppress cLFV, at least under the experimental bound.
--------------------- -------------------- ------- ---------- ----------
Superfield $S_4$ $Z_4$ U(1)$_L$ U(1)$_R$
\[0.2em\]
\[-1.1em\] $L$ ${\bf 3}$ 1 1 1
\[0.4em\] $\bar{E}$ ${\bf 2+1}$ 2 -1 0
\[0.4em\] $N$ ${\bf 3}$ 3 -1 0
\[0.4em\] $\Phi$ ${\bf 3+3^\prime}$ 1 0 0
\[0.4em\] $\chi$ ${\bf 1+2+3}$ 2 2 0
\[0.4em\] $H_u$ ${\bf 1}$ 0 0 1
\[0.4em\] $H_d$ ${\bf 1}$ 0 0 1
\[0.4em\] $X$ ${\bf 1}$ 0 0 2
\[0.4em\]
--------------------- -------------------- ------- ---------- ----------
: Charge assignments under $S_4 \times Z_4 \times {\rm U(1)}_L \times {\rm U(1)}_R $ for leptons, flavons, Higgs, and SUSY breaking spurions. []{data-label="table:charges"}
To make the PMNS matrix tri-bi maximal, we use $S_4$ discrete symmetry, since it is closely related to the permutation structure of Yukawa couplings. Other discrete symmetries, such as $A_4$, the even permutation of the $S_4$ could be used. The main difference is that the first and the second generation of the right-handed leptons belong to ${\bf 2}$ dimensional representation in $S_4$ while they correspond to different one dimensional representations, ${\bf 1^\prime}$, ${\bf 1^{\prime\prime}}$ in $A_4$. In [@He:2006dk; @He:2006qd; @He:2011gb; @BenTov:2012tg], the structure we use is obtained from $A_4$ symmetry and discussion on the deviation from the tri-bi maximal mixing is in parallel. The $S_4$ symmetry model building is reviewed in [@Bazzocchi:2012st]. In Appendix A, we summarised representations and tensor products of $S_4$ group.
For quark sector, the CKM matrix is close to the identity. Deviation from the identity has a hierarchy structure parametrized by some powers of the Cabibbo angle, $\lambda=\sin\theta_C$. On the other hand, the PMNS matrix, mixing matrix in the lepton sector has large mixing angles. Even the smallest mixing angle, $\theta_{13}$ is in the order of $\lambda$. To explain this, it is natural to assume that $u-$ and $d-$ quark sectors have almost the same structure under the discrete flavor symmetry whereas the charged lepton and the right-handed neutrino sectors do not. This picture can be realised by introducing appropriate ‘flavons’ charged under discrete symmetry group and more symmetries can be introduced to forbid useless couplings. Here, we consider the symmetry group $S_4 \times Z_4 \times {\rm U(1)}_L$, where U(1)$_L$ represents a lepton number, which may be discretized. In this paper, we consider superpotential for See-Saw mechanism with flavons $\Phi$ and $\chi$, [$$\begin{split}W= -\l_{1ij} \bar{E}_i \Phi L_j H_d + \l_{2ij} N_i L_j H_u+\frac12 \l_{3ij} X N_i \chi N_j,\end{split}$$]{} where $i,j=1,2,3$ are the generation indices and $X$ is a SUSY breaking spurion. For this, $S_4$, $Z_4$, U(1)$_L$ and U(1) R-symmetry quantum numbers are given in Table \[table:charges\].
The charged lepton Yukawa couplings can be constructed from $\bar{E}\Phi L H_d$, the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling can be constructed from $NL$, and the Majorana mass of the heavy neutrinos can be constructed from $X N\chi N$. On the other hand, $\Phi^2$, $\chi^2$, and $\Phi\chi$ cannot couple to the combinations $\bar{E} L H_d$, $NL$, and $XNN$ to make singlets. Note that U(1)$_R$ is introduced to forbid unwanted coupling $ N \chi N$, which makes $B_N$ in a matrix form, not a constant.
The discrete symmetry quantum number can be extended to the quark sector, such as $Q: ({\bf 3},1,1, 1, 1)$, $\bar{U} : ({\bf 2+1},2,0, 0)$, and $\bar{D} : ({\bf 2+1},2,0, 0)$ under $S_4\times Z_4\times {\rm U(1)}_L \times$U(1)$_R$. The flavons $\Phi : ({\bf 3+3^\prime}, 1,0)$ make the singlet combinations ${\bar U}\Phi Q H_u+{\bar D}\Phi Q H_d$ and Yukawa couplings $Y_U$ and $Y_D$ have the same form as the charged lepton Yukawa coupling. They are diagonalized by the same unitary matrix so CKM matrix is the identity in the leading order. If another type of flavon couples to either of up and down quark sectors to give subleading corrections of order $\lambda$, it would explain the Cabibbo angle.
Lepton $L_i$ is in the [**3**]{} and $\bar{E}_j$ is in the [**1+2**]{} representations, in which $(\bar{E}_1)_{\bf 1}+(\bar{E}_2,\bar{E}_3)_{\bf 2}$. Also there are the SM singlet flavons $\Phi_{\bf 3}$, and $\Phi_{\bf 3^\prime}$ in the ${\bf 3}$, and ${\bf 3^\prime}$ representations. We do not provide a complete vacuum alignment in this setup. Instead in Appendix B, we show a few simple examples in which the aligned vacuum is realised. If, for instance, VEVs are arranged to be $\langle\Phi_{\bf 3}\rangle =v_2 (1,1,1)$, and $\langle \Phi_{\bf 3^\prime}\rangle =v_3 (1,1,1)$, we have the following Yukawa structure [$$\begin{split} Y_E=\lambda_E \frac{1}{\sqrt3}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c &c& c\\
a & a\omega & a\omega^2 \\
b & b\omega^2 & b\omega
\end{array}\right) \label{eq:leptonyukawa}
\end{split}$$]{} where $a=(\lambda v_2+ \lambda^\prime v_3)/\Lambda$, $b=(\lambda v_2-\lambda^\prime v_3)/\Lambda$, $c=\lambda^{\prime \prime}v_2/\Lambda$, and $\lambda, \lambda^\prime, \lambda^{\prime \prime}$ are coupling constants of $\bar{E}_{\bf 2} L_{\bf 3}\Phi_{\bf 3}$, $\bar{E}_{\bf 2} L_{\bf 3}\Phi_{\bf 3^\prime}$, and $\bar{E}_{\bf 1} L_{\bf 3}\Phi_{\bf 3}$, respectively. In this case, $Y_E^\dagger Y_E$ has the form of [$$\begin{split} Y_E^\dagger Y_E=|\lambda_E|^2
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a^2+b^2+c^2 & c^2+a^2\omega+b^2\omega^2 & c^2+b^2\omega+a^2\omega^2 \\
c^2+a^2\omega^2+b^2\omega & a^2+b^2+c^2 & c^2+a^2\omega+ b^2\omega^2 \\
c^2+b^2\omega^2+a^2\omega & c^2+a^2\omega^2+b^2\omega & a^2+b^2+c^2
\end{array}\right)
,\end{split}$$]{} which will be diagonalized to $|\lambda_E|^2((\epsilon^3)^2, (\epsilon)^2, 1)$ by the unitary matrix, [$$\begin{split} V_L^l=\frac{1}{\sqrt3}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1&1&1\\
1& \omega^2 & \omega \\
1&\omega &\omega^2
\end{array}\right). \label{leptonunit}
\end{split}$$]{} Here we use $\epsilon \simeq m_\mu/m_\tau$ as the order parameter. Then, $c=\epsilon^3$, $a=\epsilon$ and $b=1$.
On the other hand, let heavy neutrinos $N_i$ be in the triplet ${\bf 3}$. $\Phi_{\bf 3}$ and $\Phi_{\bf 3^\prime}$ cannot couple to the combination $L_i N_j$ by $Z_4$ and U(1)$_L$ symmetries as well as the SM gauge symmetry. Since the combination $L_1N_1+L_2N_2+L_3N_3$ is a singlet, we naturally have the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling $Y_\nu$ proportional to the identity. Finally, $XN_iN_j$ has again the form of ${\bf 3} + {\bf 3^\prime}+{\bf 1}+{\bf 2}$. $\Phi$’s cannot couple to it while singlet $\chi_{\bf 1}$ and triplet $\chi_{\bf 3}$ in the singlet and triplet representation can do, so we have the following Majorana mass term: [$$\begin{split} M_N=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_1 & 0&w_2 \\
0 &w_1 & 0 \\
w_2&0& w_1
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}$$]{} where $\langle \chi_{\bf 1} \rangle=w_1$ and $\langle \chi_{\bf 3} \rangle=w_2(0,1,0)$, respectively. Therefore, the neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu=-v_u^2 Y_\nu^T M_N^{-1} Y_\nu$ is diagonalized by [$$\begin{split} V_L^\nu=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{\sqrt2} & 0&-\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\\
0 &1 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt2}&0& \frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}$$]{} so we obtain the PMNS matrix in the tri-bi maximal mixing, [$$\begin{split} V_{\rm PMNS}\equiv (V_L^l)^\dagger V_L^\nu=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt3}&0\\
-\omega\frac{1}{\sqrt6} &\omega\frac{1}{\sqrt3} & e^{-i5\pi/6}\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\\
-\omega^2\frac{1}{\sqrt6}&\omega^2\frac{1}{\sqrt3}& e^{i5\pi/6}\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$]{} In this construction, $S_4$ triplet flavons have VEVs in the direction of $(1,1,1)$ or $(0,1,0)$. These directions are easily stabilized compared to other directions, such as $(1,1,0)$, as argued in Appendix B. Note that $Y_\nu$ proportional to the identity does not give rise to LFV. In Eq. (\[eq:mlsqaure\]), we see $m_L^2$ from the neutrino Dirac Yukawa mediation is flavor universal. In the right-handed neutrino and the charged lepton mass basis, $Y_\nu$ moves to $ V_L^\nu Y_\nu$ and $m_L^2$ moves to $(V_L^l)^\dagger m_L^2 V_L^l$. As a result, PMNS matrix is mulitplied and will change $m_L^2$ matrix. However, if the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix is proportional to the identity matrix, the property of $V \mathbb{I} V^\dagger = \mathbb{I} V V^\dagger = \mathbb{I}$ cancels out such effects.
There are various ways to put corrections to make non-zero $\theta_{13}$. Moreover, corrected neutrino mass matrix should be consistent with the measurements of $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$ as well as neutrino mass squared differences, $\Delta m^2_{\rm sol} \equiv m_2^2-m_1^2$ and $|\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}| \equiv |m_3^2 -m_2^2|$. Since the overall neutrino mass scale is not known, the important quantity is the ratio of neutrino mass squared differences, as described in [@BenTov:2012tg], [$$\begin{split}\sqrt{|R|} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}{\Delta m^2_{\rm sol}}}.\end{split}$$]{} The measured values adopted in [@Beringer:1900zz] are given by [$$\begin{split}&\Delta m^2_{\rm sol}=(7.50\pm 0.20)\times 10^{-5} {\rm eV}^2
\\
&\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}=(0.00232)^{+0.00012}_{-0.00008}{\rm eV}^2 \nonumber\end{split}$$]{} [$$\begin{split}&\sin^2(2\theta_{12})=0.857 \pm 0.024
\\
&\sin^2(2\theta_{23})>0.95
\\
&\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.098 \pm 0.013\end{split}$$]{} in the 90% C. L. The global analysis for such quantities can be found in [@Fogli:2012ua; @GonzalezGarcia:2012sz].
Suppose, for simplicity, we leave the charged lepton sector untouched and correct neutrino sector only. Moreover, we keep the mixings of $\nu_2$ with $\nu_{1, 3}$ forbidden, so that $V_L^\nu$ is modified to [$$\begin{split} V_L^\nu=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta) & 0&-\sin(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta) \\
0 &1 & 0 \\
\sin(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta)&0& \cos(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta)
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$]{} For small $\delta$, $\cos(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta) \simeq (1/\sqrt2)(1-\delta)$ and $\sin(\frac{\pi}{4}+\delta) \simeq (1/\sqrt2)(1+\delta)$. From [$$\begin{split}&V_{\rm PMNS}=(V_L^l)^\dagger V_L^\nu
\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt3}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1&1&1\\
1& \omega & \omega^2 \\
1&\omega^2 &\omega
\end{array}\right)
\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
(1-\delta)&0&-(1+\delta)\\
0& 1 & 0 \\
(1+\delta)&0 &(1-\delta)
\end{array}\right),\end{split}$$]{} we see (13) element of the PMNS matrix is given by [$$\begin{split}|V_{e3}|=\Big|\frac{2\delta}{\sqrt6}\Big|.\end{split}$$]{} If such corrections are entirely present in the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass term while $Y_\nu$ is untouched, there would be no observable charged lepton flavor violating process. For example, let us introduce a doublet flavon $\chi_{\bf 2}$. Then, its VEV modifies the diagonal elements of the Majorana mass matrix. With $\langle \chi_2 \rangle =x^2 (1,1)$, diagonal term has a correction $x^2[2N_1N_1-N_2N_2-N_3N_3]$. In principle, by introducing several doublets with different VEVs, each diagonal term can be different.
Model I {#Model I}
-------
Besides putting correction to $M_N$, one can find $S_4$ doublet VEVs giving corrections to $Y_\nu$ to make a sizable $\theta_{13}$ while dangerous charged lepton flavor violation is suppressed. To see this, consider the general $S_4$ doublet VEV, $(a, b)$ where $a$ and $b$ are complex numbers. With this VEV and coupling $\lambda_1$, $Y_\nu$ can be modified as [$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+\lambda_1(a+b)& 0&0 \\
0 &1+\lambda_1(b\omega+a\omega^2)& 0 \\
0&0& 1+\lambda_1(b\omega^2+a\omega)
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}$$]{} In this case, $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ in the charged lepton mass basis is given by [$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+\lambda_1^2(|a|^2+|b|^2)& \lambda_1(a^*+b)+\lambda_1^2ab^*&\lambda_1(a+b^*)+\lambda_1^2a^*b \\
\lambda_1(a+b^*)+\lambda_1^2a^*b &1+\lambda_1^2(|a|^2+|b|^2)& \lambda_1(a^*+b)+\lambda_1^2ab^* \\
\lambda_1(a^*+b)+\lambda_1^2ab^*&\lambda_1(a+b^*)+\lambda_1^2a^*b& 1+\lambda_1^2(|a|^2+|b|^2)
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$]{} If $\lambda_1(a^*+b)+\lambda_1^2ab^*=0$, all the off diagonal elements vanish. For example, $\lambda_1=1$ and $a=b=\omega$ is the case. This condition also implies that off diagonal terms of $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ vanish so we do not expect any sizeable cLFV. However, this condition requires a cancellation of two different flavon contributions and is considered as a serious fine tuning different from vacuum alignment. We do not pursue this possibility any longer in this paper.
If $a^*=-b$ and both $|a|$ and $|b|$ are smaller than one, the (12) element of $Y_\nu$ is given by $-\lambda_1^2(a^*)^2$. The (23) element is the same and the (13) element is its complex conjugate, $-\lambda_1^2a^2$. In this way, LFV is suppressed quadratically even though it does not vanish. For $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ term, the (12) element is $2[1+\lambda_1^2(|a|^2+|b|^2)][\lambda_1(a^*+b)+\lambda_1^2ab^*]+[\lambda_1(a+b^*)+\lambda_1^2a^*b]^2$. For $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ term, the (23) element is the same and the (13) element is its complex conjugate. When $a^*=-b$, it is $-2\lambda_1^2a^2(1+2\lambda_1^2|a|^2)+\lambda_1^4(a^*)^4$, which is quadratically suppressed for small $a$. For illustration, suppose $\lambda_1a=\lambda_1b=i\rho$. The stabilization of such doublet VEV is discussed in Appendix B. The neutrino Dirac Yukawa has the form of [$$\begin{split}Y_\nu=y_\nu\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+2i\rho& 0&0 \\
0 &1-i\rho& 0 \\
0&0& 1-i\rho
\end{array}\right)
\label{eq:modYnu}\end{split}$$]{} and off-diagonal terms of $Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu$ in the charged lepton mass basis is suppressed to ${\cal O}(\rho^2)$, as expected, [$$\begin{split}(V_L^l)^\dagger (Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu) V_L^l=|y_\nu|^2\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+2\rho^2& \rho^2&\rho^2 \\
\rho^2 &1+2\rho^2& \rho^2 \\
\rho^2&\rho^2& 1+2\rho^2
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$]{} With this $Y_\nu$, neutrino mass matrix is given by [$$\begin{split}M_\nu=-|y_\nu|^2 \frac{v^2\sin^2\beta}{2w_1}\frac{1}{1-x^2}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+4i\rho-4\rho^2& 0&-x(1+i\rho+2\rho^2)\\
0 &(1-x^2)(1-2i\rho-\rho^2)& 0 \\
-x(1+i\rho+2\rho^2)&0& 1-2i\rho-\rho^2
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}$$]{} and the deviation of mixing from $\pi/4$ is given by [$$\begin{split}\delta=\Big|\frac{-6i\rho+3\rho^2}{4x(1
+i\rho+2\rho^2)}\Big|\simeq \frac{3\rho}{2x}\end{split}$$]{} such that [$$\begin{split}|V_{e3}|\simeq \frac{3\rho}{\sqrt6 x}.\end{split}$$]{}
To the first order in $\rho$, mass eigenvalues are given by [$$\begin{split}-|y_\nu|^2 \frac{v^2\sin^2 \beta}{2w_1}\Big(\frac{1+i\rho}{1+x}, 1-2i\rho, \frac{1+i\rho}{1-x}\Big).\end{split}$$]{} Taking absolute values of these eigenvalues, we obtain neutrino masses $-[|y_\nu|^2 v^2\sin ^2 \beta/(2w_1)](1/(1+x), 1, 1/(1-x))+{\cal O}(\rho^2)$.
In summary, we expect that even though the charged lepton flavor violating effects are generated in the $A_E$ term at one loop and in the $m_L^2$ term at two loop, they can be suppressed by extra small expansion parameter $\rho$ proportional to $\theta_{13}$. With the vacuum alignment of the doublet flavon $i(v,v)$, it is possible to cancel the first order correction of $\rho$ and the off-diagonal elements of the slepton mass squared would have $\rho^2$ suppression as a result. Fig. \[fig:theta13\] shows how measured $\theta_{13}$ can be explained for the choices of $\rho$ and $x$ parameters satisfying observed neutrino mass squared ratio, $\sqrt{R}$. The observed $\theta_{13} \sim 0.15$ can be accommodated for $\rho \sim 0.1$.
![ $\theta_{13}$ with respect to $\rho$ and $x$ parameters. All points in the colored region satisfy neutrino oscillation experiments. Neutrino $\theta_{13}$, indicated on contour label in radian, is measured as $0.144 < \theta_{13} < 0.160$ in $1 \sigma$ level, $0.127 < \theta_{13} < 0.174$ in $3 \sigma$ level. []{data-label="fig:theta13"}](nuoscrpx.eps){width="65.00000%"}
Model II {#Model II}
--------
Of course, $\theta_{13}$ can come from both Majorana mass correction and neutrino Dirac Yukawa correction. Only the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling can affect the cLFV. To see the two-parameter case, consider [$$\begin{split}Y_\nu=y_\nu \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+2i\rho & 0&0\\
0 &1 -i\rho& 0 \\
0&0& 1-i\rho
\end{array}\right)\end{split}$$]{} and [$$\begin{split} M_N=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_1 & 0&w_2 \\
0 &w_1 & 0 \\
w_2&0& w_1(1-\zeta)
\end{array}\right)
.\end{split}$$]{}
The neutrino mass is given by [$$\begin{split} M_\nu=-|y_\nu|^2 \frac{v^2\sin^2\beta}{2w_1}\frac{1}{1-x^2-\zeta}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+4i\rho-\zeta& 0&-x(1+i\rho) \\
0 &(1-x^2)(1-2i\rho)-\zeta & 0 \\
-x(1+i\rho)&0& 1-2i\rho
\end{array}\right) +{\cal O}(\rho^2, \zeta^2)
\end{split}$$]{} where $x=w_2/w_1$ again. Then, three neutrino mass eigenvalues are given by [$$\begin{split}-|y_\nu|^2 \frac{v^2\sin^2\beta}{2w_1}\Big( \frac{1+i\rho}{1+x}+\frac{\zeta}{2(1+x)^2}, 1-2i\rho, \frac{1+i\rho}{1-x}+\frac{\zeta}{2(1-x)^2}\Big)\end{split}$$]{} and [$$\begin{split}\delta = \frac{\sqrt{36 \rho^2+\zeta^2}}{4x}.\end{split}$$]{} Hence, we see the (13) element of the PMNS matrix is given by [$$\begin{split}|V_{e3}|=\Big|\frac{2\delta}{\sqrt6}\Big|=\Big|\frac{\sqrt{36 \rho^2+\zeta^2}}{2\sqrt6 x}\Big|.\end{split}$$]{} Moreover, $m_L^2$ from Yukawa mediation is controlled by the parameter $\rho$ only and $(V_L^l)^\dagger (Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu) V_L^l$ is the same as the previous case, [$$\begin{split}(V_L^l)^\dagger (Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu) V_L^l=|y_\nu|^2\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+2\rho^2& \rho^2&\rho^2 \\
\rho^2 &1+2\rho^2& \rho^2 \\
\rho^2&\rho^2& 1+2\rho^2
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$]{}
In the limit of $\zeta \to 0$, both $\theta_{13}$ and cLFV come from the neutrino Dirac Yukawa which corresponds to the Model I. In the opposite limit, $\rho \to 0$, $\theta_{13}$ is entirely obtained from Majorana mass term and cLFV does not appear. In addition, we can also constrain absolute mass scale of light neutrinos. The most stringent constraint on neutrino absolute mass is given by CMB data of WMAP experiment, combined with supernovae data and data on galaxy clustering, $\Sigma_{j} m_{j} \lesssim 0.68$eV, 95% C.L. Conservatively, we set the bound $2.6 \times 10^{14 } {\,\textrm{GeV}}\lesssim M_N$. Throughout paper, we use $M_N = 5 \times 10^{14}$GeV, the heaviest right-handed neutrino mass.
Charged Lepton Flavor Violation {#sec:LFV}
===============================
Since flavor structures of supersymmetric particles can be different from those of SM partners, flavor number is easily violated in SUSY. In general, the structure of the slepton mass matrix raises dangerous cLFV. Such cLFV in SUSY is studied in [@Hisano:1995cp; @Arganda:2005ji]. In our model, once the identity structure of the neutrino Yukawa coupling $Y_\nu$ is broken, cLFV is produced. As a possible modification, one may put off-diagonal terms into $Y_\nu$. On the other hand, when the degeneracy of $Y_\nu$ is broken, the combination of $Y_\nu$s in the charged lepton mass basis, $(V_L^l)^\dagger(Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu)V_L^l$ has off-diagonal terms as shown in Sec. \[sec:FlavorModel\]. The slepton mass squared gets extra contribution from neutrino Dirac Yukawa interactions, [$$\begin{split}\delta m_{L}^2 = \frac{B_N^2}{(4 \pi)^4} \Big[ \Big({\rm Tr} [Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger]+3{\rm Tr} [Y_U Y_U^\dagger] - 3 g_2^2 - \frac{1}{5} g_1^2 \Big) Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} + 3 Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger Y_{\nu} \Big].\end{split}$$]{} In the charged lepton mass basis, $(V_L^l)^\dagger m_L^2 V_L^l$ has off-diagonal elements and cLFV appears. Even though this is a general feature, it is also possible to find some parameter space in which charged lepton number is conserved. For example, in Sec. \[Model I\], off diagonal terms of the slepton soft mass squared, $(m_L^2)_{12}$ can vanish for specific value of $y_\nu$. Corresponding condition would be [$$\begin{split}(\delta m_L^2)_{12}&\propto \Big[{\rm Tr}[Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu]+3{\rm Tr} [Y_U Y_U^\dagger] -3g_2^2-\frac15 g_1^2\Big](Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu)_{12}+3(Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu)_{12}=0,\end{split}$$]{} which is equivalent to [$$\begin{split}(\delta m_L^2)_{12}&\propto \Big[3(1+2\rho^2)y_\nu^2+3y_t^2-3g_2^2-\frac15 g_1^2\Big]y_\nu^2 \rho^2+3y_\nu^4 2\rho^2
\\
& \simeq y_\nu^2 \Big[3y_t^2-3g_2^2-\frac15 g_1^2\Big]\rho^2+9y_\nu^4 \rho^2+{\cal O}(\rho^4)=0.\end{split}$$]{} Near the GUT scale, $g_1^2 \simeq g_2^2 \simeq 4\pi/28$, and $y_t \simeq 0.5$ so off diagonal term vanishes for $y_\nu \simeq 0.28$. For this value of $Y_\nu$, there would be no unwanted cLFV. This is different from the condition that diagonal contribution involving $Y_\nu$ vanishes, [$$\begin{split}(\delta m_L^2)_{ii}&\propto\Big[3(1+2\rho^2)y_\nu^2+3y_t^2-3g_2^2-\frac15 g_1^2\Big]y_\nu^2(1+2\rho^2)+3y_\nu^4(1+8\rho^2)
\\
& \simeq y_\nu^2 \Big[3y_t^2-3g_2^2-\frac15 g_1^2\Big]+6y_\nu^4 +{\cal O}(\rho^2)=0\end{split}$$]{} which is satisfied for $y_\nu \simeq 0.34$.
Of course, it does not mean that $y_\nu$ should take the lepton number conserving value. We have many constraints on $y_\nu$ from various observations. In this paper, we try to explain the $125$GeV Higgs mass with large A term generated from $y_\nu$. On the other hand, one may try to explain deviation of muon $g-2$ from the SM prediction. Moreover, degeneracy breaking parameter $\rho$ is used to explain sizable $\theta_{13}$. However, it is also difficult to find an appropriate value of $y_\nu$ which satisfies all of them. In this section, we present the cLFVs for parameters explaining the $125$GeV Higgs mass with large A term and $\theta_{13}$. Thereafter, we visit the muon $g-2$ constraints and the relation among $\theta_{13}$, cLFV, and the Higgs mass.
Experimental status {#subsec:status}
-------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -----------------------------
Observables Experimental bound Future sensitivity
\[0.2em\]
\[-1.1em\] ${\rm Br}(\mu \to e \gamma)$ $2.4 \times 10^{-12} [63]$ ${\cal O}(10^{-13})$ \[63\]
\[0.4em\] ${\rm Br}(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ $4.4 \times 10^{-8}$\[64\] $2.4\times10^{-9}$\[69\]
\[0.4em\] ${\rm Br}(\tau \to e \gamma)$ $3.3 \times 10^{-8}$\[64\] $3.0\times10^{-9}$ \[69\]
\[0.4em\] ${\rm Br}(\mu \to 3e)$ $1.0 \times 10^{-12}$ \[65\] ${\cal O}(10^{-16})$ \[70\]
\[0.4em\] ${\rm Br}(\tau \to 3e)$ $2.7 \times 10^{-8}$\[66\] $2.3\times10^{-10}$ \[69\]
\[0.4cm\] ${\rm Br}(\tau \to 3 \mu)$ $2.1 \times 10^{-8}$\[66\] $8.2\times10^{-10}$\[69\]
\[0.4em\] $\frac{\Gamma(\mu{\rm Ti}\to e{\rm Ti})}{\Gamma(\mu{\rm Ti}\to {\rm capture})}$ $4.3 \times 10^{-12}$\[67\] ${\cal O}(10^{-18})$\[71\]
\[0.4em\] $\frac{\Gamma(\mu{\rm Au}\to e{\rm Au})}{\Gamma(\mu{\rm Au}\to {\rm capture})}$ $7.0 \times 10^{-13}$\[68\]
\[0.4em\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -----------------------------
: Various LFV experimental bounds and future sensitivities. The table is adopted from [@Abada:2012cq].[]{data-label="table:LFVexp"}
The current experimental bounds and future sensitivities for various cLFV processes in the 90% C. L. are summarised in Table \[table:LFVexp\][@Beringer:1900zz; @Hewett:2012ns].
![Feynman diagrams for $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ process with neutralino-charged slepton internal lines in the mass insertion scheme. []{data-label="fig:LFVn"}](LFV1a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} [![Feynman diagrams for $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ process with neutralino-charged slepton internal lines in the mass insertion scheme. []{data-label="fig:LFVn"}](LFV1b.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}]{} 1.0cm [![Feynman diagrams for $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ process with neutralino-charged slepton internal lines in the mass insertion scheme. []{data-label="fig:LFVn"}](LFV1c.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}]{}
![Feynman diagrams for $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ process with chargino-sneutrino internal lines in the mass insertion scheme. []{data-label="fig:LFVc"}](LFV2a.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} [![Feynman diagrams for $l_j \to l_i \gamma$ process with chargino-sneutrino internal lines in the mass insertion scheme. []{data-label="fig:LFVc"}](LFV2b.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}]{}
![ Branching ratios of $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\tau \to \mu\gamma$ and $\tau \to e\gamma $ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ljligamma"}](meg.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"} 0.5cm ![ Branching ratios of $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\tau \to \mu\gamma$ and $\tau \to e\gamma $ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ljligamma"}](tmg.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} 0.5cm ![ Branching ratios of $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\tau \to \mu\gamma$ and $\tau \to e\gamma $ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ljligamma"}](teg.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
$l_j \to l_i \gamma$
--------------------
The amplitude for $l_j\to l_i\gamma$ is written as [$$\begin{split}T=e\epsilon^{\mu *}\overline{u_i}(p-q)\Big[q^2\gamma_\mu(A^L_1P_L+A_1^RP_R)
+m_{l_j}i\sigma_{\mu\nu}q^\nu(A_2^LP_L+A_2^RP_R)\Big]u_j(p).\end{split}$$]{} On the mass shell ($q^2\to0$), gauge invariance imposes that the chirality preserving part does not contribute to the $l_j\to l_i\gamma$ process. Hence, chirality flipping should take place in the on-shell $l_j\to l_i\gamma$ process. The decay rate is given by [$$\begin{split}\Gamma(l_j\to l_i\gamma) =\frac{e^2}{16\pi}m_{l_j}^5(|A^L_2|^2+|A^R_2|^2)\end{split}$$]{} and the branching ratio yields approximately [$$\begin{split}{\rm Br}(l_j \to l_i \gamma)\sim \frac{\alpha^3}{G_F^2}\frac{1}{m_{\rm SUSY}^4} \Big(\frac{(m_L^2)_{ij}}{m_{\rm SUSY}^2}\Big)^2.\end{split}$$]{}
In the mass insertion scheme, the chirality flipping can be easily analyzed. Consider first the case of the neutralino-charged slepton internal loop, as shown in Fig. \[fig:LFVn\]. Fig. \[fig:LFVn\] (a) shows the chirality flipping from a fermion mass insertion in the external lepton line. In Fig. \[fig:LFVn\] (b), chirality flipping takes place in the slepton internal line through the LR mixing insertion, $m_j(A-\mu\tan\beta)$. This term consists of flavor universal part $-m_j\mu\tan\beta$, which can be enhanced in the limit of large $\tan\beta$ and large $\mu$. The chirality flipping in Fig. \[fig:LFVn\] (c) is given by the Yukawa coupling of the lepton-slepton-Higgsino vertex. This vertex contains $1/\cos\beta$ factor which combines with a $\sin\beta$ in the Higgsino-gaugino mixing to give a $\tan\beta$ dependence to the diagram. Therefore, this diagram is enhanced in the large $\tan\beta$ limit. Note that it is inversely proportional to the $\mu$, the Higgsino mass. Since this diagram contains SUSY mass scale only, unlike other diagrams proportional to the Higgs VEV $v$ through $m_j$, it is dominant over all other diagrams with the neutralino-charged slepton internal loop in many cases. However, since the Higgsino-bino mass insertion $M_Z\sin\beta\sin\theta_W$ and Higgsino-wino mass insertion $-M_Z\sin\beta\cos\theta_W$ have the opposite signs, slight destructive interference occurs.
Next, the case of the chargino-sneutrino internal loop is shown in Fig. \[fig:LFVc\]. Diagrams are similar to those of the neutralino-charged slepton internal loop, except the absence of the slepton LR mixing, since the right handed neutrinos are already integrated out. Chirality flipping can occur either in the external lepton line (Fig. \[fig:LFVc\] (a)) or in the lepton-sneutrino-Higgsino vertex(Fig. \[fig:LFVc\] (b)). The latter diagram dominates over the former one, and since it does not have a destructive interference, it becomes the leading contribution over all other diagrams in many cases. The similar argument also applies to the discussion of muon $g-2$, whose SUSY contribution comes from the same diagram with flavor conservation. Following this diagram, SUSY enhances the muon $g-2$ for positive $\mu$[@Lopez:1993vi; @Chattopadhyay:1995ae].
In Fig. \[fig:ljligamma\], we show branching ratios of various $l_j\to l_i \gamma$ processes for Sec. \[Model I\]. In the graph, neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings are fixed to be $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$, while $\tan\beta$ and SUSY breaking scale are varied. Since off-diagonal terms of $m_L^2$ in the charged lepton mass basis are the same, normalized branching ratio, $\Gamma(l_j \to l_i\gamma)/m_j^5$ are almost identical. Therefore, branching ratios are closely related to the total decay rate of mother particle. For example, since total decay rate of tau is about $5.3$ times larger than that of muon, branching ratio of Br$(\mu \to e \gamma)$ is about $5.3$ times larger than Br$(\tau \to e \gamma)$ and Br$(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ which are almost the same.
$l_j^- \to l_i^-l_i^-l_i^+$
---------------------------
In many cases, dominant contribution comes from the photon penguin. $Z$ boson penguin is suppressed in general because of the accidental cancellation when the neutralino or chargino is pure gaugino or pure Higgsino[@Hirsch:2012ax]. Such accidental cancellation is broken by introducing TeV scale physics which couples to the sneutrino with the sizable coupling. This can be realised in the R-parity violating model or in the TeV inverse seesaw, for example[@Hirsch:2012ax; @Abada:2012cq].
In our case, photon penguin is a leading contribution, so we have a simple relation between Br$(l_j \to l_i \gamma)$, [$$\begin{split}\frac{{\rm Br}(l_j\to3l_i)}{{\rm Br}(l_j \to l_i \gamma)}=\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{m_{l_j}^2}{m_{l_i}^2}-\frac{11}{4}\Big).\label{eq:l3lllg}\end{split}$$]{} The box diagram is suppressed in general, except for some special cases, such as in SUSY with Dirac gauginos[@Fok:2010vk].
In Fig. \[fig:ltolll\], we show branching ratios of various $l_j\to 3l_i $ processes for for Sec. \[Model I\]. Fixed parameters are the same as $l_j\to l_i \gamma$ process. We see that ${\rm Br}(\mu \to 3e)$ is about 0.018 times suppressed than ${\rm Br}(\mu \to e \gamma)$ so Eq. (\[eq:l3lllg\]) is satisfied. Photon penguin is a leading contribution for $\mu \to 3e$ process. In the absence of special characteristic which can overcome the natural size of the branching ratio, Br($l_j^- \to l_i^-l_i^-l_i^+$) is $\alpha/\pi$ suppressed compared to Br($l_j^- \to l_i^- \gamma$).
![ Branching Ratios of $\mu \to 3e$, $\tau \to 3e$ and $\tau \to 3\mu$ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ltolll"}](meee.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"} 0.5cm ![ Branching Ratios of $\mu \to 3e$, $\tau \to 3e$ and $\tau \to 3\mu$ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ltolll"}](teee.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} 0.5cm ![ Branching Ratios of $\mu \to 3e$, $\tau \to 3e$ and $\tau \to 3\mu$ with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ltolll"}](tmmm.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
$\mu-e$ conversion
------------------
Conversion of the stopped muons in a nuclei to the electron is a promising channel to look for the charged lepton flavor violation. In principle there are many different operators including scalar, photon mediated vector, $Z$-boson mediated vector operators in addition to the dipole operator. Muon to electron conversion rate is conventionally normalised by muon capture rate. [$$\begin{split}
B_{\mu \to e} (Z) = \frac{\Gamma_{\rm conv} (Z,A)}{\Gamma_{\rm capt}(Z,A)}.
\end{split}$$]{} Here $Z$ is the atomic number of the atom. Different target provide a different $B_{\mu \to e}(Z)$ and relative ratio of $B_{\mu \to e}(Z)$ of at least two different target can provide information on possible types of the operators as different operators predict different ratios. In supersymmetric models[@Kitano:2002mt], dominant contribution to $\mu-e$ conversion comes from the dipole operator. As a result, $B(\mu \to e)(Z)$ is predicted to be suppressed by $\alpha/\pi$ compared to $B(\mu \to e \gamma)$. For different choice of $Z$, the conversion is suppressed by $10^{-3} \sim 5 \times 10^{-3}$. Current limit on the conversion rate is comparable to $\mu \to e \gamma$ branching ratio, but the future experiments on $\mu$ to e conversion will have better sensitivity. We plot $\mu-e$ conversion rate with the expected future sensitivity of planned experiments in Fig.\[fig:ueconv\].
![ $\mu-e$ conversion rate with respect to the lightest selectron mass for $\tan\beta=3, 10, 30$, $y_\nu=0.65$ and $\rho=0.1$. []{data-label="fig:ueconv"}](mec.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Correlation between Muon $g-2$, $\theta_{13}$, cLFV and the Higgs {#sec:mug-2}
------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Branching ratio of $\mu \to e \gamma$ as a function of $\theta_{13}$ for $\tan \beta = 10$, $y_{\nu}= 0.62$, $\rho = 0.1$. Future MEG expected bound is $O(10^{-13})$, we set the value $2 \times 10^{-13}$. Observed muon $g-2$ discrepancy is about $(2.25 \pm 1) \times 10^{-9} $, we draw Br($\mu \to e \gamma$) at each muon $g-2$ contribution. Green and yellow band indicate $1 \sigma$, $3 \sigma$ level of neutrino $\theta_{13}$, respectively. In upper figure, $\theta_{13}$ is purely obtained from neutrino Dirac Yukawa splitting. In lower figure, only $1/15$ portion of $\theta_{13}$ is obtained from neutrino Dirac Yukawa. []{data-label="fig:connection"}](theta13.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"} ![ Branching ratio of $\mu \to e \gamma$ as a function of $\theta_{13}$ for $\tan \beta = 10$, $y_{\nu}= 0.62$, $\rho = 0.1$. Future MEG expected bound is $O(10^{-13})$, we set the value $2 \times 10^{-13}$. Observed muon $g-2$ discrepancy is about $(2.25 \pm 1) \times 10^{-9} $, we draw Br($\mu \to e \gamma$) at each muon $g-2$ contribution. Green and yellow band indicate $1 \sigma$, $3 \sigma$ level of neutrino $\theta_{13}$, respectively. In upper figure, $\theta_{13}$ is purely obtained from neutrino Dirac Yukawa splitting. In lower figure, only $1/15$ portion of $\theta_{13}$ is obtained from neutrino Dirac Yukawa. []{data-label="fig:connection"}](theta13partial.eps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}
![ Contour plot of Higgs mass(red solid line), cLFV(black dashed line), and muon $g-2$(blue dashed line) in $B_N$ - $y_\nu$ plane for $\rho = 0.1$, $\tan \beta = 30$. []{data-label="fig:BNYN"}](BNYN.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The anomalous magnetic moment of muon (muon $g-2$) has a long standing sizable deviation from the SM prediction. The observed value is [@Bennett:2006fi] [$$\begin{split}a_\mu({\rm Exp})=11 659 208.9(6.3)\times10^{-10}, \end{split}$$]{} whereas the SM prediction[@Hagiwara:2011af] is given by [$$\begin{split}a_\mu({\rm SM})=11 659 182.8(4.9)\times10^{-10}\end{split}$$]{} so we may have new physics contribution explaining the 3.3 $\sigma$ discrepancy, [$$\begin{split}\delta a_\mu\equiv a_\mu({\rm Exp})-a_\mu({\rm SM})=(26.1\pm 8.0)\times10^{-10}.\end{split}$$]{} In the context of SUSY [@Moroi:1995yh; @Cho:2011rk], muon $g-2$ has the same Feynman diagram structure as the cLFV process $\mu \to e\gamma$. The crucial difference is that muon $g-2$ is flavor-conserving process, while $\mu \to e\gamma$ violates lepton flavor, $L_\mu$ and $L_e$. Therefore, $\delta a_\mu$ and ${\rm Br}(\mu \to e\gamma)$ have a strong correlation[@Hisano:2001qz], [$$\begin{split} {\rm Br}(\mu \to e\gamma)\simeq 3\times10^{-5}\Big(\frac{\delta a_\mu^{\rm SUSY}}{10^{-9}}\Big)^2\Big(\frac{(m_L^2)_{12}}{m_{\rm SUSY}^2}\Big)^2.\end{split}$$]{} Moreover, the neutrino Dirac Yukawa $Y_\nu$ contains information on the neutrino oscillation observables. Since we consider the model where parameters of $Y_\nu$ are related to $\theta_{13}$ and cLFV, we have a strong correlation between Br$(\mu \to e \gamma)$, $\theta_{13}$, and muon $g-2$ as discussed in [@Hisano:2001qz].
Fig. \[fig:connection\] summarises the result. Both muon anomalous magnetic moment and cLFV is a function of $\tan \beta/M^2$ in which $M$ is the typical supersymmetry breaking scale. The cLFV has extra suppression proportional to $(m_{L}^2)_{12}$. The $S_4$ flavor model discussed here is constructed from the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix which is proportional to the identity matrix and does not provide any off-diagonal entry in the slepton mass squared matrix if $\theta_{13}$ vanishes. Recently measured $\theta_{13} \sim 0.15$ provides an extra information depending on the origin of modification for nonzero $\theta_{13}$.
If the full $\theta_{13}$ is explained by the degeneracy lift of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix and if the entire discrepancy of the muon anomalous magnetic moment should be explained by light slepton, the current MEG bound tells that $\theta_{13}$ should be smaller than 0.01 which is incompatible with the observation recently made. The parameter space which is consistent with $\mu \to e \gamma$ bound and the $\theta_{13}$ predicts that muon anomalous magnetic moment is at least 1/20 times smaller than what is needed.
If the nonzero $\theta_{13}$ is entirely generated by modifying the neutrino Majorana mass matrix, there would be no cLFV even for the sizeable $\theta_{13}$. In reality, the subleading corrections in the simple flavor model would appear in both sectors and the observed $\theta_{13}$ would be a combined result of various sources. The bottom plot of Fig. \[fig:connection\] shows the hybrid case in which only $1/15$ of the $\theta_{13}$ is from the neutrino Dirac Yukawa modification. In this case $\theta_{13}$, muon anomalous magnetic moment can be explained at the same time. The $\mu \to e \gamma$ bound is satisfied and the the consistent region can be reached by the planned future MEG experiment as it predicts larger branching ratio of $\mu \to e \gamma$ than the planned expected sensitivity.
Fig. \[fig:BNYN\] shows the tension between the muon $g-2$ and the Higgs mass. Even if we take the model in which the neutrino Dirac Yukawa remains to be proportional to the identiy matrix such that no cLFV constraints apply, 125 GeV Higgs mass needs $B_N$ much larger thna 300 TeV. Then the slepton is too heavy and the muon $g-2$ is much smaller than $10^{-9}$. The figure also shows an interesting feature that the off-diagonal elements of $m_L^2$ vanish at around $y_\nu = 0.3$ and the cLFV bounds are very weak at around $y_\nu = 0.3$.
Conclusion
==========
We considered the right-handed neutrinos as messengers of supersymmetry breaking in the minimal gauge mediation. Direct coupling of neutrino messenger with the Higgs field $H_u$ and the lepton doublets $L_i$ provides soft-trilinear $A$ term for the top Yukawa and can help increase the light Higgs mass by realising the maximal stop mixing scenario. We call this setup as ’neutrino assisted gauge mediation’. The Yukawa mediation given by neutrino messengers also appear at soft scalar masses of the Higgs $H_u$, the lepton doublets $L_i$. At the same time it affects the soft scalar masses of the fields which couple to $H_u$ and $L_i$ at two loop. Among those, the stop mass squared gets the largest correction as the top Yukawa coupling is of order one. For $y_{\nu}$ slightly larger than $0.7$, the correction is big enough to make stop tachyonic. Therefore, this realises the natural supersymmetry spectrum. At the same time maximal mixing is achieved by two effects, large $A_t$ and small $m_{\tilde{t}}^2$ at around $y_\nu \sim 0.7$. In general this effect allows to explain the observed Higgs mass at around 125 GeV using around 1 TeV stop mass. Compared to the case when the neutrino assistance is turned off ($y_\nu=0$), about 5 GeV of the Higgs mass is enhanced.
In general the off-diagonal entry of the slepton mass squared, $m_{L}^2$, appears at the messenger scale and can make the charged lepton flavor violating process to occur. The detailed quantitative prediction of cLFV highly depends on flavor model building. We provided a representative model based on $S_4$ flavor symmetry in which the Dirac neutrino Yukawa can be proportional to the identity if $\theta_{13}=0$. For nonzero $\theta_{13}$, two options were considered. Firstly, the total $\theta_{13}$ can be explained by the modification of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix. Secondly, the $\theta_{13}$ can be explained by modifying the Majorana mass matrix of neutrinos. For the former, very stringent bound on the slepton mass comes from $\mu \to e \gamma$ and the slepton should be heavier than $2 \sim 4$ TeV, depending on $\tan \beta$. Also for the slepton mass at around 2 TeV with $\tan \beta = 10$, the $\mu \to e \gamma$ is just below the current experimental bound and we expect to observe the $\mu \to e \gamma$ in the near future.
Even for the second case in which we can safely avoid cLFV constraints, the neutrino assisted gauge mediation (in its minimal form with one copy of $5$ and $\bar{5}$ messenger) sets the lower bound on the slepton mass to explain the Higgs mass. 1 $\sim$ 2 TeV slepton mass at the same time sets an upper bound on the possible contribution to muon anomalous magnetic moment and $a_\mu \sim 10^{-10}$ is the upper bound.
In this paper we proposed the neutrino assisted gauge mediation and showed a possible way out to avoid the strong cLFV constraints. Even then the current scheme has a tension with the muon anomalous magnetic moment which needs a lighter slepton. The extension of the minimal neutrino assisted gauge mediation to multiple messengers might ameliorate the tension between the spectrum needed to explain the Higgs mass and the muon anomalous magnetic moment.
This work is supported by the NRF of Korea No. 2011-0017051.
Appendix 0: Sparticle Spectrum Sample Point {#sec:App0 .unnumbered}
===========================================
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
$(\tan \beta = 10 , B_N = 360 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$ $(\tan \beta = 30 , B_N = 300 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$
\[0.2em\]
\[-1.1em\] $\tilde{\nu}_e, \tilde{\nu}_{\mu}, \tilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ 2957, 2961, 3013 2429, 2465, 2502
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{e}_1, \tilde{\mu}_1, \tilde{\tau}_1$ 1364, 1364, 1333 1139, 1138, 880
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{e}_2, \tilde{\mu}_2, \tilde{\tau}_2$ 3013, 2962, 2954 2503, 2467, 2427
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{u}_1 ,\tilde{c}_1, \tilde{t}_1$ 2827, 2827, 634 2384, 2384, 637
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{d}_1, \tilde{s}_1, \tilde{b}_1$ 2853, 2853, 2820 2406, 2406, 2283
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{u}_2, \tilde{c}_2, \tilde{t}_2$ 3177, 3177, 2252 2675, 2675, 1868
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{d}_2, \tilde{s}_2 ,\tilde{b}_2$ 3178, 3178, 2297 2676, 2676, 1893
\[0.2em\] $h_0, A, H_0 ,H_{\pm} $ 125, 1705, 1705, 1707 125, 1031, 1031, 1034
\[0.2em\] $\chi_1, \chi_2, \chi_3 ,\chi_4 $ 487, 850, -892, 980 405, 713, -758, 829
\[0.2em\] $\chi_{+}, \chi_{-}$ 849, 980 712, 829
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{g} $ 2514 2126
\[0.2em\]
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
: Sparticle spectrum at the point giving $125 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$ Higgs mass with the lowest $B_N$[]{data-label="table:Spectrum125"}
------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
$(\tan \beta = 10, B_N = 240 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$ $(\tan \beta = 30 , B_N = 200 {\,\textrm{TeV}})$
\[0.2em\]
\[-1.1em\] $\tilde{\nu}_e, \tilde{\nu}_{\mu}, \tilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ 1971, 1974, 2009 1657, 1682, 1707
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{e}_1, \tilde{\mu}_1, \tilde{\tau}_1$ 915, 915, 894 770, 769, 590
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{e}_2, \tilde{\mu}_2, \tilde{\tau}_2$ 2010, 1976, 1970 1709, 1684, 1657
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{u}_1, \tilde{c}_1, \tilde{t}_1$ 1937, 1937, 521 1633, 1633, 404
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{d}_1, \tilde{s}_1, \tilde{b}_1$ 1954, 1954, 1931 1650, 1650, 1564
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{u}_2, \tilde{c}_2, \tilde{t}_2$ 2169, 2169, 1569 1828, 1828, 1286
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{d}_2, \tilde{s}_2, \tilde{b}_2$ 2170, 2170, 1586 1829, 1829, 1291
\[0.2em\] $h_0, A, H_0, H_{\pm} $ 123, 1220, 1220, 1223 123, 679, 679, 684
\[0.2em\] $\chi_1, \chi_2, \chi_3, \chi_4 $ 322, 600, -729, 757 267, 466, -520, 579
\[0.2em\] $\chi_{+}, \chi_{-}$ 600, 757 465, 579
\[0.2em\] $\tilde{g} $ 1737 1470
\[0.2em\]
------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
: Sparticle spectrum at the point giving $123 {\,\textrm{GeV}}$ Higgs mass with the lowest $B_N$[]{data-label="table:Spectrum123"}
Appendix A: representations of $S_4$ symmetry and tensor products {#sec:AppA .unnumbered}
=================================================================
$S_4$ is a non-abelian discrete symmetry and consists of all permutations among four quantities. For a review, see [@Ishimori:2010au]. Irreducible representations of $S_4$ are two singlets ${\bf 1}, {\bf 1^\prime}$, one singlet ${\bf 2}$, and two triplets ${\bf 3}, {\bf 3^\prime}$. Tensor products among them are given as follows: [$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3}&= (x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3)_{\bf 1}+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 y_1+\omega x_2y_2 +\omega^2 x_3y_3\\
x_1 y_1+\omega^2 x_2y_2 +\omega x_3y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2}
\\
&+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 + x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1+ x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2+x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3}
+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 - x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1- x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2-x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime} \end{split}$$]{}
[$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime}&= (x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3)_{\bf 1}+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 y_1+\omega x_2y_2 +\omega^2 x_3y_3\\
x_1 y_1+\omega^2 x_2y_2 +\omega x_3y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2}
\\
&+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 + x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1+ x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2+x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3}
+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 - x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1- x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2-x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime} \end{split}$$]{}
[$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime}&= (x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3)_{\bf 1^\prime}+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 y_1+\omega x_2y_2 +\omega^2 x_3y_3\\
-(x_1 y_1+\omega^2 x_2y_2 +\omega x_3y_3)
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2}
\\
&+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 + x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1+ x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2+x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime}
+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_3 - x_3y_2\\
x_3 y_1- x_1y_3 \\
x_1y_2-x_2y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3} \end{split}$$]{}
[$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2}&= (x_1y_2+x_2y_1)_{\bf 1}+ (x_1y_2-x_2y_1)_{\bf 1^\prime}+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2y_2 \\
x_1 y_1
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2}
\end{split}$$]{}
[$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(x_1+x_2)y_1\\
(\omega^2 x_1+\omega x_2) y_2 \\
(\omega x_1 + \omega^2 x_2)y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3} +
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(x_1-x_2)y_1\\
(\omega^2 x_1-\omega x_2) y_2 \\
(\omega x_1 - \omega^2 x_2)y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime} \end{split}$$]{}
[$$\begin{split}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1 \\
x_2
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 2} \times
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(x_1+x_2)y_1\\
(\omega^2 x_1+\omega x_2) y_2 \\
(\omega x_1 + \omega^2 x_2)y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3^\prime} +
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(x_1-x_2)y_1\\
(\omega^2 x_1-\omega x_2) y_2 \\
(\omega x_1 - \omega^2 x_2)y_3
\end{array}\right)_{\bf 3} \end{split}$$]{} and trivially, we have ${\bf 3} \times {\bf 1^\prime} ={\bf 3^\prime}$, ${\bf 3^\prime} \times {\bf 1^\prime} ={\bf 3^\prime}$, and ${\bf 2} \times {\bf 1^\prime} ={\bf 2}$.
Appendix B: Remarks on the flavon vacuum stability {#sec:AppB .unnumbered}
==================================================
In [@BenTov:2012tg], it was shown that $A_4$ triplet flavon vacuum in the direction of $(1,1,1)$ and $(1,0,0)$, ($(0,1,0)$, $(0,0,1)$ are the same) is favored compared to other directions, such as $(1,1,0)$. Since $A_4$ symmetry is the subgroup of the $S_4$ composed of even permutations, similar arguments hold. In this Appendix, we argue that triplet flavon directions favored in $A_4$ model are also favored in the $S_4$ model and that $S_4$ doublet vacuum favors the $(1,1)$ direction.
Rigid SUSY makes the discussion more simple, because the potential $V$ is minimized at $\langle V \rangle=0$. On the other hand, extra symmetries like $Z_4$ and U(1)$_L$ more restrict possible terms in the superpotential. Suppose that U(1)$_L$ symmetry is discretized to, for example, $Z_8$ symmetry. In this case, only quartic terms $\Phi^4$ and $\chi^4$ are allowed. Let us assume that breaking of extra symmetries introduces quadratic term, like $m_1\Phi^2$ or $m_2 \chi^2$. To achieve this, let us consider ‘$Z_4$ breaking singlets’ $\psi_1$, $\bar{\psi}_1$ and ‘lepton number breaking singlets’ $\psi_2$, $\bar{\psi}_2$ with $S_4 \times Z_4 \times{\rm U(1)}_L $ quantum numbers [$$\begin{split}&\psi_1: ({\bf 1},3,0),~~~\bar{\psi}_1 : ({\bf 1},1,0),
\\
& \psi_2: ({\bf 1},0,2),~~~\bar{\psi}_2 : ({\bf 1},0,6).\end{split}$$]{} They do not combine with $\bar{E}LH_d$, $NLH_u$ and $NN$ to make singlets under all symmetries imposed. Then, they can couple to $\Phi^2$ or $\chi^2$ such that a superpotential is given by [$$\begin{split}W(\psi_1, \bar{\psi}_1, \psi_2, \bar{\psi}_2)=&\frac{1}{\Lambda}[\Phi^2\bar{\psi}_1\psi_1 + \chi^2\bar{\psi}_2\psi_2]
\\
&-M_1 \bar{\psi}_1\psi_1 +\frac{1}{\Lambda}[\kappa_1(\bar{\psi}_1\psi_1)^2+\kappa_2 (\psi_1)^4 + \kappa_3 (\bar{\psi}_1)^4]
\\
&-M_2 \bar{\psi}_2\psi_2 +\frac{1}{\Lambda}[\kappa_1^\prime(\bar{\psi}_2\psi_2)^2+\kappa_2^\prime (\psi_2)^4 + \kappa_3^\prime (\bar{\psi}_2)^4] .\end{split}$$]{} In this superpotential, $\bar{\psi_1}{\psi}_1$ and $\bar{\psi_2}{\psi}_2$ pairs have VEVs and they provide $m_1 \Phi^2+m_2 \chi^2$ terms. With this setup, the triplet superpotential has the form of [$$\begin{split}W&=mS^2+\frac{\lambda_1}{\Lambda} (x^2+y^2+z^2)^2+\frac{\lambda_2}{\Lambda}(x^2+\omega y^2+\omega^2 z^2)(x^2+\omega^2 y^2+\omega z^2)
\\
&+\frac{\lambda_3}{\Lambda}(xy+yz+zx)^2\end{split}$$]{} where $S=(x, y, z)$ represents the generic $S_4$ triplet such as $\Phi$ or $\chi$. Note also that the superpotential has an accidental $Z_2$ symmetry under which $\psi_{1,2}$ and $\bar{\psi}_{1,2}$ are odd whereas other fields are even. If this $Z_2$ symmetry is imposed, $(\Phi^2\psi_1/\Lambda^3)\bar{E}LH_d$ and $(\Phi^2\psi_2/\Lambda^2)NN$ terms, which change the flavor structure in the subleading orders are forbidden. In this case, charged lepton Yukawa coupling structure in dimension-4 operator is preserved up to dimension-6 operator whereas Majorana mass structure in dimension-3 operator is preserved up to dimension-5 operator so corrections to them are highly suppressed.
Each term of the F-term potential $V=|\partial W/\partial x|^2+|\partial W/\partial y|^2+|\partial W/\partial z|^2$ is given by [$$\begin{split}&\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}=mx+\frac{4\lambda_1}{\Lambda}x(x^2+y^2+z^2)+\frac{2\lambda_2}{\Lambda}x(2x^2-y^2-z^2)+\frac{2\lambda_3}{\Lambda}(y+z)(xy+yz+zx)
\\
&\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}=my+\frac{4\lambda_1}{\Lambda}x(x^2+y^2+z^2)+\frac{2\lambda_2}{\Lambda}y(2y^2-z^2-x^2)+\frac{2\lambda_3}{\Lambda}(z+x)(xy+yz+zx)
\\
&\frac{\partial W}{\partial z}=mz+\frac{4\lambda_1}{\Lambda}z(x^2+y^2+z^2)+\frac{2\lambda_2}{\Lambda}z(2z^2-x^2-y^2)+\frac{2\lambda_3}{\Lambda}(x+y)(xy+yz+zx). \end{split}$$]{} Stable vacuum requires that these three terms should be zero simultaneously. For vacuum $\langle S \rangle =v(1,1,1)$, three terms give the same condition, [$$\begin{split}12(\lambda_1+\lambda_3)\Big(\frac{v^3}{\Lambda}\Big)+mv=0\end{split}$$]{} so the vacuum is stabilized at $v^2=-m\Lambda/[12(\lambda_1+\lambda_3)]$. For vacuum $\langle S \rangle =v(1,0,0)$, the second and third terms vanish trivially and the first term gives [$$\begin{split}4(\lambda_1+\lambda_3)\Big(\frac{v^3}{\Lambda}\Big)+mv=0\end{split}$$]{} so the vacuum is stabilized at $v^2=-m\Lambda/[4(\lambda_1+\lambda_3)]$. The vacuum in the direction $(0,1,0)$ and $(0,0,1)$ gives the same result by permutational property of $S_4$. On the other hand, vacuum $\langle S \rangle =v(1,1,0)$ gives two conditions, [$$\begin{split}&\frac{v^3}{\Lambda}(8\lambda_1+2\lambda_2+2\lambda_3)+mv=0
\\
&\lambda_3 v^3=0.\end{split}$$]{} If $\lambda_3$ is not forbidden by another symmetry, $v=0$ is the only solution and nontrivial vacuum can not be developed.
$S_4$ doublet stabilization can be discused in the same way. Renormalizable superpotential for doublet $(x,y)$ is written as [$$\begin{split}W=m (xy)+\lambda (x^3+y^3)\end{split}$$]{} and stabilization condition [$$\begin{split}&\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}=2my+3\lambda x^2=0
\\
&\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}=2mx+3\lambda y^2=0\end{split}$$]{} requires that $x=y$. So the vacuum choice for Eq. (\[eq:modYnu\]) is stable.
Appendix C: Comment on Kähler potential corrections {#sec:AppC .unnumbered}
===================================================
In our setup, Yukawa couplings are constructed from non-renormalizable dimension-4 superpotential with several flavons. These flavons also appear in the non-renormalizable Kähler potential and kinetic terms are written in the form of [$$\begin{split}K_{i\bar{j}}\partial_\mu \phi^{\bar{j} \dagger} \partial^\mu \phi^i
-iK_{i\bar{j}}\bar{\psi}^{\bar j}\bar{\sigma}_\mu \partial^\mu \psi^i\end{split}$$]{} where $\phi$ and $\psi$ represent bosonic and fermionic fields, respectively. The Kähler potential of charged lepton supermultiplet $L$ is given by [$$\begin{split}K=\Big[1+a_1 \frac{\Phi^\dagger \Phi}{\Lambda^2} +a_2 \frac{\chi^\dagger \chi}{\Lambda^2} \Big] L^\dagger L \Big|_{S_4 ~{\rm singlets}}+\cdots\end{split}$$]{} and similar terms can be written for other fields, $\bar{E}^\dagger \bar{E}$, $N^\dagger N$, $H_{u,d}^\dagger H_{u,d}$, etc. Then we have quite complicate terms. For example, from $(\Phi_{\bf 3}^\dagger \Phi_{\bf 3}/\Lambda^2) L^\dagger L$ where $\Phi_{\bf 3}$ vacuum is given by $v_2(1,1,1)$, we have [$$\begin{split}a_1\frac{\Phi_{\bf 3}^\dagger \Phi_{\bf 3}}{\Lambda^2} L^\dagger L \Big|_{S_4 ~{\rm singlets}}=& a_{1,1}\frac{v_2^2}{\Lambda^2} (L_1^\dagger L_1 + L_2^\dagger L_2 + L_3^\dagger L_3)
\\
&+a_{1,2}\frac{v_2^2}{\Lambda^2}\Big[ L_2^\dagger L_3 + L_3^\dagger L_2
+ L_3^\dagger L_1+ L_1^\dagger L_3 + L_1^\dagger L_2 + L_2^\dagger L_1 \Big].\end{split}$$]{} Since $\langle \Phi \rangle/\Lambda=v_2/\Lambda$ is responsible for charged lepton Yukawa couplings, we see $4\pi v_2/\Lambda \gtrsim Y_\tau=m_\tau/[(v/\sqrt2)\cos\beta] \sim 0.1$ for $\tan\beta =10$. On the other hand, $\chi_{\bf 3}$ has another vacuum direction, $w_2(0,1,0)$. Then [$$\begin{split}a_2\frac{\chi^\dagger \chi}{\Lambda^2}L^\dagger L\Big|_{S_4 ~{\rm singlets}}=&a_{2,1}\frac{w_2^2}{\Lambda^2}(L_1^\dagger L_1 + L_2^\dagger L_2 + L_3^\dagger L_3)
\\
&+a_{2,2}\frac{w_2^2}{\Lambda^2}(-L_1^\dagger L_1 + L_2^\dagger L_2 - L_3^\dagger L_3)\end{split}$$]{} so it just rescales the fields. Moreover, since See-Saw scale is about $10^{14}{\,\textrm{GeV}}$, we have suppressed effect, $4\pi\chi/\Lambda \sim 0.01$ with $\Lambda$ is the GUT scale. In the same way, doublet and singlet flavons in the Kähler potential just contribute to the field rescalings.
Physical fields are defined with canonical kinetic terms, so we should make field redefinitions and they affect flavor structures in principle. In our work, however, such effects are not considered by assuming small coeffecients $a_{1,2}$. For example, diagonalization of $Y_E$ demonstrated above is not affected if $a_1 ( v_2^2/\Lambda^2) \lesssim (m_e/m_\tau) \sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$, [*i.e.*]{} $a_1 \lesssim 3 $.
On the other hand, mixings in the Kähler potential between flavons can be dangerous. For example, kinetic mixing between flavons such as $\bar{\psi}_1^\dagger \psi_2^\dagger \Phi_{\bf 3}^\dagger \chi_{\bf 3}/\Lambda^2$ can introduce small correction to $Y_E$ or $M_N$ with unwanted $S_4$ triplet vacuum direction. Such effect is suppressed by $\bar{\psi}_1^\dagger \psi_2^\dagger/\Lambda^2$ and can be more suppressed with tiny coefficient.
[99]{}
\#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Rev. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. [**B\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. [**B\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. [**D\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2(E)]{} \#1\#2\#3[JHEP [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[JCAP [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Z. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Euro. Phys. J. [**C\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2 ]{} \#1\#2\#3[Astrophys. J. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nature [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Astrophys. J. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2 ]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nature [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. [**B\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{} \#1\#2\#3[Prog. Theor. Phys. [**\#1**]{} (\#3) \#2]{}
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 1 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7214 \[hep-ex\]\]. S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 30 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7235 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Dine and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 1277 (1993) \[hep-ph/9303230\].
M. Dine, A. E. Nelson and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1362 (1995) \[hep-ph/9408384\]. M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, Y. Nir and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 2658 (1996) \[hep-ph/9507378\]. G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rept. [**322**]{}, 419 (1999) \[hep-ph/9801271\]. M. A. Ajaib, I. Gogoladze, F. Nasir and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B [**713**]{}, 462 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.2856 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. L. Feng, Z. ’e. Surujon and H. -B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 035003 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.6480 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. J. Bae, K. Choi, E. J. Chun, S. H. Im, C. B. Park and C. S. Shin, arXiv:1208.2555 \[hep-ph\]. S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 035004 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.2732 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 035017 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.2956 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. J. Bae, T. H. Jung and H. D. Kim, arXiv:1208.3748 \[hep-ph\].
Z. Kang, T. Li, T. Liu, C. Tong and J. M. Yang, arXiv:1203.2336 \[hep-ph\].
N. Craig, S. Knapen, D. Shih and Y. Zhao, arXiv:1206.4086 \[hep-ph\]. Y. Shadmi and P. Z. Szabo, JHEP [**1206**]{}, 124 (2012) \[arXiv:1103.0292 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Albaid, K. S. Babu and K. S. Babu, arXiv:1207.1014 \[hep-ph\]. M. Abdullah, I. Galon, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, arXiv:1209.4904 \[hep-ph\]. J. L. Evans, M. Ibe, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 095004 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.2611 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. L. Evans, M. Ibe and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**705**]{}, 342 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.3006 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Buican, P. Meade, N. Seiberg and D. Shih, JHEP [**0903**]{}, 016 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.3668 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Dermisek and H. D. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 211803 (2006) \[hep-ph/0601036\]. R. Dermisek, H. D. Kim and I. -W. Kim, JHEP [**0610**]{}, 001 (2006) \[hep-ph/0607169\].
K. Choi, E. J. Chun, H. D. Kim, W. I. Park and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 123503 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.2900 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. R. Dvali, G. F. Giudice and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B [**478**]{}, 31 (1996) \[hep-ph/9603238\]. G. F. Giudice, H. D. Kim and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Lett. B [**660**]{}, 545 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.4448 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. R. Joaquim and A. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 181801 (2006) \[hep-ph/0604083\]. R. N. Mohapatra, N. Okada and H. -B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 075011 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.4524 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Fileviez Perez, H. Iminniyaz, G. Rodrigo and S. Spinner, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 095013 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.1360 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 961 (1986). M. Ciuchini, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, L. Silvestrini, S. K. Vempati and O. Vives, Nucl. Phys. B [**783**]{}, 112 (2007) \[hep-ph/0702144 \[HEP-PH\]\].
P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B [**530**]{}, 167 (2002) \[hep-ph/0202074\]. Y. Lin, Nucl. Phys. B [**824**]{}, 95 (2010) \[arXiv:0905.3534 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Ishimori and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 045030 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.0075 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, L. Merlo and E. Stamou, JHEP [**1208**]{}, 021 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.4670 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. F. King, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 136 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.0506 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B [**67**]{}, 421 (1977). T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C [**7902131**]{}, 95 (1979). T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**64**]{}, 1103 (1980). M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C [**790927**]{}, 315 (1979). R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 912 (1980). G. F. Giudice, P. Paradisi and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B [**694**]{}, 26 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.2388 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Nucl. Phys. B [**511**]{}, 25 (1998) \[hep-ph/9706540\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 115005 (1998) \[hep-ph/9803290\]. Z. Chacko and E. Ponton, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 095004 (2002) \[hep-ph/0112190\]. D. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 055004 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.5751 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Nucl. Phys. B [**757**]{}, 19 (2006) \[hep-ph/0606105\]. Y. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[DOUBLE-CHOOZ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 131801 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.6353 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Hartz \[T2K Collaboration\], arXiv:1201.1846 \[hep-ex\]. P. Adamson [*et al.*]{} \[MINOS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 191801 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.2772 \[hep-ex\]\]. F. P. An [*et al.*]{} \[DAYA-BAY Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 171803 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.1669 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. K. Ahn [*et al.*]{} \[RENO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 191802 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.0626 \[hep-ex\]\]. X. -G. He, Y. -Y. Keum and R. R. Volkas, JHEP [**0604**]{}, 039 (2006) \[hep-ph/0601001\]. X. -G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B [**645**]{}, 427 (2007) \[hep-ph/0607163\]. X. -G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 053004 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.4359 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. BenTov, X. -G. He and A. Zee, arXiv:1208.1062 \[hep-ph\].
F. Bazzocchi and L. Merlo, arXiv:1205.5135 \[hep-ph\]. J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012). G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo and A. M. Rotunno, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 013012 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.5254 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. Salvado and T. Schwetz, arXiv:1209.3023 \[hep-ph\].
J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 2442 (1996) \[hep-ph/9510309\]. E. Arganda and M. J. Herrero, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 055003 (2006) \[hep-ph/0510405\]. J. L. Hewett, H. Weerts, R. Brock, J. N. Butler, B. C. K. Casey, J. Collar, A. de Govea and R. Essig [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1205.2671 \[hep-ex\]. J. Adam [*et al.*]{} \[MEG Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 171801 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.5547 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 021802 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.2381 \[hep-ex\]\]. U. Bellgardt [*et al.*]{} \[SINDRUM Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B [**299**]{}, 1 (1988). K. Hayasaka, K. Inami, Y. Miyazaki, K. Arinstein, V. Aulchenko, T. Aushev, A. M. Bakich and A. Bay [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**687**]{}, 139 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.3221 \[hep-ex\]\]. C. Dohmen [*et al.*]{} \[SINDRUM II. Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**317**]{}, 631 (1993). W. H. Bertl [*et al.*]{} \[SINDRUM II Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{}, 337 (2006). B. O’Leary [*et al.*]{} \[SuperB Collaboration\], arXiv:1008.1541 \[hep-ex\]. A. Blondel [*et al.*]{}, http://www.psi.ch/mu3e/DocumentsEN/LOI\_Mu3e\_PSI.pdf
The PRIME working group, unpublished; LOI to J-PARC 50-GeV PS, LOI-25, http://www-ps.kek.jp/jhf-np/LOIlist/pdf/L25.pdf
A. Abada, D. Das, A. Vicente and C. Weiland, JHEP [**1209**]{}, 015 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.6497 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 366 (1994) \[hep-ph/9308336\]. U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 1648 (1996) \[hep-ph/9507386\]. M. Hirsch, F. Staub and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 113013 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.1825 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Fok and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 035010 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.0556 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 096002 (2002) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**76**]{}, 059902 (2007)\] \[hep-ph/0203110\]. G. W. Bennett [*et al.*]{} \[Muon G-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 072003 (2006) \[hep-ex/0602035\].
K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, J. Phys. G [**38**]{}, 085003 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.3149 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 6565 (1996) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**56**]{}, 4424 (1997)\] \[hep-ph/9512396\]. G. -C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, Y. Matsumoto and D. Nomura, JHEP [**1111**]{}, 068 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.1769 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Hisano and K. Tobe, Phys. Lett. B [**510**]{}, 197 (2001) \[hep-ph/0102315\].
H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**183**]{}, 1 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.3552 \[hep-th\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The holographic Weyl anomaly for GJMS operators (or conformal powers of the Laplacian) are obtained in four and six dimensions. In the context of AdS/CFT correspondence, free conformal scalars with higher-derivative kinetic operators are induced by an ordinary second-derivative massive bulk scalar. At one-loop quantum level, the duality dictionary for partition functions entails an equality between the functional determinants of the corresponding kinetic operators and, in particular, it provides a holographic route to their Weyl anomalies. The heat kernel of a single bulk massive scalar field encodes the Weyl anomaly (type-A and type-B) coefficients for the whole tower of GJMS operators whenever they exist, as in the case of Einstein manifolds where they factorize into product of Laplacians.\
While a holographic derivation of the type-A Weyl anomaly was already worked out some years back, in this note we compute holographically (for the first time to the best of our knowledge) the type-B Weyl anomaly for the whole family of GJMS operators in four and six dimensions. There are two key ingredients that enable this novel holographic derivation that would be quite a daunting task otherwise: (i) a simple prescription for obtaining the holographic Weyl anomaly for higher-curvature gravities, previously found by the authors, that allows to read off directly the anomaly coefficients from the bulk action; and (ii) an implied WKB-exactness, after resummation, of the heat kernel for the massive scalar on a Poincaré-Einstein bulk metric with an Einstein metric on its conformal infinity.\
The holographically computed Weyl anomaly coefficients are explicitly verified on the boundary by exploiting the factorization of GJMS operators on Einstein manifolds and working out the relevant heat kernel coefficient.\
address:
- '${\S} $ Departamento de Matemática y Física Aplicadas, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Concepción, Chile'
- '${\dag} $ Departamento de Ciencias Fisicas, Universidad Andres Bello, Autopista Concepcion-Talcahuano 7100, Talcahuano, Chile'
author:
- 'F. Bugini $^{\S}$ and D.E. Diaz $^{\dag}$'
title: 'Holographic Weyl anomaly for GJMS operators: one Laplacian to rule them all'
---
\
Introduction
============
\
Conformal powers of the Laplacian $P_{2k}$ (or GJMS operators for short [@GJMS92]) are higher-derivative generalizations of the conformal Laplacian or Yamabe operator of the form $$P_{2k}=\Delta^k+LOT$$ with principal part given by an integer power of the Laplacian and complemented by lower order (in derivative) terms (LOT) built up out of the Ricci tensor and covariant derivatives. They first arose within the general Fefferman-Graham program [@FG85] induced by the $k$-th power of the ambient Laplacian $\tilde{\Delta}^k$ and allowed Branson’s characterization of the Q-curvature in general even dimensions as given by their zeroth order term[^1] [@Bra93; @Bra95].\
In the alternative Fefferman-Graham formulation where the ambient metric is traded by a Poincaré-Einstein metric in one dimension lower, the conformal structures are realized on the conformal boundary at infinity. This latter approach, that provides geometric roots for the celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence in physics [@Malda; @GKP98; @Wit98], leads to a description of GJMS operators as residues of the scattering operator (aka two-point correlation function in CFT phraseology) as established by Graham and Zworski [@GZ03]. The (critical) Q-curvature also arises in this context in connection with the volume asymptotics of the Poincaré-Einstein metric. When the dimensionality of the conformal boundary is odd, the renormalized volume is related to the bulk integral of the Q-curvature via the Chern-Gauss-Bonnet formula [@A01; @Albin:2005qka; @Chang:2005ska]; when the dimensionality of the conformal boundary is even, in turn, the boundary integral of the Q-curvature is the volume anomaly or, equivalently, the renormalized volume is the conformal primitive of the Q-curvature [@GZ03; @HS98; @Gra99].
Now, it was in the study of functional determinants of conformally invariant differential operators, such as the GJMS operators, where the Q-curvature made its first appearance [@BO91]. The infinitesimal variation of the determinant under a conformal (or Weyl) rescaling of the metric reveals the conformal (or Weyl or trace) anomaly; whereas the corresponding finite variation, i.e. its conformal primitive, leads to generalized Polyakov formulas [@Pol81]. The Q-curvature arose in this context as a particular combination of local curvature invariants with a linear transformation law under conformal rescaling of the metric, playing the analog role of the Gaussian curvature on surfaces. Graham [@Gra99] already noticed that the conformal invariance properties of the renormalized volume of a Poincaré-Einstein metric are reminiscent of those for the functional determinants of conformally invariant differential operators, e.g. conformal Laplacian and higher-order GJMS operators, being conformal invariant in odd dimensions but having an anomaly in even dimensions and, on the other hand, those for the volume anomaly are similar to those for the constant term in the expansion of the integrated heat kernel for the conformally invariant differential operator, which vanishes in odd dimensions but in even dimensions is a conformal invariant obtained by integrating a local expression in curvature, namely the conformal anomaly.\
Remarkably, a ‘holographic formula’ stemming from AdS/CFT heuristics[^2] provided a direct link between the renormalized volume of the (d+1)-dimensional bulk Poincaré-Einstein metric and functional determinants on the d-dimensional conformal boundary $$\frac{\det_{-}[-\nabla^2+m^2]}{\det_{+}[-\nabla^2+m^2]}\bigg{|}_{bulk}
=\det\,\langle O_{\lambda} O_{\lambda}\rangle\bigg{|}_{bndry}~$$\
The bulk side contains the one-loop effective action for a massive scalar computed with the resolvent and spectral parameter $\lambda_+=\frac{d}{2}+\nu$ and its analytic continuation to $\lambda_-=\frac{d}{2}-\nu$. The boundary counterpart contains the functional determinant of the two-point function of the dual boundary operator $O_{\lambda}$, a nonlocal integral kernel corresponding to the scattering operator for the radial propagation in the bulk interior. The relation between bulk mass of the scalar field and boundary scaling dimension is, according to the AdS/CFT dictionary, given by $m^2=-\frac{d^2}{4}+\nu^2$. The formula originated in an attempt to compute an $O(1)$ correction to the partition function under the renormalization group (RG) flow triggered by a boundary double-trace deformation [@Gubser:2002zh; @Gubser:2002vv; @Hartman:2006dy; @Diaz:2007an]. The residues of the scattering operator at its poles become conformally invariant differential operators that in the case of the bulk massive scalar field[^3] ($\nu\rightarrow k$, $k=1,2,3,...$) correspond to the family of GJMS operators $P_{2k}$ $$\frac{\det_{-}[-\nabla^2-\frac{d^2}{4}+k^2]}{\det_{+}[-\nabla^2-\frac{d^2}{4}+k^2]}\bigg{|}_{bulk}
=\det\, P_{2k}\bigg{|}_{bndry}~$$\
In the conformal class of round metrics on the spheres, the similarities noticed before get promoted to a full-fledged equality because on the bulk side the volume of Euclidean AdS (or hyperbolic space) factorizes in the effective action due to its homogeneity[^4]. In this way, for even d, a Polyakov formula for the determinant of the GJMS operators was ‘holographically’ obtained [@Diaz:2008hy] and, perhaps more importantly, the two chief roles of the Q-curvature were directly connected. In particular, a compact formula for the type-A Weyl anomaly coefficient was obtained[^5] from the bulk Green’s function (or resolvent) at coincident points.
A subsequent extension of this clean entry of the AdS/CFT dictionary beyond conformal flatness has remained stalled ever since. Two main obstacles become readily apparent. One is the absence of a viable holographic route to compute the type-B Weyl anomaly in higher-derivative gravities; this is to be contrasted with the simple prescription of evaluating the bulk action at the AdS background to obtain the type-A Weyl anomaly [@ISTY99]. Second, powers of the Weyl tensor and its derivatives will appear in the heat kernel coefficients to all orders; this is again to be contrasted with the well-known WKB-exactness of the heat kernel in the AdS background [@Camporesi90; @Grigorian98; @Gopakumar:2011qs] that leaves only the first few terms after resummation.
It is the aim of this note to show how these difficulties can be overcome and to present a holographic derivation of both type-A and type-B Weyl anomaly coefficients for the whole family of GJMS operators in four and six dimensions. We start in Section 2 by first going to a generic compact Einstein manifold on the boundary, exploiting the factorization of GJMS operators into Laplacians, and computing the constant term of their heat kernel expansion in four and six dimensions so as to have the Weyl anomaly beforehand. Section 3 is devoted to the main contribution of this paper, namely the holographic derivation of the Weyl anomaly by considering the heat kernel of the bulk scalar in the corresponding bulk Poincaré-Einstein metric and the resummation that must occur in order to meet the (by now expected) central charges. In the conclusion, Section 4, we summarize and discuss our results. In Appendix A we provide more details about the WKB-exactness and the resummation properties of the bulk scalar heat kernel on the relevant Poincaré-Einstein metric.\
Weyl anomaly for GJMS: take I
=============================
\
Let us start by examining the GJMS operators on an even d-dimensional compact manifold where the very existence of the “supercritical” ones, i.e. $P_{2k}$ with $k>d/2$, is not granted in general. Even if they exist, as in the case of Einstein manifolds, their higher-derivative nature precludes the use of standard heat kernel methods. In the conformal class of round spheres, nevertheless, Branson’s factorization of GJMS operators into product of Laplacians [@Bra95] comes to rescue and the type-A Weyl anomaly coefficient can be worked out either by adding the constant terms of the heat expansion for the individual Laplacians or by zeta function regularization [@Dowker:2010qy].\
In going beyond the conformally flat class of round metrics on the spheres, as required to access the type-B Weyl anomaly, the leap forward we need is facilitated by Gover’s remarkable extension of the factorization of GJMS operators to the more general case of Einstein manifolds [@Gover06]\
\
starting ($i=0$) with the conformal Laplacian or Yamabe operator $$Y=-\nabla^2 + \frac{d-2}{4(d-1)}R$$ The contribution of each Laplacian to the functional determinant, and to the anomaly, can then be computed with standard heat kernel techniques. In addition, as it has already been noticed and successfully put into use [@Bugini:2016nvn; @Beccaria:2017dmw; @Acevedo:2017vkk], although the Einstein condition brings in many simplifications, the curvature invariants that enter the type-B Weyl anomaly remain independent and their coefficients can be efficiently obtained by this shortcut route.
\
Factorization and heat kernel at 4D: two birds, one stone
---------------------------------------------------------
\
As explained before, a direct way to work out the Weyl anomaly for the GJMS operators is to exploit their factorization on a generic compact Einstein manifold, look for the relevant heat kernel coefficient for each individual factor and then add them all. We will need then the $b_4$ heat coefficient for each of the “shifted Laplacians” in the product
$$P_{2k}=\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}\left[-\nabla^2+\frac{(2+i)(1-i)}{12}R\right]$$
\
Each shifted Laplacian has the form $-\nabla^2-E$, where $E$ is an endomorphism (see e.g. [@BFT00] for details) and it is straightforward to get the heat coefficient restricted to the Einstein metric
$$b_4^{(i)}=\left(\frac{i^2(i+1)^2}{288}-\frac{1}{2160}\right)R^2+\frac{1}{180}W^2$$
\
Now we simply have to add up the contributions of the individual Laplacians to get the Weyl anomaly for the 4D GJMS operators
$$\label{boundary-4D}
\mathcal{A}_4[P_{2k}]=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}b_{4}^{(i)}=\left(\frac{k^5}{240}-\frac{k^3}{144}\right)\frac{R ^2}{6}+\frac{k}{180}W^2$$
\
Then, regarding the Weyl anomaly basis in 4D, one can trade the Euler density $E_4$ by the Q-curvature ${\mathcal Q}_4$ (type-A) and maintain the Weyl tensor squared $W^2\equiv W_{abcd}W^{abcd}$ which is the obvious independent Weyl-invariant local curvature combination (type-B). The full information on $a$ and $c$ can be gained at one go [^6] by considering the generic Einstein metric $g_{_E}$ , since then the Q-curvature reduces to a multiple of the Ricci scalar squared, ${\mathcal Q}_4=R^2/24$, and the Weyl tensor-squared remains unchanged; therefore we have the following rewriting [@Bugini:2016nvn]
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_4 &=&-a\,E_4 \,+\,c\,W^2\\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&=&-4 a\,{\mathcal Q}_4 \,+\,(c-a)\,W^2 \nonumber\\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&=&- a\,R^2/6 \,+\,(c-a)\,W^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\
Comparing the above relation with the accumulated heat coefficient of the “shifted Laplacians”, we finally obtain the Weyl anomaly coefficients for the whole GJMS family in 4D
\
\
Two remarks are worth mentioning here. First, the quintic polynomial $a_k$ follows as well from the generic expression found in [@Diaz:2008hy] and corroborated by explicit zeta regularization in [@Dowker:2010qy]. Second, only the shifted type-B anomaly coefficient turns out to be linear in $k$ and, in consequence, meets the holographic expectation of [@Mansfield:1999kk; @Mansfield:2003gs] on Ricci-flat backgrounds.\
Factorization and heat kernel at 6D: four birds, one stone
----------------------------------------------------------
\
In 6D, we follow the same procedure as in 4D. The factorization of the GJMS operators in terms of “shifted Laplacians” is now given by
$$P_{2k}=\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}\left(-\nabla^2+\frac{(3+i)(2-i)}{30}R\right)$$
The endomorphism term is $E=-\frac{(3+i)(2-i)}{30}R$ and we denote $d_i=\frac{(3+i)(2-i)}{30}$. The relevant heat-kernel coefficient of the individual Laplacians can be worked out (see e.g. [@BFT00]) and the raw result on a 6D Einstein metric, modulo trivial total derivatives, reads [^7]
$$\begin{aligned}
&b^{(i)}_{6}=& -\frac{d_i^3}{6}R ^3+\frac{d_i^2}{12}R ^3-d_i\left(\frac{1}{180}RRiem^2-\frac{1}{180}RRic^2+\frac{1}{72}R^3\right)\\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&&+\frac{1}{7!}\left(-3|\nabla Riem|^2+\frac{44}{9}Riem ^3 - \frac{80}{9}Riem'^3-\frac{16}{3}RicRiem^2\right. \\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&&\left.+\frac{14}{3}RRiem^2-\frac{8}{3}RiemRic^2+\frac{8}{9}Ric^3-\frac{14}{3}RRic^2+\frac{35}{9}R^3\right)\\\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\
On the Einstein metric there is a lot of simplifications: the Cotton tensor, the Bach tensor and the traceless part of the Ricci tensor all vanish. Nonetheless, the type-A and the three type-B terms remain independent [@Bugini:2016nvn]. We keep a generic 6D Einstein boundary metric $g_{_E}$ so that the Einstein condition reduces the Q-curvature to a multiple of the Ricci scalar cubed, ${\mathcal Q}_6=R^3/225$; the two cubic contractions of the Weyl tensor, denoted by $I_1=W'^{\,3}$ and $I_2=W^3$, remain unchanged; while the third Weyl invariant reduces to $I_3=W\nabla^2W - \frac{8}{15} R\,W^2$ modulo the trivial total derivative $\frac{3}{2}\nabla^2W^2$ (see e.g. [@Osborn:2015rna]) that we omit in what follows. The 6D Weyl anomaly can then be casted in the following convenient form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal A}_6&=&-{a}\,E_6\,+\,{c_1}\,I_1\,+\,{c_2}\,I_2\,+\,{c_3}\,I_3 \\
\nonumber\\\nonumber
\qquad\quad&=&-48\,a\,{\mathcal Q}_6+(c_1-96a)I_1+(c_2-24a)I_2+(c_3+8a)I_3\\
\nonumber\\\nonumber
\qquad\quad&=&-16\,a\,R^3/75+(c_1-96a)I_1+(c_2-24a)I_2+(c_3+8a)I_3\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{array}{|r c| c| c| c| c| c|} \hline
& \mbox{Curvature invariant } & {\mathcal Q}_6=R^3/225 & I_1 & I_2 & I_3 \\
\hline {A}_{10}\quad\vline & {R}^{\,3} &225 & -&- &- \\
\hline {A}_{11}\quad\vline & {R}{R}ic^{\,2} & 75/2 & -&- &- \\
\hline {A}_{12}\quad\vline & {R}{R}iem^{\,2} &15 &20 &-5 &-5 \\
\hline {A}_{13}\quad\vline & {R}ic^{\,3} & 25/4& -& -& -\\
\hline {A}_{14}\quad\vline & {R}iem \, {R}ic^{\,2} &25/4 & -&- &- \\
\hline {A}_{15}\quad\vline & {R}ic \, {R}iem^{\,2} & 5/2 &10/3 &-5/6 &-5/6 \\
\hline {A}_{16}\quad\vline & {R}iem^{\,3} & 1 & 4 & 0& -1 \\
\hline {A}_{17}\quad\vline & -{R}iem'^{\,3} &1 & -2& 1/4&1/4 \\
\hline {A}_{5}\quad\vline & |{\nabla}{R}iem|^{2} &- &-32/3 &8/3 &5/3 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$\
Making use of the table above to go to the standard anomaly basis and adding up the heat coefficients of the individual Laplacians (tedious but straightforward) we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundary-6D}
\qquad
7! \; {\mathcal A}_6[P_{2k}]&=&7! \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} b_6^{(i)}\\
\nonumber\\
&=& -\frac{16}{75} \left(\frac{-3k^7+21k^5-28k^3}{144}\right)R^3\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{14(k^3-k)}{9}\left(4I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}\right)- \frac{k}{9}\left(24I_{1}-30I_2-13I_{3}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
From this expression for the accumulated heat coefficients for the shifted Laplacians we finally read off the 6D Weyl anomaly for the whole GJMS tower
\
\
Again, two remarks are in order here. First, the polynomial $a_k$ follows also from the generic expression found in [@Diaz:2008hy; @Dowker:2010qy]. Second, on Ricci-flat backgrounds the Q-curvature vanishes and $I_3=4\,I_1-I_2$ so that the combined coefficients in front of the two independent Weyl invariant, say $I_1$ and $I_2$, turn out to be linear in $k$, as can be readily verified, and therefore agree with the holographic expectation of [@Mansfield:2003bg] (see, also, [@Liu:2017ruz]).\
Weyl anomaly for GJMS: take II
==============================
\
Let us now turn to our main thrust and try to elucidate the way in which the information on the Weyl anomaly is encoded in the “hologram”, namely the bulk massive scalar. We proceed in two steps. First, we consider the holographic formula for a bulk Poincaré-Einstein metric with the Einstein metric of before on the boundary conformal class, following the prescription put forward in [@Bugini:2016nvn] that allows to read off the Weyl anomaly coefficient in higher-curvature gravities.
$$\nonumber
\hat{g}_{_{PE}}=\frac{dx^2+(1-\lambda x^2)^2g_{_E}}{x^2}$$
with $\lambda=\frac{R}{4d(d-1)}$ proportional to the boundary Ricci scalar.\
At first sight this seems to be of little help because the heat kernel coefficients, in particular those depending on the nonvanishing Weyl tensor, will be present to all orders so that there will be infinitely many higher-curvature terms in the bulk one-loop effective action.\
In a second step, and despite the above caveat, we compute the Weyl content of the first few heat coefficients. With this partial information at hand and under the crucial assumption of WKB-exactness after resummation, we are able to correctly reproduce the Weyl anomaly coefficients for the whole tower of GJMS in four and in six dimensions, as explained in what follows.\
Holographic derivation from 5 to 4 dims
---------------------------------------
\
We consider therefore the holographic formula in the above Poincaré-Einstein metric on the bulk and the corresponding generic compact Einstein metric on the boundary $$\frac{Z^{^{(-)}}_{_{\text{MS}}}}{Z^{^{(+)}}_{_{\text{MS}}}}\bigg{|}_{_{PE}}\,=\,Z_{_{\text{GJMS}}}\bigg{|}_{E}$$ with the bulk one-loop effective action given by the functional determinants of the massive scalar field[^8] $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{^{(+)}}_{_{\text{MS}}}\bigg{|}_{_{PE}}\,=\,\left[ \det\left\{-\hat{\nabla}^{2}+m_k^2\right\}\right]^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$\
We first recall the WKB-exact heat expansion in $AdS_5$ [@Camporesi90; @Grigorian98; @Gopakumar:2011qs]. Although there are infinitely many heat kernel coefficients, after factorization of the exponential factor $e^{-4t}$ only the first two remain in five dimensions
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{massive scalar $m_k^2=k^2-4$: \qquad tr}\,e^{\{\hat{\nabla}^{2}-k^2 +4\}t}\bigg{|}_{_{AdS_5}}\,=\, \frac{1+\frac{2}{3}t }{(4\pi t)^{5/2}}~e^{-k^2t}\end{aligned}$$
\
We need now to depart from $AdS_5$ and determine the pure-Weyl content of the heat kernel on the Poincaré-Einstein metric. The first contribution arises with $\hat{b}_4$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{b}_4&\sim \frac{1}{180} \,\hat{W}^2\end{aligned}$$
\
The relevant terms in the next heat coefficient $\hat{b}_6$ are the following
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{b}_6\sim &\frac{1}{7!}\left(-3|\hat{\nabla}\hat{R}iem|^2+\frac{44}{9}\hat{R}iem ^3 - \frac{80}{9}\hat{R}iem'^3-\frac{16}{3}\hat{R}ic\hat{R}iem^2\right. \\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&&\left.+\frac{14}{3}\hat{R}\hat{R}iem^2-\frac{8}{3}\hat{R}iem\hat{R}ic^2+\frac{8}{9}\hat{R}ic^3-\frac{14}{3}\hat{R}\hat{R}ic^2+\frac{35}{9}\hat{R}^3\right)\end{aligned}$$
\
We now follow the prescription of [@Bugini:2016nvn] and go to the particular basis of Weyl invariants given by two independent cubic contractions, $\hat{W}^3$ and $\hat{W}'^3$, and the third one given by the 5D Fefferman-Graham invariant $\hat{\Phi}_5=|\nabla \hat{W}|^2-8\hat{W}^2$
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{b}_6\sim & -\frac{1}{45} \,\hat{W}^2 - \frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{80}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{44}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,3\,\hat{\Phi}_5\right)\end{aligned}$$
\
We tabulate the dictionary below for convenience[^9].
$$\begin{array}{|r c| c| c| c| c|} \hline
& \mbox{Curvature invariant } & \hat{\mathit{W}}^2 & \hat{W}'^{\,3}& \hat{W}^{3} & \hat{\Phi}_5 \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{10}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}^{\,3} & -& -&- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{11}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}\widehat{R}ic^{\,2} & -& -&- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{12}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}\widehat{R}iem^{\,2} & -20 & -& -& -\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{13}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}ic^{\,3} & -& -& -& -\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{14}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}iem \, \widehat{R}ic^{\,2} & -&- &- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{15}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}ic \, \widehat{R}iem^{\,2} & -4 & -& -& -\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{16}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}iem^{\,3} & -6 & -&1 &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{17}\quad\vline & -\widehat{R}iem'^{\,3} & 3/2& -1 & - &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{5}\quad\vline & |\hat{\nabla}\widehat{R}iem|^{2} &8 &- &- &1 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$\
After the dust has settled, we realize then that the $-1/45 \hat{W}^2$ in $\hat{b}_6$ can absorbed by the $e^{-4t}$ factor that makes the resummation of the pure-Ricci terms and results in the well-known WKB-exactness of the heat kernel expansion in odd-dimensional hyperbolic space. The remaining Weyl invariant terms in $\hat{b}_6$ do not contribute to the holographic anomaly. Assuming that this WKB-exactness extends to the $\hat{W}^2$ term, the contribution of the one-loop effective Lagrangian of the massive bulk scalar to the holographic Weyl anomaly comes exclusively from the following combination of pure-Ricci (numbers since we set the radius of the asymptotic hyperbolic metric to unity) and pure-Weyl pieces\
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{t^{7/2}}e^{-k^2t}\left\{1 + \frac{2}{3}t + \frac{1}{180}\hat{W}^2 t^2 + ...\right\}\end{aligned}$$\
where the ellipsis stands for higher curvature pure-Weyl invariants that do not contribute to the 4D holographic Weyl anomaly. After proper time integration we obtain for the one-loop effective Lagrangian (modulo an overall normalization factor that can be easily worked out)\
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{^{(\text{GJMS})}}_{\text{1-loop}}=\,& \frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{k^5}{5}-\frac{k^3}{3}\right)\cdot\hat{1} + \frac{k}{180}\cdot\hat{W}^2 + ...\end{aligned}$$ The holographic recipe [@Bugini:2016nvn] tells us then how to read the anomaly: the volume part (pure-Ricci) $\hat{1}$ ‘descends’ to the 4D Q-curvature and the pure-Weyl quadratic contraction of the 5D Weyl tensor ‘descends’ to the analog contraction of the 4D Weyl tensor. In all, the holographic Weyl anomaly one reads off is simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal A}_4[P_{2k}]=& -4 \left(\frac{k^3}{144}-\frac{k^5}{240}\right)\,{\mathcal Q}_4 + \frac{k}{180}\,W^2\end{aligned}$$\
in perfect and remarkable agreement with the boundary computation (eqn.\[boundary-4D\]).\
Holographic derivation from 7 to 6.
-----------------------------------
\
We move on now to seven dimensions. The WKB-exact heat expansion in $AdS_7$ [@Camporesi90; @Grigorian98; @Gopakumar:2011qs] requires factorization of the exponential factor $e^{-9t}$ so that only the first three terms remain in seven dimensions
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{massive scalar $m_k^2=k^2-9$: \qquad tr}\,e^{\{\hat{\nabla}^{2}-k^2 +9\}t}\bigg{|}_{_{AdS_7}}\,=\, \frac{1+2t+\frac{16}{15}t^2 }{(4\pi t)^{5/2}}~e^{-k^2t}\end{aligned}$$
\
To depart from $AdS_7$ and the conformally flat class of bulk and boundary metrics, we consider the pure-Weyl content of the heat kernel on the bulk Poincaré-Einstein metric. The first nontrivial contribution arises again with $\hat{b}_4$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{b}_4&\sim \frac{1}{180} \,\hat{W}^2\end{aligned}$$
The next contribution comes form the next heat coefficient $\hat{b}_6$
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{b}_6\sim &\frac{1}{7!}\left(-3|\hat{\nabla}\hat{R}iem|^2+\frac{44}{9}\hat{R}iem ^3 - \frac{80}{9}\hat{R}iem'^3-\frac{16}{3}\hat{R}ic\hat{R}iem^2\right. \\\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
&&\left.+\frac{14}{3}\hat{R}\hat{R}iem^2-\frac{8}{3}\hat{R}iem\hat{R}ic^2+\frac{8}{9}\hat{R}ic^3-\frac{14}{3}\hat{R}\hat{R}ic^2+\frac{35}{9}\hat{R}^3\right)\end{aligned}$$
\
The heat coefficients for the scalar Laplacian are universal in the sense that the number in front of each curvature invariant is independent of the dimensionality of the manifold. However, when following the prescription of [@Bugini:2016nvn] and going to the particular basis of Weyl invariants (see table below) given by two independent cubic contractions, $\hat{W}^3$ and $\hat{W}'^3$, and the third one given now by the 7D Fefferman-Graham invariant $\hat{\Phi}_7=|\nabla \hat{W}|^2-8\hat{W}^2$, we obtain a different result
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{b}_6\sim &\frac{1}{7!}\left(-\, \frac{1916}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 +\, \frac{503}{9}\,\hat{W}^3-\, 54\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)\end{aligned}$$
\
$$\begin{array}{|r c| c| c| c| c|} \hline
& \mbox{Curvature invariant } & \hat{W}'^{\,3} & \hat{W}^{3} & \hat{\Phi}_7 \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{10}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}^{\,3} & -&- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{11}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}\widehat{R}ic^{\,2} & -&- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{12}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}\widehat{R}iem^{\,2} & -42 & 21/2& -21/2\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{13}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}ic^{\,3} & -& -& -\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{14}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}iem \, \widehat{R}ic^{\,2} & -&- &- \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{15}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}ic \, \widehat{R}iem^{\,2} & -6 & 3/2& -3/2\\
\hline \widehat{A}_{16}\quad\vline & \widehat{R}iem^{\,3} & -6 & 5/2&-3/2 \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{17}\quad\vline & -\widehat{R}iem'^{\,3} & 1/2 & -3/8 & 3/8 \\
\hline \widehat{A}_{5}\quad\vline & |\hat{\nabla}\widehat{R}iem|^{2} &8 &-2 &3 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$\
We now assume WKB-exactness after factorization of the $e^{-9t}$ factor. The convolution with the exponential must absorb a $-1/20 \hat{W}^2$ contribution to $\hat{b}_6$, that in the 7D case can be rewritten in the Weyl basis $\left[\hat{W}'^3,\hat{W}^3,\hat{\Phi}_7\right]$. In fact, modulo a trivial total derivative $\hat{W}^2=\hat{W}'^3-\frac{1}{4}\hat{W}^3+\frac{1}{4}\hat{\Phi}_7$ on the Poincaré-Einstein metric. So that we obtain, under the assumption of WKB-exactness, the following one-loop effective Lagrangian
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{t^{9/2}}e^{-k^2t}\left\{1 + 2t + \frac{16}{15}t^2 + \frac{1}{180}\hat{W}^2 t^2 \right.\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber
\left.+\frac{1}{7!}\left(\frac{352}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{64}{9}\,\hat{W}^3 +\,9\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)t^3+ ...\right\}\end{aligned}$$
\
where again the ellipsis stands for higher-curvature terms in the Weyl tensor that do not contribute to the 6D holographic Weyl anomaly. After proper time integration we obtain for the one-loop effective Lagrangian (modulo an overall normalization factor)
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{^{(\text{GJMS})}}_{\text{1-loop}}=\,& \frac{8}{315} \left(-3k^7+21k^5-28k^3\right)\cdot\hat{1} \\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber
&-\frac{14k^3}{3\cdot 7!}\cdot\left(4\,\hat{W}'^3-\,\hat{W}^3+\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)+\frac{k}{9\cdot7!}\cdot\left(352\hat{W}'^3-64\hat{W}^3+81\hat{\Phi}_7\right)+...\end{aligned}$$
\
Now, according to the holographic recipe [@Bugini:2016nvn], the holographic Weyl anomaly one reads off from the bulk effective Lagrangian is simply
$$\begin{aligned}
7! \; {\mathcal A}_6[P_{2k}]=& -48\,\frac{-3k^7+21k^5-28k^3}{144}\,{\mathcal Q}_6 \\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber
&-\frac{14k^3}{3}\left(4I_{1}-I_{2}+\Phi_{6}\right)+\frac{k}{9}\left(352I_{1}-64I_2+81\Phi_{6}\right)\end{aligned}$$
\
We finally go to the standard basis of 6D Weyl invariants $\left[I_1, I_2, I_3\right]$ by use of the dictionary $3\Phi_{6}=I_3-16I_1+4I_2$
$$\begin{aligned}
\qquad
7! \; {\mathcal A}_6[P_{2k}]&=& - 48\,\frac{-3k^7+21k^5-28k^3}{144}\,{\mathcal Q}_6\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{14k^3}{9}\left(4I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}\right)- \frac{k}{9}\left(80I_1-44I_2-27I_{3}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\
and get perfect agreement with the outcome of the boundary computation (eqn. \[boundary-6D\]).\
\
\
Conclusion
==========
\
We have shown the way one bulk Laplacian rules the whole family of boundary GJMS operators and, in particular, the way the conformal anomaly is encoded in the bulk heat kernel. Clearly, the alleged WKB-exactness of the bulk scalar heat kernel on the Poincaré-Einstein metric deserves further analysis and an independent confirmation thereof would be desirable. The boundary computation of the anomaly was facilitated by the factorization of the GJMS operator on a generic Einstein manifold and by the fact that the Einstein condition, besides the many simplifications, does not spoil the independence of the curvature invariants that enter the type-A and type-B Weyl anomaly.
It would be interesting to explore the connection between the one-loop information encoded in the present holographic formula and one-loop Witten diagrams (see e.g. [@Giombi:2017hpr]). For example, one- and two-point correlators of the boundary stress tensor computed from graphs with one and two graviton legs, respectively, with the bulk scalar running in the loop ought to render the $a$ and the $c_T$ central charges[^10].
One subtle feature of the preset computation that we leave as a future direction to look into consists in the following. There is an ambiguity in the construction of GJMS operators given by the addition of terms containing the Weyl tensor. For example, one can add to the Paneitz $P_4$ operator a constant times $W^2$ without changing its conformal properties. In the case of $P_6$ in 6D, besides any of the three Weyl invariants $I_1$, $I_2$ and $I_3$, there is also the freedom to add another term quadratic in the Weyl tensor and in covariant derivatives (see e.g. [@Osborn:2015rna; @Rajagopal:2015lpa]). These additional Weyl terms will certainly modify the conformal anomaly of the differential operators. The choice implied by the factorization on Einstein manifolds that we have made use of clearly distinguishes pure-Ricci GJMS with no additional term containing the Weyl tensor. In remains then to be elucidated the way in which the possible additional Weyl terms find their way into the holographic picture.\
\
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
\
We are grateful to S.Acevedo, R.Aros, H.Dorn, S.Dowker, R.Olea, A.Torrielli and A.Tseytlin for valuable discussions. The work of F.B. was partially funded by grant CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2014-21140283. D.E.D. acknowledges support from project UNAB DI 14-18/REG and is also grateful to the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics (GGI) for the hospitality and INFN for partial support during the stay at the program “New Developments in AdS3/CFT2 Holography” and to the Quantum Field and String Theory Group at Humboldt University of Berlin for the kind invitation and the opportunity to present the results reported here.
WKB-exactness of the scalar Laplacian {#app.A}
=====================================
\
In this appendix, we explicitly compute the first heat coefficients and illustrate the way they get rearranged after factorization of the exponential factor.\
#### **5D PE/E**
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{tr}\,e^{\{\hat{\nabla}^{2}\}t}\bigg{|}_{_{PE}}\,=&\, \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{5/2}}\left\{ \,1\,-\,\frac{10}{3} \,t\,
+\,\frac{16}{3} \,t^2\,+\,\frac{1}{180} \,\hat{W}^2\,t^2 \right.
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber &\left. -\,\frac{16}{3} \,t^3\,-\,\frac{1}{45} \,\hat{W}^2\,t^3\,- \frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{80}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{44}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,3\,\hat{\Phi}_5\right)\,t^3\,+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,\right\}\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\,=&\, \frac{e^{-4t}}{(4\pi t)^{5/2}}\left\{ \,1\,+\,\frac{2}{3} \,t\, +\,\frac{1}{180} \,\hat{W}^2\,t^2\, \right.
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber &\left. -
\frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{80}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{44}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,3\,\hat{\Phi}_5\right)\,t^3\,+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,\right\}\end{aligned}$$
\
#### **7D PE/E**
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{tr}\,e^{\{\hat{\nabla}^{2}\}t}\bigg{|}_{_{PE}}\,=&\, \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{7/2}}\left\{ \,1\,-\,7\,t\,
+\,\frac{707}{30}\,t^2\,+\,\frac{1}{180}\,\hat{W}^2\,t^2 \right.
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber &\left. -\,\frac{501}{10}\,t^3\,-\,\frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{1916}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{503}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,54\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)\,t^3\,+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,\right\}\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\,=&\, \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{7/2}}\left\{ \,1\,-\,7\,t\,
+\,\frac{707}{30}\,t^2\,+\,\frac{1}{180}\,\hat{W}^2\,t^2 \right.
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber &\left. -\,\frac{501}{10}\,t^3\,-\,\frac{1}{20}\,\hat{W}^2\,t^3\,+ \frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{352}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{64}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,9\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)\,t^3\,+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,\right\}\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\,=&\, \frac{e^{-9t}}{(4\pi t)^{7/2}}\left\{ \,1\,+\,2\,t\,+\,\frac{16}{15}\,t^2\, +\,\frac{1}{180} \,\hat{W}^2\,t^2\, \right.
\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber &\left. +
\frac{1}{7!}\left(\, \frac{352}{9}\,\hat{W}'^3 -\, \frac{64}{9}\,\hat{W}^3+\,9\,\hat{\Phi}_7\right)\,t^3\,+\mathcal{O}(t^4)\,\right\}\end{aligned}$$
\
\[2\][\#2]{}
[10]{}
C. R. Graham, R. Jenne, L. J. Mason and G. A. J. Sparling, [*Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence*]{}, J. Lond. Math. Soc. [**46**]{}(1992), 557.
C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, [*Conformal invariants*]{}, in [*The Mathematical Heritage of Élie Cartan (Lyon, 1984)*]{}, Astérisque, 1985, Numero Hors Serie, 95-116.
A. Juhl, “Explicit formulas for GJMS-operators and Q-curvatures,” Geom. Funct. Analysis [**23**]{} (2013) No. 4, 1278-1370 \[arXiv:1108.0273\[math.DG\]\].
C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, “Juhl’s formulae for GJMS operators and Q-curvatures,” J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**26**]{} (2013), 1191-1207 \[arXiv:1203.0360\[math.DG\]\].
T. Branson, “The Functional Determinant,” Global AnalysisResearch Center Lecture Note Series, Number 4, Seoul NationalUniversity (1993)
T. Branson, “Sharp inequalities, the functional determinant, and the complementary series,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**347**]{} (1995) 3671.
J. M. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9711200\];
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{}, 105 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9802109\];
E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor.Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 253 \[arXiv:hep-th/9802150\].
C. R. Graham and M. Zworski, “Scattering matrix in conformal geometry,” Invent. Math. [**152**]{} (2003) 89 \[arXiv:math-DG/0109089\].
M. T. Anderson, “$L^2$ curvature and volume renormalization of AHE metrics on 4-manifolds,” Math. Res. Lett. [**8**]{} (2001) no. 1-2, 171-188.
P. Albin, “Renormalizing Curvature Integrals on Poincare-Einstein Manifolds,” Adv. Math. [**221**]{} (2009) no.1, 140 \[math/0504161 \[math.DG\]\].
A. Chang, J. Qing and P. Yang, “On the renormalized volumes for conformally compact Einstein manifolds,” J. Math. Sci. [**149**]{} (2008) 1755 \[math/0512376 \[math.DG\]\].
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “The holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP [**9807**]{} (1998) 023 \[arXiv:hep-th/9806087\].
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, “Holography and the Weyl anomaly,” Fortsch. Phys. [**48**]{} (2000) 125 \[arXiv:hep-th/9812032\].
S. Deser and A. Schwimmer, “Geometric classification of conformal anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{}, 279 (1993) \[hep-th/9302047\].
C. R. Graham, “Volume and area renormalizations for conformally compact Einstein metrics,” Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. No. 63 (2000) 31 \[arXiv:math.DG/9909042\].
T. Branson and B. Oersted, “Explicit functional determinants in four dimensions,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**113**]{} (1991) 669.
A. M. Polyakov, “Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings,” Phys. Lett. B [**103**]{} (1981) 207 \[Phys. Lett. [**103B**]{} (1981) 207\]. S. S. Gubser and I. Mitra, “Double trace operators and one loop vacuum energy in AdS / CFT,” Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 064018 \[hep-th/0210093\].
S. S. Gubser and I. R. Klebanov, “A Universal result on central charges in the presence of double trace deformations,” Nucl. Phys. B [**656**]{} (2003) 23 \[hep-th/0212138\].
T. Hartman and L. Rastelli, “Double-trace deformations, mixed boundary conditions and functional determinants in AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**0801**]{} (2008) 019 \[hep-th/0602106\].
D. E. Diaz and H. Dorn, “Partition functions and double-trace deformations in AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**0705**]{} (2007) 046 \[hep-th/0702163 \[HEP-TH\]\].
D. E. Diaz, “Holographic formula for the determinant of the scattering operator in thermal AdS,” J. Phys. A [**42**]{} (2009) 365401 \[arXiv:0812.2158 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Aros and D. E. Diaz, “Functional determinants, generalized BTZ geometries and Selberg zeta function,” J. Phys. A [**43**]{} (2010) 205402 \[arXiv:0910.0029 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. Aros and D. E. Diaz, “Determinant and Weyl anomaly of Dirac operator: a holographic derivation,” J. Phys. A [**45**]{} (2012) 125401 \[arXiv:1111.1463 \[math-ph\]\].
J. S. Dowker, “Spherical Dirac GJMS operator determinants,” J. Phys. A [**48**]{} (2015) no.2, 025401 \[arXiv:1310.5563 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu, B. R. Safdi and G. Tarnopolsky, “AdS Description of Induced Higher-Spin Gauge Theory,” JHEP [**1310**]{} (2013) 016 \[arXiv:1306.5242 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi and I. R. Klebanov, “One Loop Tests of Higher Spin AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**1312**]{} (2013) 068 \[arXiv:1308.2337 \[hep-th\]\].
A. A. Tseytlin, “On partition function and Weyl anomaly of conformal higher spin fields,” Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 598 (2013) \[arXiv:1309.0785 \[hep-th\]\].
A. A. Tseytlin, “Weyl anomaly of conformal higher spins on six-sphere,” Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 632 (2013) \[arXiv:1310.1795 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov and B. R. Safdi, “Higher Spin AdS$_{d+1}$/CFT$_d$ at One Loop,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{} (2014) no.8, 084004 \[arXiv:1401.0825 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria, X. Bekaert and A. A. Tseytlin, “Partition function of free conformal higher spin theory,” JHEP [**1408**]{} (2014) 113 \[arXiv:1406.3542 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Aros, F. Bugini and D. E. Diaz, “On Renyi entropy for free conformal fields: holographic and q-analog recipes,” J. Phys. A [**48**]{} (2015) 105401 \[arXiv:1408.1931 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “Higher spins in AdS$_{5}$ at one loop: vacuum energy, boundary conformal anomalies and AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**1411**]{} (2014) 114 \[arXiv:1410.3273 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria, G. Macorini and A. A. Tseytlin, “Supergravity one-loop corrections on AdS$_7$ and AdS$_3$, higher spins and AdS/CFT,” Nucl. Phys. B [**892**]{} (2015) 211 \[arXiv:1412.0489 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “On higher spin partition functions,” J. Phys. A [**48**]{} (2015) no.27, 275401 \[arXiv:1503.08143 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal a-anomaly of some non-unitary 6d superconformal theories,” JHEP [**1509**]{} (2015) 017 \[arXiv:1506.08727 \[hep-th\]\].
A. O. Barvinsky and D. V. Nesterov, “Quantum effective action in spacetimes with branes and boundaries,” Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 066012 \[hep-th/0512291\].
A. O. Barvinsky, “Holography beyond conformal invariance and AdS isometry?,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**120**]{} (2015) no.3, 449 \[arXiv:1410.6316 \[hep-th\]\].
A. O. Barvinsky, “Extended Holography: Double-Trace Deformation and Brane-Induced Gravity Models,” Russ. Phys. J. [**59**]{} (2017) no.11, 1788. C. Guillarmou, “Generalized Krein formula, determinants and Selberg zeta function in even dimension,” American Journal of Math. 131 (2009), no 5. \[Arxiv math.SP/0512173\] .
D. E. Diaz, “Polyakov formulas for GJMS operators from AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**0807**]{} (2008) 103 \[arXiv:0803.0571 \[hep-th\]\].
J. S. Dowker, “Determinants and conformal anomalies of GJMS operators on spheres,” J. Phys. A [**44**]{} (2011) 115402 \[arXiv:1010.0566 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Imbimbo, A. Schwimmer, S. Theisen and S. Yankielowicz, “Diffeomorphisms and holographic anomalies,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**17**]{} (2000) 1129 \[arXiv:hep-th/9910267\].
R. Camporesi, “Harmonic analysis and propagators on homogeneous spaces,” Phys. Rept. [**196**]{} (1990) 1.
A. Grigor’yan and M. Noguchi “The heat kernel on hyperbolic space,” Bulletin of LMS, [**30**]{} (1998) 643-650.
R. Gopakumar, R. K. Gupta and S. Lal, “The Heat Kernel on $AdS$,” JHEP [**1111**]{} (2011) 010 \[arXiv:1103.3627 \[hep-th\]\].
A. R. Gover “ Laplacian Operators and Q-curvature on Conformally Einstein Manifolds,” Math. Ann. (2006) 336: 311 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-006-0004-z \[arXiv:math/0506037 \[math.DG\]\].
F. Bugini and D. E. Diaz, “Simple recipe for holographic Weyl anomaly,” JHEP [**1704**]{} (2017) 122 \[arXiv:1612.00351 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “C$_{T}$ for higher derivative conformal fields and anomalies of (1, 0) superconformal 6d theories,” JHEP [**1706**]{} (2017) 002 \[arXiv:1705.00305 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Acevedo, R. Aros, F. Bugini and D. E. Díaz, “On the Weyl anomaly of 4D Conformal Higher Spins: a holographic approach,” JHEP [**1711**]{} (2017) 082 \[arXiv:1710.03779 \[hep-th\]\].
F. Bastianelli, S. Frolov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal anomaly of (2,0) tensor multiplet in six dimensions and AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP [**0002**]{} (2000) 013 \[arXiv:hep-th/0001041\].
A. A. Tseytlin, “On partition function and Weyl anomaly of conformal higher spin fields,” Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 598 (2013) \[arXiv:1309.0785 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Osborn and A. Stergiou, “Structures on the Conformal Manifold in Six Dimensional Theories,” JHEP [**1504**]{} (2015) 157 \[arXiv:1501.01308 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Mansfield and D. Nolland, “One loop conformal anomalies from AdS / CFT in the Schrodinger representation,” JHEP [**9907**]{} (1999) 028 \[hep-th/9906054\].
P. Mansfield, D. Nolland and T. Ueno, “The Boundary Weyl anomaly in the N=4 SYM / type IIB supergravity correspondence,” JHEP [**0401**]{} (2004) 013 \[hep-th/0311021\].
P. Mansfield, D. Nolland and T. Ueno, “Order 1 / N\*\*3 corrections to the conformal anomaly of the (2,0) theory in six-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**566**]{} (2003) 157 \[hep-th/0305015\].
J. T. Liu and B. McPeak, “One-Loop Holographic Weyl Anomaly in Six Dimensions,” JHEP [**1801**]{} (2018) 149 \[arXiv:1709.02819 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Kulaxizi and A. Parnachev, “Supersymmetry Constraints in Holographic Gravities,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 066001 \[arXiv:0912.4244 \[hep-th\]\].
R. X. Miao, “A Note on Holographic Weyl Anomaly and Entanglement Entropy,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**31**]{} (2014) 065009 \[arXiv:1309.0211 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Beccaria and A. A. Tseytlin, “Conformal anomaly c-coefficients of superconformal 6d theories,” JHEP [**1601**]{} (2016) 001 \[arXiv:1510.02685 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi, C. Sleight and M. Taronna, “Spinning AdS Loop Diagrams: Two Point Functions,” JHEP [**1806**]{} (2018) 030 \[arXiv:1708.08404 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Osborn and A. Stergiou, “Structures on the Conformal Manifold in Six Dimensional Theories,” JHEP [**1504**]{} (2015) 157 \[arXiv:1501.01308 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Rajagopal, A. Stergiou and Y. Zhu, “Holographic Trace Anomaly and Local Renormalization Group,” JHEP [**1511**]{} (2015) 216 \[arXiv:1508.01210 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: For recent results on recursive relations and explicit construction of GJMS operators and the associated Q-curvatures, we refer to the works [@Juhl11; @FG13] and references therein.
[^2]: The AdS/CFT correspondence certainly predicted the matching of the volume anomaly with the combined conformal anomalies for the free scalars, spinors, and 1-form that enter the four-dimensional vector multiplet of $\mathcal{N}=4$ $SU(N)$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at leading large $N$, as confirmed in [@HS98; @HS98-1]. But this connection is somewhat indirect, it relies on non-renormalization theorems of the supersymmetric boundary CFT. In fact, in six dimensions the matching for the free superconformal $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ tensor multiplet is only achieved for the type-B content [@Deser:1993yx] of the Q-curvature, the type-A central charge $a$ is not protected by the supersymmetry so that the combined anomalies do not add up to reproduce the Q-curvature.
[^3]: Further extensions of the holographic formula to fields other than the scalar and to quotients of AdS have been studied ever since [@Diaz:2008iv]-[@Barvinsky:2017qvf].
[^4]: Quotients of AdS, like thermal AdS for example, allow explicit results in terms of Patterson-Selberg zeta functions. In odd dimensions, these examples were also reported in the conformal geometry literature [@Guillarmou05].
[^5]: This holographically derived formula for the central charge $a$ was verified later on by using the more standard zeta function regularization combined with Branson’s factorization of GJMS operators on the round spheres [@Dowker:2010qy].
[^6]: This is a slightly more efficient way than the usual trick (see, e.g. [@Tseytlin:2013jya]) that restricts first to the round sphere for computing $a$ and then to a Ricci-flat manifold for computing $c-a$.
[^7]: For notation and conventions we refer to [@Bugini:2016nvn].
[^8]: From now on we denote bulk quantities with a hat to distinguish from the corresponding boundary ones.
[^9]: The merit of our special basis of curvature invariants is to unveil the direct relation between bulk and boundary Weyl invariants, but of course the contribution of each term of the A-basis has been worked out by other routes in the literature, see e.g. [@Kulaxizi:2009pz; @Miao:2013nfa; @Beccaria:2015ypa] and references therein.
[^10]: The coefficient of the two-point function of the stress tensor $c_T$ in 4D is proportional to the $c$ central charge and in 6D, to $c_3$. In 6D one would need additional (three-point) correlators to disentangle the remaining ($c_1$ and $c_2$) type-B Weyl anomaly coefficients.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we develop approximation error estimates as well as corresponding inverse inequalities for B-splines of maximum smoothness, where both the function to be approximated and the approximation error are measured in standard Sobolev norms and semi-norms. The presented approximation error estimates do not depend on the polynomial degree of the splines but only on the grid size.
We will see that the approximation lives in a subspace of the classical B-spline space. We show that for this subspace, there is an inverse inequality which is also independent of the polynomial degree. As the approximation error estimate and the inverse inequality show complementary behavior, the results shown in this paper can be used to construct fast iterative methods for solving problems arising from isogeometric discretizations of partial differential equations.
author:
- 'Stefan Takacs, Thomas Takacs'
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'Approximation error estimates and inverse inequalities for B-splines of maximum smoothness'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The objective of this paper is to prove approximation error estimates as well as corresponding inverse estimates for B-splines of maximum smoothness. The presented approximation error estimates do not depend on the degree of the splines but only on the grid size. All bounds are given in terms of classical Sobolev norms and semi-norms.
In approximation theory, B-splines have been studied for a long time and many properties are already well known. We do not go into the details of the existing results but present the results of importance for our study throughout this paper.
The emergence of Isogeometric Analysis, introduced in [@Hughes:2005], sparked new interest in the theoretical properties of B-splines. Since isogeometric Galerkin methods are aimed at solving variational formulations of differential equations, approximation properties measured in Sobolev norms need to be studied.
The results presented in this paper improve the results given in [@Schumaker:1981; @devore:1993; @Bazilevs:2006] by explicitly studying the dependence on the polynomial degree $p$. Such an analysis was done in [@daVeiga:2011]. However, the results there do not cover (for $p\geq 2$) the most important case of B-splines of maximum smoothness $k=p-1$. It turns out that the methods established in [@daVeiga:2011] for proving those bounds are not suitable in that case. Therefore, we develop a framework based on Fourier analysis to prove rigorous bounds for $k=p-1$, which has the limitation that it is only applicable for uniform grids.
Unlike the aforementioned papers we only consider approximation with B-splines in the parameter domain within the framework of Isogeometric Analysis. A generalization of the results to NURBS as well as the introduction of a geometry mapping, as presented in [@Bazilevs:2006], is straightforward and does not lead to any additional insight.
Note that a detailed study of direct and inverse estimates may lead to a deeper understanding of isogeometric multigrid methods and give insight to suitable preconditioning methods. We refer to [@Garoni:2014; @Donatelli:2015], where similar techniques were used.
The main results
----------------
We now go through the main results of this paper. For simplicity, we consider the case of one dimension first, where ${\Omega}= (a,b)$ with $a<b$ is the open *parameter domain*. For this domain we can introduce a *uniform grid* by subdividing ${\Omega}$ into *elements* (subintervals) of length ${h}$. The setup of a uniform grid is only possible if $${n_h}:= {h}^{-1}(b-a)\in \mathbb{N},$$ where $\mathbb{N}:= \{1,2,3,\ldots\}$. In other words, the grid size $h$ has to be chosen such that ${n_h}$, the number of subintervals, is an integer. We will assume this implicitly throughout the paper. On these grids we can introduce spaces of spline functions.
The space of spline functions on the domain ${\Omega}$ of degree $p\in \mathbb{N}_0:=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and continuity $k\in\{-1,0,1,2,\ldots\}$ over the uniform grid of size ${h}$ is given by $$S_{p,k,h}({\Omega}) := \left\{ u \in H^k({\Omega}): \; u |_{(a+hj,a+h(j+1)]} \in \mathbb{P}^p \mbox{ for all } j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1 \right\},$$ where $\mathbb{P}^p$ is the space of polynomials of degree $p$.
Here and in what follows, $L^2({\Omega})$ and $H^r({\Omega})$ denote the standard Lebesque and Sobolev spaces with norms $\|\cdot\|_{L^2({\Omega})}$, $\|\cdot\|_{H^r({\Omega})}$ and semi-norms $|\cdot|_{H^r({\Omega})}$. Moreover, let $(\cdot,\cdot)_{L^2({\Omega})}$ be the standard scalar product for $L^2({\Omega})$ and $$(u,v)_{H^r({\Omega})} := \left(\frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r} u,\frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r} v\right)_{L^2({\Omega})}$$ be the scalar product for $H^r({\Omega})$, where $\frac{\partial^r}{\partial x^r}$ denotes the $r$-th derivative. We then have $|u|^2_{H^r({\Omega})} := (u,u)_{H^r({\Omega})}$ as well as $$\|u\|^2_{H^r({\Omega})} := \|u\|^2_{L^2({\Omega})} + \sum^r_{s=1} |u|^2_{H^s({\Omega})}$$ for all $r\in\mathbb{N}_0:=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$.
Using standard trace theorems, we obtain that for $k>0$ the space $S_{p,k,h}({\Omega})$ is the space of all $k-1$ times continuously differentiable functions ($C^{k-1}(\Omega)$-functions), which are polynomials of degree $p$ on each element of the uniform grid on ${\Omega}$. For $k=0$, there is no continuity condition, i.e., the space $S_{p,0,h}({\Omega})$ is the space of piecewise polynomials of degree $p$.
For $k>p$, the spline spaces reduce to spaces of global polynomials. So, the largest possible choice for $k$ without having this effect is $k=p$. Therefore we call B-splines with $k=p$ B-splines of *maximum smoothness*. As we are mostly interested in this case, here and in what follows, we will use ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega}):={S_{p,p,h}}({\Omega})$.
The main result of this paper is the following.
\[thrm:approx\] For all $u\in H^1({\Omega})$, all grid sizes $h$ and each degree $p\in\mathbb{N}$ with ${h\,p < |{\Omega}| = b-a}$, there is a spline approximation ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\label{eq:thrm:approx}
\|u-{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|u|_{H^1({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
Note that, in contrast to the existing results presented in the next subsection, this theorem achieves two goals, it covers the case of maximum smoothness and gives a uniform estimate for all polynomial degrees $p$.
Obviously ${S_{p,k,h}}({\Omega}) \supseteq {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ for all $0\le k < p$. So, Theorem \[thrm:approx\] is also valid in that case. However, for this case there might be better estimates for these larger B-spline spaces. Moreover, Theorem \[thrm:approx\] is also satisfied in the case of having repeated knots, as this is just a local reduction of the continuity (which enlarges the corresponding space of spline functions).
In Section \[sec:reduced\], we will introduce a subspace ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega}) \subseteq {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ (cf. Definition \[defi:Ssymm\]) and show that the spline approximation is even in that subspace (cf. Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\]). Moreover, we show also a corresponding *inverse inequality* for ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ (cf. Theorem \[thrm:inverse\] in Section \[sec:inverse\]), i.e., we will show that $$|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1({\Omega})} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} \|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied for all grid sizes $h$, each $p\in \mathbb{N}$ and all ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$.
We will moreover show that both the approximation error estimate and the inverse inequality are *sharp up to constants* (Corollaries \[corr:sharp1\] and \[corr:sharp2\]).
\[rem:counterexample\] This inverse inequality does not extend to the whole space ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$. Here it is easy to find a counterexample: Let ${\Omega}= (0,1)$. The function ${u_{p,h}}$, given by $${u_{p,h}}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-x/{h})^p & \mbox{\qquad for $x \in [0,{h})$}\\
0 & \mbox{\qquad for $x\in [{h},1]$},
\end{array}
\right.$$ is a member of the space ${S_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Straight-forward computations yield $$\frac{|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1(0,1)}}{\|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(0,1)}} = \sqrt{\frac{2p+1}{2p-1}} \;p \;{h}^{-1},$$ which cannot be bounded from above by a constant times ${h}^{-1}$ uniformly in $p$. Using a standard scaling argument, this counterexample can be extended to any ${\Omega}=(a,b)$.
The approximation error estimate and the inverse inequality are extended to higher Sobolev indices in Section \[sec:sobolev\]. Corresponding results for two and more dimensions are given in Section \[sec:dim\]. There, also the extension to Isogeometric Analysis is discussed.
Known approximation error estimates
-----------------------------------
Before proving the main theorems, we start with recalling two important pre-existing approximation error estimates. The first result is well-known in literature, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 6.25 or [@devore:1993], Theorem 7.3. In the framework of Isogeometric Analysis, such results have been used, e.g., in [@Bazilevs:2006], Lemma 3.3.
\[thrm:known\] For each $r\in\mathbb{N}_0$, each $k\in\mathbb{N}$, each $q\in\mathbb{N}$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}$, with $0\le r\le q\le p+1$ and $r\le k \le p$, there is a constant $C(p,k,r,q)$ such that the following approximation error estimate holds. For all $u\in H^q({\Omega})$ and all grid sizes $h$, there is a spline approximation ${u_{p,k,h}}\in {S_{p,k,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$|u-{u_{p,k,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})} \le C(p,k,r,q) {h}^{q-r} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
This theorem is valid for tensor-product spaces in any dimension and gives a local bound for locally quasi-uniform knot vectors. However, the dependence of the constant on the polynomial degree has not been derived.
A major step towards estimates with explicit $p$-dependence was presented in [@daVeiga:2011], Theorem 2, where an estimate with an explicit dependence on $p$, $k$, $r$ and $q$ was given. However, there the continuity $k$ is limited by the upper bound $\tfrac12(p+1)$. In our notation, the theorem reads as follows.
\[thrm:known:2\] There is a constant $C>0$ such that for each $r\in\mathbb{N}_0$, each $k\in\mathbb{N}$, each $q\in\mathbb{N}$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}$ with $0\le r\le k\le q\le p+1$ and $k \le \tfrac12(p+1)$ and all grid sizes $h$, the following approximation error estimate holds. For all $u\in H^q({\Omega})$, there is a spline approximation ${u_{p,k,h}}\in {S_{p,k,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\nonumber
|u-{u_{p,k,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})} \le C {h}^{q-r} (p-k+1)^{-(q-r)} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
Again, the original result was stated for locally quasi-uniform knots. For any $p\geq2$ the relevant case $k=p$, which we consider, is not covered by this theorem.
Similar results to Theorem \[thrm:approx\] are known in approximation theory, cf. [@Korneichuk:1991]. There, however, different norms have been discussed. Hence we do not go into the details. In [@Evans:2009], it was suggested and confirmed by numerical experiments that Theorem \[thrm:approx\] is satisfied. A proof was however not given.
Organization of this paper
--------------------------
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:prelim\], we present the main steps of the proof of Theorem \[thrm:approx\] and give some preliminaries. In the following two sections, the details of the proof are worked out. In Section \[sec:reduced\], we introduce the reduced spline space ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$, discuss its properties and extend Theorem \[thrm:approx\] to that space. In the following section, Section \[sec:inverse\], we give an inverse inequality for ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$. In the remainder of the paper, we generalize those results: In Section \[sec:sobolev\] we consider higher Sobolev indices and in Section \[sec:dim\], the results are generalized to two or more dimensions.
Concept of the proof of Theorem [1]{} and Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=======================================================
The proof of Theorem \[thrm:approx\] is based on an estimate for periodic splines, which is formulated as Lemma \[lem:approx:per\]. The proof of Lemma \[lem:approx:per\] is based on a telescoping argument based on a hierarchy of grids. For the proof, we require
- an estimate for the difference of the spline approximations of a given function on two consecutive grids, cf. , and
- an estimate for the difference between the spline approximation on some finest grid and the given function, cf. Lemma \[lem:non:robust\].
As the size of the finest grid approaches $0$, the constant in Lemma \[lem:non:robust\] or its dependence on the spline degree $p$ does not matter, whereas the constant in directly affects the constant in the final result.
The estimate is shown in Section \[sec:twogrid\], cf. Lemma \[lem:lfa\]. There, the proof is done by means of Fourier analysis, which causes the restriction of the analysis to equidistant grids. The Fourier analysis follows a classical line: first, a matrix-vector formulation is introduced, cf. Lemma \[lemma:decomp\], then the symbols of the involved matrices are derived, cf. Subsections \[subsec:symbols\] and \[subsec:symbols2\]. A closed form for the symbol of the mass matrix is not available, so some statements on that matrix are derived (Lemmas \[lem:mass\] and \[lem:mass:estim\]), which are used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:lfa\].
Having the result for two consecutive grids in the periodic case, we use the aforementioned telescoping argument to give an approximation error estimate for apprximating a general periodic $H^1$-function. The extension to the non-periodic case is done by means of a periodic extension.
Periodic splines
----------------
To establish the theory within this paper, we need to introduce spaces of periodic splines, which we define as follows.
\[defi:Speriodic\] Given a spline space ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ over ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, the *periodic spline space* ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ contains all functions ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ that satisfy the linear periodicity condition $$\label{eq:sym:cond}
\frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} {u_{p,h}}(a)=\frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} {u_{p,h}}(b)
\mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mbox{ with } l < p.$$
The next step is to introduce a B-spline-like basis for this space. First, we introduce the cardinal B-splines. On $\mathbb{R}$, the cardinal B-splines are defined as follows, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], (4.22).
The cardinal B-splines of degree $p=0$, $\psi^{(i)}_{0}: \;\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ coincide with the characteristic function, i.e., $$\psi^{(i)}_{0}(x) := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ for } x \in ( i , i+1 ],\\
0 & \mbox{ else,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $i \in \mathbb{Z}$.
The cardinal B-splines $\psi^{(i)}_{p}: \;\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ of degree $p\in\mathbb{N}$ are given by the recurrence formula $$\label{eq:recur:bspline}
\psi^{(i)}_{p}(x) := \frac{x-i}{p} \psi^{(i)}_{p-1}(x) + \frac{(p+i+1)-x}{p} \psi^{(i+1)}_{p-1}(x),$$ where $i \in\mathbb{Z}$.
From the cardinal B-splines $\psi^{(i)}_{p}$, we derive the B-splines ${\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}$ on ${\Omega}$ over a uniform grid of size ${h}$ by a suitable scaling and shifting.
For $i\in\mathbb{Z}$ the uniform B-spline ${\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}: \;{\Omega}= (a,b)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ of degree $p\in\mathbb{N}_0$ and grid size ${h}$ is given by $${\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}(x) := \psi^{(i)}_{p}\left(\frac{x-a}{h}\right).$$
We obtain by construction that $\mbox{supp}({\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}) \subset [i {h}+a, (i+p+1) {h}+a ]$. Hence, $-p$ and ${n_h}-1$ with ${n_h}= {h}^{-1}(b-a)$ are the first and last indices of the B-splines supported in ${\Omega}$, respectively, i.e. ${\textnormal{supp}}({\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}) \cap {\Omega}\neq \emptyset$ is equivalent to $-p \leq i \leq {n_h}-1$. Moreover, $\{{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}\}^{{n_h}-1}_{i=-p}$ forms a basis for ${S_{p,h}}$, see, e.g., [@Schumaker:1981]. Note that both ${n_h}$ and the basis functions depend implicitly on the choice of ${\Omega}$, i.e., the values $a$ and $b$. Throughout the paper, it is clear from the context which ${\Omega}$ is chosen.
For the construction of the basis for the periodic spline space ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$, we assume that $$\label{eq:condition-grid-size}
hp < |{\Omega}| = b-a,$$ i.e., that the grid is fine enough not to have basis functions that are non-zero at both end points of the grid, cf. [@Schumaker:1981].
\[defi:basis-per\] For ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$, the *B-spline-like basis* $\{{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}\}^{{n_h}-1}_{i=0}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}:= {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}&&\mbox{ if } i<{n_h}-p, \mbox{ and} \\
& {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}:= {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i-{n_h})}&&\mbox{ if } i \geq {n_h}-p.\end{aligned}$$
Up to indexing, this definition coincides with (8.6) and (8.7) in [@Schumaker:1981]. Theorem 8.2 in [@Schumaker:1981] states that is actually a basis.
As ${\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}$ vanishes on ${\Omega}$ for all $i\not\in \{-p,\ldots,{n_h}-1\}$, we have $$\label{eq:basis:varphi}
{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i+j {n_h})},$$ where $\mathbb{Z}$ is the set of integers, for all $i=0,\ldots, {n_h}-1$. Using this definition, we directly obtain that also ${\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i+j{n_h})}$ for any $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, which we will use for ease of notation throughout this paper.
We call this basis B-spline-like, as each function is a non-negative linear combination of B-splines and it forms a partition of unity on ${\Omega}$.
A non-robust approximation error estimate in the periodic case
--------------------------------------------------------------
We can extend Theorem \[thrm:known\] for $k=p-1$ to the following Lemma \[lem:non:robust\] stating that the approximation error estimate is still satisfied if we approximate periodic functions with periodic splines. First, we introduce the spaces of periodic functions as follows.
For ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, the space $\widehat{H}^q({\Omega})$ is the space of all $u\in H^q({\Omega})$ that satisfy the periodicity condition $$\label{eq:pc}
\frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} u(a)=\frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} u(b)
\mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mbox{ with } l < q.$$
Note that standard trace theorems guarantee that the periodicity condition is well-defined. For this space, the following lemma holds.
\[lem:non:robust\] For each $r\in\mathbb{N}_0$, each $q\in\mathbb{N}$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}$ with $0\le r\le q\le p+1$, there is a constant $C(p,r,q)$ such that the following approximation error estimate holds. For all $u \in \widehat{H}^{q}({\Omega})$ and all grid sizes $h$, there is a spline approximation ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})} \le C(p,r,q) {h}^{q-r} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
In the following, we assume without loss of generality that ${\Omega}=(0,1)$. The extension to any other ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, follows using a standard scaling argument.
Let $w$ be the periodic extension of the function $u$ to $\mathbb{R}$, i.e., $w(x):=u(x-\lfloor x \rfloor)$. Note that the restriction of $w$ to any finite interval is again a function in the Sobolev space $H^q$. The following of the proof is based on the proof in § 6.4 in [@Schumaker:1981]. We make use of the fact that the proof uses local projections. Let $Q_{p,h}: H^q(\mathbb{R})
\rightarrow {S_{p,h}}(\mathbb{R})$ be the projection operator, as introduced in (6.40) in [@Schumaker:1981]. The value of the approximation $Q_{p,h}w$ of a function $w$ at a certain subinterval $I_i:=(i\;h,(i+1)\;h)\subseteq {\Omega}$ only depends on the values of the function to be approximated in a certain neighborhood $\widetilde{I}_i:=((i-p)\;h,(i+p+1)\;h)$. So, from the periodicity of $w$, the periodicity of $Q_{p,h}w$ follows immediately. Hence its restriction to $(0,1)$ is a periodic spline, i.e. $Q_{p,h}w|_{(0,1)}\in{\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$. We define ${u_{p,h}}$ to be the restriction of $Q_{p,h}w$ to $(0,1$). Due to [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 6.24, the local estimate $$\nonumber |w-Q_{p,h}w|_{H^r(I_i)} \le \widetilde{C}(p,r,q) {h}^{q-r} |w|_{H^q(\widetilde{I}_i)}.$$ is satisfied for the projector $Q_{p,h}$ and a constant $\widetilde{C}(p,r,q)$, which is independent of ${h}$. By summing over all elements, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^r(0,1)}^2
= |w-Q_{p,h}w |_{H^r(0,1)}^2
= \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} |w-Q_{p,h}w|_{H^r(I_i)}^2 \\
& \quad \le \widetilde{C}^2(p,r,q) {h}^{2(q-r)} \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} |w|_{H^q(\widetilde{I}_i)}^2
=\widetilde{C}^2(p,r,q) {h}^{2(q-r)} \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}\sum_{j=-p}^{p} |w|_{H^q(I_{i+j})}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the periodicity of $w$, we can express the last term using $|u|_{H^q(I_{l})}$ for $l\in\{0,\ldots,{n_h}-~1\}$ only. By counting the occurrences of the summands $|u|_{H^q(I_{l})}$, we obtain $$\nonumber
\sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}\sum_{j=-p}^{p} |w|_{H^q(I_{i+j})}^2
= (2p+1) \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} |u|_{H^q(I_{i})}^2 = (2p+1) |u|_{H^q(0,1)}^2,$$ which finishes the proof for $C(p,r,q) = (2p+1)^{1/2} \widetilde{C}(p,r,q)$.
A robust approximation error estimate for two consecutive grids in the periodic case {#sec:twogrid}
====================================================================================
In this section we analyze the case of approximating a periodic spline function on a fine grid by a periodic spline function on a coarser grid. In the next section, we extend these results to the approximation of general functions and to the non-periodic case. The extension to the non-periodic case is done by extending functions in $H^1(0,1)$ to $(-1,1)$ by reflecting them on the $y$-axis. So, without loss of generality, we will restrict ourselves to $\Omega=(-1,1)$ throughout this section. Moreover, for the construction of , we will need that $hp<1$, which is stronger than the requirement $hp<b-a$, cf. Theorem \[thrm:approx\]. So, throughout this section, we will use the following assumptions.
The domain is given by $\Omega=(-1,1)$ and the grid size is small enough such that $hp<1$ holds.
In the next section, we will make use of a telescoping argument. For this purpose, we have to analyze a fixed interpolation operator. So, within this section, we will show that $$\label{eq:whattolfa}
\|(I- \widehat{\Pi}_{p,{h}} ) {u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\; {h}|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)}$$ holds for all ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}(-1,1)$, where $I$ is the identity and $\widehat{\Pi}_{p,{h}}$ is the $H^1$-orthogonal projection operator, given by the following definition.
\[def:H1projection\] The projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{p,{h}}:\widehat{H}^1(-1,1)\rightarrow {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ maps every $u\in \widehat{H}^1(-1,1)$ to the function ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:def:projection}
({u_{p,h}}, {v_{p,h}})_{{H^1_{\circ}}(-1,1)} = (u, {v_{p,h}})_{{H^1_{\circ}}(-1,1)}$$ for all ${v_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$, where $$(u,v)_{{H^1_{\circ}}(-1,1)}:=(u,v)_{H^1(-1,1)} + \left(\int_{-1}^1 u(x){\textnormal{d}}x\right)\left(\int_{-1}^1 v(x){\textnormal{d}}x\right).$$
Within the next subsections, we will prove . This will be done by a rigorous version of Fourier analysis. Fourier analysis is a well-known tool for analyzing convergence properties of numerical methods, cf. the work by A. Brandt, like [@Brandt:1977], and many others. It provides a framework to determine sharp bounds for the convergence rates of multigrid methods and other iterative solvers for problems arising from partial differential equations. This is different to classical analysis, which typically yields qualitative statements only. For a detailed introduction into Fourier analysis, see, e.g., [@Trottenberg:2001]. Recently, it has also been applied in the area of Isogeometric Analysis, cf. [@Garoni:2014].
Typically, Fourier analysis is done under simplifying assumptions, like assuming uniform grids and neglecting the boundary. In this case, one refers to *local* Fourier analysis (or local mode analysis). This analysis can be understood as a heuristic method to study methods of interest. In a recent work, cf. [@Garoni:2014], it was understood also as a rigorous statement for a limit case.
We, however, are interested in a completely rigorous analysis. As we restrict ourselves to periodic spline spaces, the Fourier modes are the exact eigenvectors of the matrices of interest, which will allow us to diagonalize these matrices using a similarity transformation. Based on such a diagonalization, we will be able to prove .
As a first step, we introduce a matrix-vector formulation of .
A matrix-vector formulation of the estimate
-------------------------------------------
Having fixed the B-spline like basis $\{{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}\}_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}$, we can write any function ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ as a linear combination of these basis functions: $${u_{p,h}}= \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} {u_{p,h}}^{(i)} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}.$$ The coefficients ${u_{p,h}}^{(i)}$ can be collected in a coefficient vector: We define ${{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}:=({u_{p,h}}^{(i)})_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}$. So, the vector ${{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}$ is the representation of the function ${u_{p,h}}$ with respect to the B-spline like basis. Here and in what follows, we will always assume underlined quantities to be the basis representation of the corresponding function with respect to the basis $\{{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}\}_{i=0}^{{n_h}}$.
By plugging such a decomposition into the standard $L^2$-scalar product $(\cdot,\cdot)_{L^2(-1,1)}$, we obtain $$({u_{p,h}},{v_{p,h}})_{L^2(-1,1)} = \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}\sum_{j=0}^{{n_h}-1}{u_{p,h}}^{(i)}\;{v_{p,h}}^{(j)}
\; ({\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)},{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)})_{L^2(-1,1)}.$$ As the grid is equidistant and the splines are periodic, we obtain that for all $i$ and $j$ the relation $({\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)},{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)})_{L^2(-1,1)}=m_{p,h}^{(i-j)}$ holds with coefficients $m_{p,h}^{(i)}:=({\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)},{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(0)})_{L^2(-1,1)}$. Those coefficients form a circulant matrix $M_{p,h}:=(m_{p,h}^{(i-j)})_{i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$, which is called the mass matrix. We immediately obtain $$({u_{p,h}},{v_{p,h}})_{L^2(-1,1)} = ({{\underline}{u}_{p,h}},{{\underline}{v}_{p,h}})_{M_{p,h}} := {{\underline}{v}_{p,h}}^T M_{p,h}{{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}$$ and $$\|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}^2 = \|{{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}\|_{M_{p,h}}^2 := {{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}^T M_{p,h} {{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}.$$ Having a look onto the support of the functions ${\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(0)}$, we obtain that the bandwidth of the mass matrix is $2p+1$, i.e. $m_{p,h}^{(i-j)} = 0$ for all $i,j$ with $|i-j|>p$.
Analogously to the definition of the mass matrix, we can introduce the stiffness matrix, representing the ${H^1_{\circ}}$-scalar product. The stiffness matrix is given by $K_{p,h}:=(k_{p,h}^{(i-j)})_{i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$, where the coefficients are given by $$k_{p,h}^{(i)} := \left( {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}, {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(0)} \right)_{{H^1_{\circ}}(-1,1)}.$$ Since the basis functions ${\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}$ form a partition of unity on $\Omega=(-1,1)$, $\int_{-1}^1 {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}(x) {\textnormal{d}}x={h}$ and further $$\label{eq:def:stiff}
k_{p,h}^{(i)} = \left( {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}, {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(0)} \right)_{H^1(-1,1)}
+ {h}^2.$$ Note that for uniform knot vectors the identity $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \varphi_{p,h}^{(j)}(x) = \frac{1}{{h}}\left(\varphi_{p-1,h}^{(j-1)}(x)- \varphi_{p-1,h}^{(j)}(x)\right)$$ holds, see e.g. (5.36) in [@Schumaker:1981]. This statement directly carries over to the periodic splines using relation , i.e., $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x) = \frac{1}{{h}}\left(\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}^{(j-1)}(x)- \widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}^{(j)}(x)\right)$$ also holds. By plugging this into , the entries of the stiffness matrix can be derived directly using the entries of the mass matrix for splines of order $p-1$. Straight-forward calculations show that $$\label{eq:k:decomp}
K_{p,h} = D_{h} M_{p-1,h} D_{h}^T + E_{h},$$ where the gradient matrix $D_{h}:=(d_{h}^{(i-j)})_{i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$ is given by the coefficients $$d_{h}^{(i)} := \frac{1}{{h}} \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ for } i\in {n_h}\,\mathbb{Z} \\
-1 & \mbox{ for } i\in {n_h}\,\mathbb{Z}-1 \\
0 & \mbox{ else}
\end{array}
\right.,$$ the rank-one matrix $E_h$ is given by $E_h := {h}^2 {\underline}{\bf{1}}_{h} {\underline}{\bf{1}}_{h}^T$, where ${\underline}{\bf{1}}_{h}:=(1,\ldots,1)^T\in\mathbb{R}^{{n_h}}$ is a vector consisting only of ones, representing the constant function. Note that $D_h$, $E_h$ and, consequently, $K_h$ are also circulant matrices.
To derive a matrix-vector formulation of , we have to introduce a matrix that represents the canonical embedding from ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ into ${\widehat{S}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}(-1,1)$. The following lemma is rather well-known in literature, cf. [@Chui:1992] equation (4.3.4), and can be easily shown by induction in $p$.
For all $p\in\mathbb{N}$, all grid sizes $h$ and all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $$\nonumber
{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x) = 2^{-p} \sum_{l=0}^{p+1} \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\l\end{array}\right)
\varphi_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}^{(2j+l)}(x)$$ is satisfied for all $j=-p,\ldots,{n_h}-p-1$.
This directly carries over to the periodic splines, i.e., we obtain $$\label{eq:intergrid:per}
{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x) = 2^{-p} \sum_{l=0}^{p+1} \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\l\end{array}\right)
\widehat{\varphi}_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}^{(2j+l)}(x)
= \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}
\underbrace{2^{-p}\left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\ i-2j \end{array}\right)}
_{\displaystyle p_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)}:=}
\widehat{\varphi}_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}^{(i)}(x).$$ Here, we use equation and that the binomial coefficient $\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\b \end{array}\right)$ vanishes for $b\not\in \{0,\ldots,a\}$. Again, we define the matrix $P_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}:=(p_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)})_{i=0,\ldots, 2{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$. Here and in what follows, we make use of $n_{\frac{h}{2}} = 2 {n_h}$.
\[lemma:decomp\] The inequality is equivalent to $$\label{eq:whattolfa2}
\|M_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{1/2} (I-P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} K_{p,{h}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}) K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{-1/2}\|
\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} h ,$$ which is a consequence of the combination of $$\begin{aligned}
& \|M_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{1/2}M_{p-1,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{-1/2}\|\le 1\qquad \mbox{and}\label{eq:whattolfa3}\\
& \|M_{p-1,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{1/2} (I-P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} K_{p,{h}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}) K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{-1/2}\|
\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} h. \label{eq:whattolfa4}
\end{aligned}$$
Here and in what follows, $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean norm and the square root $A^{1/2}$ of a symmetric and positive definite matrix $A$ is that symmetric and positive definite matrix that satisfies $A^{1/2}A^{1/2} = A$.
[*of Lemma \[lemma:decomp\]*]{} Using the introduced matrices $K_{p,h}$ and $P_{p,\tfrac{h}{2}}$, we can rewrite for the choice $u := {u_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}$ in matrix-vector form as $$\nonumber
(P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} {{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}, P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} {{\underline}{v}_{p,h}})_{K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}}
= ({{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}, P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}{{\underline}{v}_{p,h}})_{K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}},$$ which is equivalent to $$\nonumber
P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^TK_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} {{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}=
P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} {{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}.$$ This yields, using the Galerkin principle ($P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^TK_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}=K_{p,{h}}$), that the coarse-grid approximation ${{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}$ is given by $$\nonumber
{{\underline}{u}_{p,h}}= K_{p,{h}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} {{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}.$$ By plugging this into , we see that we have to show $$\|(I-P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}} K_{p,{h}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}) {{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\|_{M_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}}
\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} {h}\|{{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\|_{K_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}}$$ for all ${{\underline}{u}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\in \mathbb{R}^{2{n_h}}$. By rewriting this using a standard matrix norm, we obtain . Using the semi-multiplicativity of matrix norms, we obtain that is a consequence of and .
Note that the stiffness matrix for some degree $p$ depends implicitly on the mass matrix for the degree $p-1$. So, analyzing is more convenient than analyzing as the inequality depends just on the one mass matrix $M_{p-1,\frac{{h}}{2}}$, whereas depends on two mass matrices: $M_{p-1,\frac{{h}}{2}}$ and $M_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}$. We will show in the next subsection and in the remainder of this section.
A lemma relating the mass matrices for different polynomial degrees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimate is a direct consequence of the following lemma.
\[lem:mass\] For all $p\in \mathbb{N}$, grid sizes $h$ and vectors ${\underline}{u}_h \in \mathbb{R}^{{n_h}}$, the inequality $$\nonumber \|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p,h}} \le \|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p-1,h}}$$ is satisfied.
First we observe that the convolution formula for cardinal B-splines, cf. equation (13) in [@Garoni:2014], can be carried over to the functions ${\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}$, i.e., that $$\label{eq:rel1}
{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}(x) = h^{-1} \int_0^{h} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}}^{(i)}(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}t$$ holds. Let ${\underline}{u}_h=(u_h^{(i)})_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1}$. Then, using , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p,h}}^2
& = \int_{-1}^1 \left( \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} u_h^{(i)} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}(x) \right)^2 {\textnormal{d}}x \\
& = \int_{-1}^1 \left( \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} u_h^{(i)} h^{-1} \int_0^h {\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}}^{(i)}(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}t \right)^2 {\textnormal{d}}x \\
& = h^{-2} \int_{-1}^1 \left( \int_0^{h} \left( \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} u_h^{(i)} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}}^{(i)}(x-t) \right) {\textnormal{d}}t \right)^2 {\textnormal{d}}x \\
& = h^{-2} \int_{-1}^1 \left( \int_0^{h} 1 \, s(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}t \right)^2 {\textnormal{d}}x
\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $s(x):= \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} u_h^{(i)} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}}^{(i)}(x-t)$.
Now, we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the inner integral and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p,h}}^2
& \leq h^{-2} \int_{-1}^1 \left( \int_0^{h} 1^2 {\textnormal{d}}t \right)\left( \int_0^{h}s^2(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}t \right) {\textnormal{d}}x \\
& = h^{-1} \int_{-1}^1 \int_0^{h} s^2(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}t\,{\textnormal{d}}x = h^{-1} \int_0^{h} \int_{-1}^1 s^2(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}x\,{\textnormal{d}}t.
\end{aligned}$$ Observe that due to periodicity, $\int_{-1}^1 s^2(x-t) {\textnormal{d}}x =
\int_{-1}^1 s^2(\xi) {\textnormal{d}}\xi$ for all $t\in[0,h]$, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p,h}}^2
& \le h^{-1} \int_0^{h} \int_{-1}^1 s^2(\xi) {\textnormal{d}}\xi\,{\textnormal{d}}t
= h^{-1} \left(\int_{0}^h 1{\textnormal{d}}t\right)\left( \int_{-1}^1 s^2(\xi) {\textnormal{d}}\xi \right)\\
& = \int_{-1}^1 \left( \sum_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} u_h^{(i)} {\widehat{\varphi}_{p-1,h}}^{(i)}(\xi) \right)^2 {\textnormal{d}}\xi = \|{\underline}{u}_h\|_{M_{p-1,h}}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof.
Symbols of mass matrix and stiffness matrix {#subsec:symbols}
-------------------------------------------
As the matrices $M_{p,h}$ and $K_{p,h}$ are circulant matrices, we can analyze them using Fourier analysis. So, we consider the Fourier vectors $${\underline}{f}_{h,j}:=({\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2ij h\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}})_{i=0}^{{n_h}-1} \qquad \mbox{ for } j = 0,\ldots, {n_h}-1,$$ where ${\textnormal{\bf i}}$ is the imaginary unit.
We observe (using that the bandwith of the mass matrix is $2p+1$) that $$\begin{aligned}
( M_{p,h} {\underline}{f}_{h,j} )_i
&= \sum_{l=-p}^p m_{p,h}^{(l)} {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{2(i+l)jh\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}}
= \sum_{l=-p}^p m_{p,h}^{(l)} {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{2ljh\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}} {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{2ijh\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}}\\
&= {\underbrace{\sum_{l=-p}^p m_{p,h}^{(l)} {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{2ljh\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}}}_{\displaystyle \widehat{m}_{p,h}^{(j)}:= }} ( {\underline}{f}_{h,j} )_i\end{aligned}$$ for all $i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$ and $j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$ and consequently $$\nonumber M_{p,h} {\underline}{f}_{h,j} = \widehat{m}_{p,h}^{(j)} {\underline}{f}_{h,j}$$ is satisfied for all $j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$, i.e., that ${\underline}{f}_{h,j}$ is an eigenvector of $M_{p,h}$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\widehat{m}_{p,h}^{(j)}$. As we have identified ${n_h}$ different eigenvalues, the corresponding eigenvectors define a basis of $\mathbb{R}^{{n_h}}$. Therefore, the matrix $\mathbb{F}_{h}$, obtained by collecting the vectors ${\underline}{f}_{h,j}$, i.e., $$\mathbb{F}_{h} := \left( \begin{array}{cccc} {\underline}{f}_{h,0} & {\underline}{f}_{h,1} & \cdots & {\underline}{f}_{h,{n_h}-1} \end{array}\right)
= ({\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2ij h\pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}})_{i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1},$$ is a non-singular matrix. As $\mathbb{F}_{h}$ is the matrix built from the eigenvectors, it diagonalizes the matrix $M_{p,h}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:mhat}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} M_{p,h} \mathbb{F}_{h} = \widehat{M}_{p,h},$$ where $\widehat{M}_{p,h}:={\textnormal{diag}}(\widehat{m}_{p,h}^{(0)},\ldots,\widehat{m}_{p,h}^{({n_h}-1)})$. Analogously, we obtain $$\label{eq:dhat}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} D_{h} \mathbb{F}_{h} = \widehat{D}_{h},$$ where $\widehat{D}_{h}:={\textnormal{diag}}(\widehat{d}_{h}^{(0)},\ldots,\widehat{d}_{h}^{({n_h}-1)})$ with $$\label{eq:dhatcoef}
\widehat{d}_{h}^{(j)}:={h}^{-1}(1-{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{2jh\pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}}).$$ Using the same construction we obtain that further $$\label{eq:dhat:star}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} D_{h}^T \mathbb{F}_{h} = \widehat{D}_{h}^*.$$ With $\widehat{D}_{h}^*$ we denote the adjoint (the conjugate transpose) of the matrix $\widehat{D}_{h}$. Note that $E_h={h}^2 {\underline}{\bf{1}}_h {\underline}{\bf{1}}_h^T$ is a circulant matrix with rank $1$. The only non-zero eigenvalue is ${h}$, with corresponding eigenvector ${\underline}{\bf{1}}_h = {\underline}{f}_{h, 0}$. So, we obtain $$\label{eq:ehat}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} E_h \mathbb{F}_{h} = \widehat{E}_h$$ where $\widehat{E}_h:={\textnormal{diag}}(\widehat{e}_{h}^{(0)},\ldots,\widehat{e}_{h}^{({n_h}-1)})$ with $$\label{eq:ehatcoef}
\widehat{e}_{h}^{(j)}:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}{h}&\mbox{ for } j=0\\0&\mbox{ otherwise.}\end{array}\right.$$ So, we can determine, $\widehat{K}_{h}$, the symbol of the stiffness matrix. Using , , , and , we obtain that $$\label{eq:khat}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} K_{p,h} \mathbb{F}_{h}= \widehat{K}_{h},$$ where $\widehat{K}_{h}:={\textnormal{diag}}(\widehat{k}_{p,h}^{(0)},\ldots,\widehat{k}_{p,h}^{({n_h}-1)})$ with $$\label{eq:khatcoef}
\widehat{k}_{p,h}^{(j)} := \widehat{d}_{h}^{(j)}\widehat{m}_{p-1,h}^{(j)} (\widehat{d}_{h}^{(j)})^*+\widehat{e}_{h}^{(j)}.$$
Symbol of the intergrid transfer {#subsec:symbols2}
--------------------------------
The following lemma characterizes the symbol of the intergrid transfer.
\[lem:phat\] We have $$\label{eq:phat}
\mathbb{F}_{\frac{{h}}{2}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}\mathbb{F}_{{h}} = \widehat{P}_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}},$$ where $\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}:=(\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{(i,j)})_{i=0,\ldots,2{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$ with $$\label{eq:phatcoef}
\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}^{(i,j)} :=
2^{-p-1}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{- 2i\frac{h}{2}\pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}} \right)^{p+1}
& \mbox{ for } i - j \in \{0,{n_h}\}\\
0
& \mbox{ otherwise }
\end{array}
\right.$$ for all $i=0,\ldots,2{n_h}-1$ and all $j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$.
The equation is equivalent to $P_{\frac{{h}}{2}}\mathbb{F}_{{h}} = \mathbb{F}_{\frac{{h}}{2}} \widehat{P}_{\frac{{h}}{2}}$. We obtain using and the definition of $\mathbb{F}_{{h}}$ for any unit vector ${\underline}{\textbf{I}}_{{h}}^{(j)}$ with $j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{\frac{{h}}{2}}\mathbb{F}_{{h}}{\underline}{\textbf{I}}_{{h}}^{(j)}
= P_{\frac{{h}}{2}}{\underline}{f}_{{h},j}
= 2^{-p} \left( \sum_{r\in \mathbb{Z} } \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\ i-2r \end{array}\right)
{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2jr h \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}} \right)_{i=0}^{2{n_h}-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Because $\tfrac12(1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ t \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}})$ takes the value $0$ for $t$ being odd and $1$ for $t$ being even, we can substitute $r$ by $2t$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{\frac{{h}}{2}}\mathbb{F}_{{h}}{\underline}{\textbf{I}}_{{h}}^{(j)}
= 2^{-p-1} \left( \sum_{t\in \mathbb{Z} } \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\ i-t \end{array}\right)
{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2 jt \frac{h}{2} \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}} ( 1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ t \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}})\right)_{i=0}^{2{n_h}-1} \\
&\quad = 2^{-p-1} \left( \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z} } \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\ k \end{array}\right)
{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2 j(i-k) \frac{h}{2} \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}} ( 1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ (i-k) \pi {\textnormal{\bf i}}})\right)_{i=0}^{2{n_h}-1} \\
&\quad = 2^{-p-1} \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z} } \left(\begin{array}{c}p+1\\k\end{array}\right)
\left( {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{- 2 jk \frac{h}{2} \pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}}
{\underline}{f}_{\frac{{h}}{2},j}
+ {\textnormal{\bf e}}^{-2(j+{n_h})k\frac{h}{2} \pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}}
{\underline}{f}_{\frac{{h}}{2},j+{n_h}} \right) \\
&\quad = 2^{-p-1}\left(1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{- 2j\frac{h}{2}\pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}} \right)^{p+1} {\underline}{f}_{\frac{{h}}{2},j}
+ 2^{-p-1}\left(1+{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{-2(j+{n_h})\frac{h}{2}\pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}} \right)^{p+1} {\underline}{f}_{\frac{{h}}{2},j+{n_h}}.
\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the $j$-th column of $P_{\frac{{h}}{2}}\mathbb{F}_{{h}}$ is just the combination of two columns of $\mathbb{F}_{\frac{{h}}{2}}$. Therefore, the matrix $\widehat{P}_{\frac{{h}}{2}}$ has just two non-zero entries, in the $j$-th row: those which we have claimed in .
For determining the symbol of $P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T$, we observe as follows. As the Fourier modes ${\underline}{f}_{{h},j}$ are pairwise orthogonal, and ${\underline}{f}_{{h},j}^*{\underline}{f}_{{h},j} = {n_h}$, we immediately obtain $\mathbb{F}_{{h}}^*\mathbb{F}_{{h}} = {n_h}I$ and, consequently, $\mathbb{F}_{{h}}^{-1} = {h}\mathbb{F}_{{h}}^*$. So, we obtain using that $$\label{eq:phattranspose}
\mathbb{F}_{h}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T \mathbb{F}_{\frac{h}{2}}
= ( \mathbb{F}_{\frac{h}{2}}^* P_{p,\frac{h}{2}} \mathbb{F}_{h}^{-*} )^*
= ( 2 \mathbb{F}_{\frac{h}{2}}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{h}{2}} \mathbb{F}_{h} )^*
= 2 \widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^*.$$
Some statements on the symbol of the mass matrix
------------------------------------------------
A closed form for the symbol of the mass matrix is not known. Within this subsection we will show a few statements characterizing the symbol, which we will need later on. Due to [@Chui:1992; @Wang:2010], we have $$\label{eq:our:mass:formula}
m_{p,{h}}^{(j)} = {h}\frac{ E(2 p + 1, p + j)}{(2 p + 1)!},$$ where $j\in\{-p,\ldots,p\}$. Here, $E(n,k)$ are the Eulerian numbers, which satisfy the recurrence relation $$E(n, k) = (n - k) E(n - 1, k - 1) + (k + 1) E(n - 1, k)$$ and the initial condition $$E(0, j) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{for } j= 0\\
0 & \mbox{for } j\not= 0
\end{array}
\right..$$ A similar result was also stated in [@Garoni:2014]. There, the entries of the mass matrix, i.e., the $L^2$-products of two B-splines of order $p$ have been shown to be equal to the function value of one B-spline of order $p+1$. Using the recurrence relation , one obtains that the result in [@Garoni:2014] is equivalent to .
As $m_{p,{h}}^{(j)}=m_{p,{h}}^{(-j)}$ and ${\textnormal{\bf e}}^{\theta {\textnormal{\bf i}}} +{\textnormal{\bf e}}^{-\theta {\textnormal{\bf i}}} = 2 \cos\theta$, we obtain $$\nonumber \widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(j)} = {h}\sum_{l=-p}^p\frac{ E(2 p + 1, p + l)}{(2p + 1)!}\cos(2ljh\pi).$$
The symbol is better characterized by the following lemma.
\[lem:mass:estim\] The following two statements hold:
- $\widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(j)}> 0$ for all $j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$ and
- $\widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(j)}\le \widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(k)}$ for all $j,k=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1$ with $\cos(2jh\pi) \le \cos(2kh\pi)$.
For $c\in[0,2]$, we define $$g_{p}(c) := \sum_{l=-p}^p\frac{ E(2 p + 1, p + l)}{(2p + 1)!}\cos(l\arccos (c-1))$$ and observe $g_{p}(c) = {h}^{-1} \widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(\eta(c))}$, where $\eta(c):=\frac{1}{2h\pi}\arccos (c-1)$. The statement of the lemma is now equivalent to the combination of the following two statements:
- ${h}^{-1}\widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(\eta(0))}=g_{p}(0)>0$ and
- ${h}^{-1}\widehat{m}_{p,{h}}^{(\eta(c))}=g_{p}(c)$ is monotonically increasing for $c>0$.
Since we can express $\cos(l\arccos (c-1))$ as the $l$-th Chebyshev polynomial, $g_{p}$ is a polynomial function in $c$. Using the recurrence relation for the Eulerian numbers, we can derive the following recurrence formula for $g_{p}$: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{p}(c)=\frac{1+c p}{1+2 p} g_{p-1}(c)+\frac{(2-c) (1+c (2 p-1))}{p (1+2 p)} g_{p-1}'(c)+\frac{(c-2)^2 c}{p (1+2 p)} g_{p-1}''(c).
\end{aligned}$$ We can make an ansatz $$g_{p}(c) = \sum_{j=0}^p a_{p,j} c^j,$$ where we use $0^0 = 1$, and derive the recurrence formula $$a_{p,j}={\underbrace{\frac{(1-j+p)^2}{p+2 p^2}}_{\displaystyle A_{p,j}:=}} a_{p-1,j-1}
+{\underbrace{\frac{4j (p-j)+j+p}{p+2 p^2}}_{\displaystyle B_{p,j}:=}} a_{p-1,j}
+{\underbrace{\frac{2+6 j+4 j^2}{p+2 p^2}}_{\displaystyle C_{p,j}:=}} a_{p-1,j+1}$$ for the coefficients $a_{p,j}$. For $p=1$, we obtain $$a_{1,j} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tfrac13 & \mbox{ for $j\in\{0,1\}$ } \\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ As $A_{p,j}>0$, $B_{p,j}>0$ and $C_{p,j}>0$ for $0\le j \le p$, one can show using induction in $p$ that for all $p\ge 1$: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_{p,j} > 0 & \mbox{ for $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,p\}$ } \\
a_{p,j} = 0 & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ This immediately implies that $g_{p}(0)>0$ and that $g_{p}(c)$ is monotonically increasing for $c>0$, which concludes the proof.
An estimate for the projection operator
---------------------------------------
Now, we are able to prove the following lemma.
\[lem:lfa0\] The inequality holds.
The inequality is equivalent to $${\underbrace{{h}^{-1} \|M_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{1/2}(I-P_{p,\frac{h}{2}} K_{p,h}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}) K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1/2}\|}_{\displaystyle q:=}}
\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} .$$ Using Galerkin orthogonality, we obtain $K_{p,h} = P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$. Note that $\mathcal{H}:=I-P_{p,\frac{h}{2}} K_{p,h}^{-1} P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ is a projection operator, so $\mathcal{H}\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}$. Moreover, observe that $\mathcal{H} K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1} = K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}\mathcal{H}^T$. Using these identities and $\|W\|^2 = \rho(WW^T)$, where $\rho$ denotes the spectral radius, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
q^2 &= {h}^{-2}\rho( M_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1/2}\mathcal{H} K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}\mathcal{H}^T M_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1/2})
= {h}^{-2}\rho( K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}M_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}\mathcal{H} )
\\&=
{h}^{-2}\rho(
K_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}M_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}} (I-P_{p,\frac{h}{2}} (P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^TK_{p,\frac{h}{2}}P_{p,\frac{h}{2}})^{-1} P_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^T K_{p,\frac{h}{2}})
).
\end{aligned}$$ Using , , , , and , we obtain further $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
q^2 = {h}^{-2}\rho(
{\underbrace{\widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{-1}\widehat{M}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}
(I-2 \widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}} (2\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^*\widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}})^{-1}
\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^* \widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}})
}_{\displaystyle \widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}:=}}
).
\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[lem:mass:estim\] states that all digonal entries of $\widehat{M}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}$ are non-zero. It is straight-forward to see that also the diagonal entries of $\widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ and $\widehat{K}_{p,h}=\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^*\widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ are non-zero. So, $\widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ is well-defined.
Recall that Lemma \[lem:phat\] states that the matrix $\widehat{P}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}=(\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)})_{i=0,\ldots,2{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1}$ has a block-structure, given by $$\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)} = 0 \mbox{ for all } i-j \not\in\{0,{n_h}\}.$$ Therefore and because the matrices $\widehat{M}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}$ and $\widehat{K}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ are diagonal, the matrix $\widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}} = (\widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)})_{i=0,\ldots,2{n_h}-1}^{j=0,\ldots,2{n_h}-1}$ has a block-structure, given by $$\widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)} = 0 \mbox{ for all } i-j \not\in\{-{n_h},0,{n_h}\}.$$ By reordering the coefficients of the matrix $\widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$, we obtain a block-diagonal matrix with blocks $$\mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l,l)} & \widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l,l+{n_h})} \\
\widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+{n_h},l)} & \widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+{n_h},l+{n_h})}
\end{array}\right).$$ As this block-diagonal matrix is spectrally equivalent to $\widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}$ and the spectral radius of a block-diagonal matrix is just the maximum over the spectral radii of the blocks, we obtain $$q^2 = \rho(\widehat{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}) = \max_{l=0,\ldots,{n_h}-1} \rho( \mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)} ).$$ So, in the following, we derive the spectral radius of $\mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$ for any particular $l$. Straight-forward computation yields that for $l\in\{0,\ldots,{n_h}-1\}$, $i\in\{l,l+{n_h}\}$ and $j\in\{l,l+{n_h}\}$, we have $$\label{eq:xxxy}
\widehat{t}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)} =
\frac{\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i)}}{\widehat{k}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i)}}
\left (\delta_{i,j} - \frac{\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,l)}(\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(j,l)})^* }{\sum_{r=0}^1
(\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+r{n_h},l)})^* \widehat{k}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+r{n_h})} \widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+r{n_h},l)}
} \widehat{k}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(j)} \right),$$ where $\delta_{i,j}$ is the Kronecker-delta, i.e., $\delta_{i,j}=1$ for $i=j$ and $\delta_{i,j}=0$ for $i\not=j$.
Now, consider *case A*: $l\in\{1,\ldots,{n_h}-1\}$. Here, we plug the values of $\widehat{k}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(j)}$, $\widehat{d}_{\frac{h}{2}}^{(j)}$, $\widehat{e}_{\frac{h}{2}}^{(j)}$ (which takes the value $0$ for $j\in\{l,l+{n_h}\}$), $\widehat{p}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(i,j)}$, as given by , , and , into and substitute $\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+n_h)}$ by $\xi \widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$. Doing so, the term $\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$ cancels out and we obtain by straight-forward computation $$\nonumber
\mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)} =
\frac{1}{\delta}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-z(1 - z)^{p-3} \xi
\\ z(1 + z)^{p-3}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(-1)^{p} (1 - z)^{p+1} \\ (1 + z)^{p+1}
\end{array}
\right)^T,$$ where $\delta:=(1 + z)^{2 p} + (-1)^p (1 - z)^{2 p} \xi$ and $z:={\textnormal{\bf e}}^{ 2 l \frac{h}{2} \pi{\textnormal{\bf i}}}$. Note that the computations are not a problem, as none of the symbols (except $\widehat{e}_{\frac{h}{2}}^{(j)}$) takes the value $0$ for case A. Moreover, for case A we have that $z\not\in\{-1,1\}$.
Observe that $\mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$ has rank $1$. Therefore, its spectral radius equals its trace, so we obtain by straight-forward computations that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho( \mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)} ) &=
\frac{
z (1+z)^{2p-2} - (-1)^p z (1-z)^{2p-2} \xi
}{
(1+z)^{2p} + (-1)^p (1-z)^{2p} \xi
} \\
&=
\frac{
z^{-p+1} (1+2z+z^2)^{p-1} - (-1)^p z^{-p+1} (1-2z+z^2)^{p-1} \xi
}{
z^{-p} (1+2z+z^2)^{p} + (-1)^p z^{-p} (1-2z+z^2)^{p} \xi
} \\
&=
\frac{
(z^{-1}+2+z)^{p-1} - (-1)^p (z^{-1}-2+z)^{p-1} \xi
}{
(z^{-1}+2+z)^{p} + (-1)^p (z^{-1}-2+z)^{p} \xi
} \\
&=
\frac{
(2+2 c)^{p-1} - (-1)^p (-2+2 c)^{p-1} \xi
}{
(2+2 c)^{p} + (-1)^p (-2+2 c)^{p} \xi
}
=
{\underbrace{\frac{
(1+ c)^{p-1} + (1- c)^{p-1} \xi
}{
2 ( (1+ c)^{p} + (1- c)^{p} \xi )
}}_{\displaystyle \Psi_p(c,\xi):=}}
\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $c:=\cos(2 l \frac{h}{2} \pi)$ and, as defined above, $\xi=\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+{n_h})}/\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$. Note that $c\in(-1,1)$ holds as we have restricted ourselves to $l\in\{1,\ldots,{n_h}-1\}$.
Observe that Lemma \[lem:mass:estim\] implies that $\xi>0$. Now, consider two cases:
- If $c=\cos(2l\frac{h}{2}\pi)> 0$, then $\cos(2(l+{n_h})\frac{h}{2}\pi)=\cos(2l\frac{h}{2}\pi+\pi)\le 0$. For this case Lemma \[lem:mass:estim\] states that $\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+{n_h})}\le\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}$, so $\xi\le 1$ holds.
- Analogously, $\xi\ge 1$ holds if $c\le0$.
To finalize the proof of case A, we need to show $$\Psi_p\left(\cos\left(2l\frac{h}{2}\pi \right),\frac{\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l+{n_h})}}{\widehat{m}_{p-1,\frac{h}{2}}^{(l)}} \right) \le \frac{1}{2}$$ for all $l=1,\ldots,{n_h}-1$. It suffices to show $$\label{eq:cond1}
\Psi_p(c,\xi) \le \frac{1}{2}$$ for all $(c,\xi) \in [0,1)\times(0,1]\cup (-1,0] \times[1,\infty)$ and all $p \in \mathbb{N}$, i.e., to show the inequality for the whole range of $c$ and $\xi$, ignoring their dependence on $l$. As a next step, we observe that $\Psi_p(c,\xi)= \Psi_p(-c,\xi^{-1})$, which indicates that it suffices to show for all $(c,\xi) \in [0,1)\times(0,1]$ and all $p \in \mathbb{N}$. We observe that $$\nonumber
\Psi_p(c,\xi) = \frac{
1 + \left(\frac{1-c}{1+ c}\right)^{p-1} \xi
}{
2 \left( (1+ c) + (1-c)\left(\frac{1-c}{1+ c}\right)^{p-1} \xi \right)
}$$ and $ \omega :=\left(\frac{1-c}{1+c}\right)^{p-1} \in [0,1]$ for $c\in[0,1]$. So, it suffices to show that $$\label{eq:cond2}
\frac{
1 + \omega \xi
}{
2 ( (1+ c) + (1-c) \omega \xi )
} \le \frac12$$ for all $(c,\xi,\omega)\in [0,1)\times(0,1]\times[0,1]$ and all $p \in \mathbb{N}$, again ignoring the dependence of $\omega$ on $p$ and $c$.
As the denominator is always positive, is equivalent to $$1+ \omega \xi \le 1+\omega\xi + c (1- \omega \xi),$$ which is obviously true for all $(c,\xi,\omega)\in [0,1)\times(0,1]\times[0,1]$.
Now, we consider *case B*: $l = 0$. Here, we have to use that $\widehat{e}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(0)}\not=0$ and obtain – by straight-forward computation – that $$\mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(0)} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc} 0&0\\0&\tfrac14\end{array}
\right)$$ and consequently $\rho( \mathcal{T}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}^{(0)} ) = \tfrac14$. Also this is bounded from above by $\tfrac12$, which finishes the proof.
The approximation error estimate
--------------------------------
Now, we are able to show the approximation error estimate .
\[lem:lfa\] The inequality , i.e., $$\nonumber
\|(I- \widehat{\Pi}_{p,{h}} ) {u_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\; {h}|{u_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}|_{H^1(-1,1)},$$ holds for all ${u_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,\frac{h}{2}}}(-1,1)$.
Lemma \[lemma:decomp\] states that is a consequence of and . As Lemma \[lem:mass\] shows and Lemma \[lem:lfa0\] shows , this finishes the proof.
The proof of Theorem [1]{} {#sec:thrm1}
==========================
In the previous section, we have given a proof for the approximation error of discretized functions between two consecutive grids. Using a telescoping argument, we can extend this result to an approximation error estimate for general functions. As in the last section, we first consider the periodic case.
\[lem:approx:per\] For all $u \in \widehat{H}^{1}(-1,1)$, all grid sizes $h$ and each $p\in \mathbb{N}$, with $hp<1$, $$\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h})u\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|u|_{H^1(-1,1)}$$ is satisfied, where $\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h}$ is given as in Definition \[def:H1projection\].
Using a telescoping argument, i.e. iteratively applying the triangular inequality, and the relation $\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2h} \widehat{\Pi}_{p,h} = \widehat{\Pi}_{p,2h}$ for the projectors, we obtain for any $q\in\mathbb{N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h})u\|_{L^2(-1,1)} & \le \|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-q}h})u \|_{L^2(-1,1)} \\
&\qquad+ \sum_{l=0}^{q-1} \|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-l}h} )\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-l-1}h} u \|_{L^2(-1,1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ We use Lemma \[lem:non:robust\] and a standard Aubin-Nitsche duality argument to estimate $\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-q}h})u\|_{L^2(-1,1)}$ from above. Using [@Braess:1997], Lemma 7.6, and Lemma \[lem:non:robust\] for $r=1$ and $q=2$, we immediately obtain $$\label{eq:aubin}
\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-q}h})u\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \widetilde{C}(p) 2^{-q} h \|u\|_{H^1(-1,1)},$$ where $\widetilde{C}(p)$ is independent of the grid size. Using and Lemma \[lem:lfa\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h})u \|_{L^2(-1,1)} &\le \widetilde{C}(p) \; 2^{-q}{h}\|u \|_{H^1(-1,1)} \\
&\qquad + \sum_{l=0}^{q-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \;2^{-l} {h}|\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-l-1}h} u|_{H^1(-1,1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Because $\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h}$ is $H^1$-orthogonal, we obtain $|\widehat{\Pi}_{p,2^{-l-1}h} u|_{H^1(-1,1)} \leq |u |_{H^1(-1,1)}$ and further $$\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h})u \|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \widetilde{C}(p) \; 2^{-q} {h}\|u \|_{H^1(-1,1)} + \sum_{l=0}^{q-1}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \;2^{-l} {h}|u |_{H^1(-1,1)}.$$ The summation formula for the infinite geometric series gives $$\|(I-\widehat{\Pi}_{p,h})u \|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \widetilde{C}(p) \; 2^{-q} {h}\|u \|_{H^1(-1,1)} +
2 \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} {h}|u|_{H^1(-1,1)}.$$ As this is true for all $q\in \mathbb{N}$, we can take the limit $q\rightarrow \infty$ and obtain the desired result.
Having this result, we note that Theorem \[thrm:approx\] is just the extension of Lemma \[lem:approx:per\] to the non-periodic case. So, we can easily prove Theorem \[thrm:approx\].
[*of Theorem \[thrm:approx\]*]{} In the following, we assume without loss of generality that ${\Omega}=(0,1)$. The extension to any other ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, follows using a standard scaling argument.
Observe that any $u\in H^{1}(0,1)$ can be extended to a $w\in \widehat{H}^1(-1,1)$ by defining $w(x):=u(|x|)$. The assumption $hp<1$ in Theorem \[thrm:approx\] guarantees that Lemma \[lem:approx:per\] can be applied. We set ${w_{p,h}}:= \widehat{\Pi}_{p,h} w \in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ as in Lemma \[lem:approx:per\], such that $$\|w-{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|w|_{H^1(-1,1)}.$$ The function ${w_{p,h}}$ is symmetric, i.e., ${w_{p,h}}(x)={w_{p,h}}(-x)$ holds. This can be seen by the following argument: As $w$ satisfies $w(x)=w(-x)$, we have for $\widetilde{w}_{p,h}(x):={w_{p,h}}(-x)$ $$\|w-{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)} = \|w-\widetilde{w}_{p,h}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}$$ and as ${w_{p,h}}$ was a unique minimizer, consequently ${w_{p,h}}(x) = \widetilde{w}_{p,h}(x)={w_{p,h}}(-x)$ holds. By restricting ${w_{p,h}}$ to $(0,1)$, we obtain a function ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}(0,1)$. This function satisfies the desired approximation error estimate since $|w|_{H^1(-1,1)} = \sqrt{2} |u|_{H^1(0,1)}$ and $\|w-{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)} = \sqrt{2} \|u-~{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(0,1)}$ hold due to the symmetry of $w$.
Approximation error estimate for a reduced spline space {#sec:reduced}
=======================================================
In the proof of Theorem \[thrm:approx\] we have defined ${u_{p,h}}$ to be the restriction of a symmetric and periodic spline ${w_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ to $(0,1)$. So, we know more about ${u_{p,h}}$ than just ${u_{p,h}}\in{S_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Throughout this Section we again assume $hp<|\Omega|$.
As we have shown in the proof of Theorem \[thrm:approx\] the spline ${w_{p,h}}$ is symmetric, i.e., ${w_{p,h}}(x)={w_{p,h}}(-x)$, so we have $$\frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} {w_{p,h}}(x)= (-1)^l \frac{\partial^{l}}{\partial x^{l}} {w_{p,h}}(-x)
\mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{N}_0 .$$ By plugging $x=0$ into this relation, we obtain that all odd derivatives vanish for $x=0$. By plugging $x=1$ into the relation, we obtain together with that also for $x=1$ all odd derivatives vanish.
So, we have shown that the approximation error estimate is still satisfied if we restrict the approximating spline ${u_{p,h}}$ to be in the space ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$, defined as follows.
\[defi:Ssymm\] Given a spline space ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ over ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, the *space of splines with vanishing odd derivatives* ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ is the space of all ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ that satisfy the following condition: $$\frac{\partial^{2l+1}}{\partial x^{2l+1}} {u_{p,h}}(a)=\frac{\partial^{2l+1}}{\partial x^{2l+1}} {u_{p,h}}(b) = 0
\mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mbox{ with } 2l+1 < p.$$
Using a standard scaling argument, we can again extend the result for ${\Omega}=(0,1)$ to any ${\Omega}=(a,b)$ and obtain the following Corollary.
\[cor:approx:nonper\] For all $u\in H^1({\Omega})$, all grid sizes $h$ and all $p\in\mathbb{N}$, with $hp<|\Omega|$, there is a spline approximation ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\|u-{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|u|_{H^1({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
In the Appendix, we will introduce a basis for the space ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$. Based on the bases of those spaces, we obtain that their dimensions are as given in Table \[tab:dof\].
[cccc]{} & dim ${S_{p,h}}(0,1)$ & dim ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ & dim ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$\
$p$ even & $n+p$ & $n$ & $n$\
$p$ odd & $n+p$ & $n$ & $n+1$\
An inverse inequality for the reduced spline space {#sec:inverse}
==================================================
For the space ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$, a robust inverse inequality holds. Note that an extension to ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ is not possible (cf. Remark \[rem:counterexample\]).
\[thrm:inverse\] For all grid sizes $h$ and each $p\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\label{eq:inv2}
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1({\Omega})} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} \|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied for all ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$.
In the following, we assume without loss of generality that ${\Omega}=(0,1)$. The extension to any other ${\Omega}=(a,b)$, follows directly using a standard scaling argument. We can extend every ${u_{p,h}}\in{\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ to $(-1,1)$ by defining ${w_{p,h}}(x):={u_{p,h}}(|x|)$ and obtain ${w_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$. is equivalent to $$\label{eq:inv2aa}
|{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} \|{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}.$$ This is shown using induction in $p$ for all $u\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$. For $p=1$, is known, cf. [@schwab:1998], Theorem 3.91.
Now, we show that the constant does not increase for larger $p$. So assume $p>1$ to be fixed. Due to the periodicity and due to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
|{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)}^2 &= \int_{-1}^1 ({w_{p,h}}')^2 dx = -\int_{-1}^1 {w_{p,h}}'' {w_{p,h}}dx \\
&\le \|{w_{p,h}}''\|_{L^2(-1,1)} \|{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}= |{w_{p,h}}'|_{H^1(-1,1)} \|{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}
\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied. Using the induction assumption (and ${w_{p,h}}'\in \widehat{S}_{p-1,h}(-1,1)$, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 5.9), we know that $$|{w_{p,h}}'|_{H^1(-1,1)} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} \|{w_{p,h}}'\|_{L^2(-1,1)} = 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} |{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)}.$$ Combining these results, we obtain $$|{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)}^2 \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} |{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)}\|{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}$$ and further $$|{w_{p,h}}|_{H^1(-1,1)} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} \|{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(-1,1)}.$$ This shows , which concludes the proof.
Neither Theorem 3.91 in [@schwab:1998], nor any of the arguments in the proof of Theorem \[thrm:inverse\] requires the grid to be equidistant. So, also having a general grid, estimate $$\nonumber
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1({\Omega})} \le 2 \sqrt{3} \; h_{\min}^{-1} \|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied for all splines ${u_{p,h}}$ on ${\Omega}=(a,b)$ with vanishing odd derivatives at the boundary. Here, as in any standard inverse inequality, $h_{\min}$ is the size of the *smallest* element.
As we have proven both an approximation error estimate and a corresponding inverse inequality, both of them are sharp (up to constants independent of $p$ and ${h}$). First, we show that there is a lower bound for the approximation error. As is obviously true for constant functions, we show that there also exist other functions satisfying this inequality.
\[corr:sharp1\] For all grid sizes $h$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}$, there is a non-constant function $u\in H^1({\Omega})$ such that $$\label{eq:corr:sharp1}
\inf_{{u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})} \|u-{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})} \ge \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}\; {h}|u|_{H^1({\Omega})}.$$
Let $u\in S_{p,\frac{{h}}{2}}({\Omega})\backslash\{0\}$ be such that $(u,\tilde{u}_{p,{h}})_{L^2({\Omega})}=0$ for all $\tilde{u}_{p,{h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$. As the constant functions are in ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$, this orthogonality implies that $u$ is non-constant. Using this orthogonality, we know that the infimum in is taken for ${u_{p,h}}=0$. So, we obtain using Theorem \[thrm:inverse\] $\inf_{{u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})} \|u-{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})}
= \|u\|_{L^2({\Omega})} \ge \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\; \frac{{h}}{2} |u|_{H^1({\Omega})}$, which finishes the proof.
Similarly, we can give an lower bound for the inverse inequality. Again, we show the existence of a non-trivial function.
\[corr:sharp2\] For all grid sizes $h$ with $2hp<|{\Omega}|$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}$, there is a non-constant function ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\nonumber
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1({\Omega})} \ge \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\; {h}^{-1} \|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})}.$$
Let ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})\backslash\{0\}$ be such that $({u_{p,h}},\tilde{u}_{p,2{h}})_{L^2({\Omega})}=0$ for all $\tilde{u}_{p,2{h}}\in S_{p,2{h}}({\Omega})$. As the constant functions are in $S_{p,2{h}}({\Omega})$, this orthogonality implies that ${u_{p,h}}$ is non-constant. Using this orthogonality and Theorem \[thrm:approx\], we obtain $\|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})} = \inf_{u_{p,2{h}}\in \widetilde{S}_{p,n-1}({\Omega})} \|{u_{p,h}}-u_{p,2{h}}\|_{L^2({\Omega})} \le
\sqrt{2} (2{h}) |{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1({\Omega})}$, which finishes the proof.
An extension to higher Sobolev indices {#sec:sobolev}
======================================
We can easily lift the statement of Theorem \[thrm:approx\] (and also Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\]) up to higher Sobolev indices.
\[thrm:approx:sob\] For all grid sizes $h$, each $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and each $p\in \mathbb{N}$ with $0< q\le p+1$ and with $h(p-q+1)<|{\Omega}|$, there is for each $u\in H^q({\Omega})$, a spline approximation ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}({\Omega})$ such that $$|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^{q-1}({\Omega})} \le \sqrt{2} \; {h}|u|_{H^q({\Omega})},$$ where ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}({\Omega})$ is the space of all ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ that satisfy the following symmetry condition: $$\frac{\partial^{2l+q}}{\partial x^{2l+q}} {u_{p,h}}(a)=\frac{\partial^{2l+q}}{\partial x^{2l+q}} {u_{p,h}}(b) = 0
\mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mbox{ with } 2l+q < p.$$
Let again ${\Omega}=(0,1)$ without loss of generality. The proof is done by induction. From Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\], we know the estimate for $q=1$ (as ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(1)}(0,1)={\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$) and all $p> q-1=0$. For $q=1$ and $p=q-1=0$, the estimate is a well-known result, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 6.1, (6.7), where (in our notation) $|u-u_{0,h}|_{L^2(0,1)} \le {h}|u|_{H^1(0,1)}$ has been shown.
So, now we assume to know the estimate for some $q-1$ and show it for $q$.
As $u\in H^q(0,1)$, we know that $u'\in H^{q-1}(0,1)$, so we can apply the induction hypothesis and obtain that there is some $u_{p-1,n}\in \widetilde{S}_{p-1,n}^{(q-1)}(0,1)$ with $$|u'-u_{p-1,n}|_{H^{q-2}(0,1)} \le \sqrt{2} \; {h}|u'|_{H^{q-1}(0,1)}.$$ Define $$\label{eq:thrm:approx:sob}
{u_{p,h}}(x):=c+\int_0^x u_{p-1,n}(\xi)d\xi.$$ Note that ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}(0,1)$ as integrating increases both the polynomial degree and the differentiability by $1$, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 5.16. After integrating, the boundary conditions on the $l$-th derivative become conditions on the $l+1$-st derivative, therefore we further have ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}(0,1)$.
Therefore, we have $$|u'-{u_{p,h}}'|_{H^{q-2}(0,1)} \le \sqrt{2} \; {h}|u'|_{H^{q-1}(0,1)},$$ which is the same as $$|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^{q-1}(0,1)} \le \sqrt{2} \; {h}|u|_{H^{q}(0,1)}.$$ The bound on the grid size with respect to the degree, i.e. $h(p-q+1)<|{\Omega}|$ is sufficient, as the degree of $\partial^{q-1}/\partial x^{q-1} u$ is equal to $p-q+1$. This finishes the proof.
The integration constant (integration constants for $q>2$) in can be used to guarantee that $$\int_{{\Omega}} \frac{\partial^l}{\partial x^l}(u(x)-{u_{p,h}}(x)) {\textnormal{d}}x= 0$$ for all $l\in\{0,1,\ldots,q-1\}$.
For the spaces ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}({\Omega})$ there is again an inverse inequality.
\[thrm:inverse:sob\] For all grid sizes $h$, each $q\in \mathbb{N}$ and each $p\in \mathbb{N}$ with $0< q \le p+1$, $$\label{eq:inv2:sob}
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^q({\Omega})} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1} |{u_{p,h}}|_{H^{q-1}({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied for all ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}({\Omega})$, where ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}^{(q)}({\Omega})$ is as defined in Theorem \[thrm:approx:sob\].
First note that is equivalent to $$\label{eq:inv2:sob:2}
\left|\frac{\partial^{q-1}}{\partial x^{q-1}} {u_{p,h}}\right|_{H^1({\Omega})} \le 2 \sqrt{3} {h}^{-1}
\left\|\frac{\partial^{q-1}}{\partial x^{q-1}} {u_{p,h}}\right\|_{L^2({\Omega})}.$$ As $\frac{\partial^{q-1}}{\partial x^{q-1}}{u_{p,h}}\in \widetilde{S}_{p-q+1,n}^{(1)}({\Omega}) = \widetilde{S}_{p-q+1,n}({\Omega})$, cf. [@Schumaker:1981], Theorem 5.9, the estimate follows directly from Theorem \[thrm:inverse\].
Again, as we have both an approximation error estimate and an inverse inequality, we know that both of them are sharp (cf. Corollaries \[corr:sharp1\] and \[corr:sharp2\]).
The following theorem is directly obtained from telescoping.
\[thrm:approx:sob:2\] For all grid sizes $h$, each $q\in\mathbb{N}_0$, each $p\in\mathbb{N}$, each $r\in\mathbb{N}$ with $0\le r\le q\le p+1$ and $h(p-r)<|{\Omega}|$, there is for each $u\in H^q({\Omega})$ a spline approximation ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})} \le (\sqrt{2}\; {h})^{q-r} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}$$ is satisfied.
Theorem \[thrm:approx:sob\] states the desired result for $r=q-1$. For $r<q-1$, the statement is shown by induction in $r$. So, we assume to know the desired result for some $r$, i.e., there is a spline approximation ${w_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\label{eq:thrm:0:ia}
|u-{w_{p,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})} \le (\sqrt{2}\; {h})^{q-r} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}.$$ Now, we show that there is some ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\label{eq:thrm:0:ih}
|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^{r-1}({\Omega})} \le (\sqrt{2}\; {h})^{q-(r-1)} |u|_{H^q({\Omega})}.$$ As $u-{w_{p,h}}\in H^r({\Omega})$, Theorem \[thrm:approx:sob\] states that there is a function ${u_{p,h}}\in {S_{p,h}}(0,1)$ such that $$|u-{u_{p,h}}|_{H^{r-1}({\Omega})} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|u-{w_{p,h}}|_{H^r({\Omega})},$$ which shows together with the induction assumption the induction hypothesis . Again, the bound on the grid size $h(p-r)<|{\Omega}|$ follows directly from the bounds in Theorem \[thrm:approx:sob\].
Here, it is not known to the authors how to choose a proper subspace of ${S_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ such that a complementary inverse inequality can be shown.
Extension to two and more dimensions and application in Isogeometric Analysis {#sec:dim}
=============================================================================
Without loss of generality and to simplify the notation, we restrict ourselves to $\Omega:=(0,1)^d$ throughout this section. We can extend Theorem \[thrm:approx\] (and also Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\]) to the following theorem for a tensor-product structured grid on $\Omega$. Here, we can introduce $\widetilde{W}_{p,h}(\Omega) = \otimes_{l=1}^d {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Let $n={n_h}$, for even $p$, and $n={n_h}+1$ for odd $p$. Assuming that $({\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(0)},\ldots , {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(n-1)})$ is a basis of ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$, the space $\widetilde{W}_{p,h}(\Omega)$ is given by $$\widetilde{W}_{p,h}(\Omega)=\left\{w\,:\,w(x_1,\ldots,x_d)=\hspace{-2mm}\sum_{i_1,\ldots,i_d=0}^{n-1}\hspace{-2mm} w_{i_1,\ldots,i_d} {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i_1)}(x_1) \cdots {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i_d)}(x_d) \right\}.$$
\[eq:approx2d\] For all $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, all grid sizes $h$ and each $p\in\mathbb{N}_0$, with $hp<1$, there is a spline approximation ${w_{p,h}}\in \widetilde{W}_{p,n}(\Omega)$ such that $$\|u-{w_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \sqrt{2d}\; {h}|u|_{H^1(\Omega)}$$ is satisfied.
The proof is similar to the proof in [@Beirao:2012], Section 4, for the two dimensional case. To keep the paper self-contained we give a proof of this theorem.
[*of Theorem \[eq:approx2d\]*]{} For sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to $d=2$. The extension to more dimensions is completely analogous. Here $$\widetilde{W}_{p,h}(\Omega)={\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)\otimes{\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)=\left\{w\;:\;w(x,y)=\sum_{i,j=0}^{n-1} w_{i,j} {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}(x) {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y) \right\}.$$
We assume $u\in C^\infty(\Omega)$ and show the desired result using a standard density argument. Using Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\], we can introduce for each $x\in(0,1)$ a function $v(x,\cdot)\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ with $$\|u(x,\cdot)-v(x,\cdot)\|_{L^2(0,1)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|u(x,\cdot)|_{H^1(0,1)}.$$ By squaring and taking the integral over $x$, we obtain $$\label{eq:2d:1}
\|u-v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial y} u\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ By choosing $v(x,\cdot)$ to be the $L^2$-orthogonal projection, we also have $$\|v(x,\cdot)\|_{L^2(0,1)} \le \|u(x,\cdot)\|_{L^2(0,1)}$$ for all $x\in(0,1)$ and consequently $$\label{eq:2d:x}
\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial x}v(x,\cdot)\right\|_{L^2(0,1)} \le \left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial x}u(x,\cdot)\right\|_{L^2(0,1)}.$$ As $v(x,\cdot)\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$, there are coefficients $v_j(x)$ such that $$v(x,y) = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} v_j(x) {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y).$$ Using Corollary \[cor:approx:nonper\], we can introduce for each $j\in\{0,\ldots,N\}$ a function $w_j\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ with $$\label{eq:2d:2a}
\|v_j-w_j\|_{L^2(0,1)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}|v_j|_{H^1(0,1)}.$$ Next, we introduce a function $w$ by defining $$w(x,y):=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} w_{j}(x) {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y),$$ which is obviously a member of the space $\widetilde{W}_{p,n}(\Omega)$. By squaring , multiplying it with ${\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y)^2$, summing over $j$ and taking the integral, we obtain $$\nonumber
\int_0^1 \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\|v_j-w_j\|_{L^2(0,1)}^2{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y)^2{\textnormal{d}}y
\le 2\; {h}^2 \int_0^1\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|v_j|_{H^1(0,1)}^2 {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y)^2{\textnormal{d}}y.$$ Using the definition of the norms, we obtain $$\nonumber
\int_0^1\int_0^1 \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (v_j(x)-w_j(x))^2{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y)^2{\textnormal{d}}x{\textnormal{d}}y
\le 2\; {h}^2 \int_0^1\int_0^1\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} v_j'(x)^2 {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(y)^2{\textnormal{d}}x{\textnormal{d}}y$$ and further $$\nonumber
\|v-w\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial x} v\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ Using , we obtain $$\label{eq:2d:2}
\|v-w\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial y} u\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ Using and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|u-w\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\le \|u-v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|v-w\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \nonumber \\
& \le \sqrt{2}\; {h}\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial y} u\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +
\sqrt{2}\; {h}\left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial x} u\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\label{eq:anisotropic-estimate}\\
& \le 2\; {h}|u|_{H^1(\Omega)},\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof.
The extension of Theorem \[thrm:inverse\] to two or more dimensions is rather easy.
For all grid sizes $h$ and each $p\in \mathbb{N}$, the inequality $$\nonumber
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1(\Omega)} \le 2 \;\sqrt{3d} \;{h}^{-1}\;\|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$$ is satisfied for all ${u_{p,h}}\in \widetilde{W}_{p,h}(\Omega)$.
For sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to $d=2$. The generalization to more dimensions is completely analogous.
We have obviously $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 &= \left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial x} {u_{p,h}}\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left\|\frac{\partial}{\partial y} {u_{p,h}}\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\\
& = \int_0^1 |{u_{p,h}}(\cdot,y)|_{H^1(0,1)}^2 {\textnormal{d}}y
+ \int_0^1 |{u_{p,h}}(x,\cdot)|_{H^1(0,1)}^2 {\textnormal{d}}x
\end{aligned}$$ This can be bounded from above using Theorem \[thrm:inverse\] via $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
|{u_{p,h}}|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 \leq& 12 {h}^{-2} \left( \int_0^1 \|{u_{p,h}}(\cdot,y)\|_{L^2(0,1)}^2 {\textnormal{d}}y
+ \int_0^1 \|{u_{p,h}}(x,\cdot)\|_{L^2(0,1)}^2 {\textnormal{d}}x\right) \\ =& 24 {h}^{-2} \|{u_{p,h}}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof.
The extension to isogeometric spaces can be done following the approach presented in [@Bazilevs:2006], Section 3.3. In Isogeometric Analysis, we have a geometry parameterization $\mathbf{F}:(0,1)^d \rightarrow {\hat\Omega}$. An isogeometric function on ${\hat\Omega}$ is then given as the composition of a B-spline on $(0,1)^d$ with the inverse of $\mathbf{F}$. The following result can be shown using a standard chain rule argument.
There exists a constant $C=C(\mathbf{F},q)$ such that $$\label{eq:norm:equivalence}
C^{-1} \left\| f \right\|_{H^{q}({\hat\Omega})}
\leq \left\| f \circ \mathbf{F} \right\|_{H^{q}((0,1)^d)}
\leq C \left\| f \right\|_{H^{q}({\hat\Omega})}$$ for all $f\in H^{q}({\hat\Omega})$.
See [@Bazilevs:2006], Lemma 3.5, or [@Beirao:2012], Corollary 5.1, for related results. In both papers the statements are slightly more general, [@Bazilevs:2006] gives a more detailed dependence on the parameterization $\mathbf{F}$ whereas [@Beirao:2012] establishes bounds for anisotropic grids. Obviously, an extension to anisotropic grids can be achieved directly using the estimate . Note that the degree and the grid size are not necessarily equal in each parameter direction.
Using this equivalence of norms, we can transfer all results from the parameter domain $(0,1)^d$ to the physical domain ${\hat\Omega}$. However, we need to point out that this equivalence is not valid for seminorms. Hence, in Theorem \[thrm:approx\] (and follow-up Theorems \[thrm:approx:sob\], \[thrm:approx:sob:2\] and \[eq:approx2d\]) the seminorms on the right hand side of the equations need to be replaced by the full norms. Moreover, the bounds depend on the geometry parameterization via the constant $C$ in .
A similar strategy can be followed when extending the results to NURBS. We do not go into the details here but refer to [@Bazilevs:2006; @Beirao:2012] for a more detailed study. In the case of NURBS the seminorms again have to be replaced by the full norms due to the quotient rule of differentiation. In that case the constants of the bounds additionally depend on the given denominator of the NURBS parameterization.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors want to thank Walter Zulehner for his suggestions, which helped to improve the presentation of the results in this paper.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
At this point, we want to give a basis for ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$ to make the reader more familiar with that space and to demonstrate that it is possible to work with it. The basis, which we introduce, is directly related to the (scaled) cardinal B-splines $\{{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)}\}^{{n_h}-1}_{i=-p}$.
\[lem:basis-tilde\] The set $\{ {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} \}^{}_{i=-\left\lceil\frac p2\right\rceil , \ldots, {n_h}-\left\lfloor\frac p2\right\rfloor-1}$ with $$\label{eq:basis-tilde}
{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} := \sum_{l \in \{-i-p-1,i,2{n_h}-i -p -1\}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(l)}$$ is a basis of ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}({\Omega})$.
Before we prove Lemma \[lem:basis-tilde\] we give a more practical representation of the basis functions by removing all contributions vanishing in $\Omega$. We obtain for odd $p$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} && i = -(p+1)/2\\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-i-p-1)} && i = -(p-1)/2,\ldots,-1 \\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} && i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-p \\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(2{n_h}-i-p-1)} && i={n_h}-p+1,\ldots, {n_h}-(p+1)/2 \\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} && i={n_h}-(p-1)/2\end{aligned}$$ and for even $p$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-i-p-1)} && i = -p/2,\ldots,-1 \\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} && i=0,\ldots,{n_h}-p-1 \\
&{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(i)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(2{n_h}-i-p-1)} && i={n_h}-p,\ldots, {n_h}-p/2-1. \end{aligned}$$ Note that here we need that $0 \leq {n_h}-p-1$, which is equivalent to $hp<1$.
[*of Lemma \[lem:basis-tilde\]*]{} For the sake of simplicity, we consider the case ${\Omega}=(0,1)$ only. We show first that every function in is in ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Note that we have constructed ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ such that the restriction of any symmetric function in ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$ to $(0,1)$ is a member of ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Let $n=1/h$. So, consider the functions $\{{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}\}_{j=-n}^{n-1}$, forming a basis for ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$. Here we consider a different indexing with $j=i-n$. Defining $$s_{j}(x) := {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(-x)= {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1)}(x),$$ for $j=-n,\ldots,n-1$, we obtain symmetric functions in ${\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$. Using the relation $${\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}|_{(0,1)} = \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j+2nk)},$$ we obtain that the restriction of $s_j$ to $(0,1)$ fulfills $$s_j|_{(0,1)} = \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j+2nk)} + \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1+2nk)}
= {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)} + \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1+2nk)},$$ which is $$\begin{aligned}
&s_j|_{(0,1)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1)}
&&\mbox{ for } j\in \{ -n,\ldots,-1\},\\
&s_j|_{(0,1)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)}
&&\mbox{ for } j\in \{ 0,\ldots,n-p-1\}, \mbox{ or}\\
&s_j|_{(0,1)} = {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)} + {\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1+2n)}
&&\mbox{ for } j\in \{ n-p,\ldots,n-1\}. \end{aligned}$$ In all three cases $s_j$ equals ${\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}$ or $2{\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}$. This shows that ${\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$.
It is easy to see that the functions in are linear independent for $i=-\left\lceil\frac p2\right\rceil , \ldots, n-\left\lfloor\frac p2\right\rfloor-1$. So, it remains to show that every function ${u_{p,h}}\in {\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the functions in . As we have already noticed, by construction the function ${u_{p,h}}$ can be extended to $(-1,1)$, by defining ${w_{p,h}}(x):={u_{p,h}}(|x|)$. Note that ${w_{p,h}}\in {\widehat{S}_{p,h}}(-1,1)$. So, we can express it as a linear combination of basis functions of the basis given in via $${w_{p,h}}= \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} w_j {\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}.$$ By construction, ${w_{p,h}}(x)={w_{p,h}}(-x)$, so we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{w_{p,h}}(x) & = \frac12 ({w_{p,h}}(x)+{w_{p,h}}(-x))
= \frac12 \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} w_j ({\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(-x) ) \\
& = \frac12 \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1} w_j ({\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\widehat{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1)}(x) )\\
& = \frac12 \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} w_j ({\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j+2nk)}(x)+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1+2nk)}(x) )\\
& = \frac12 \sum_{j=-n}^{n-1}w_j ({\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1)}(x)+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(2n-j-p-1)}(x) ).
\end{aligned}$$ Again, it can be checked easily, that for all $j,n\in\mathbb{Z}$ the term $${\varphi_{p,h}}^{(-j-p-1)}(x)+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(j)}(x)+{\varphi_{p,h}}^{(2n-j-p-1)}(x)$$ is in the span of $\{ {\widetilde{\varphi}_{p,h}}^{(i)} \}^{}_{i=-\left\lceil\frac p2\right\rceil , \ldots, n-\left\lfloor\frac p2\right\rfloor-1}$, which concludes the proof.
We observe that the basis forms a partition of unity. Moreover, all basis functions are obviously non-negative linear combinations of B-splines. Hence we call it a *B-spline-like basis*.
Fig. \[fig:p2\] and \[fig:p4\] depict the B-spline basis functions that span ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$. Here, the basis functions that have an influence at the boundary are plotted with solid lines. The basis functions that have zero derivatives up to order $p-1$ at the boundary coincide with standard B-spline functions. They are plotted with dashed lines.
If we compare the pictures of the B-spline basis functions in ${\widetilde{S}_{p,h}}(0,1)$ (Fig. \[fig:p2\] and \[fig:p4\]) with the standard B-spline basis functions for ${S_{p,h}}(0,1)$ (Fig. \[fig:p2a\] and \[fig:p4a\]) obtained from a classical open knot vector, we see that the latter ones have more basis functions that are associated with the boundary. This can also be seen by counting the number of degrees of freedom, cf. Table \[tab:dof\].
![B-spline-like basis functions for ${\widetilde{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${\widetilde{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4"}](spline1.pdf "fig:") ![B-spline-like basis functions for ${\widetilde{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${\widetilde{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4"}](spline2.pdf "fig:")
![B-spline-like basis functions for ${\widetilde{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${\widetilde{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4"}](spline3.pdf "fig:") ![B-spline-like basis functions for ${\widetilde{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${\widetilde{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4"}](spline4.pdf "fig:")
![B-spline basis functions for ${{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4a"}](spline1a.pdf "fig:") ![B-spline basis functions for ${{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4a"}](spline2a.pdf "fig:")
![B-spline basis functions for ${{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4a"}](spline3a.pdf "fig:") ![B-spline basis functions for ${{S}_{3,h}}(0,1)$ and ${{S}_{4,h}}(0,1)$[]{data-label="fig:p4a"}](spline4a.pdf "fig:")
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'These are lecture notes from a mini-course given at the CIMPA school in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 2016. The aim of the course was to introduce cluster characters for $2$-Calabi–Yau triangulated categories and present their main properties. The notes start with the theory of $F$-polynomials of modules over finite-dimensional algebras. Cluster categories are then introduced, before the more general setting of $2$-Calabi–Yau triangulated categories with cluster-tilting objects is defined. Finally, cluster characters are presented, and their use in the categorification of cluster algebras is outlined.'
address: 'Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France'
author:
- 'Pierre-Guy Plamondon'
title: Cluster characters
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Shortly after the introduction of cluster algebras in [@FZ02], links with an impressively vast number of fields of mathematics were uncovered. Among these is the representation theory of finite-dimensional algebras, whose links to cluster algebras became apparent in, for instance, [@MRZ03], [@BMRRT06], [@CC06], ...
The link between representation theory and cluster algebra has proved itself to be fruitful on both sides: on the one hand, it has allowed an understanding of cluster algebras that has led to the proof of conjectures of Fomin and Zelevinsky: see for instance [@FK09], [@DWZ09], [@GLS10], [@CKLP13], ... . On the other hand, it has sparked many developments in representation theory, as illustrated by the introduction of the theory of $\tau$-tilting in [@AIR14], the study cluster-tilted algebras and their representations initiated in [@BMR07] and the study of representations of certain quivers with loops in [@GLS14], among other examples.
Central in the study of this link are cluster characters. Broadly speaking, they are maps which associate to each module over certain algebras (or object in certain triangulated categories) an element in a certain cluster algebra. They have been introduced in [@CC06], and have been studied, used and generalized for instance in [@CK08], [@CK06], [@FK09], [@Palu08], [@Plamondon09], [@Rupel15], ... .
The aim of these notes is to introduce cluster characters, present some of their main properties, and show how they can be used to categorify cluster algebras.
The notes are organized as follows. In Section \[sect::representations\], we introduce $F$-polynomials of modules over finite-dimensional algebras. They can be seen as a “homology-free” version of cluster characters. Their definition relies heavily on representation theory of quivers and on projective varieties called submodule Grassmannians; these are introduced first.
In Section \[sect::clustercat\], we introduce the cluster category of an acyclic quiver. We first recall the notion of derived category, and we focus on examples in type $A_n$.
Section \[sect::2CYcat\] is devoted to the introduction of an abstract setting: that of $2$-Calabi–Yau triangulated categories with cluster-tilting objects. This setting contains that of cluster categories, and is the one used in these notes to study cluster characters.
Finally, cluster characters are introduced in Section \[sect::cluster-characters\], together with some of their properties leading to a categorification of cluster algebras.
The notes reflect a mini-course I gave at the CIMPA school in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 2016. Each section corresponds, more or less, to a one-hour lecture. I take this opportunity to thank the organizers of the CIMPA – ARTA V joint meeting during which this mini-course was given.
Quiver representations and submodule Grassmannians {#sect::representations}
==================================================
In this section, we define in an elementary way the notion of quiver representation, and introduce a projective variety, the *submodule Grassmannian*, whose points parametrize subrepresentations of a given representation.
Quiver representations
----------------------
Let $k$ be a field. We are interested in studying modules over $k$-algebras and their submodules. A convenient setting for this is that of quiver representations. There are many textbooks dealing with the subject, for instance [@Pierce88] [@Ringel1984] [@ARS] [@ASS] and [@Schiffler2014].
A *quiver* is an oriented graph. More precisely, a quiver $Q$ is given by a $4$-tuple $(Q_0, Q_1, s,t)$, where
- $Q_0$ is a set, whose elements are called *vertices*;
- $Q_1$ is a set, whose elements are called *arrows*;
- $s,t:Q_1\to Q_0$ are two maps, which associate to each arrow its *source* or its *target*, respectively.
Quivers are allowed to have multiple edges, oriented cycles and even loops. Throughout these notes quivers will be assumed to *finite*, that is to say, their sets of vertices and arrows will be finite.
We will usually number the vertices of a quiver by using natural numbers, and use letters to name the arrows. We will represent quivers as oriented graphs. Here is an example: $$\xymatrix@!0{ &&& 4\\
1\ar[r]^b\ar@(ul,ur)^a & 2\ar@<.3ex>[r]^c & 3\ar@<.3ex>[l]^d\ar@<.3ex>[ur]^e\ar@<-.3ex>[ur]_f\ar[dr]^g \\
&&& 5.
}$$
A *path* in a quiver is a concatenation of arrows $w=a_m\cdots a_1a_0$ such that $s(a_{i+1}) = t(a_i)$ for all $i$ from $0$ to $m-1$. This means that we compose arrows from right to left. We extend the maps $s$ and $t$ to the set of all paths by putting $s(w) = s(a_0)$ and $t(w) = t(a_m)$.
Additionally, for each vertex $i$, there is a path of length $0$ starting and ending at $i$ and denoted by $e_i$. We call it either the *trivial path* or the *lazy path* at $i$. If $w$ is any path, then $w=e_{t(w)}w = we_{s(w)}$.
Let $Q$ be a quiver. A *representation of $Q$* is a tuple $V=(V_i, V_a)_{i\in Q_0, a\in Q_1}$, where
- for each vertex $i$ in $Q$, $V_i$ is a $k$-vector space, and
- for each arrow $a$ in $Q$, $V_a:V_{s(a)}\to V_{t(a)}$ is a $k$-linear map.
A representation $V$ is said to be *finite-dimensional* if all the vector spaces $V_i$ are finite-dimensional; in that case, the *dimension vector* of $V$ is ${\underline{\dim}\,}V = (\dim V_i)_{i\in Q_0}$. If $w=a_m\cdots a_1a_0$ is a path in $Q$, we write $V_w = V_{a_m}\circ \cdots \circ V_{a_1}\circ V_{a_0}$.
In these notes, all representations will be finite-dimensional.
Let $V$ and $W$ be two representations of a quiver $Q$. A *morphism of representations from $V$ to $W$*, denoted by $f:V\to W$, is a tuple $f=(f_i)_{i\in Q_0}$, where
- for each vertex $i$ of $Q$, $f_i:V_i\to W_i$ is a $k$-linear map, and
- for each arrow $a$ of $Q$, we have that $W_a\circ f_{s(a)} = f_{t(a)}\circ V_a$. In other words, the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{ V_{s(a)}\ar[r]^{f_{s(a)}}\ar[d]^{V_a} & W_{s(a)}\ar[d]^{W_a} \\
V_{t(a)}\ar[r]^{f_{t(a)}} & W_{t(a)}.
}$$
Composition of morphisms is defined vertex-wise in the obvious way.
Representations of a quiver $Q$, together with their morphisms, form a category ${\mbox{{\rm Rep \!\!}}}(Q)$. We denote by ${\mbox{{\rm rep \!\!}}}(Q)$ its full subcategory whose objects are finite-dimensional representations. These categories are abelian; we can see this by showing that they are equivalent to module categories (see Proposition \[prop::Morita\]).
Let $Q$ be a quiver. The *path algebra* of $Q$ is the associative $k$-algebra $kQ$ defined as follows.
- For all non-negative integers $\ell$, let $(kQ)_\ell$ be the $k$-vector with basis the set of paths of length $\ell$ in $Q$. Then the underlying vector space of $kQ$ is $\bigoplus_{\ell=0}^{\infty} (kQ)_\ell$.
- Multiplication is defined on paths by $$w_2\cdot w_1 = \begin{cases} w_2w_1 & \textrm{if } s(w_2)=t(w_1) \\ 0 & \textrm{else,} \end{cases}$$ and extended to all of $kQ$ by linearity.
We denote by ${\mathfrak{m}}$ the two-sided ideal of $kQ$ generated by the arrows of $Q$. In other words, ${\mathfrak{m}}= \bigoplus_{\ell=1}^{\infty} (kQ)_\ell$.
If $I$ is any two-sided ideal of $kQ$, then we denote by ${\mbox{{\rm Rep \!\!}}}(Q,I)$ the full subcategory of ${\mbox{{\rm Rep \!\!}}}(Q)$ whose objects are representations $V$ “satisfying the relations in $I$”, that is, such that for any linear combination of paths $\sum_i \lambda_iw_i$ lying in $I$, we have that $\sum_i \lambda_i V_{w_i} = 0$.
One of the main motivations for studying representations of quivers can be summarized in the following results. First, representations of a quiver and modules over its path algebra should be viewed as being the same thing. More precisely:
\[prop::Morita\] Let $Q$ be a quiver and $I$ be a two-sided ideal of $kQ$. Then the categories ${\mbox{{\rm Mod \!}}}(kQ/I)$ and ${\mbox{{\rm Rep \!\!}}}(Q^{op},I^{op})$ are equivalent. (Here ${\mbox{{\rm Mod \!}}}A$ is the category of right(!) modules over $A$, and $Q^{op}$ is the opposite quiver, obtained by reversing the orientation of all arrows of $Q$).
The same is true of ${\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}(kQ/I)$ and ${\mbox{{\rm rep \!\!}}}(Q^{op},I^{op})$, the full subcategories of finite-dimensional modules and representations, respectively.
We see $Q^{op}$ appearing in the proposition because of our choice of conventions: right modules, and composition of arrows from right to left. The proof of the proposition is straightforward.
Secondly, over an algebraically closed field, the representation theory of *any* finite-dimensional algebra is governed by a quiver with relations. More precisely:
Assume that the field $k$ is algebraically closed. For any finite-dimensional associative $k$-algebra $A$, there is a unique quiver $Q_A$ and a (non-unique) ideal $I$ of $kQ_A$ such that $A$ and $kQ_A/I$ are Morita equivalent, and ${\mathfrak{m}}^r \subset I \subset {\mathfrak{m}}^2$ for some $r\geq 2$.
An ideal $I$ satisfying ${\mathfrak{m}}^r \subset I \subset {\mathfrak{m}}^2$ is called an *admissible ideal*.
Submodule Grassmannian
----------------------
Let $Q$ be a finite quiver, $I$ be an admissible ideal, and $V$ be a representation of $(Q,I)$.
A *subrepresentation* of $V$ is a tuple $(W_i)_{i\in Q_0}$, where
- each $W_i$ is a subspace of $V_i$, and
- for each arrow $a$ in $Q$, we have that $V_{a}(W_{s(a)}) \subset W_{t(a)}$.
In that case, $W= (W_i, V_a|_{W_{s(a)}})_{i\in Q_0, a\in Q_1}$ is a representation of $(Q,I)$, and the canonical inclusion into $V$ is a morphism of representations.
Grassmannians of vector spaces are projective varieties whose points parametrize subvector spaces of a given dimension. Submodule Granssmannians of modules generalize this notion: they are projective varieties whose points parametrize submodules of a given dimension vector.
\[defi::grassmannian\] Let ${\mathbf{e}}\in {\mathbb{N}}^{Q_0}$ be a dimension vector. The *submodule Grassmannian of $V$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf{e}}$* is the subset ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V)$ of $\prod_{i\in Q_0} {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{e_i}}(V_i)$ of all points $(W_i)_{i\in Q_0}$ defining a subrepresentation of $V$.
The submodule Grassmannian is in fact a Zariski-closed subset of $\prod_{i\in Q_0} {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{e_i}}(V_i)$, so it is a projective variety.
\[exam::Grassmannians\]
1. If the quiver $Q$ has only one vertex and no arrows, then representations of $Q$ are just vector spaces, and their submodule Grassmannians are just usual Grassmannians.
2. \[exam::grassKron\] Let $Q = \xymatrix{ 1\ar@<.3ex>[r] \ar@<-.3ex>[r] & 2}$ be the Kronecker quiver. Consider the representation $$V=\xymatrix{ k^2\ar@<.3ex>[r]^{\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} \ar@<-.3ex>[r]_{\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}} & k^2.}$$ Then there are six dimension vectors for which the submodule Grassmannian of $V$ is non-empty. The table below lists those dimension vectors and gives a variety to which the corresponding submodule Grassmannian is isomorphic. $$\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
${\mathbf{e}}$ & $(0,0)$ & $(0,1)$ & $(0,2)$ & $(1,1)$ & $(1,2)$ & $(2,2)$ \\
\hline
${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V)$ & point & ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ & point & point & ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ & point \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$F$-polynomials of modules
--------------------------
We now define the $F$-polynomial of a representation of a quiver with relations $(Q,I)$ (or, equivalently, of a module over $A=kQ/I$). Roughly, the $F$-polynomial can be seen as a generating function for counting submodules of a given module (even though this might not make sense if the base field $k$ is infinite, since a module may have infinitely many submodules). This theory originates from [@CC06], although $F$-polynomials of modules appeared later in [@DWZ09]. The general results in this section can be found in [@DG12 Section 2].
In the rest of this section, the base field $k$ is the field ${\mathbb{C}}$ of complex numbers.
\[defi::F-polynomial\] Let $V$ be an $A$-module. Its *$F$-polynomial* is $$F_V({\mathbf{y}}) := \sum_{{\mathbf{e}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{Q_0}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V) \big) {\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{e}},$$ where
- ${\mathbf{y}}$ is the tuple of variables $(y_i \ | \ i\in Q_0)$;
- ${\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{e}}= \prod_{i\in Q_0} y_i^{e_i}$;
- ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V)$ is the submodule Grassmannian (see Definition \[defi::grassmannian\]); and
- $\chi$ is the Euler-Poincaré characteristic.
We give examples of $F$-polynomials at the end of the section. It is easy to see that the $F$-polynomial of a module $V$ only depends on the isomorphism class of $V$.
\[rema::Euler\] The most difficult part in the computation of an $F$-polynomial is determining the submodule Grassmannians ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V)$. To compute their Euler-Poincaré characteristic, the following facts (true since we work over ${\mathbb{C}}$!) are often sufficient (and indeed, suffice to prove all the formulas in these notes):
1. $\chi({\rm point})=1$;
2. $\chi({\mathbb{A}}^{\! n})=1$, where ${\mathbb{A}}^{\! n}$ is the affine space of dimension $n$;
3. $\chi({\mathbb{P}}^n)=n+1$, where ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ is the projective space of dimension $n$;
4. $\chi({\mathcal{U}}\times {\mathcal{V}}) = \chi({\mathcal{U}}) \cdot \chi({\mathcal{V}})$;
5. if ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a disjoint union of two constructible subsets $C_1$ and $C_2$, then $\chi({\mathcal{U}}) = \chi(C_1)+\chi(C_2)$.
6. if $f:{\mathcal{U}}\to {\mathcal{V}}$ is a surjective morphism of varieties (or even a surjective constructible map) such that all fibers $f^{-1}(x)$ have the same Euler characteristic, say $c$, then $\chi({\mathcal{U}}) = c\chi({\mathcal{V}})$.
See [@GLS072 Proposition 7.4.1], which itself refers to [@MacPherson74] and [@Dimca04]. On constructible maps, we refer the reader to [@Joyce2006].
The first property of $F$-polynomials deals with direct sums, or equivalently, with split exact sequences.
\[prop::direct-sum\] Let $V$ and $W$ be two modules over $A=kQ/I$. Then $F_V \cdot F_W = F_{V\oplus W}$.
We outline the proof of this proposition, as it gives the flavour of the methods used to prove the various formulas that appear in these notes. We follow [@CC06 Proposition 3.6].
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop::direct-sum\]*]{}. Consider the split exact sequence $$0\to V\stackrel{\iota}{\to} V\oplus W \stackrel{\pi}{\to} W \to 0.$$ To any submodule $B$ of $V\oplus W$ we associate the submodules $\iota^{-1}(B)$ and $\pi(B)$ of $V$ and $W$, respectively. This defines maps $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\mathbf{e}}: {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V\oplus W) & \longrightarrow & \coprod_{\mathbf{f} + {\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{e}}} {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \times {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \\
B & \longmapsto & (\iota^{-1}(B), \pi(B))\end{aligned}$$ which are constructible maps. These maps are clearly surjective. Moreover, the fiber of a point $(U_1, U_2)$ can be shown to be an affine space (it is isomorphic to ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{A}}(U_2, V/U_1)$, see [@CC06 Lemma 3.8]).
Thus, by Remark \[rema::Euler\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V\oplus W) \big) & = & \chi\big( \coprod_{\mathbf{f} + {\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{e}}} {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \times {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \big) \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{f} + {\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{e}}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \big) \cdot \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \big).\end{aligned}$$
From there, the proof is a simple computation: $$\begin{aligned}
F_V({\mathbf{y}})F_W({\mathbf{y}}) & = & \Big( \sum_{\mathbf{f}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{Q_0}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \big) {\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{f}} \Big) \cdot \Big( \sum_{{\mathbf{g}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{Q_0}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \big) {\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{g}}\Big) \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{f}, {\mathbf{g}}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \big) \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \big) {\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{f} + {\mathbf{g}}} \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{e}}\Big( \sum_{\mathbf{f} + {\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{e}}} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}}}(V) \big) \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{g}}}}(W) \big) \Big){\mathbf{y}}^{{\mathbf{e}}} \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{e}}\chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(V\oplus W) \big) {\mathbf{y}}^{{\mathbf{e}}} \\
& = & F_{V\oplus W}({\mathbf{y}}).\end{aligned}$$$\Box$
The second property of $F$-polynomials, and perhaps the most important one for our purposes, deals with almost-split exact sequences. For the theory of almost-split sequences and the definition of the Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau$, we refer the reader to the notes of the courses [@Malicki] and [@Platzeck] in this volume.
\[theo::F-polynomials\] Let $0\to \tau V\to E \to V\to 0$ be an almost-split sequence of modules over $A=kQ/I$. Then $F_{\tau V}\cdot F_{V} = F_E + {\mathbf{y}}^{{\underline{\dim}\,}V}$.
The spirit of the proof of this theorem is similar to that of Proposition \[prop::direct-sum\]. The difference lies in the fact that the morphism $\Phi_{{\mathbf{e}}}$ is no longer surjective for all ${\mathbf{e}}$; the term ${\mathbf{y}}^{{\underline{\dim}\,}V}$ in the right hand side of the statement compensates, in some sense, this lack of surjectivity.
Examples of $F$-polynomials
---------------------------
###
Let $Q$ be the quiver with one vertex and no arrows. Its path algebra is simply ${\mathbb{C}}$, and representations of $Q$ are just vector spaces.
Let $V$ be a $d$-dimensional vector space. Then $$F_V(y) = \sum_{i=0}^d \binom{d}{i} y^i.$$ This can be seen by observing that, for $d=1$, the $F$-polynomial is $1+y$, and then by applying Proposition \[prop::direct-sum\]. As a corollary, we get a nice proof of the known fact that the Euler-Poincaré characteristic of the (usual) Grassmannian ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{i}}({\mathbb{C}}^d)$ is equal to $\binom{d}{i}$.
###
Let $Q$ be the quiver with one vertex and one loop $\ell$, subject to the relation $\ell^2=0$. For this quiver, there are only two indecomposable representations (up to isomorphism): $$\xymatrix{ V_1 = & {\mathbb{C}}\ar@(ul,ur)^{0} & & \textrm{and} & & V_2 = & {\mathbb{C}}^{2} \ar@(ul,ur)^{\footnotesize \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}}
}$$ and only one almost-split sequence: $$0\to V_1\to V_2\to V_1 \to 0.$$ The $F$-polynomials are easily seen to be $F_{V_1}(y)=1+y$ and $F_{V_2}(y)=1+y+y^2$, and one can check that they satisfy Theorem \[theo::F-polynomials\].
###
Let $Q$ and $V$ be as in Example \[exam::Grassmannians\] (\[exam::grassKron\]). Then $F_V(y_1, y_2)=1+2y_2+y_2^2+y_1y_2+2y_1y_2^2+y_1^2y_2^2$.
###
We list a few more examples and properties of $F$-polynomials.
1. If $V$ and $W$ are isomorphic, then $F_V=F_W$. The converse is false: consider the Kronecker quiver $$\xymatrix{ 1\ar@<.3ex>[r]^a \ar@<-.3ex>[r]_b & 2.}$$ Then the representations $$\xymatrix{ V_1={\mathbb{C}}\ar@<.3ex>[r]^{\phantom{xx}0} \ar@<-.3ex>[r]_{\phantom{xx}1} & {\mathbb{C}}& \textrm{and} & V_2={\mathbb{C}}\ar@<.3ex>[r]^{\phantom{xx}1} \ar@<-.3ex>[r]_{\phantom{xx}0} & {\mathbb{C}}}$$ are not isomorphic, but their $F$-polynomials are both equal to $1+y_2+y_1y_2$.
2. If $F_V$ is an irreducible polynomial, then $V$ is indecomposable. The converse is false: consider the quiver $$\xymatrix{ 1\ar@<.3ex>[r]^a & 2\ar@<.3ex>[l]^b.}$$ Then the representation $$\xymatrix{ {\mathbb{C}}^2\ar@<.3ex>[r]^{\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}} & {\mathbb{C}}\ar@<.3ex>[l]^{\footnotesize\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}}.}$$ is indecomposable, but its $F$-polynomial is $1+y_1+y_1y_2+y_1^2y_2 = (1+y_1y_2)(1+y_1)$.
3. An $F$-polynomial may have negative coefficients. An example for a quiver with two vertices and four arrows is given in [@DWZ09 Example 3.6].
Cluster categories {#sect::clustercat}
==================
Derived categories
------------------
Derived categories were introduced by J.-L. Verdier in [@Verdier77] [@Verdier67]. Their general theory is discussed in numerous books and papers; let us cite [@Hartshorne66] [@Happel] [@Kashiwara-Schapira94] [@Weibel94] and [@Keller07].
In this section, we only give a brief outline of the theory of derived categories, focusing on aspects that suit the purpose of these notes. Here, $k$ is an arbitrary field.
### Generalities
Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an abelian category (for example, the category of modules over a finite-dimensional $k$-algebra). In particular, every morphism in ${\mathcal{A}}$ has a kernel and a cokernel.
A *complex* of objects of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a sequence of morphisms $$C = \ldots \stackrel{d_{i-2}}{\to} C_{i-1} \stackrel{d_{i-1}}{\to} C_i \stackrel{d_{i}}{\to} C_{i+1} \stackrel{d_{i+1}}{\to} \ldots$$ such that $d_{i+1}\circ d_i = 0$ for all integers $i$.
Let $C$ and $C'$ be two complexes. A *morphism of complexes* $f:C\to C'$ is an infinite tuple $f=(f_i)_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that for all integers $i$, $f_i:C_i\to C'_i$ is a morphism, and the square $$\xymatrix{ C_i\ar[r]^{d_i}\ar[d]^{f_i} & C_{i+1}\ar[d]^{f_{i+1}} \\
C'_i\ar[r]^{d'_i} & C'_{i+1}
}$$ commutes, that is, $f_{i+1}\circ d_i = d'_i\circ f_i$.
We denote by ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{A}})$ the category of complexes of ${\mathcal{A}}$. It is an abelian category. It admits an automorphism called the *shift functor* and denoted by $[1]$, which is defined by $(C[1])_i = C_{i+1}$, and where the differential $\delta$ of $C[1]$ is defined by $\delta_i = -d_{i+1}$.
The *homology* of a complex $C$ at degree $i$ is the object $H_i(C) := \ker(d_i)/{\operatorname{\rm im\,}}(d_{i-1})$. It is easy to see that a morphism of complexes $f:C\to C'$ induces in each degree a morphism $H_i(f):H_i(C)\to H_i(C')$. A *quasi-isomorphism* is a morphism of complexes $f$ such that all induced morphisms in homology are isomorphisms.
The derived category of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the category obtained when formally inverting all quasi-isomorphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{A}})$. A convenient construction of the derived category is given by first defining the *homotopy category* $K({\mathcal{A}})$. This category is the quotient of ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{A}})$ by the ideal of all *null-homotopic morphisms*, that is, morphisms of complexes $f:C\to C'$ such that there exist morphisms $s_i:C_i\to C'_{i-1}$ is ${\mathcal{A}}$ such that $f_i=d'_{i-1}s_i + s_{i+1}d_i$ for all $i\in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
The *derived category* ${\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}})$ is then the category obtained from $K({\mathcal{A}})$ by formally inverting all quasi-isomorphisms.
If, instead of ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{A}})$, one considers the categories ${\mathcal{C}}^+({\mathcal{A}})$, ${\mathcal{C}}^-({\mathcal{A}})$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^b({\mathcal{A}})$ of complexes bounded on the left, on the right and on both sides, respectively, then one defines derived categories ${\mathcal{D}}^+({\mathcal{A}})$, ${\mathcal{D}}^-({\mathcal{A}})$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mathcal{A}})$. Of importance to us in the next section will be ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mathcal{A}})$, called the *bounded derived category*.
The advantage of defining the derived category by working in $K({\mathcal{A}})$ instead of ${\mathcal{C}}({\mathcal{A}})$ is that it allows one to use a notion of “calculus of fractions” of morphisms, see for instance [@Keller07 Section 2.2]. Another advantage, relevant to our situation, is that if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the module category of a finite dimensional algebra $A$, and if we denote by ${\operatorname{{\rm proj }}}A$ the full subcategory of ${\mathcal{A}}$ whose objects are projective modules, then ${\mathcal{D}}^-({\mathcal{A}})$ is equivalent to $K^-({\operatorname{{\rm proj }}}A)$. This latter category is often easier to work with.
The functor $J:{\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{D}}^*({\mathcal{A}})$ sending an object $M$ to the complex $C$ with $C_0 = M$ and $C_j=0$ if $j\neq 0$ is fully faithful. Here, $*$ can be $+$, $-$, $b$ or an absence of symbol.
By an abuse of notation, if $M$ is an object of ${\mathcal{A}}$, then we denote still by $M$ its image by the functor $J$.
### Triangulated categories
An important property of derived categories is that they are *triangulated categories*. A triangulated category is a $k$-linear category ${\mathcal{T}}$ together with a $k$-linear automorphism $\Sigma:{\mathcal{T}}\to {\mathcal{T}}$ called the *suspension functor* and with a collection of sequences of morphisms of the form $$X \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X,$$ where $gf$ and $hg$ vanish. The sequences belonging to the collection are called *distinguished triangles*, or simply *triangles*. They are required to satisfy several axioms, which are listed below and which can be found in any of the references given at the beginning of the section.
(T1)
: The class of triangles is closed under isomorphism of complexes of length $4$. For any object $X$, the sequence $X\stackrel{id_X}{\longrightarrow} X \longrightarrow 0 \longrightarrow \Sigma X$ is a triangle. Any morphism $X \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} Y$ can be embedded into a triangle $X \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X$.
(T2)
: The sequence $X \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X$ is a triangle if and only if $ Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X \stackrel{-\Sigma f}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma Y$ is.
(T3)
: For any commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ X \ar[r]^f\ar[d]^u & Y\ar[r]^g\ar[d]^v & Z\ar[r]^h & \Sigma X\ar[d]^{\Sigma u} \\
X' \ar[r]^{f'} & Y'\ar[r]^{g'} & Z'\ar[r]^{h'} & \Sigma X'
}$$ whose rows are triangles, there exists a morphism $w:Z\longrightarrow Z'$ such that the resulting diagram also commutes (that is, $wg=g'v$ and $h'w = (\Sigma u)h$).
(T4)
: (Octahedral axiom.) Assume that $$X \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} Y \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} Z' \stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X, \quad
Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow} X' \stackrel{k}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma Y, \quad
X \stackrel{gf}{\longrightarrow} Z \stackrel{\ell}{\longrightarrow} Y' \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma X$$ are triangles, and arrange them as in the following picture
$\phantom{xxxx}$
0;<1pt,0pt>:<0pt,-1pt>:: (105,0) \*+[Y’]{} =“0”, (74,90) \*+[X]{} =“1”, (207,90) \*+[Z]{} =“2”, (0,69) \*+[Z’]{} =“3”, (103,147) \*+[Y]{} =“4”, (133,69) \*+[X’]{} =“5”, “0”, [|+\^m “1”]{}, “2”, [\_“0”]{}, “3”, [\^[p]{} “0”]{}, “0”, [@[.>]{}\^[q]{} “5”]{}, “1”, [\^[gf]{} “2”]{}, “3”, [|+\_i “1”]{}, “1”, [\^f “4”]{}, “4”, [\^g “2”]{}, “2”, [@[.>]{}\_j “5”]{}, “4”, [\^h “3”]{}, “5”, [@[.>]{}|+\_[(h)k]{}“3”]{}, “5”, [@[.>]{}\^k |+“4”]{},
$\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$where a “$+$” on an arrow $A\to B$ means a morphism $A\to \Sigma B$. Then there exist morphisms $p:Z'\to Y'$ and $q:Y'\to X'$ such that $$Z' \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} Y' \stackrel{q}{\longrightarrow} X' \stackrel{(\Sigma h)k}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma Z'$$ is a triangle, and we have $ph = \ell g, (\Sigma f)m = kq, i=mp$ and $j=q\ell$.
In other words, the four oriented triangles in the above pictures are triangles of ${\mathcal{T}}$, the four non-oriented triangles are commutative diagrams, and the two “big squares” containing the top and bottom vertices are commutative diagrams.
A consequence of the axioms is that for any object $X$ of ${\mathcal{T}}$, the functor ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{T}}}}(X,?):{\mathcal{T}}\to {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}k$ sends triangles to exact sequences.
The derived category ${\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a triangulated category whose suspension functor is $[1]$.
### Hereditary case
We now restrict to the case where ${\mathcal{A}}= {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ$, for some finite quiver $Q$ without oriented cycles. The path algebra $kQ$ is then *hereditary*; in other words, the extension bifunctors ${\operatorname{\rm Ext}^{i}_{kQ}}(?,?)$ vanish for $i\geq 2$.
In this situation, we have a good description of the objects of the bounded derived category ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)$.
All indecomposable objects of ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)$ are isomorphic to indecomposable *stalk complexes*, that is, complexes $C$ for which there is an integer $i$ such that $C_j=0$ for $j\neq i$, and $C_i$ is an indecomposable $kQ$-module.
Thus all indecomposable objects of ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)$ have the form $M[i]$, for $M$ an indecomposable $kQ$-module and $i$ an integer.
Another important feature in this case is the existence of an automorphism of the derived category called the *Auslander–Reiten translation* and denoted by $\tau$. We refer the reader to, for instance, [@K08 Section 3] for its definition in the derived category. It is an avatar of the Auslander–Reiten translation in module categories, see [@Malicki] and [@Platzeck] in this volume, and also [@ARS] and [@ASS].
### Dynkin case
We can say even more about the structure of ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)$ if $Q$ is an orientation of a simply-laced Dynkin diagram: $$\xymatrix@!0{ A_n : & 1\ar@{-}[r] & 2\ar@{-}[r] & \ldots\ar@{-}[r] & n & \\
& 1\ar@{-}[dr] & &&& \\
D_n : & & 3\ar@{-}[r] & 4\ar@{-}[r] & \ldots\ar@{-}[r] & n \\
& 2\ar@{-}[ur] \\
&&& 4\ar@{-}[d] \\
E_6 : & 1\ar@{-}[r] & 2\ar@{-}[r] & 3\ar@{-}[r] & 5\ar@{-}[r] & 6 \\
&&& 4\ar@{-}[d] \\
E_7 : & 1\ar@{-}[r] & 2\ar@{-}[r] & 3\ar@{-}[r] & 5\ar@{-}[r] & 6\ar@{-}[r] & 7\\
&&& 4\ar@{-}[d] \\
E_8 : & 1\ar@{-}[r] & 2\ar@{-}[r] & 3\ar@{-}[r] & 5\ar@{-}[r] & 6\ar@{-}[r] & 7\ar@{-}[r] & 8 \\
}$$
For any quiver $Q$, define the *repetition quiver* ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$ as follows:
- vertices of ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$ are elements $(i,n)$ of $Q_0\times {\mathbb{Z}}$;
- for every arrow $a:i\to j$ in $Q$ and every integer $n$, there are arrows $(a,n):(i,n)\to (j,n)$ and $(a^*,n):(j,n)\to (i,n+1)$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$.
If $Q = 1\to 2\to 3\to 4$ is a quiver of type $A_4$, then ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$ looks like $$\xymatrix@!0{ &(1,0)\ar[dr] && (1,1)\ar[dr] && (1,2)\ar[dr] && (1,3)\ar[dr] && (1,4)\ar[dr] && \ldots \\
\ldots \ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (2,0)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (2,1)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (2,2)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (2,3)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (2,4)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] & \\
&(3,-1)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (3,0)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (3,1)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (3,2)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && (3,3)\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && \ldots &&&&\\
\ldots \ar[ur] && (4,-1)\ar[ur] && (4,0)\ar[ur] && (4,1)\ar[ur] && (4,2)\ar[ur] && (4,3)\ar[ur] & \\
}$$
If $Q = \xymatrix{ 1\ar@<.3ex>[r] \ar@<-.3ex>[r] & 2}$ is the Kronecker quiver, then ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$ looks like $$\xymatrix@!0{& (1,0)\ar@<.3ex>[dr] \ar@<-.3ex>[dr] && (1,1)\ar@<.3ex>[dr] \ar@<-.3ex>[dr] && (1,2)\ar@<.3ex>[dr] \ar@<-.3ex>[dr] && (1,3)\ar@<.3ex>[dr] \ar@<-.3ex>[dr] && \ldots \\
\ldots \ar@<.3ex>[ur] \ar@<-.3ex>[ur] && (2,0) \ar@<.3ex>[ur] \ar@<-.3ex>[ur] && (2,1) \ar@<.3ex>[ur] \ar@<-.3ex>[ur] && (2,2)\ar@<.3ex>[ur] \ar@<-.3ex>[ur] && (2,3)\ar@<.3ex>[ur] \ar@<-.3ex>[ur]
}$$
Define the *mesh category* $k({\mathbb{Z}}Q)$ to be the category whose objects are the vertices of ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$ and whose morphisms are $k$-linear combinations of paths in ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$, modulo the *mesh relations*: whenever we have $$\xymatrix@!0{ & \bullet \ar[ddr]^{b_1} & \\
& \bullet \ar[dr] & \\
(i,n) \ar[uur]^{a_1}\ar[ur]\ar[dr]_{a_r} & \vdots & (i,n+1) \\
& \bullet \ar[ur]_{b_r} & \\
}$$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}Q$, where the $a_j$ are all arrows leaving $(i,n)$ and the $b_j$ are all arrows arriving in $(i,n+1)$, then $\sum_{j=1}^{r} b_ja_j = 0$.
For any category ${\mathcal{C}}$, let $ind({\mathcal{C}})$ be the full subcategory of indecomposable objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$.
If $Q$ is an orientation of a simply-laced Dynkin diagram, then $ind({\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ))$ is equivalent to $k({\mathbb{Z}}Q)$.
### Example: type $A_n$ {#sect::typeA}
Many computations can be done easily in the derived category of a quiver of type $A_n$. Let $Q=1\to 2\to \ldots \to n$. Then $ind({\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ))$ is equivalent to the mesh category $k({\mathbb{Z}}Q)$, and so can be pictured as follows (for $n=4$): $${\footnotesize
\xymatrix@!0{ &\begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 3 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 4 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[dr] && \ldots \\
\ldots \ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && { \begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \\2 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] & \\
&{\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{matrix}[-1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \\2 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && { \begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && \ldots &&&&\\
\ldots \ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 4 \end{matrix}[-1]\ar[ur] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \\2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}[1]\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}[1]\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 3 \end{matrix}[1]\ar[ur] & \\
}}$$ Here we denoted $kQ$-modules by their composition series (recall that right $kQ$-modules are equivalent to representations of $Q^{op}$!). The action of the shift functor $[1]$ can be seen on the diagram; that of the Auslander-Reiten translation $\tau$ is “translation to the left”.
Morphism spaces between two indecomposable objects can be completely determined using the mesh relations; in particular, these vector spaces have dimension at most $1$. Some triangles can also be derived directly on the picutre: $${\footnotesize
\xymatrix@!0@R=0.7cm@C=0.7cm{
&\bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[dr] \\
\ldots \ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && E_1\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\ldots& \\
&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr]&&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&&&\\
\ldots \ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && Y\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && F\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\ldots& \\
&X\ar[ur]\ar[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr]&&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&&&\\
\ldots \ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[dr] && \bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&V\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\ldots& \\
&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && E_2 \ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && U\ar[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr]&&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar@{.>}[dr] &&&&\\
\ldots \ar@{.>}[ur] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] && \bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] &&\bullet\ar@{.>}[ur] &&\ldots & \\
}}$$
On the left of the picture, we see a “rectangle” of solid arrows; it induces a triangle $X\to E_1\oplus E_2\to Y \to \Sigma X$.
On the right of the picture, we see a “hook” of solid arrows, which induces a triangle $U\to F\to V\to \Sigma U$. The rule that “hooks” must obey is the following: the length of the second part of the hook (from $F$ to $V$ on the picture) is one more than the length of the downward path from the first object (here $U$) to the bottom of the picture. Of course, hooks that are symmetric to the one pictured also yield triangles.
Cluster categories {#cluster-categories}
------------------
Cluster categories are triangulated categories that share many of the combinatorial properties of cluster algebras. They constitute the main setting for the definition of cluster characters (see Section \[sect::cluster-characters\]).
### Orbit categories
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $k$-linear category, and let $F$ be an automorphism of ${\mathcal{C}}$. The *orbit category* ${\mathcal{C}}/F$ is the $k$-linear category defined as follows:
- its objects are the objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$;
- for any objects $X$ and $Y$, ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/F}}(X,Y):= \bigoplus_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}}{\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X, F^n Y)$.
As one might expect from the name “orbit category”, the objects $X$ and $FX$ become isomorphic in ${\mathcal{C}}/F$.
### Cluster categories {#cluster-categories-1}
Let $Q$ be a quiver without oriented cycles. The *cluster category of $Q$* is the orbit category $${\mathcal{C}}_Q = {\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)/F,$$ where $F=\tau^{-1}\circ [1]$.
\[exam::typeA4\] If $Q=1\to 2\to 3\to 4$ is a quiver of type $A_4$, then using Section \[sect::typeA\], we get that the cluster category can be depicted as $${\footnotesize
\xymatrix@!0{ &\begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 3 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && \begin{matrix} 4 \end{matrix}\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[dr] && \ldots \\
\ldots \ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && { \begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] & \\
&{\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \\2 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && {\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && { \begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur]\ar[dr] && \ldots &&&&\\
\ldots \ar[ur] && {\begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}\ar[ur] && {\begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \\2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}}\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}[1]\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\ar[ur] && \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}\ar[ur] & \\
}}$$ Notice that the objects repeat in the diagram. What happens is that any object $X$ becomes identified with $FX=\tau^{-1}X[1]$. Morphism spaces and triangles can still be computed as in Section \[sect::typeA\].
Let us now list some of the most important properties of the cluster category.
The cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is a triangulated category, and the canonical functor ${\mathcal{D}}^b({\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ)\to {\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is a triangulated functor.
The functor $H={\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}_Q}}(kQ, ?):{\mathcal{C}}_Q\to {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ$ induces an equivalence of $k$-linear categories $$H:{\mathcal{C}}_Q/(kQ[1]) \longrightarrow {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ,$$ where $(kQ[1])$ is the ideal of all morphisms factoring through a direct sum of direct summands of the object $kQ[1]$.
The cluster category is $2$-Calabi–Yau, in the sense of Definition \[defi::2CY\] below.
The cluster category has cluster-tilting objects, in the sense of Definition \[defi::CTO\] below.
$2$-Calabi–Yau categories {#sect::2CYcat}
=========================
The properties of the cluster categories listed at the end of the previous section are the ones needed for the theory of cluster characters. For this reason, we will turn to a more abstract setting where these properties are satisfied. In this section, $k$ is an arbitrary field.
Definition {#sect::2CY}
----------
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $k$-linear category. We will assume the following:
- ${\mathcal{C}}$ is ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{}}$-finite, that is, all morphism spaces in ${\mathcal{C}}$ are finite-dimensional;
- ${\mathcal{C}}$ is Krull-Schmidt, that is, every object of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of indecomposable objects (with local endomorphism rings), and this decomposition is unique up to isomorphism and reordering of the factors;
- ${\mathcal{C}}$ is triangulated, with shift functor $\Sigma$.
\[defi::2CY\] The category ${\mathcal{C}}$ is *$2$-Calabi–Yau* if, for all objects $X$ and $Y$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, there is a (bifunctorial) isomorphism $${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X,\Sigma Y) \to D{\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(Y,\Sigma X),$$ where $D={\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{k}}(?,k)$ is the usual vector space duality.
As seen in the previous section, the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ of a quiver $Q$ without oriented cycles is a $2$-Calabi–Yau category.
Another family of examples is given by C. Amiot’s *generalized cluster category* associated to a quiver with potential. This is developed in [@Amiot08].
In [@GLS10a] and [@BIRSc], certain subcategories ${\mathcal{C}}_w$ of the category of modules over a preprojective algebra were studied. These categories are Frobenius categories, and their stable categories are triangulated and $2$-Calabi–Yau.
Cluster-tilting objects
-----------------------
Keep the notations of Section \[sect::2CY\].
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated category. An object $X$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is *rigid* if ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X,\Sigma X)=0$.
\[defi::CTO\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $2$-Calabi–Yau category. An object $T$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a *cluster-tilting object* if
- $T$ is rigid, and
- for any object $X$, ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T, \Sigma X)=0$ only if $X$ is a direct sum of direct summands of $T$.
We will usually assume that cluster-tilting objects are *basic*, that is, that they can be written as a direct sum of *pairwise non-isomorphic* indecomposable objects.
In a cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$, the object $kQ$ is always a cluster-tilting object.
An object $T$ is cluster-tilting if and only if $\Sigma T$ is.
\[exam::CTOA4\] In Example \[exam::typeA4\], the objects $$kQ={\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\oplus\begin{matrix} 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}, \quad T={\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\oplus\begin{matrix} 3 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}} \quad \textrm{ and }\quad T'={\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}\oplus\begin{matrix} 3 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{matrix}\oplus \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}$$ are cluster-tilting objects.
We will see in Section \[sect::mutation\] how to obtain new cluster-tilting objects from a given one.
The following property is crucial in the definition of cluster characters (Section \[sect::cluster-characters\]): it tells us how to pass from a $2$-Calabi–Yau category to a module category.
\[prop::backtomod\] Let $T=T_1\oplus\ldots\oplus T_n$ be a basic cluster-tilting object of a $2$-Calabi–Yau category ${\mathcal{C}}$. We assume that the $T_i$ are indecomposable. Then the functor $$H={\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T, \Sigma ?):{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}{\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T)$$ induces an equivalence of $k$-linear categories $$H:{\mathcal{C}}/(T) \longrightarrow {\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}{\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T).$$ Moreover,
- $H(\Sigma^{-1} T_i)$ is an indecomposable projective module for all $i\in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$;
- $H(\Sigma T_i)$ is an indecomposable injective module for all $i\in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$;
- for any indecomposable object $X$ other than the $T_i$, $H(\Sigma X) = \tau H(X)$, where $\tau$ is the Auslander–Reiten translation;
- triangles in ${\mathcal{C}}$ are sent to long exact sequences in ${\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}{\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T)$.
Index
-----
In a $2$-Calabi–Yau triangulated category, cluster-tilting objects act like generators of the category. To be precise:
\[prop::approximation\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a $2$-Calabi–Yau category with basic cluster-tilting object $T=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n T_i$. Then for any object $X$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, there is a triangle $$T_1^X\to T_0^X\to X\to \Sigma T_1^X,$$ where $T_0^X = \bigoplus_{i=1}^n T_i^{\oplus a_i}$ and $T_1^X=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n T_i^{\oplus b_i}$.
With the notations of Proposition \[prop::approximation\], the *index of $X$ (with respect to $T$)* is the integer vector $${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X = (a_1-b_1, \ldots, a_n-b_n).$$
Note that, even though the triangle in Proposition \[prop::approximation\] is not unique, the index is well-defined.
\[rema::indices\] Applying $H$ to the triangle in Proposition \[prop::approximation\], we get an injective presentation of $HX$. More precisely, from the triangle $$T_1^X\to T_0^X\to X\to \Sigma T_1^X,$$ we can deduce another triangle $$T_0^X\to X\to \Sigma T_1^X \to \Sigma T_0^X,$$ and applying $H$ to this triangle yields the exact sequence $$0\to HX\to H(\Sigma T_1^X) \to H(\Sigma T_0^X),$$ where $H(\Sigma T_0^X)$ and $H(\Sigma T_1^X)$ are injective modules by Proposition \[prop::backtomod\]. This can be used to compute indices: if one can compute a minimal injective presentation of $HX$, then one can deduce the index of $X$.
The index of $T_i$ is always the vector with all coordinates zero, except the $i$th one, which is $1$. The index of $\Sigma T_i$ is the same vector, but replacing $1$ by $-1$. These can be computed from the triangles $$0\to T_i\stackrel{id}{\to} T_i \to 0$$ and $$T_i\to 0 \to \Sigma T_i \stackrel{id}{\to} \Sigma T_i.$$
Let $Q=1\to 2\to 3\to 4$, and let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the cluster category of $Q$, as in Example \[exam::typeA4\]. Take $$T=kQ[1] = {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}[1]\oplus\begin{matrix} 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]\oplus \begin{matrix} 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]\oplus \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}[1]}.$$
Then the choice of name for the objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the figure of Example \[exam::typeA4\] corresponds to their image by $H$ in ${\mbox{{\rm mod \!}}}kQ$ (except for the summands of $T$).
We can compute the index of indecomposable objects by computing injective resolutions of modules, as pointed out in Remark \[rema::indices\]. The injective modules are $$I_1 = {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}, \quad I_2 = {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2 \end{matrix}}, \quad I_3 = {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3 \end{matrix}} \quad \textrm{ and } \quad I_4={\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4 \end{matrix}}.$$
Here are some minimal injective presentations: $$0\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2 \end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3 \end{matrix}},$$ $$0\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2 \\ 1\end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4 \end{matrix}},$$ $$0\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}\to {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 4\\ 3\\ 2 \end{matrix}}.$$ Thus ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}({\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 2 \end{matrix}})=(0,-1,1,0)$, ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}\Big({\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 3\\ 2\\ 1 \end{matrix}}\Big) = (-1,0,0,1)$ and ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}({\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix}}) = (-1,1,0,0)$.
Here are some properties of indices.
1. \[enum::index\] For any objects $X$ and $Y$, ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X\oplus Y = {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X + {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}Y$.
2. [@DK08] If $X$ and $Y$ are rigid and ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X = {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}Y$, then $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic.
3. [@Palu08] If $X\to Y\to Z\stackrel{f}{\to} \Sigma X$ is a triangle, and if $f$ lies in $(\Sigma T)$, then ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}Y = {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X+{\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}Z$.
4. [@Palu08] For any object $X$, the vector $({\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X+{\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}\Sigma X)$ only depends on the dimension vector of $HX$.
If ${\mathbf{e}}$ is the dimension vector of $HX$, then we put $\iota({\mathbf{e}}):=({\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X+{\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}\Sigma X)$.
Cluster characters {#sect::cluster-characters}
==================
We now come to the main aim of these notes: to define cluster characters and give some of their main properties.
In this section, ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $2$-Calabi–Yau category and $T=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n T_i$ is a basic cluster-tilting object of ${\mathcal{C}}$. The field $k$ is now assumed to be ${\mathbb{C}}$.
Definition {#definition}
----------
The *cluster character* associated to $T$ is the map $CC$ with values in ${\mathbb{Z}}[x_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots x_n^{\pm 1}]$ defined on objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ by the formula $$CC(X) = {\mathbf{x}}^{{\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X} \sum_{{\mathbf{e}}\in {\mathbb{N}}^n} \chi\big( {\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{{\mathbf{e}}}}(HX) \big) {\mathbf{x}}^{-\iota({\mathbf{e}})}.$$
By computing $\iota({\mathbf{e}})$ when ${\mathbf{e}}$ is the dimension vector of a simple module, and by using the fact that $\iota$ is additive, one can show that the above formula is equivalent to $$CC(X) = {\mathbf{x}}^{{\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X} F_{HX}(\hat{y}_1, \ldots, \hat{y}_n),$$ where
- we define a matrix $B=(b_{ij})_{n\times n}$ by $b_{ij} = (\textrm{$\#$ arrows $i\to j$}) - (\textrm{$\#$ arrows $j\to i$})$, where arrows are taken in the Gabriel quiver of the algebra ${\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T)$,
- $\hat{y}_i = \prod_{j=1}^n x_j^{b_{ji}}$, and
- $F_{HX}$ is the $F$-polynomial of $HX$ as defined in Definition \[defi::F-polynomial\].
An immediate consequence of the above remark is the following.
If $X$ and $Y$ are objects in ${\mathcal{C}}$, then $CC(X\oplus Y) = CC(X)\cdot CC(Y)$.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof.</span> This is a consequence of Proposition \[prop::direct-sum\] and the fact that ${\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X\oplus Y = {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}X + {\operatorname{\rm ind}_{T}}Y$. $\Box$ ]{}
For any choice of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $T$, we have $CC(0)=1$ and $CC(T_i)=x_i$.
In Example \[exam::typeA4\], with $T=kQ[1]$, we have that $CC\Big( {\footnotesize \begin{matrix} 3 \\ 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix}} \Big) = \frac{x_1x_2 + x_1x_4 + x_3x_4 + x_2x_3x_4}{x_1x_2x_3}$.
Multiplication formula
----------------------
The main theorem of the theory of cluster characters is the following *multiplication formula*.
\[theo::multiplication\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X, \Sigma Y)$ is one-dimensional. Let $\varepsilon \in {\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X, \Sigma Y)$ and $\eta \in {\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(Y, \Sigma X)$ be non-zero (they are unique up to a scalar). Let $$Y\stackrel{i}{\to} E\stackrel{p}{\to} X\stackrel{\varepsilon}{\to} \Sigma Y$$ and $$X\stackrel{i'}{\to} E'\stackrel{p'}{\to} Y \stackrel{\eta}{\to} \Sigma X$$ be the corresponding non-split triangles in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $$CC(X)\cdot CC(Y) = CC(E) + CC(E').$$
This result has the same spirit as Theorem \[theo::F-polynomials\] for $F$-polynomials. Its proof relies on the following dichotomy:
Keep the notations of Theorem \[theo::multiplication\]. Let $U$ and $V$ be submodules of $HX$ and $HY$, respectively. Then the two following conditions are equivalent:
1. There exists a submodule $W$ of $HE$ such that $Hp(W) = U$ and $(Hi)^{-1}(W) = V$.
2. There does not exist any submodule $W'$ of $HE'$ such that $Hp'(W') = V$ and $(Hi')^{-1}(W')=U$.
This results allows us to compare Euler characteristics of the submodule Grassmannians ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{*}}(HE)$, ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{*}}(HE')$, ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{*}}(HX)$ and ${\mbox{{\rm Gr}}_{*}}(HY)$, in a way similar to (but more involved than) what we did in the proof of Proposition \[prop::direct-sum\]. Together with a result concerning the indices [@Palu08 Lemma 5.1], it allows to prove Theorem \[theo::multiplication\]. We do not recount the proof here, but rather refer the reader to [@Palu08].
Mutation of cluster-tilting objects {#sect::mutation}
-----------------------------------
Assume that $R=R_1\oplus R_2\oplus \ldots \oplus R_n$ is a cluster-tilting object of ${\mathcal{C}}$. Assume that ${\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(R)$ is written as ${\mathbb{C}}Q_R/I$, with $Q_R$ a finite quiver without oriented cycles of length $1$ or $2$, and $I$ an admissible ideal.
Fix $i\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$. Consider the following triangles: $$R_i \stackrel{\alpha}{\to} \bigoplus_{a:i\to j \textrm{ in } Q_R} R_j \to R_i^* \to \Sigma R_i$$ and $$R^{**}_i \to \bigoplus_{b:h\to i \textrm{ in } Q_R} R_h \stackrel{\beta}{\to} R_i \to \Sigma R^{**}_i,$$ where $\alpha$ is the direct sum of all morphisms $R_i\to R_j$ corresponding to arrows $a:i\to j$ in $Q_R$, and $\beta$ is the direct sum of all morphisms $R_h\to R_i$ corresponding to arrows $b:h\to i$ in $Q_R$.
\[theo::mutation\] $\phantom{x}$
1. The objects $R_i^*$ and $R_i^{**}$ are isomorphic.
2. The object $\mu_i(R) := R_1\oplus\ldots\oplus R_{i-1}\oplus R_i^*\oplus R_{i+1}\oplus \ldots\oplus R_n$ is a cluster-tilting object of ${\mathcal{C}}$.
3. The only cluster-tilting objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ having all $R_j$ ($j\neq i$) as direct summands are $R$ and $\mu_i(R)$.
4. \[one-dim\] The space ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(R_i, \Sigma R_i^*)$ is one-dimensional.
The object $\mu_i(R)$ of Theorem \[theo::mutation\] is the *mutation of $R$ at $i$*. Any cluster-tilting object obtained from $R$ by a sequence of mutations is said to be *reachable from $R$*.
We will see in Section \[sect::application\] why this process of mutation, coupled with the multiplication formula of Theorem \[theo::multiplication\], allows for a categorification of cluster algebras.
In Example \[exam::CTOA4\], the cluster-tilting object $T$ is obtained mutating $kQ$ at the second direct summand, and $T'$ is obtained by mutating $T$ at the third direct summand.
An interesting result holds for cluster categories.
\[prop::graph\] Let $Q$ be a quiver without oriented cycles, and let $T$ be a cluster-tilting object of the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$. Then all cluster-tilting objects of ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ are reachable from $T$.
There are $2$-Calabi–Yau categories in which cluster-tilting objects are not all reachable from each other. An example is given in [@Plamondon11 Example 4.3].
Application: categorification of cluster algebras {#sect::application}
-------------------------------------------------
The results of the previous sections combine neatly to provide a categorification of cluster algebras.
Let $T$ be a cluster-tilting object of a $2$-Calabi–Yau category ${\mathcal{C}}$, and let $R$ be as in Theorem \[theo::mutation\]. Then $$CC(R_i)\cdot CC(R^*_i) = \prod_{a:i\to j \textrm{ in } Q_R} CC(R_j) + \prod_{b:h\to i \textrm{ in } Q_R} CC(R_h).$$
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof.</span> This follows directly from Theorem \[theo::mutation\](\[one-dim\]) and from Theorem \[theo::multiplication\], and from the fact that $CC(X\oplus Y) = CC(X)\cdot CC(Y)$ for all objects $X$ and $Y$. $\Box$ ]{}
The point of this corollary is that it writes down exactly an exchange relation in a cluster algebra:
Let $Q$ be a quiver with $n$ vertices without oriented cycles of length $1$ or $2$, and let ${\mathbf{u}}=(u_1, \ldots, u_n)$ be a free generating set of the field ${\mathbb{Q}}(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. Call $(Q,{\mathbf{u}})$ a *seed*.
Then the mutation of $(Q, {\mathbf{u}})$ at $i$ is a new seed $(Q', {\mathbf{u}}')$ $(u_1, \ldots, u_{i-1}, u'_{i}, u_{i+1}, \ldots, u_n)$, where $$u_i\cdot u'_i = \prod_{a:i\to j \textrm{ in } Q} u_j + \prod_{b:h\to i \textrm{ in } Q} u_h.$$ and $Q'$ is the quiver obtained from $Q$ by changing the orientation of all arrows adjacent to $i$, adding an arrow $h\to j$ for every path $h\to i \to j$, and removing cycles of length $2$.
Now, the mutation of quivers can also be interpreted inside the cluster category:
Let $R$ be as in Theorem \[theo::mutation\]. Assume that the endomorphism algebra of $R$ is the Jacobian algebra of a quiver with potential $(Q_R, W_R)$ (see [@DWZ08]). Then the endomorphism algebra of $\mu_i(R)$ is the Jacobian algebra of the mutated quiver with potential $\mu_i(Q_R, W_R)$. In particular, $Q_{\mu_i(R)} = \mu_i(Q_R)$.
Thus we get:
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a cluster category or a generalized cluster category (see [@Amiot08]), then the cluster character sends reachable indecomposable objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ to cluster variables in the cluster algebra of $Q$, where $Q$ is the Gabriel quiver of ${\operatorname{\rm End}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(T)$.
1. The multiplication formula of Theorem \[theo::multiplication\] can be generalized to the case when the dimension of the space ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X,\Sigma Y)$ is greater than $1$, see [@Palu09] and [@GLS072].
2. Cluster characters can also be defined in the setting of stably $2$-Calabi–Yau Frobenius categories, see [@FK09] (and also [@BIRSc] and [@GLS10a]).
3. If we work over finite fields instead of ${\mathbb{C}}$, then we can define cluster characters by counting points in submodule Grassmannians. This leads to a categorification of quantum cluster algebras, see [@Rupel15].
4. It is possible to study cluster characters without the assumption that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is ${\operatorname{{\rm Hom}}_{}}$-finite, provided ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the generalized cluster category of a quiver with potential, see [@Plamondon09].
[^1]: The author was partially supported by the French ANR grant SC3A (ANR-15-CE40-0004-01)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The exciting detection of a very high degree of linear polarization, $P=80\%\pm 20\%$, in the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission of the recent GRB 021206, provides strong evidence that synchrotron emission is the dominant radiation mechanism. Besides this immediate implication, there were also claims that this implies a magnetic field that is ordered on large scales within the ejecta, and must therefore be produced at the source, which in turn was used as an argument in favor magnetic fields playing an active role in the production of GRB jets. However, an alternative explanation was also suggested: a very narrow jet, of opening angle $\theta_j\sim
1/\gamma$, where $\gamma\gtrsim 100$ is the Lorentz factor during the GRB, viewed slightly outside its edge, at $\theta_j<\theta_{\rm
obs}\lesssim\theta_j+1/\gamma$. This explanation also works with a magnetic field that is generated in the internal shocks and does not originate at the source. We calculate the expected degree of polarization for these two scenarios, and find that it is significantly easier to produce $P\gtrsim 50\%$ with an ordered field. More specifically, we obtain $P\sim 43-61\%$ for an ordered transverse magnetic field, $B_{\rm ord}$, whereas a shock-produced field that is random but fully within the plane of the shock, $B_\perp$, can produce up to $P\lesssim 38-54\%$ for a single pulse in the GRB light curve, but the integrated emission over many pulses (as measured in GRB 021206) is expected to be a factor of $\sim 2$ lower. A magnetic field normal to the shock front, $B_\parallel$, can produce $P\sim 35-62\%$ for the emission integrated over many pulses. However, polarization measurements from GRB afterglows suggest a more isotropic configuration for the shock-produced field that should reduce $P$ by a factor $\sim 2-3$. Therefore, an ordered magnetic field, $B_{\rm ord}$, that originates at the source, can produce the observed polarization most naturally, while $B_\parallel$ is less likely, and $B_\perp$ is the least likely of the above.
author:
- Jonathan Granot
title: 'The Most Probable Cause for the High Gamma-Ray Polarization in GRB 021206'
---
Introduction
============
The recent detection of a very large linear polarization, $P=80\%\pm
20\%$, in the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission of GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs 2003, hereafter CB), establishes synchrotron emission as the dominant radiation mechanism in the prompt GRB. As the prompt GRB is believed to arise from internal shocks within a relativistic outflow (Rees & Mészáros 1994; Sari & Piran 1997), it can provide valuable information on the magnetic field structure in the ejecta, and clues to the nature of the central source. In a recent paper (Granot & Königl 2003, hereafter GK), we suggested that “the radiation from the original ejecta, which includes the prompt GRB and the emission from the reverse shock (the ‘optical flash’ and ‘radio flare’) could potentially exhibit a high degree of polarization (up to $\sim 60\%$) induced by an ordered transverse magnetic field advected from the central source”. This is perfectly consistent with the polarization measured in GRB 021206. CB also attributed the polarization in this GRB to an ordered magnetic field, and suggested that this implies that magnetic fields drive the GRB explosion. A similar interpretation of this measurement has even been claimed to favor Poynting dominated outflows in GRBs (Lyutikov, Periev & Blandford 2003).
However, Waxman (2003) suggested an alternative explanation: if the GRB outflow is a uniform jet with sharp edges and an opening angle $\theta_j\lesssim 1/\gamma$, then our line of sight is likely to be at an angle $\theta_j<\theta_{\rm obs}\lesssim\theta_j+1/\gamma$ from the jet axis. In this case we should see both a bright GRB (as much of the radiation is still beamed toward us) and a large polarization (e.g. Gruzinov 1999; Granot et al. 2002). This scenario does not require an ordered field and also works for a magnetic field that is generated at the internal shocks (Medvedev & Loeb 1999).
There are therefore two feasible explanations for the large polarization measured in GRB 021206, where only one of them requires a magnetic field ordered on angular scales $\gtrsim 1/\gamma$. This undermines the possible theoretical implications of an ordered magnetic field in the GRB ejecta. In this Letter we critically examine these two scenarios, and estimate their ability to explain the high observed polarization. In §\[B\_ord\] we calculate the polarization from an ordered magnetic field. The maximal polarization for a narrow jet with a shock-produced magnetic field is calculated in §\[narrow\_jet\]. In §\[GRB021206\] we apply our results to GRB 021206 and discuss the conclusions.
An Ordered Magnetic Field {#B_ord}
=========================
Here we calculate the linear polarization for synchrotron emission from a thin spherical shell with an ordered transverse magnetic field, $B_{\rm
ord}$, moving radially outward with $\gamma\gg 1$. We integrate over the emission from the shell at a fixed radius and do not follow the different photon arrival times from different angles $\theta$ from the line of sight (l.o.s.). This calculation is relevant to the prompt GRB, the reverse shock (the ‘optical flash’ and ‘radio flare’) and the afterglow, provided the magnetic field is ordered over an angle $\gtrsim 1/\gamma$ around the l.o.s.
Following GK, the polarization position angle, measured from $\hat{B}_{\rm ord}$, is given by $\theta_p=\phi+\arctan(\frac{1-y}{1+y}\cot\phi)$ in the limit $\gamma\gg 1$, where $y\equiv(\gamma\theta)^2$ and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle. We have $I_\nu=I'_{\nu'}(\nu/\nu')^3$, with[^1] $I'_{\nu'}\propto(\nu')^{-\alpha}(\sin\chi')^\epsilon
\propto(\nu')^{-\alpha}[1-(\hat{n}'\cdot\hat{B}'_{\rm
ord})^2]^{\epsilon/2}$, where $\nu/\nu'\approx 2\gamma/(1+y)$, $1-(\hat{n}'\cdot\hat{B}'_{\rm ord})^2\approx
[(1-y)/(1+y)]^2\cos^2\phi+\sin^2\phi$ and $\hat{n}'$ is the direction in the local frame of a photon that reaches the observer. The Stokes parameters are given by $$\label{Stokes}
\frac{\left\{\begin{matrix} U \cr Q \end{matrix}\right\}}
{IP_{\rm max}}=\frac{\int \frac{dy}{(1+y)^{a}}\int d\phi
\left[\left(\frac{1-y}{1+y}\right)^2\cos^2\phi
+\sin^2\phi\right]^{\epsilon/2}
\left\{\begin{matrix} \sin 2\theta_p \cr \cos 2\theta_p
\end{matrix}\right\}}{\int\frac{dy}{(1+y)^{a}}\int d\phi
\left[\left(\frac{1-y}{1+y}\right)^2\cos^2\phi
+\sin^2\phi\right]^{\epsilon/2}}
\ ,$$ where $a=3+\alpha$ for the instantaneous emission (relevant for the afterglow) and $a=2+\alpha$ for the time integrated emission (relevant for the prompt GRB when integrated over a time larger than the duration of a single pulse, as in GRB 021206). For a uniform jet, the limits of integration should include only regions within the jet. This is important only if $\theta_{\rm obs}+1/\gamma\gtrsim\theta_j$, which is expected to be rare for the prompt GRB, but usually occurs during the afterglow. When the edge of the jet is at $y>y_{\rm
max}\gtrsim {\rm a\ few}$, the limits of integration may be taken as $\int_0^{y_{\rm max}}dy\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi$. In this case $U=0$ and $P_{\rm ord}=-Q/I=|Q|/I$. For internal shocks, each pulse in the GRB light curve is from a collision between two shells. The emission near the peak of the pulse is mainly from $\theta\lesssim
1/\gamma$ ($y\lesssim 1$), and may be approximated by taking $y_{\rm
max}=1$. The emission from $y\gtrsim 1$ contributes mainly to the tail of the pulse. If the latter is included in the temporal integration used for measuring $P$, and is not below the background, then we can take $y_{\rm max}\gg 1$ (the asymptotic limit is reached at $y_{\rm max}\gtrsim\;$a few).
[cccccc]{} D,E & -1/3 & 1/2 & 0.404 (0.423) & 0.165 (0.306)\
F & 1/2 & 9/13 & 0.605 (0.623) & 0.435 (0.549)\
& & & 0.605–0.675 & 0.435–0.563\
[\[0pt\][G]{}]{} & [\[0pt\][$\frac{p-1}{2}$]{}]{} & [\[0pt\][$\frac{p+1}{p+7/3}$]{}]{} & (0.623–0.691) & (0.549–0.643)\
& & & 0.675–0.726 & 0.563–0.656\
[\[0pt\][H]{}]{} & [\[0pt\][$p/2$]{}]{} & [\[0pt\][$\frac{p+2}{p+10/3}$]{}]{} & (0.691–0.739) & (0.643–0.709)\
Figure \[fig1\] shows $P_{\rm ord}/P_{\rm max}$ and[^2] $P_{\rm ord}$ as a function of $\alpha$ for $\epsilon=1+\alpha$ (e.g. footnote \[epsilon\]), and Table 1 summarizes the results for the relevant (optically thin) power law segments (PLSs) of the spectrum.[^3]
A Very Narrow Jet Viewed from Just Outside its edge {#narrow_jet}
===================================================
In this section we calculate the polarization from a narrow jet, of opening angle $\theta_j\sim 1/\gamma$, viewed at an angle $\theta_j\lesssim\theta_{\rm obs}\lesssim\theta_j+1/\gamma$ from its axis.[^4] In contrast to §\[B\_ord\], here the magnetic field is assumed to be produced at the shock itself, and therefore has symmetry around the direction normal to the shock, $\hat{n}_{\rm sh}$. Since the more isotropic the magnetic field configuration behind the shock, the lower the resulting polarization, we consider two extreme cases where the field is most anisotropic: 1. a random field that lies strictly within the plane of the shock ($B=B_\perp$, $P=P_\perp$), 2. a completely ordered field in the direction of $\hat{n}_{\rm sh}$ ($B=B_\parallel$, $P=P_\parallel$).
Following Ghisellini & Lazzati (1999), we generalize their formula so that it would hold for $\theta_{\rm obs}>\theta_j$, $$\label{P_perp_local}
P=\frac{\frac{1}{2\pi}
\int_{|\theta_j-\theta_{\rm obs}|}^{\theta_j+\theta_{\rm obs}}
\theta d\theta I_{\nu}(\theta)P(\theta)
\sin[2\psi_1(\theta)]}{\Theta(\theta_j-\theta_{\rm obs})
\int_0^{\theta_j-\theta_{\rm obs}}\theta d\theta
I_{\nu}(\theta)
+\int_{|\theta_j-\theta_{\rm obs}|}^{\theta_j+\theta_{\rm obs}}
\theta d\theta\frac{\pi-\psi_1(\theta)}{\pi}I_{\nu}(\theta)}\ ,$$ where $\cos\psi_1= (\theta_j^2-\theta_{\rm
obs}^2-\theta^2)/2\theta_{\rm obs}\theta$ and $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. For $B_\parallel$ we simply have $P_\parallel(\theta)=P_{\rm max}$ and $\hat{n}'\cdot\hat{B}'=\hat{n}'\cdot\hat{r}=
\cos\theta'\approx\frac{1-y}{1+y}$, so that $I_\nu\propto
y^{\epsilon/2}/(1+y)^{3+\alpha+\epsilon}$. However, for $B_\perp$ we must average over the possible field orientations within the plane of the shock:[^5] $$\label{PPmax_par}
\frac{P_\perp(y)}{P_{\rm max}}=\frac{\int_0^{\pi}d\phi
\left[1-\frac{4y\cos^2\phi}{(1+y)^2}\right]^{(\epsilon-2)/2}
\left[\left(\frac{1-y}{1+y}\right)^2\cos^2\phi-\sin^2\phi\right]}
{\int_0^{\pi}d\phi
\left[1-\frac{4y\cos^2\phi}{(1+y)^2}\right]^{\epsilon/2}}\;,$$ and $I_\nu\propto(1+y)^{-3-\alpha}$ times the denominator of Eq. (\[PPmax\_par\]). For $\epsilon=2$ and $0$, $P_\perp(\theta')/P_{\rm
max}=\frac{-2y}{1+y^2}= \frac{-\sin^2\theta'}{1+\cos^2\theta'}$ and $-\min(y,1/y)$, respectively. Fig. \[fig2\] shows $-P_\perp(\theta')/P_{\rm max}$ for several values of $\epsilon$. A larger $\epsilon$ implies a larger $|P(\theta')|$, as it suppresses $I_\nu$ at $(\hat{n}'\cdot\hat{B}')^2\approx 1$ where there is a positive contribution to $P_\perp(\theta')$. The global polarization from the whole jet is given by[^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_par}
\frac{P_\parallel}{P_{\rm max}}&=&\frac{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{y_1}^{y_2}
\frac{y^{\epsilon/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+\epsilon}}
\sin\left[2\psi_1(y)\right]}
{\Theta(1-q)\int_0^{y_1}\frac{y^{\epsilon/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+\epsilon}}
+\int_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{y^{\epsilon/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+\epsilon}}
\frac{\left[\pi-\psi_1(y)\right]}{\pi}}\ ,
\\ \label{P_perp}
\frac{P_\perp}{P_{\rm max}}&=&\frac{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{y_1}^{y_2}
\frac{dy\sin\left[2\psi_1(y)\right]}{(1+y)^{a}}g(y,\epsilon)}
{\Theta(1-q)\int_0^{y_1}\frac{f(y,\epsilon)dy}{(1+y)^{a}}
+\int_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{f(y,\epsilon)dy}{(1+y)^{a}}
\frac{\left[\pi-\psi_1(y)\right]}{\pi}}\ ,
\\ \label{f_y_eps}
f(y,\epsilon)&=&\int_0^\pi d\phi
\left[1-\frac{4y\cos^2\phi}{(1+y)^2}\right]^{\epsilon/2}\ ,
\\ \label{g_y_eps}
g(y,\epsilon)&=&\int_0^\pi d\phi\,
\frac{(1-y)^2(1+y)^{-2}\cos^2\phi-\sin^2\phi}
{\left[1-4y(1+y)^{-2}\cos^2\phi\right]^{(2-\epsilon)/2}}\ ,
$$ where $\cos\psi_1= [(1-q^2)y_j-y]/(2q\sqrt{y_jy})$, $q\equiv\theta_{\rm obs}/\theta_j$, $y_j=(\gamma\theta_j)^2$, $y_1=(1-q)^2y_j$, $y_2=(1+q)^2y_j$.
Figures \[fig3\] and \[fig4\] show $P_\perp(q)$ and $P_\parallel(q)$, respectively, for several values of $\alpha$ and $y_j$, using the relation $\epsilon=1+\alpha$. For $q<1$, $|P_\perp|/P_{\rm max}\lesssim 0.2$, while $|P_\perp|$ rises sharply above $q=1$ (the larger $y_j$, the sharper the rise), and peaks at $q\sim 1+1/\sqrt{y_j}$ ($q\approx 1.7-1.8$ for $y_j=1$), which is $q$ just above $1$ for $y_j\gg 1$, but at $q\sim 1/\sqrt{y_j}\gg 1$ for $y_j\ll 1$. The width of the peak is $\sim 1/\sqrt{y_j}$, so that the peak is wider (as well as higher) for smaller $y_j$. At larger values of $q$, $|P_\perp|$ decreases since for $\theta_{\rm
obs}\gtrsim(2-3)\max(\theta_j,1/\gamma)$ \[i.e. $q\gtrsim(2-3)\max(1,1/\sqrt{y_j})$\], the jet may be approximated as a point source, and as $q$ increases, the emission in the local frame is almost straight backward (i.e. $\hat{n}'$ approaches $-\hat{n}_{\rm
sh}$ and $\theta'$ approaches $\pi$), thus suppressing $P_\perp(\theta')$ (see Fig. \[fig2\]). However, in sharp contrast with $B_\perp$, for $B_\parallel$ even if $\theta'$ is only slightly different from $\pi$, still $P_\parallel(\theta')=P_{\rm max}$, and $P_\parallel$ approaches $P_{\rm max}$ for $q\gtrsim 2$. The transition between $P_\parallel(q\gtrsim 2)\approx P_{\rm max}$ and $P_\parallel(q=0)=0$ is very gradual for $y_j\ll 1$ and very sharp for $y_j\gg 1$ (for which the transition occurs at $|q-1|\lesssim
y_j^{-1/2}\ll 1$). For $y_j>1$, $P_\parallel(q<1)/P_{\rm max}\lesssim
0.3$, which is a little higher than $|P_\perp|$, while for $y_j<1$, $P_\parallel(q<1)/P_{\rm max}\lesssim 0.6$. For $y_j\gg 1$ ($\theta_j\gg 1/\gamma$) the edge of the jet is hardly visible from the interior of the jet and $P(q<1-1/\sqrt{y_j})\approx 0$ (for both $B_\perp$ and $B_\parallel$).
The above expressions for $P_{\perp}(q,y_j,\epsilon,a)$ or $P_{\parallel}(q,y_j,\epsilon,a)$ can produce afterglow polarization light curves, by using $a=3+\alpha$, $\epsilon=1+\alpha$ and $P_{\rm
max}=\frac{\alpha+1}{\alpha+5/3}$, and adding a model for the time evolution of $\gamma(t)$ and $\theta_j(t)$, which determine $q(t)=\theta_{\rm obs}/\theta_j(t)$ and $y_j(t)=[\gamma(t)\theta_j(t)]^2$. One simple model is to assume $q(t<t_j),y_j(t>t_j)={\rm const}$, where $t_j$ is the jet break time.[^7] Note that at a fixed observed time, $P$ remains constant within each PLS, but changes across spectral breaks.
Application to GRB 021206 and Discussion {#GRB021206}
========================================
In the prompt GRB the spectral index is usually in the range $1/2\lesssim\alpha\lesssim 5/4$, for which the time integrated polarization ($a=2+\alpha$, $y_{\rm max}\gg 1$) from an ordered transverse magnetic field ($B_{\rm ord}$) is $P_{\rm ord}\sim 43-61\%$ (e.g. Table 1, Fig. \[fig1\], footnote \[formula\]). This is reasonably consistent with the value of $P=80\%\pm 20\%$ that was measured for GRB 021206 (CB). Furthermore, this requires a magnetic field that is ordered over angles $\gtrsim 1/\gamma$ which can still be $\ll\theta_j$.
We now turn to the narrow jet scenario (Waxman 2003). For $\theta_{\rm obs}>\theta_j+1/\gamma$ the observed flux from the GRB drops considerably. Therefore, a bright GRB like 021206 requires $q\lesssim 1+1/\sqrt{y_j}$. As it is hard to collimate a jet to $\theta_j<1/\gamma$, it is reasonable to assume $y_j\gtrsim 1$ and therefore $q\lesssim 2$. Furthermore, for $y_j\gg 1$ that is usually inferred from afterglow observations (Panaitescu & Kumar 2002), the peak of the polarization is at $q\sim 1+1/\sqrt{y_j}\sim 1$ and has a width $\Delta q\sim 1/\sqrt{y_j}\ll 1$ which covers a fraction $\sim
1/\sqrt{y_j}\ll 1$ of the solid angle from which the GRB is beamed toward us, and therefore a high polarization is very unlikely. Hence, we require $y_j\lesssim 2$. The fact that GRB 021206 was extraordinarily bright, together with the correlation found by Frail et al. (2001), might suggest a very narrow jet, so that $y_j\lesssim
2$ is not so far fetched (Waxman 2003). Altogether we expect $1\lesssim y_j\lesssim 2$ and $1\lesssim q\lesssim 2$.
In this parameter range, and for $1/2\lesssim\alpha\lesssim 5/4$, $P_\perp$ peaks at $P_{\perp,{\rm max}}\sim(0.55-0.7)P_{\rm max}\sim
38-54\%$. However, the Lorentz factor of the shocked fluid in the internal shocks is expected to vary with $\Delta\gamma\sim\gamma$ between different shell collisions within the same GRB.[^8] This implies a reasonably large variation in $y_j\propto\gamma^2$, while $q={\rm const}$, so that our l.o.s. will not be near the peak of $P_\perp$ for all the pulses in the GRB light curve. Furthermore, the observed flux at $q\sim 1+1/\sqrt{y_j}$, where $P_{\perp}$ peaks, is smaller than near the edge of the jet ($q\approx 1$), due to relativistic beaming effects, so that the brightest pulses would tend to be relatively weakly polarized, thus further reducing the average polarization over the whole GRB. Therefore, while for a single pulse in the GRB light curve $P_\perp$ can approach $P_{\perp,{\rm max}}$, the average over many pulses (as in GRB 021206) will be $P_\perp\lesssim P_{\perp,{\rm max}}/2\sim 19-27\%$.
For $B_\parallel$ we find $P_\parallel\sim(0.3-0.9)P_{\rm max}\sim
20-70\%$ for a single pulse, and expect $P_\parallel\sim(0.5-0.8)P_{\rm max}\sim 35-62\%$ for the average over many pulses, which is consistent with the value measured for GRB 021206. In fact, $B_\parallel$ is an ordered magnetic field, just that unlike $B_{\rm ord}$ which was considered in §\[B\_ord\], it can in principle be generated at the shock itself, as $\hat{n}_{\rm sh}$ is a preferred direction that is determined locally by the shock front. Current models for the production of magnetic fields at collisionless relativistic shocks (Medvedev & Loeb 1999) suggest $B=B_\perp$ rather than $B_\parallel$. However the amplification mechanism of the magnetic field and its configuration in relativistic shocks is still largely an open question, so that it is hard to rule out $B\approx
B_\parallel$ on purely theoretical grounds. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that we considered two extreme cases for the magnetic field configuration behind the shock, in which it is most anisotropic. The relatively low values of $P\lesssim 3\%$ measured in GRB afterglows[^9], compared to the expected values of $P\lesssim 20\%$ (Sari 1999; Ghisellini & Lazzati 1999; GK), suggest that the magnetic field created behind relativistic shocks is more isotropic than the extreme cases we considered, implying $P$ values lower by a factor of $\sim 2-3$ (e.g. GK). Therefore, although $P_\parallel\sim 35-62\%$, a more isotropic magnetic field configuration that is suggested by afterglow observations would imply[^10] $P\sim 15-30\%$.
We therefore conclude that $P\gtrsim 50\%$ is most naturally produced by an ordered magnetic field that is carried out with the ejecta from the central source (as was recently proposed by GK). This is therefore the most likely explanation for the value of $P=80\%\pm 20\%$ (CB) measured in GRB 021206. A magnetic field that is generated at the shock itself is less likely to produce a sufficiently large polarization. However, if either 1) the systematic uncertainty in the quoted value was for some reason underestimated, and $P\lesssim
20-30\%$ is acceptable, or 2) the internal shocks for some reason produce a magnetic field much more anisotropic than in the afterglow shock, then $P_\parallel$ may still be a viable option. Both points are required in order for $P_\perp$ to work well.
I thank Davide Lazzati, Arieh Königl, Ehud Nakar and Eli Waxman for useful discussions. This research was supported by the Institute for Advanced Study, funds for natural sciences.
[99]{}
Bersier, D., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, L63
Coburn, W., & Boggs, S.E. 2003, Nature, 423, 415
Frail, D. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 1999, MNRAS, 309, L7
Granot, J., & Königl, A. 2003, ApJ, 594, L83 (GK)
Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 570, L61
Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820
Gruzinov, A. 1999, ApJ, 525, L29
Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., & Blandford, R. D. 2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0305410)
Medvedev, M. V., & Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 697
Panaitescu, A., & Kumar, P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 779
Rees, M. J., & Mészáros, P. 1994, ApJ, 430, L93
Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1997, ApJ, 485, 270
Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 524, L43
Waxman, E. 2003, Nature, 423, 388
[^1]: \[epsilon\] Here $\chi'$ is the angle between $\hat{n}'$ and $\hat{B}'$, which is also the pitch angle between the electron’s velocity and $\hat{B}'$. For the optically thin part of the spectrum that is considered in this work, and as long as the electron energy distribution (taking into account electron cooling) is independent of the pitch angle $\chi'$ (which is most natural for a random field, and is also reasonable to expect, at least approximately, for an ordered field as well), we find $\epsilon=1+\alpha$.
[^2]: Here $P_{\rm max}=(\alpha+1)/(\alpha+5/3)=(p_{\rm eff}+1)/(p_{\rm
eff}+7/3)$, where it is useful to define $p_{\rm eff}\equiv
2\alpha+1$. For optically thin synchrotron emission, $\alpha\geq
-1/3$, and hence $P_{\rm max}\geq 1/2$. This lower limit on $P_{\rm
max}$ arises since $P=1/2$ is simply the low frequency ($\nu\ll\nu_{\rm syn}$) polarization of the synchrotron emission from each electron, and therefore $P_{\rm max}=1/2$ in PLSs D,E (see Table 1). For PLSs F, G and H, $P_{\rm max}$ is determined by $p_{\rm eff}$ ($=2$, $p$, and $p+1$, respectively), where for these PLSs, $p_{\rm eff}$ is the effective power law index of the electron distribution.
[^3]: \[formula\] The most relevant case for GRB 021206 is $y_{\rm max}\gg 1$ and $a=2+\alpha$, for which the approximate formula $P_{\rm ord}(\alpha)=0.016\alpha^4
-0.052\alpha^3-0.013\alpha^2+0.335\alpha+0.276$, provides a relative accuracy of better than $0.25\%$ for $-1/3\leq\alpha\leq
3/2$.
[^4]: It is assumed here that the jet has sharp edges, i.e. the emissivity drops sharply over an angular interval $\Delta\theta\ll 1/\gamma$ around $\theta=\theta_j$. A smoother edge, $\Delta\theta\gtrsim 1/\gamma$, would considerably reduce the polarization.
[^5]: Here $P<0$ ($P>0$) implies $\hat{P}$ along (perpendicular to) the plane containing $\hat{n}_{\rm sh}$ and $\hat{n}'$.
[^6]: Here, $P<0$ ($P>0$) means $\hat{P}$ along (perpendicular to) the direction from our l.o.s. to the jet axis.
[^7]: Ghisselini & Lazzati (1999) simply assumed $\theta_j,\alpha={\rm const}$, and implicitly assumed $\epsilon=2$ since they used $P(\theta')/P_{\rm
max}=\sin^2\theta'/(1+\cos^2\theta')$. However, they did not take into account the fact that $I'_{\nu'}\propto\langle(\sin\chi')^\epsilon\rangle\propto
\langle[1-(\hat{B}'\cdot\hat{n}')^2]^{\epsilon/2}\rangle$, which effects the polarization light curves.
[^8]: If $B_{\rm ord}$ is ordered on angles $\gtrsim 1/\gamma_{\rm min}$, which are still $\lesssim 0.01$, and $\hat{B}_{\rm ord}$ does not change significantly (i.e. by $\lesssim 0.5\;$radians) between the different shells, then this should not effect $P_{\rm ord}$ significantly; $P_\parallel$ should also not be strongly effected.
[^9]: except for a possible sharp spike with $P\approx 10\%$ in the polarization light curve of GRB 020405 (Bersier et al. 2003).
[^10]: The same argument should reduce $P_\perp\sim 19-27\%$ to $P\sim 7-13\%$, making it even harder to reconcile with the value measured in GRB 021206.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We show that there exists a sequence $\eps_n \searrow 0$ for which the following holds: Let $K \subset \RR^n$ be a compact, convex set with a non-empty interior. Let $X$ be a random vector that is distributed uniformly in $K$. Then there exist a unit vector $\theta$ in $\RR^n$, $t_0 \in \RR$ and $\sigma > 0$ such that $$\sup_{A \subset \RR} \left| \, Prob \, \{ \, \langle X, \theta
\rangle \in A \, \} \, - \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma}} \int_A
e^{-\frac{(t - t_0)^2}{2 \sigma^2}} dt \, \right| \leq \eps_n,$$ where the supremum runs over all measurable sets $A
\subset \RR$, and where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denotes the usual scalar product in $\RR^n$. Furthermore, under the additional assumptions that the expectation of $X$ is zero and that the covariance matrix of $X$ is the identity matrix, we may assert that most unit vectors $\theta$ satisfy ($\ast$), with $t_0 = 0$ and $\sigma = 1$. Corresponding principles also hold for multi-dimensional marginal distributions of convex sets.
author:
- 'B. Klartag[^1]'
title: A Central Limit Theorem for Convex Sets
---
Introduction {#section1}
============
We begin with an example. Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, and consider the cube $Q = [ -\sqrt{3}, \sqrt{3}]^n
\subset \RR^n$. Suppose that $X = (X_1,...,X_n)$ is a random vector that is distributed uniformly in the cube $Q$. Then $X_1,...,X_n$ are independent, identically-distributed random variables of mean zero and variance one. Consequently, the classical central limit theorem states that the distribution of the random variable $$\frac{X_1 + ... + X_n}{\sqrt{n}}$$ is close to the standard normal distribution, when $n$ is large. Moreover, suppose we are given $\theta_1,...,\theta_n \in \RR$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n \theta_i^2 = 1$. Then under mild conditions on the $\theta_i$’s (such as Lindeberg’s condition, see, e.g., [@feller Section VIII.4]), the distribution of the random variable $$\langle \theta, X \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^n \theta_i X_i$$ is approximately gaussian, provided that the dimension $n$ is large. For background on the classical central limit theorem we refer the reader to, e.g., [@feller] and [@stroock].
Let us consider a second example, no less fundamental than the first. We denote by $| \cdot |$ the standard Euclidean norm in $\RR^n$, and let $\sqrt{n + 2} \, D^{n} = \{ x \in \RR^n ;
|x| \leq \sqrt{n+2} \}$ be the Euclidean ball of radius $\sqrt{n + 2}$ around the origin in $\RR^n$. We also write $S^{n-1} = \{ x \in \RR^n ; |x| = 1 \}$ for the unit sphere in $\RR^n$. Suppose that $Y = (Y_1,...,Y_n)$ is a random vector that is distributed uniformly in the ball $\sqrt{n + 2} \, D^{n}$. Then $Y_1,...,Y_n$ are identically-distributed random variables of mean zero and variance one, yet they are not independent. Nevertheless, it was already observed by Maxwell that for any $\theta =
(\theta_1,...,\theta_n) \in
S^{n-1}$, the distribution of the random variable $$\langle \theta, Y \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^n \theta_i Y_i$$ is close to the standard normal distribution, when $n$ is large. See, e.g., [@diaconis] for the history of the latter fact and for more information.
There is a wealth of central limit theorems in probability theory that ensure normal approximation for a sum of many independent, or weakly dependent, random variables. Our first example, that of the cube, fits perfectly into this framework. The approach we follow in this paper relates more to the second example, that of the Euclidean ball, where the “true source” of the gaussian approximation may be attributed to geometry. The geometric condition we impose on the distribution of the random variables is that of convexity. We shall see that convexity may substitute for independence in certain aspects of the phenomenon represented by the classical central limit theorem.
A function $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ is log-concave if $$f(\lambda x + (1 - \lambda) y) \geq f(x)^{\lambda}
f(y)^{1-\lambda}$$ for all $x, y \in \RR^n$ and $0 < \lambda <
1$. That is, $f$ is log-concave when $\log f$ is concave on the support of $f$. Examples of interest for log-concave functions include characteristic functions of convex sets, the gaussian density, and several densities from statistical mechanics. In this manuscript, we consider random vectors in $\RR^n$ that are distributed according to a log-concave density. Thus, our treatment includes as a special case the uniform distribution on an arbitrary compact, convex set with a non-empty interior.
We say that a function $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ is isotropic if it is the density of a random vector with zero mean and identity covariance matrix. That is, $f$ is isotropic when $$\int_{\RR^n} f(x) dx = 1, \ \ \ \int_{\RR^n} x f(x) dx = 0 \ \ \text{and} \ \ \
\int_{\RR^n} \langle x, \theta \rangle^2 f(x) dx = |\theta|^2$$ for all $\theta \in \RR^n$. Any log-concave function with $0 < \int f < \infty$ may be brought to an isotropic position via an affine map, that is, $f \circ T$ is isotropic for some affine map $T:\RR^n \rightarrow \RR^n$ (see, e.g., [@MP]). Suppose that $X$ and $Y$ are two random variables attaining values in some measure space $\Omega$ (here $\Omega$ will always be $\RR$ or $\RR^n$ or a subspace $E \subset
\RR^n$). We define their total-variation distance as $$d_{TV}(X, Y) =
2 \sup_{A \subset \Omega} \left| \, Prob \left \{ X \in A \right
\} \, - \, Prob \left \{ Y \in A \right \} \, \right|,$$ where the supremum runs over all measurable sets $A \subset
\Omega$. Note that $ d_{TV}(X, Y)$ equals the $L^1$-distance between the densities of $X$ and $Y$, when these densities exist. Let $\sigma_{n-1}$ stand for the unique rotationally-invariant probability measure on $S^{n-1}$, also referred to as the uniform probability measure on the sphere $S^{n-1}$.
There exist sequences $\eps_n \searrow 0,
\delta_n \searrow 0$ for which the following holds: Let $n \geq 1$, and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. Then there exists a subset $\Theta \subset S^{n-1}$ with $\sigma_{n-1}(\Theta) \geq 1 - \delta_n$, such that for all $\theta \in \Theta$, $$d_{TV} \left( \, \langle X, \theta \rangle \, , \,
Z \, \right)
\leq \eps_n,$$ where $Z \sim N(0,1)$ is a standard normal random variable. \[thm\_basic\]
We have the bounds $\eps_n \leq C \left( \frac{\log \log
(n+2)}{\log (n+1)} \right)^{1/2}$ and $\delta_n \leq \exp \left(
-c n^{0.99} \right)$ for $\eps_n$ and $\delta_n$ from Theorem \[thm\_basic\], where $c, C >0$ are universal constants. The quantitative estimate we provide for $\eps_n$ is rather poor. While Theorem \[thm\_basic\] seems to be a reasonable analog of the classical central limit theorem for the category of log-concave densities, we are still lacking the precise Berry-Esseen type bound. A plausible guess might be that the logarithmic dependence should be replaced by a power-type decay, in the bound for $\eps_n$.
Theorem \[thm\_basic\] implies the result stated in the abstract of this paper, which does not require isotropicity; indeed, recall that any log-concave density can be made isotropic by applying an appropriate affine map. Thus, any log-concave density in high dimension has at least one almost-gaussian marginal. When the log-concave density is also isotropic, we can assert that, in fact, the vast majority of its marginals are approximately gaussian. An inherent feature of Theorem \[thm\_basic\] is that it does not provide a specific unit vector $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ for which $\langle X, \theta \rangle$ is approximately normal. This is inevitable: We clearly cannot take $\theta = (1,0,...,0)$ in the example of the cube above, and hence there is no fixed unit vector that suits all isotropic, log-concave densities. Nevertheless, under additional symmetry assumptions, we can identify a unit vector that always works.
Borrowing terminology from Banach space theory, we say that a function $f: \RR^n \rightarrow \RR$ is unconditional if $$f(x_1,...,x_n) = f(|x_1|,...,|x_n|) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ x =
(x_1,...,x_n) \in \RR^n.$$ That is, $f$ is unconditional when it is invariant under coordinate reflections.
There exists a sequence $\eps_n \searrow 0$ for which the following holds: Let $n \geq 1$, and let $f:\RR^n
\rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an unconditional, isotropic, log-concave function. Let $X = (X_1,...,X_n)$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ that is distributed according to the density $f$. Then, $$d_{TV} \left( \,
\frac{X_1 + ... + X_n}{\sqrt{n}} \, , \, Z \, \right) \leq \eps_n$$ where $Z \sim N(0,1)$ is a standard normal random variable. \[thm\_uncond\]
We provide the estimate $\eps_n \leq \frac{C}{(\log (n+1))^{1/5}}$ for $\eps_n$ from Theorem \[thm\_uncond\]. Multi-dimensional versions of Theorem \[thm\_basic\] are our next topic. For integers $k,n$ with $1 \leq k \leq n$, let $G_{n,k}$ stand for the grassmannian of all $k$-dimensional subspaces in $\RR^n$. Let $\sigma_{n,k}$ be the unique rotationally-invariant probability measure on $G_{n,k}$. Whenever we refer to the uniform measure on $G_{n,k}$, and whenever we select a random $k$-dimensional subspace in $\RR^n$, we always relate to the probability measure $\sigma_{n,k}$ defined above. For a subspace $E \subset \RR^n$ and a point $x \in \RR^n$, let $Proj_E(x)$ stand for the orthogonal projection of $x$ onto $E$. A standard gaussian random vector in a $k$-dimensional subspace $E
\subset \RR^n$ is a random vector $X$ that satisfies $Prob \{ X
\in A \} = (2 \pi)^{-k/2} \int_A \exp(-|x|^2/2) dx$ for any measurable set $A \subset E$.
There exists a universal constant $c > 0$ for which the following holds: Let $n \geq 3$ be an integer, and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. Let $\eps > 0$ and suppose that $1 \leq k
\leq c \eps^2 \frac{\log n}{\log \log n}$ is an integer. Then there exists a subset $\E \subset G_{n,k}$ with $\sigma_{n,k}(\E)
\geq 1 - e^{-c n^{0.99}}$ such that for any $E \in \E$, $$d_{TV} \left( \, Proj_E(X) \, , \, Z_E \, \right) \leq \eps,$$ where $Z_E$ is a standard gaussian random vector in the subspace $E$. \[thm\_multi\]
That is, most $k$-dimensional marginals of an isotropic, log-concave function, are approximately gaussian with respect to the total-variation metric, provided that $k << \frac{\log
n}{\log \log n}$. Note the clear analogy between Theorem \[thm\_multi\] and Milman’s precise quantitative theory of Dvoretzky’s theorem, an analogy that dates back to Gromov [@gromov Section 1.2]. Readers that are not familiar with Dvoretzky’s theorem are referred to, e.g., [@GM Section 4.2], to [@dvo_30_years] or to [@linden]. Dvoretzky’s theorem shows that $k$-dimensional geometric projections of an $n$-dimensional convex body are $\eps$-close to a Euclidean ball, provided that $k <c
\eps^2 \log n$. Theorem \[thm\_multi\] states that $k$-dimensional marginals, or measure-projections, of an $n$-dimensional convex body are $\eps$-close to gaussian when $k <
c \eps^2 \log n / (\log \log n)$. Thus, according to Dvoretzky’s theorem, the geometric shape of the support of the marginal distribution may be approximated by a very regular body – a Euclidean ball, or an ellipsoid – whereas Theorem \[thm\_multi\] demonstrates that the marginal distribution itself is very regular; it is approximately normal.
More parallels between Theorem \[thm\_multi\] and Dvoretzky’s theorem are apparent from the proof of Theorem \[thm\_multi\] below. We currently do not know whether there exists a single subspace that satisfies both the conclusion of Theorem \[thm\_multi\] and the conclusion of Dvoretzky’s theorem simultaneously; both theorems show that a “random subspace” works with large probability, but with respect to different Euclidean structures. The logarithmic dependence on the dimension is known to be tight in Milman’s form of Dvoretzky’s theorem. However, we have no reason to believe that the quantitative estimates in Theorem \[thm\_multi\] are the best possible.
There are several mathematical articles where Theorem \[thm\_basic\] is explicitly conjectured. Brehm and Voigt suggest Theorem \[thm\_basic\] as a conjecture in [@brehm_voigt], where they write that this conjecture appears to be “known among specialists”. Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki formulated the same conjecture in [@ABP], independently and almost simultaneously with Brehm and Voigt. Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki also proved the conjecture for the case of uniform distributions on convex sets whose modulus of convexity and diameter satisfy certain quantitative assumptions. Gromov wrote a remark in [@gromov Section 1.2] that seems related to Theorem \[thm\_basic\] and Theorem \[thm\_multi\], especially in view of the techniques we use here. Following [@ABP] and [@brehm_voigt], significant contributions regarding the central limit problem for convex sets were made by Bastero and Bernués [@bb], Bobkov [@bobkov], Bobkov and Koldobsky [@bobkov_koldobsky], Brehm and Voigt [@brehm_voigt], Brehm, Hinow, Vogt and Voigt [@BHVV], Koldobsky and Lifshits [@koldobsky_lifshits], E. and M. Meckes [@meckes], E. Milman [@emanuel], Naor and Romik [@NR], Paouris [@pa_clt], Romik [@romik_phd], S. Sodin [@sodin], Wojtaszczyk [@woj] and others.
Let us explain a few ideas from our proof. We begin with a general principle that goes back to Sudakov [@sudakov] and to Diaconis and Freedman [@dia_thin_shell] (see also the expositions of Bobkov [@bobkov] and von Weizsäcker [@weizs]. A sharpening for the case of convex bodies was obtained by Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki [@ABP]). This principle reads as follows: Suppose $X$ is any random vector in $\RR^n$ with zero mean and identity covariance matrix. Then most of the marginals of $X$ are approximately gaussian, if and only if the random variable $|X| / \sqrt{n}$ is concentrated around the value one. In other words, typical marginals are approximately gaussian if and only if most of the mass is concentrated on a “thin spherical shell” of radius $\sqrt{n}$ and width much smaller than $\sqrt{n}$. Therefore, to a certain extent, our task is essentially reduced to proving the following:
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer and let $X$ be a random vector with an isotropic, log-concave density in $\RR^n$. Then for all $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$, $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|X|}{\sqrt{n}} -1 \, \right| \geq \eps
\right \} \leq C n^{-c \eps^2},$$ where $c, C > 0$ are universal constants. \[cor\_202\]
A significantly superior estimate to that of Theorem \[cor\_202\], for the case where $\eps$ is a certain universal constant greater than one, is given by Paouris [@Pa2], [@Pa3]. It would be interesting to try and improve the bound in Theorem \[cor\_202\] also for smaller values of $\eps$.
Returning to the sketch of the proof, suppose that we are given a random vector $X$ in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. We need to show that most of its marginals are almost-gaussian. Select a random $k$-dimensional subspace $E \subset \RR^n$, for a certain integer $k$. We use a concentration of measure inequality – in a way similar to Milman’s proof of Dvoretzky’s theorem – to show that with large probability of choosing the subspace $E$, the distribution of the random vector $Proj_E(X)$ is approximately spherically-symmetric. This step is carried out in Section \[section3\], and it is also outlined by Gromov [@gromov Section 1.2].
Fix a subspace $E$ such that $Proj_E(X)$ is approximately spherically-symmetric. In Section \[section4\] we use the Fourier transform to conclude that the approximation by a spherically-symmetric distribution actually holds in the stronger $L^{\infty}$-sense, after convolving with a gaussian. In Section \[section5\] we show that the gaussian convolution has only a minor effect, and we obtain a spherically-symmetric approximation to $Proj_E(X)$ in the total-variation, $L^1$-sense. Thus, we obtain a density in the subspace $E$ that has two properties: It is log-concave, by Prékopa-Leindler, and it is also approximately radial. A key observation is that such densities are necessarily very close to the uniform distribution on the sphere; this observation boils down to estimating the asymptotics of some one-dimensional integral. At this point, we further project our density, that is already known to be close to the uniform distribution on a sphere, to any lower-dimensional subspace. By Maxwell’s principle we obtain an approximately gaussian distribution in this lower-dimensional subspace. This completes the rough sketch of our proof.
Throughout this paper, unless stated otherwise, the letters $c, C, c^{\prime}, \tilde{C}$ etc. denote positive universal constants, that are not necessarily the same in different appearances. The symbols $C, C^{\prime},
\bar{C}, \tilde{C}$ etc. denote universal constants that are assumed to be sufficiently large, while $c, c^{\prime}, \bar{c},
\tilde{c}$ etc. denote sufficiently small universal constants. We abbreviate $\log$ for the natural logarithm, $\EE$ for expectation, $Prob$ for probability and $Vol$ for volume.
*Acknowledgements.* I would like to thank Charles Fefferman, Emanuel Milman and Vitali Milman for interesting discussions on related subjects, and to Boris Tsirelson for mentioning the central limit problem for convex sets in his graduate course at Tel-Aviv University.
Some background on log-concave functions {#section2}
========================================
Here we gather some useful facts pertaining mostly to log-concave densities. For more information about log-concave functions, the reader is referred to, e.g., [@ball_log_concave], [@dedicata] and [@lovasz]. The raison d’être of log-concave densities on $\RR^n$ stems from the classical Brunn-Minkowski inequality and its generalizations. Let $E \subset \RR^n$ be a subspace, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an integrable function. We denote the marginal of $f$ with respect to the subspace $E$ by $$\pi_E(f)(x) = \int_{x + E^{\perp}} f(y) dy \ \ \ (x \in E)$$ where $x + E^{\perp}$ is the affine subspace in $\RR^n$ that is orthogonal to $E$ and passes through $x$. The Prékopa-Leindler inequality (see [@Pr1], [@Le], [@Pr2] or the first pages of [@pisier_book]), which is a functional version of Brunn-Minkowski, implies that $\pi_E(f)$ is log-concave whenever $f$ is log-concave and integrable. Therefore, when $f$ is isotropic and log-concave, $\pi_E(f)$ is also isotropic and log-concave. A further consequence of the Prékopa-Leindler inequality, is that when $f$ and $g$ are integrable log-concave functions on $\RR^n$, so is their convolution $f * g$. (The latter result actually goes back to [@davidovic], [@leker] and [@schoenberg].)
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with a log-concave density. Assume that $F: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ is an even, convex function, such that $F(t x) = t F(x)$ for all $t > 0,
x \in \RR^n$. Denote $E = \sqrt{\EE |F(X)|^2}$. Then,
1. $\displaystyle
Prob \left \{ F(X) \geq t E \right
\} \leq 2 e^{-t/10}$ for all $t \geq 0$.
Additionally, let $0 < \eps \leq \frac{1}{2}$, and let $M > 0$ satisfy $ Prob \{ F(X) \geq M \} \leq \eps. $ Then,
1. $\displaystyle
Prob \left \{ F(X) \geq t M \right \} \leq (1 - \eps)
\left(\frac{\eps}{1-\eps} \right)^{(t + 1)/2}$ for all $t \geq 1$.
\[lem\_1010\]
Lemma \[lem\_1010\] is the well-known Borell’s lemma (see its elegant proof in [@borell_what] or [@MS Theorem III.3]). Let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an integrable function. For $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ and $t \in \RR$ we define $H_{\theta, t}
= \{ x \in \RR^n ; \langle x, \theta \rangle \leq t \}$ and $$M_f(\theta, t) = \int_{H_{\theta,t}} f(x) dx. \label{eq_146}$$ The function $M_f$ is continuous in $\theta$ and $t$, non-decreasing in $t$, and its derivative $\frac{\partial
M_f}{\partial t}$ is the Radon transform of $f$. Thus, in principle, one may recover the function $f$ from a complete knowledge of $M_f$. Clearly, for any subspace $E \subset \RR^n$, $$M_{\pi_E(f)}(\theta, t) = M_f(\theta, t) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ \ \theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E, t \in \RR.
\label{proj_ok}$$ Moreover, let $\theta \in S^{n-1}$, let $E = \RR \theta$ be the one-dimensional subspace spanned by $\theta$, and denote $g = \pi_E(f)$. Then $$g(t \theta) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
M_{\pi_E(f)} (\theta, t) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} M_{f}
(\theta, t) \label{eq_621_}$$ for all points $t \in \RR$ where, say, $g(t \theta)$ is continuous.
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Fix $\theta \in S^{n-1}$. Then,
1. For $t \geq 0$ we have $
1 - 2 e^{-|t|/10} \leq M_f(\theta, t) \leq 1$.
2. For $t \leq 0$ we have $
0 \leq M_{f} \left( \theta, t \right) \leq 2 e^{-|t|/10}.$
\[lem\_1028\]
*Proof:* Let $X$ be a random vector with density $f$. Then $\EE |\langle X, \theta \rangle|^2 = 1$. We use Lemma \[lem\_1010\](i), with the function $F(x) = |\langle x,
\theta \rangle|$, to deduce the desired inequalities. $\square$
The space of all isotropic, log-concave functions in a fixed dimension is a compact space, with respect to, e.g., the $L^1$-metric. In particular, one-dimensional log-concave functions are quite rigid. For instance, suppose that $g: \RR \rightarrow
[0, \infty)$ is an isotropic, log-concave function. Then (see Hensley [@hensley] and also, e.g., [@lovasz Lemma 5.5] or [@fradelizi]), $$\frac{1}{10} \leq g(0) \leq \sup_{x \in \RR} g(x) \leq 1.
\label{eq_547}$$ We conclude that for any log-concave, isotropic function $f: \RR^n
\rightarrow [0, \infty)$, $$\left| M_f(\theta, t) - M_f(\theta, s) \right| \leq |t - s| \ \
\ \text{for all} \ s, t \in \RR, \ \theta \in S^{n-1}.
\label{eq_547_}$$ To prove (\[eq\_547\_\]), we set $E = \RR \theta$ and $g =
\pi_E(f)$. Then $g$ is isotropic and log-concave, hence $\sup g
\leq 1$ by (\[eq\_547\]). Note that $g$ is continuous in the interior of its support, since it is a log-concave function. According to (\[eq\_621\_\]), the function $t \mapsto g(t \theta)$ is the derivative of the function $t \mapsto M_{f} (\theta, t)$, and (\[eq\_547\_\]) follows.
Our next proposition is essentially taken from Anttila, Ball and Perissinaki [@ABP], yet we use the extension to the non-even case which is a particular case of a result of Bobkov [@bobkov Proposition 3.1]. A function $g: S^{n-1} \rightarrow
\RR$ is $L$-Lipshitz, for $L > 0$, if $|g(x) - g(y)| \leq L |x-y|$ for all $x, y \in S^{n-1}$.
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer. Let $t \in \RR$ and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Then, the function $$\theta \mapsto M_f(\theta, t) \ \ \ (\theta \in S^{n-1})$$ is $C$-Lipshitz on $S^{n-1}$. Here, $C > 0$ is a universal constant. \[lem\_bobkov\]
The proof of Proposition \[lem\_bobkov\] in [@bobkov] involves analysis of two-dimensional log-concave functions. A beautiful argument yielding Proposition \[lem\_bobkov\], for the case where $f$ is an even function, appears in [@ABP]. The approach in [@ABP] is based on an application of Busemann’s theorem in dimension $n+1$, which leads to the conclusion that $\theta \mapsto |\theta| M_f(t, \theta / |\theta|)^{-1}$ is a norm on $\RR^n$ for any fixed $t \geq 0$.
Techniques from Milman’s proof of Dvoretzky’s theorem {#section3}
=====================================================
It is well-known that for large $n$, the uniform probability measure $\sigma_{n-1}$ on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$ satisfies strong concentration inequalities. This concentration of measure phenomenon is one of the main driving forces in high-dimensional convex geometry, as was first demonstrated by Milman in his proof of Dvoretzky’s theorem (see [@mil70] or [@GM Section 4.2]). Our next proposition is essentially taken from Milman’s work, though the precise formulation we use is due to Gordon [@gordon1], [@gordon2] (see also [@schechtman1], [@schechtman2] or [@NR Theorem 6]).
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, let $L > 0$, $0 < \eps \leq 1/2$, and let $g: S^{n-1}
\rightarrow \RR$ be an $L$-Lipshitz function. Denote $M =
\int_{S^{n-1}} g(x) d \sigma_{n-1}(x)$. Assume that $1 \leq k \leq
\hat{c} \eps^2 n$ is an integer. Suppose that $E \in G_{n,k}$ is a random subspace, i.e., $E$ is distributed according to the probability measure $\sigma_{n,k}$ on $G_{n,k}$. Then, with probability greater than $1 - \exp \left(- c \eps^2 n
\right)$, $$|g(\theta) - M| \leq \eps L \ \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \theta \in
S^{n-1} \cap E. \label{eq_700}$$ Here, $0 < c,\hat{c} < 1$ are universal constants. \[dvoretzky\]
Our use of “Dvoretzky’s theorem type” arguments in the next lemma is inspired by the powerful methods of Paouris in [@Pa1], [@Pa2], [@Pa3].
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, let $A \geq 1, 0 < \delta \leq \frac{1}{2}$ and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Assume that $1 \leq \ell \leq c \delta
A^{-1} \log n$ is an integer, and let $E$ be a random $\ell$-dimensional subspace in $\RR^n$. Then with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c n^{1-\delta}}$, $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-A \ell}
+ \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \
\text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_616}$$ Here, $0 < c < 1$ is a universal constant. \[lem\_dvo\]
*Proof:* We may assume that $n$ exceeds a given universal constant, since otherwise, for a suitable choice of a small universal constant $c$, there is no $\ell$ with $1 \leq
\ell
\leq c \delta A^{-1} \log n$. Fix a real number $t$. According to Proposition \[lem\_bobkov\], the function $\theta \mapsto
M_f(\theta, t)$ is $C$-Lipshitz on $S^{n-1}$. Let $E \in G_{n,
\ell}$ be a random subspace, uniformly distributed in $G_{n,
\ell}$. We would like to apply Proposition \[dvoretzky\] with $k
= \ell, L = C$ and $\eps = \frac{1}{2} n^{-\delta/2}$. Note that for this choice of parameters, $$k = \ell \leq c \delta A^{-1} \log n \leq \hat{c} \eps^2 (\log
1/\eps)^2 n \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ 2 \eps L \leq e^{-2 c
\delta \log n} \leq e^{-2 A \ell},$$ provided that $c$ is a sufficiently small, positive universal constant, and that $n$ is greater than some universal constant. Hence the appeal to Proposition \[dvoretzky\] is legitimate. From the conclusion of that proposition, with probability larger than $1 - e^{-c^{\prime} n^{1-\delta}}$ of selecting $E$, $$\label{eq_434} \sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_f(\theta,t) \leq
e^{-2 A \ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_f(\theta, t).$$ For any fixed $t \in \RR$, the estimate (\[eq\_434\]) holds with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c^{\prime} n^{1-\delta}}$. Denote $I = \{ i \cdot e^{-2 A \ell} \, ; \, i=-\lceil e^{30 A
\ell} \rceil,...,\lceil e^{30 A \ell} \rceil \}$. Then, with probability greater than $1 - e^{ -\bar{c} n^{1-\delta}}$, we obtain $$\forall t \in I, \ \ \ \sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}
(\theta, t) \leq e^{-2 A \ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E}
M_{f} (\theta, t). \label{eq_443}$$ Indeed, the estimate for the probability follows from the inequality $(2 e^{30 A \ell} + 3) e^{ - c^{\prime} n^{1-\delta}}
\leq e^{-\bar{c} n^{1-\delta}}$.
Fix an $\ell$-dimensional subspace $E
\subset \RR^n$ that satisfies (\[eq\_443\]). Select $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in S^{n-1} \cap E$. We will demonstrate that for any $t \in \RR$, $$M_{f} (\theta_1, t) \leq e^{-A \ell} +
M_{f} (\theta_2, t).
\label{eq_618}$$ To that end, note that when $|t| \geq 20 A \ell$, by Lemma \[lem\_1028\], $$\left| M_f(\theta_1, t) - M_f (\theta_2, t) \right| \leq 2 e^{-|t| / 10}
\leq 2 e^{-2 A \ell} \leq e^{-A \ell}.
\label{eq_626}$$ Hence (\[eq\_618\]) holds for $|t| \geq 20 A \ell$. We still need to consider the case where $|t| < 20 A \ell$. In this case, $|t|
\leq e^{20 A \ell}$ and hence there exists $t_0 \in I$ with $|t -
t_0| \leq \frac{1}{2} \cdot e^{-2 A \ell}$. According to (\[eq\_547\_\]) from Section \[section2\], the function $t
\mapsto M_{f} (\theta_i, t)$ is $1$-Lipshitz for $i=1,2$. Therefore, by using (\[eq\_443\]), we conclude (\[eq\_618\]) also for the case where $|t| < 20 A \ell$. Thus (\[eq\_618\]) holds for all $t \in \RR$, under the assumption that $E$ satisfies (\[eq\_443\]).
Recall that $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in S^{n-1} \cap E$ are arbitrary, hence we may take the supremum over $\theta_1$ and the infimum over $\theta_2$ in (\[eq\_618\]). We discover that whenever the subspace $E$ satisfies (\[eq\_443\]), it necessarily also satisfies (\[eq\_616\]). The probability for a random $\ell$-dimensional subspace $E \subset \RR^n$ to satisfy (\[eq\_443\]) was shown to be greater than $1 - e^{-\bar{c} n^{1
-\delta}}$. The lemma thus follows. $\square$
*Remark.* For the case where $f$ is even, Lemma \[lem\_dvo\] follows from a direct application of Dvoretzky’s theorem in Milman’s form. Indeed, in this case, $\theta \mapsto |\theta| M_f(\theta,
t)^{-1}$ is a norm, and Lemma \[lem\_dvo\] asserts that this norm is almost Hilbertian when restricted to certain random subspaces.
Almost spherical log-concave functions {#section4}
======================================
A large portion of this section is devoted to proving the following proposition.
There exist universal constants $C_0,C > 1$ and $0 < c < 1$ for which the following holds: Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Assume that $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_0 n} +
\inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \ \text{for all} \
\ t \in \RR. \label{eq_848_}$$ Suppose that $Y$ is a random vector in $\RR^n$ with density $f$. Then for all $0 < \eps < 1$, $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|Y|}{\sqrt{n}} -1 \, \right| \geq \eps
\right \} \leq C e^{-c \eps^2 n }. \label{eq_309}$$ \[cor\_735\]
For $n \geq 1$ and $v > 0$ we define $\gamma_{n,v}: \RR^n
\rightarrow [0, \infty)$ to be the function $$\gamma_{n,v}(x) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi v)^{n/2}} \exp \left(
-\frac{|x|^2}{2v} \right). \label{gamma_v}$$ Then $\gamma_{n,v}$ is the density of a gaussian random vector in $\RR^n$ with expectation zero and covariance matrix that equals $v Id$, where $Id$ is the identity matrix. We write $O(n)$ for the group of orthogonal transformations of $\RR^n$.
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, let $\alpha \geq 5$, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Assume that $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-5 \alpha n} +
\inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \ \text{for all} \
\ t \in \RR. \label{eq_848}$$ Denote $g = f * \gamma_{n, 1}$, where $*$ stands for convolution. Then, $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \leq e^{-\alpha n} +
\inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t
\geq 0. \label{eq_750}$$ \[lem\_fourier\]
*Proof:* We will show that the Fourier transform of $f$ is almost spherically-symmetric. As usual, we define $$\hat{f}(\xi) = \int_{\RR^n} e^{-2 \pi i \langle \xi, x \rangle}
f(x) dx \ \ \ \ (\xi \in \RR^n),$$ where $i^2 = -1$. Let $r > 0$, and fix $\xi_1, \xi_2 \in \RR^n$ with $|\xi_1| = |\xi_2| = r$. Denote by $E_1 = \RR \xi_1, E_2 = \RR \xi_2$ the one-dimensional subspaces spanned by $\xi_1, \xi_2$, respectively. From (\[eq\_621\_\]) of Section \[section2\] we see that $\pi_{E_j}(f)(t \xi_j/|\xi_j|) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} M_{f}
(\xi_j / |\xi_j|, t)$ for $j=1,2$ and for all $t$ in the interior of the support of the log-concave function $t \mapsto
\pi_{E_j}(f)(t \xi_j/|\xi_j|)$. By integrating by parts we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \label{f_xi} \lefteqn{\hat{f}(\xi_1) - \hat{f}(\xi_2)=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left[ \pi_{E_1}(f) \left(t
\frac{\xi_1}{|\xi_1|} \right) - \pi_{E_2}(f) \left(t
\frac{\xi_2}{|\xi_2|} \right) \right] e^{-2 \pi i r t} dt } \\ & =
& 2 \pi i r \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left[M_{f} \left(
\frac{\xi_1}{|\xi_1|}, t \right) - M_{f} \left(
\frac{\xi_2}{|\xi_2|}, t \right) \right] e^{-2 \pi i r t} dt,
\phantom{aaaaaaaa}\end{aligned}$$ as the boundary terms clearly vanish. From Lemma \[lem\_1028\] we have $$\left| M_{f} \left( \frac{\xi_1}{|\xi_1|}, t \right) - M_{f}
\left( \frac{\xi_2}{|\xi_2|}, t \right) \right| \leq 2
e^{-|t|/10} \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_933}$$ According to (\[f\_xi\]), (\[eq\_933\]) and to our assumption (\[eq\_848\]), we conclude that for any $r > 0$ and $\xi_1, \xi_2
\in \RR^n$ with $|\xi_1| = |\xi_2| = r$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_1042}
\lefteqn{|\hat{f}(\xi_1) - \hat{f}(\xi_2)| } \\ & \leq & 2 \pi r
\left[ 80 \alpha n \cdot e^{-5 \alpha n} + \int_{|t|
> 40 \alpha n} 2 e^{-|t|/10} dt \right] \leq r e^{-2 \alpha n},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we made use of the fact that $\alpha n \geq 5$. A standard computation (e.g. [@stein_weiss page 6]) shows that $\widehat{\gamma_{n,1}}(\xi) = e^{-2 \pi^2 |\xi|^2}$. Recall that we define $g = f * \gamma_{n,1}$, and hence $\hat{g} (\xi) = e^{-2
\pi^2 |\xi|^2} \cdot \hat{f} (\xi)$. We thus deduce from (\[eq\_1042\]) that for any $\xi_1, \xi_2 \in \RR^n$, $$|\hat{g}(\xi_1) - \hat{g}(\xi_2)| \leq e^{-2 \pi^2 r^2} r e^{-2
\alpha n} \ \ \ \text{whenever} \ \ |\xi_1| = |\xi_2| = r > 0.
\label{eq_1103}$$ Let $x \in \RR^n$, and let $U \in O(n)$ be an orthogonal transformation. By using the inverse Fourier transform (see, e.g. [@stein_weiss Chapter I]) and applying (\[eq\_1103\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_1110} \lefteqn{ | g(x) - g(U x) | =
\nonumber \left| \int_{\RR^n} \left[ \hat{g}(\xi) -
\hat{g}(U \xi) \right] e^{2 \pi i \langle x, \xi \rangle} d\xi
\right|} \\ & \leq & \int_{\RR^n} e^{-2 \pi^2 |\xi|^2} |\xi|
e^{-2 \alpha n} d \xi \leq e^{-2 \alpha n} \int_{\RR^n} e^{-\pi
|\xi|^2} d \xi = e^{-2 \alpha n}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $x \in \RR^n$ and $U \in O(n)$ are arbitrary, from (\[eqn\_1110\]) we conclude (\[eq\_750\]). $\square$
Let $f: [0, \infty) \rightarrow
[0, \infty)$ be a log-concave function with $0 < \int_0^{\infty} f
< \infty$, that is continuous on $[0, \infty)$ and $C^2$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$. For $p
> 1$, denote by $t_p(f)$ the unique $t > 0$ for which $f(t) > 0$ and also $$(\log f)^{\prime}(t) = \frac{f^{\prime}(t)}{f(t)} =
-\frac{p-1}{t}. \label{eq_106}$$
$t_p(f)$ is well-defined, under the above assumptions on $f$ and $p$.
*Proof:* We need to explain why a solution $t$ to equation (\[eq\_106\]) exists and is unique, for all $p > 1$. To that end, note that $f$ is a log-concave function with finite, positive mass, hence it decays exponentially fast at infinity (this is a very simple fact; see, e.g., [@psitwo Lemma 2.1]). Therefore, the function $\vphi(t) = t^{p-1} f(t)$ satisfies $$\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} \vphi(t) = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\vphi(t) = 0.$$ The function $\vphi$ is continuous, non-negative, not identically zero, and tends to zero at $0$ and at $\infty$. Consequently, $\vphi$ attains its positive maximum at some finite point $t_0
> 0$. Then $\vphi(t_0) > 0$ and $\vphi^{\prime}(t_0) = 0$, since $\vphi$ is $C^2$-smooth. On the other hand, $f$ is log-concave, and $t \mapsto t^{p-1}$ is strictly log-concave, hence $\vphi$ is strictly log-concave on its support. Therefore, there is at most one point where $\vphi$ is non-zero and $\vphi^{\prime}$ vanishes. We conclude that there exists exactly one point $t_0 > 0$ such that $f(t_0) > 0$ and $$\vphi^{\prime}(t_0) = t_0^{p-2} \left[ (p-1) f(t_0) + t_0
f^{\prime}(t_0) \right] = 0.$$ Thus a finite, positive $t$ that solves (\[eq\_106\]) exists and is unique. $\square$
Let us mention a few immediate properties of the quantity $t_p(f)$. First, $f(t_p(f)) > 0$ for all $p > 1$. Second, suppose that $f$ is a continuous, log-concave function on $[0, \infty)$, $C^2$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$, with $0 < \int f < \infty$. Then, $$f( t ) \geq e^{-(n-1)} f(0) \ \ \ \text{for any } \ \ 0 \leq t
\leq t_n(f). \label{eq_1127}$$ Indeed, if $f(0) = 0$ then (\[eq\_1127\]) is trivial. Otherwise, $f(0) > 0$ and $f(t_n(f)) > 0$, hence $f$ is necessarily positive on $[0, t_n(f)]$ by log-concavity. Therefore $\log f$ is finite and continuous on $[0, t_n(f)]$, and $C^2$-smooth in $(0,
t_n(f))$. Additionally, $\log f$ is concave, hence $(\log f)^{\prime}$ is non-increasing in $(0, t_n(f))$. From the definition (\[eq\_106\]) we deduce that $(\log
f)^{\prime}(t) \geq -(n-1) / t_n(f)$ for all $0 < t < t_n(f)$, and (\[eq\_1127\]) follows.
Furthermore, since $(\log f)^{\prime}$ is non-increasing on the interval in which it is defined, then $(\log f)^{\prime}(t) \leq
-(n-1) / t_n(f)$ for $t > t_n(f)$ for which $f(t) > 0$. We conclude that for any $\alpha \geq 1$, $$f( t ) \leq e^{-(\alpha - 1) (n-1)} f(t_n(f)) \ \ \ \text{when} \
\ t \geq \alpha t_n(f). \label{eq_1127_2}$$
Note that $t_p(f)$ behaves well under scaling of $f$. Indeed, let $f$ be a continuous, log-concave function on $[0, \infty)$, $C^2$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$, with $0 < \int f < \infty$. For $\delta
> 0$, denote $\tau_{\delta}(x) = \delta x$. From the definition (\[eq\_106\]) we see that for any $p > 1$, $$t_p( f \circ \tau_{\delta} ) = \delta^{-1} \cdot t_p(f).
\label{scale}$$
Let $n \geq 2$, and let $f,g : [0, \infty) \rightarrow [0,
\infty)$ be continuous, log-concave functions, $C^2$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$, such that $f(0) > 0, g(0) > 0$ and $\int f <
\infty, \int g < \infty $. Assume that for any $t \geq 0$, $$|f(t) - g(t)| \leq e^{-5 n} \min \{ f(0), g(0) \}.
\label{eq_1132_}$$ Then, $$\left(1 - e^{-n} \right) t_n(g) \leq t_n(f) \leq \left(1 + e^{-n} \right)
t_n(g).$$ \[lem\_257\]
*Proof:* Set $\delta = t_n(f)$. According to (\[scale\]), both the conclusions and the requirements of the lemma are invariant when we replace $f$ and $g$ with $f \circ \tau_{\delta}$ and $g \circ \tau_{\delta}$, respectively. We apply this replacement, and assume from now on that $t_n(f) = 1$.
Inequality (\[eq\_1127\]) and our assumption that $f(0) > 0$ show that $f(t)
\geq e^{-n} f(0)
> 0$ for $0 \leq t \leq 1$. We combine this inequality with (\[eq\_1132\_\]) to obtain the bound $|g(t) / f(t) - 1| \leq e^{-4
n}$ for all $0 \leq t \leq 1$. In particular, $g$ is positive on $[0, 1]$. Denote $f_0 = \log f, g_0 = \log g$. Then for all $0 \leq t \leq 1$, $$-2 e^{-4 n} < \log(1 - e^{-4 n}) \leq g_0(t) - f_0(t) \leq \log (1
+ e^{-4 n}) < e^{-4 n}. \label{eq_1135}$$ Next, we claim that $$g_0^{\prime}(t) \geq f_0^{\prime} \left(t + e^{-2 n} \right) - 4
e^{-2 n} \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ 0 < t \leq 1 - e^{-2 n}.
\label{eq_1129}$$ Indeed, assume by contradiction that (\[eq\_1129\]) does not hold. Then there exists $0 < t_0 \leq 1 - e^{-2 n}$ for which $g_0^{\prime}(t_0) < f_0^{\prime}(t_0 + e^{-2n}) - 4 e^{-2n}$. From our assumptions, $f$ and $g$ are log-concave, hence $f_0$ and $g_0$ are concave, and hence $f_0^{\prime}$ and $g_0^{\prime}$ are non-increasing on $(0,1)$. Therefore, for $t \in (t_0, t_0 +
e^{-2n})$, $$g_0^{\prime}(t) \leq g_0^{\prime}(t_0) < f_0^{\prime}(t_0 +
e^{-2n}) - 4 e^{-2n} \leq f_0^{\prime}(t) - 4 e^{-2n}.
\label{eq_1149}$$ Denote $t_1 = t_0 + e^{-2n}$. Then $[t_0, t_1] \subset [0, 1]$ and by (\[eq\_1149\]), $$\left[ f_0(t_1) - g_0(t_1) \right] \, - \, \left [f_0(t_0) - g_0(t_0) \right]
\, > \, 4 e^{-2n} \cdot (t_1 - t_0) \, = \, 4 e^{-4n},$$ in contradiction to (\[eq\_1135\]). Thus, our momentary assumption – that (\[eq\_1129\]) does not hold – was false, and hence (\[eq\_1129\]) is proved.
From the definition (\[eq\_106\]) we see that $f_0^{\prime}(1) = (\log f)^{\prime}(1) = -(n-1)$. Recall once again that $g_0^{\prime}$ is non-increasing. By applying the case $t = 1 - e^{-2n}$ in (\[eq\_1129\]), we conclude that for $0 < s < 1 - 4 e^{-2n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lefteqn{ g_0^{\prime}(s) \geq g_0^{\prime}(1 -
e^{-2n}) \geq
f_0^{\prime}(1) - 4 e^{-2n} = -(n-1) - 4 e^{-2n} } \\
& \geq & -(n-1) \left( 1 + 4 e^{-2n} \right)
\geq -\frac{n-1}{1 - 4 e^{-2n}} > -\frac{n-1}{s}. \phantom{aaaaaaaaa}
\label{eq_1135_}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq\_1135\_\]) we conclude that $g^{\prime}(s) / g(s) =
g_0^{\prime}(s) \neq -\frac{n-1}{s}$ for all $0 < s < 1 - 4
e^{-2n}$. The definition (\[eq\_106\]) shows that $$t_n(g) \geq
1 - 4 e^{-2n}.$$ Recalling the scaling argument above, we see that we have actually proved that $$t_n(g) \geq (1 - 4 e^{-2n}) t_n(f),$$ whenever the assumptions of the lemma hold. However, these assumptions are symmetric in $f$ and $g$. Hence, $$t_n(g) \geq (1 - 4 e^{-2n}) t_n(f) \ \ \ \text{and also} \ \ \ t_n(f) \geq (1 - 4 e^{-2n}) t_n(g)$$ for any functions $f,g$ that satisfy the assumptions of the lemma. Since $1 + e^{-n} \geq 1/(1 - 4 e^{-2n})$ for $n \geq 2$, the lemma is proved. $\square$
Our next lemma is a standard application of the Laplace asymptotic method, and is similar to, e.g., [@dedicata Lemma 2.1] and [@psitwo Lemma 2.5]. We will make use of the following well-known bound: For $\alpha, \delta > 0$, $$\label{eq_1218} \int_{\delta}^{\infty} e^{-\alpha \frac{t^2}{2}}
dt = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \int_{\delta \sqrt{\alpha}}^{\infty}
e^{-\frac{t^2}{2}} dt \leq \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\sqrt{\alpha}}
e^{-\alpha \frac{\delta^2}{2}}.$$ The inequality in (\[eq\_1218\]) may be proved, for example, by computing the Laplace transform of the gaussian density and applying Markov’s inequality (e.g., [@stroock Section 1.3]).
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, and let $f: [0, \infty) \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be a continuous, log-concave function, $C^2$-smooth on $(0,
\infty)$, with $0 < \int_0^{\infty} f < \infty$. Then for $0 \leq
\eps \leq 1$, $$\int_{t_n(f) (1 - \eps)}^{t_n(f) (1 + \eps)} t^{n-1} f(t) dt \geq
\left(1 - C e^{-c \eps^2 n} \right) \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{n-1} f(t)
dt, \label{eq_248}$$ where $C > 1$ and $0 < c < 1$ are universal constants. \[lem\_1153\]
*Proof:* We begin with a scaling argument. A glance at (\[scale\]) and (\[eq\_248\]) assures us that both the validity of the assumptions and the validity of the conclusions of the present lemma, are not altered when we replace $f$ with $f \circ
\tau_{\delta}$, for any $\delta > 0$. Hence, we may switch from $f$ to $f \circ \tau_{t_n(f)}$, and reduce matters to the case $t_n(f) = 1$. Thus $f(1) > 0$. Multiplying $f$ by an appropriate positive constant, we may assume that $f(1) = 1$.
We denote $\psi(t) = (n-1) \log t + \log f(t) \ \ (t > 0)$, where we set $\psi(t) = -\infty$ whenever $f(t) = 0$. Since $f(1) = 1$, then $\psi(1) = 0$. Additionally, $\psi^{\prime}(1) = 0$ because $t_n(f) = 1$. The function $\psi$ is concave, and therefore it attains its maximum at $1$. Let $s_0, s_1 > 0$ be the minimal positive numbers for which $\psi(1 - s_0) = -1$ and $\psi(1 + s_1) = -1$. Such $s_0$ and $s_1$ exist since $\psi$ is continuous, $\psi(1) = 0$ and $\psi(t) \rightarrow -\infty$ when $t \rightarrow 0$ (because of $\log t$) and when $t \rightarrow \infty$ (because of $\log f$, since $f$ is log-concave with $0 < \int f < \infty$).
We may suppose that $n \geq 100$; for an appropriate choice of a large universal constant $C$, the right hand side of (\[eq\_248\]) is negative for $n < 100$, and hence the lemma is obvious for $n < 100$. Denote $m = \inf \{ t > 0; f(t) \neq 0 \}$ and $M = \sup \{ t > 0; f(t) \neq 0 \}$. Since $t_n(f) = 1$, necessarily $m < 1$ and $M > 1$. Then, for $m < t < M$, $$\psi^{\prime \prime}(t) = -\frac{n-1}{t^2} + (\log f)^{\prime
\prime}(t) \leq -\frac{n-1}{t^2}, \label{eq_113}$$ since $\log f$ is concave and hence $(\log f)^{\prime \prime} \leq
0$. From (\[eq\_113\]) we obtain, in particular, the inequality $\psi^{\prime \prime}(t) \leq -\frac{n-1}{4}$ for $m < t < \min \{
2, M \}$. Recalling that $\psi(1) = \psi^{\prime}(1) = 0$, we see that $\psi(t) \leq -\frac{n-1}{8} (t -1)^2$ for all $0 < t < 2$. Therefore $\psi(1 - 4 / \sqrt{n}) \leq -1$ and $ \psi(1 + 4 /
\sqrt{n}) \leq -1$, and consequently $$s_0 \leq \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}} \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ s_1 \leq \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}.
\label{s0_above}$$ Since $n \geq 100$, then (\[s0\_above\]) implies that $s_0, s_1
\leq \frac{1}{2}$. Recall that the function $\psi$ is concave, hence $\psi^{\prime}$ is non-increasing. The relations $\psi(1 -
s_0) = \psi(1 + s_1) = -1, \psi(1) = 0$ thus imply that $$\psi^{\prime}(1 - s_0) \geq \frac{1}{s_0} \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \
\psi^{\prime}(1 + s_1) \leq -\frac{1}{s_1}. \label{eq_302}$$ Examination of (\[eq\_113\]) shows us that $\psi^{\prime
\prime}(t) \leq -(n-1)$ for $m < t \leq 1 - s_0$. By definition, $\psi(1 - s_0) = -1$. We thus conclude from (\[eq\_302\]) that $\psi(1 - s_0 - t) \leq -1 -\frac{t}{s_0}- \frac{n-1}{2} t^2 \ $ for $0 < t < 1 - s_0$. Fix $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_121} \lefteqn{ \int_0^{1 - s_0 - \eps} e^{\psi(t)} dt
\leq e^{-1} \int_{\eps}^{\infty} e^{-\frac{t}{s_0} -(n-1) \frac{t^2}{2}} dt
} \\ & \leq &
\nonumber
\min \left \{ s_0 e^{-\frac{\eps}{s_0}}, \int_{\eps}^{\infty}
e^{-(n-1) \frac{t^2}{2}} dt \right \} \leq \min \left \{ s_0
e^{-\frac{\eps}{s_0}}, \frac{e^{-(n-1)
\frac{\eps^2}{2}}}{\sqrt{(n-1) / (2 \pi)}} \right \}\end{aligned}$$ where we used (\[eq\_1218\]) to estimate the last integral. Next, observe again that $\psi^{\prime \prime}(t) \leq -
\frac{n-1}{4}$ for all $m < t < \min \{ 2, M \}$, by (\[eq\_113\]). We use (\[eq\_302\]), as well as the fact that $\psi(1 + s_1) = -1$, to obtain $$\psi(1 + s_1 + t) \leq -1 -\frac{t}{s_1} - \frac{n-1}{8}
t^2 \ \ \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ 0 \leq t \leq 1 - s_1.
\label{eq_1046}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_909}
\lefteqn{ \int_{1 + s_1 + \eps}^{2} e^{\psi(t)} dt
\leq e^{-1} \int_{\eps}^{\infty} e^{-\frac{t}{s_1} -(n-1) \frac{t^2}{8}} dt
} \\
& \leq & \nonumber
\min \left \{ s_1 e^{-\frac{\eps}{s_1}}, \int_{\eps}^{\infty}
e^{-(n-1) \frac{t^2}{8}} dt \right \} \leq \min \left \{ s_1
e^{-\frac{\eps}{s_1}}, \frac{e^{-(n-1) \frac{\eps^2}{8}}}{ \sqrt{
(n-1) / (8 \pi)}} \right \}\end{aligned}$$ by (\[eq\_1218\]). Since $s_1 \leq \frac{1}{2}$, we deduce from (\[eq\_1046\]) that $\psi(2) \leq - \frac{1}{2s_1}
-\frac{n-1}{32}$. Recall that $\psi^{\prime}$ is non-increasing, that $\psi^{\prime}(1) = 0$ and that $\psi^{\prime \prime}(t) \leq
- \frac{n-1}{4}$ for $1 < t < \min \{2, M \}$. Therefore, $\psi^{\prime}(t) \leq -\frac{n-1}{4}$ whenever $2 \leq t < M$. Thus we realize that $\psi(2+t) \leq \left( -\frac{1}{2s_1} - \frac{n-1}{32} \right) - \frac{n-1}{4} t$ for $t \geq 0$. Hence, $$\int_{2}^{\infty} e^{\psi(t)} dt \leq e^{-\frac{1}{2s_1} -
\frac{n-1}{32}}
\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-\frac{n-1}{4} t} dt \leq \frac{8 s_1}{n-1} e^{-\frac{n-1}{32}}. \label{eq_935}$$ Let $s = s_0 + s_1$. Then, by the definition of $s_0$ and $s_1$, $$\int_0^{\infty} e^{\psi(t)} dt \geq \int_{1 - s_0}^{1 + s_1}
e^{\psi(t)} dt \geq \int_{1 - s_0}^{1 + s_1} e^{-1} dt = e^{-1}
s. \label{total}$$ The inequalities we gathered above will allow us to prove (\[eq\_248\]). Note that (\[eq\_248\]) is trivial when $\eps
\leq \frac{4}{\sqrt{n}}$; for an appropriate choice of a large constant $C$, the right-hand side of (\[eq\_248\]) is negative in this case. We may thus restrict our attention to the case where $\frac{4}{\sqrt{n}} < \eps < 1$. Hence, $s_0 + \eps \leq 2 \eps$ and $s_1 + \eps \leq 2 \eps$, by (\[s0\_above\]). We add (\[eq\_121\]), (\[eq\_909\]) and (\[eq\_935\]) to get $$\int_{|t - 1| \geq 2 \eps} e^{\psi(t)} dt \leq \min \left \{ s e^{-\eps / s},
\frac{20}{\sqrt{n}}
e^{-\frac{\eps^2 n}{20}} \right \} + \frac{20 s }{n} \cdot
e^{-n/100}. \label{eqn_603}$$ Division of (\[eqn\_603\]) by (\[total\]) yields, $$\frac{\int_{|t - 1| \geq 2 \eps} \exp (\psi(t))
dt}{\int_0^{\infty} \exp (\psi(t)) dt} \leq 60 \min \left \{
e^{-\eps/s}, \frac{e^{-\frac{\eps^2 n}{20}}}{s
\sqrt{n}}
\right \} + 40 e^{-n/100}.
\label{eq_613}$$ In order to establish (\[eq\_248\]) and complete the proof, it is sufficient to show that $$\int_{|t - 1| \geq 2 \eps} \exp (\psi(t)) dt \leq 100 e^{-\eps^2
n / 100} \int_0^{\infty} \exp (\psi(t)) dt. \label{eq_624}$$ According to (\[s0\_above\]), we know that $s = s_0 + s_1 \leq \frac{10}{\sqrt{n}}$. In the case where $$\eps > 10 \frac{\sqrt{\log \frac{10}{s
\sqrt{n}}}}{\sqrt{n}},$$ we have $\frac{1}{s \sqrt{n}}
< \exp \left( \frac{\eps^2 n}{100} \right)$ and hence the estimate (\[eq\_624\]) follows from (\[eq\_613\]) by choosing the “$\frac{e^{-\frac{\eps^2 n}{20}}}{s \sqrt{n}}$” term in the minimum in (\[eq\_613\]). In the complementary case, we have $$\eps \leq 10 \frac{\sqrt{\log \frac{10}{s
\sqrt{n}}}}{\sqrt{n}} \leq \frac{100}{s n},$$ since $\sqrt{\log t} \leq t$ for $t \geq 1$. In this case, $\eps / s \geq \frac{1}{100} \eps^2 n$, and (\[eq\_624\]) follows by selecting the “$e^{-\eps/s}$” term in (\[eq\_613\]). Hence (\[eq\_624\]) is proved for all cases. The proof is complete. $\square$
The following lemma is standard, and is almost identical, for example, to [@MS Appendix V.4]. For a random vector $X$ in $\RR^n$, we denote its covariance matrix by $Cov(X)$.
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, let $A, r, \alpha, \beta > 0$ and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with $\EE X = 0$ and $Cov(X)
= \beta Id$. Assume that the density of $X$ is log-concave, and that $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|X|}{r} - 1 \, \right| \geq \eps
\right \} \leq A e^{-\alpha \eps^2 n } \ \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ 0
\leq \eps \leq 1. \label{eq_855}$$ Then,
1. For all $\displaystyle
\ 0 \leq \eps \leq 1, \ \ \ \
Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|X|}{\sqrt{\beta n}} - 1 \, \right| \geq \eps
\right \} \leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 n }. $
2. $\displaystyle \left| \frac{r}{\sqrt{\beta n}} - 1
\right| \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}} \ $ provided that $n \geq C$.
Here, $C, C^{\prime}, c^{\prime} > 0$ are constants that depend solely on $A$ and $\alpha$. \[crude\_lem\]
*Proof:* By a simple scaling argument, we may assume that $\beta = 1$; otherwise, replace the function $f(x)$ with the function $\beta^{n/2} f( \beta^{1/2} x )$. In this proof, $c, C,
C^{\prime}$ etc. stand for constants depending only on $A$ and $\alpha$. We begin by proving (ii). Since $\sqrt{\EE |X|^2} =
\sqrt{n}$, Lemma \[lem\_1010\](i) implies that $$Prob \left \{ |X| \geq t \sqrt{n} \right \} \leq 2 e^{-t/10}
\ \ \ \text{for all} \ t > 0.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_342} \lefteqn{ \left| n - r^2 \right| \leq \EE \left|
|X|^2 - r^2 \right | = \int_0^{\infty} Prob \left \{ \left| |X|^2
- r^2 \right| \geq t \right \} dt } \\ & \leq & \int_0^{r^2} A
\exp \left( -\frac{\alpha t^2 n}{8 r^4} \right)dt +
\int_{r^2}^\infty \min \left \{ A e^{-\alpha n}, 2 \exp \left(
-\frac{\sqrt{t}}{10 \sqrt{ n}} \nonumber
\right) \right \} dt \\
& \leq & C \frac{r^2}{\sqrt{n}} + C^{\prime} n^3 A e^{-\alpha n} + C^{\prime \prime}
e^{-c n} < C \frac{r^2}{\sqrt{n}} + \tilde{C} e^{-\tilde{c} n},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ provided that $n > C$. From (\[eq\_342\]) we deduce (ii). To prove (i), it is enough to consider the case where $\eps \geq
\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}$. In this case, by (ii), $$Prob \left \{ \left| |X| - \sqrt{n} \right|
\geq \eps \sqrt{n} \right \}
\leq
Prob \left \{ \big| |X| - r \big|
\geq C^{\prime} \eps r \right \}$$ and (i) follows from (\[eq\_855\]) for the range $0 < \eps < 1 / C^{\prime}$. By adjusting the constants, we establish (i) for the entire range $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$. $\square$
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, let $\beta > 0$, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be a log-concave function that is the density of a random vector with zero mean and with covariance matrix that equals $\beta Id$. Then $$f(0) \geq e^{-n} \sup_{x \in \RR^n} f(x) \geq \left( \frac{c}{\sqrt{\beta}} \right)^n$$ where $0 < c < 1$ is a universal constant. \[zero\_large\_lem\]
*Proof:* The inequality $f(0) \geq e^{-n} \sup f$ is proved in [@fradelizi Theorem 4]. By our assumptions, $\int_{\RR^n} |x|^2 f(x) dx =
\beta n$. Markov’s inequality entails $$\int_{\sqrt{2 \beta n} D^n} f(x) dx \geq \frac{1}{2}.$$ Therefore, $$\sup_{x \in \RR^n} f \geq
\frac{1}{Vol(\sqrt{2 \beta n} D^n)}
\int_{\sqrt{2 \beta n} D^n} f(x) dx \geq (C \beta)^{-n/2}
\cdot \frac{1}{2},$$ since $Vol (\sqrt{n} D^n) \leq \tilde{C}^n$ (see, e.g., [@pisier_book page 11]). $\square$
*Proof of Proposition \[cor\_735\]:* Recall our assumption (\[eq\_848\_\]) and our desired conclusion (\[eq\_309\]) from the formulation of the proposition. We assume that $n$ is greater than some large universal constant, since otherwise (\[eq\_309\]) is obvious for an appropriate choice of constants $C, c > 0$. Denote $g = f * \gamma_{n,1}$, the convolution of $f$ and $\gamma_{n,1}$. Then $g$ is log-concave, and is the density of a random vector with mean zero and covariance matrix $2
Id$. By Lemma \[zero\_large\_lem\], $$g(0) \geq \bar{c}^n. \label{zero_large}$$ We set $C_0 = 25
\left(1 + \log 1 / \bar{c} \right) $ where $0 < \bar{c} < 1$ is the constant from (\[zero\_large\]). Our assumption (\[eq\_848\_\]) is precisely the basic requirement of Lemma \[lem\_fourier\], for $\alpha = C_0 / 5 \geq 5$. By the conclusion of that lemma, $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \leq e^{-5 n} g(0) +
\inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t
\geq 0, \label{eq_742_}$$ since $e^{-C_0 n / 5} \leq e^{-5 n} g(0)$, according to the definition of $C_0$ and (\[zero\_large\]). The function $g$ is $C^{\infty}$-smooth, since $g = f * \gamma_{n,1}$ with $\gamma_{n,1}$ being $C^{\infty}$-smooth. Additionally, since $0 < \int g < \infty$ then for some $A, B > 0$, $$g(x) \leq A e^{-B |x|} \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ x \in \RR^n
\label{eq_408}$$ (see, e.g., [@psitwo Lemma 2.1]). For $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ and $t \geq 0$, we write $g_{\theta}(t) = g(t \theta)$. Then $g_{\theta}$ is log-concave, continuous on $[0, \infty)$, $C^{\infty}$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$ and integrable on $[0,
\infty)$ by (\[eq\_408\]). In addition, $g_{\theta}(0) = g(0) >
0$ by (\[zero\_large\]). Fix $\theta_0 \in S^{n-1}$, and denote $r_0 = t_n(g_{\theta_0})$. According to (\[eq\_742\_\]), for any $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ and $t \geq 0$, $$|g_{\theta}(t) - g_{\theta_0}(t)| \leq e^{-5 n} g(0) = e^{-5 n} \min \{ g_{\theta} (0), g_{\theta_0}(0) \}.$$ Thus the functions $g_{\theta}$ and $g_{\theta_0}$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma \[lem\_257\], for any $\theta \in S^{n-1}$. By the conclusion of that lemma, for any $\theta \in S^{n-1}$, $$(1 - e^{-n}) r_0 \leq t_n(g_{\theta}) \leq (1 + e^{-n}) r_0,$$ because $r_0 = t_n(g_{\theta_0})$. We deduce that for any $10
e^{-n} \leq \eps \leq 1$ and $\theta \in S^{n-1}$, $$(1 + \eps) r_0 \geq \left(1 + \frac{\eps}{2} \right)
t_n(g_{\theta}) \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ (1 - \eps) r_0 \leq \left(1
- \frac{\eps}{2} \right) t_n(g_{\theta}).
\label{eq_303}$$ For $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$ let $A_{\eps} = \{ x \in \RR^n ; \big |
|x| -r_0 \big| \leq \eps r_0 \}$. We will prove that for all $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$, $$\int_{A_{\eps}} g(x) dx \geq 1 - C e^{-c \eps^2 n}. \label{eq_313}$$ Note that (\[eq\_313\]) is obvious for $\eps < 10 e^{-n} \leq
\frac{10}{\sqrt{n}}$, since in this case $1 - C e^{-c \eps^2 n}
\leq 0$ for an appropriate choice of universal constants $c, C
> 0$. We still need to deal with the case $10 e^{-n} \leq \eps \leq 1$. To that end, note that $g_{\theta}$ satisfies the requirements of Lemma \[lem\_1153\] for any $\theta
\in S^{n-1}$ by the discussion above. We will integrate in polar coordinates and use (\[eq\_303\]) as well as Lemma \[lem\_1153\]. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \int_{A_{\eps}} g(x) dx \geq
\int_{S^{n-1}} \int_{(1 - \eps/2) t_n(g_\theta)}^{(1 +
\eps/2) t_n(g_\theta)} t^{n-1} g_{\theta}(t) dt d\theta } \\
& \geq & \left(1 - C e^{-c \eps^2 n} \right) \int_{S^{n-1}}
\int_{0}^{\infty} t^{n-1} g_{\theta}(t) dt d\theta = 1 - C e^{-c \eps^2
n},\end{aligned}$$ since $\int_{\RR^n} g = 1$. This completes the proof of (\[eq\_313\]).
Let $X_1,X_2,...$ be a sequence of independent, real-valued, standard gaussian random variables. By the classical central limit theorem, $$Prob \left \{ \sum_{i=1}^m X_i^2 \leq m \right \} \stackrel{m \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{2}.$$ Consequently, $1 / C^{\prime} \leq Prob \{ \sum_{i=1}^n X_i^2 \leq n\} \leq 1
- 1 /C^{\prime} $ for some universal constant $C^{\prime} > 0$. Denote $X =
(X_1,...,X_n)$. Then $X$ is distributed according to the density $\gamma_{n,1}$ in $\RR^n$. We record the bound just mentioned: $$\frac{1}{C^{\prime}} \leq Prob \{
|X|^2 \leq n \} \leq 1 - \frac{1}{C^{\prime}}. \label{bound_X}$$ Let $Y$ be another random vector in $\RR^n$, independent of $X$, that is distributed according to the density $f$. Since the density of $X$ is an even function, then for any measurable sets $I, J \subset [0, \infty)$ with $Prob \{ |X| \in I \} > 0$ and $Prob \{ |Y| \in J \} > 0$, $$Prob \left \{ \langle
X, Y \rangle \geq 0 \ \text{\it given that} \ |X| \in I, |Y| \in
J \right \} = \frac{1}{2}. \label{eq_130}$$ Additionally, the random vector $X + Y$ has $g$ as its density, because $g = f * \gamma_{n,1}$. Therefore (\[eq\_313\]) translates to $$Prob \left \{ \big | |X + Y| - r_0 \big | > \eps r_0 \right \}
\leq C e^{-c \eps^2 n } \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ 0 \leq \eps \leq
1. \label{eq_132}$$ Since $X$ and $Y$ are independent, we conclude from (\[bound\_X\]), (\[eq\_130\]) and (\[eq\_132\]) that for all $0 < \eps < 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_136} \lefteqn{ Prob \left \{ |Y|^2 \geq r_0^2 (1 +
\eps)^2 - n \right \} } \\ & \leq & 2 C^{\prime} Prob \left \{
|Y|^2 \geq r_0^2 (1 + \nonumber
\eps)^2 - n, |X| \geq \sqrt{n}, \langle X, Y \rangle \geq 0 \right \} \\
& \leq & 2 C^{\prime} Prob \left \{ |X + Y|^2 \geq r_0^2 (1 +
\eps)^2 \right \} \leq C \exp \left( -c \eps^2 n \right),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_141} \lefteqn{ Prob \left \{ |Y|^2 \leq r_0^2 (1 -
\eps)^2 - n \right \} } \\ & \leq & 2 C^{\prime} Prob \left \{
|Y|^2 \leq r_0^2 (1 - \nonumber
\eps)^2 - n, |X| \leq \sqrt{n}, \langle X, Y \rangle \leq 0 \right \} \\
& \leq & 2 C^{\prime} Prob \left \{ |X + Y| \leq r_0 (1 - \eps)
\right \} \leq C \exp \left( -c \eps^2 n \right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Next, we estimate $r_0$. Recall that the density of $X+Y$ is log-concave, $\EE(X + Y) = 0$ and $Cov(X + Y) = 2 Id$. We invoke Lemma \[crude\_lem\](ii), based on (\[eq\_132\]), and conclude that $3 n / 2\leq r_0^2 \leq 3 n$, under the legitimate assumption that $n
> C$. Denote $r = \sqrt{r_0^2 - n}$. Then $ \sqrt{n/2} \leq r
\leq \sqrt{2n}$ and $$r^2(1 + 10 \eps)^2 \geq r_0^2 (1 +
\eps)^2 - n, \ \ \ \ \ r_0^2 (1 - \eps)^2 - n
\geq r^2 (1 - 10 \eps)^2,$$ for $0 \leq \eps \leq 1/10$. Therefore, (\[eq\_136\]) and (\[eq\_141\]) imply that for any $0
< \eps < \frac{1}{10}$, $$Prob \left \{ r^2 (1 - 10 \eps)^2 \leq |Y|^2 \leq r^2 (1 + 10
\eps)^2 \right \} \geq 1 - 2 C e^{-c \eps^2 n}.$$ After adjusting the constants, we see that $$\forall 0 \leq \eps \leq 1, \ \ \ \ Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|Y|}{r} - 1 \, \right| \geq \eps
\right \} \leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 n}.
\label{eq_346}$$ Recall that $Y$ is distributed according to the density $f$, which is an isotropic, log-concave function. We may thus apply Lemma \[crude\_lem\](i), based on (\[eq\_346\]), and conclude (\[eq\_309\]). The proposition is proved. $\square$
We proceed to discuss applications of Proposition \[cor\_735\]. The following lemma is usually referred to as the Johnson-Lindenstrauss dimension reduction lemma [@JL]. We refer, e.g., to [@gupta Lemma 2.2] for an elementary proof. Recall that we denote by $Proj_E(x)$ the orthogonal projection of $x$ onto $E$, whenever $x$ is a point in $\RR^n$ and $E \subset \RR^n$ is a subspace.
Let $1 \leq k \leq n$ be integers, and let $E \in
G_{n,k}$ be a random $k$-dimensional subspace. Let $x \in \RR^n$ be a fixed vector. Then for all $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$, $$Prob \left \{ \left | \, |Proj_E(x)| - \sqrt{\frac{k}{n}} |x| \,
\right | \geq \eps \sqrt{\frac{k}{n}} |x| \right \} \leq C e^{-c
\eps^2 k }
\label{eq_243}$$ where $c, C > 0$ are universal constants. \[lem\_find\_reference\]
*Proof of Theorem \[cor\_202\]:* We use the constant $C_0 \geq 1$ from Proposition \[cor\_735\], and the constant $c$ from Lemma \[lem\_dvo\]. Let $\ell = \lfloor \frac{c}{100 C_0}
\log n \rfloor$ and fix $0 \leq \eps \leq 1 / 3$. We may assume that $\ell \geq 1$; otherwise, $n$ is smaller than some universal constant and the conclusion of the theorem is obvious. We assume that $X$ is a random vector in $\RR^n$ whose density is an isotropic, log-concave function to be denoted by $f$. Let $E \in
G_{n, \ell}$ be a fixed subspace that satisfies $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_0
\ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \
\text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_609_}$$ Denote $g = \pi_E(f)$. Then (\[eq\_609\_\]) translates, with the help of (\[proj\_ok\]) from Section \[section2\], to $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{g}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_0
\ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{g}(\theta, t) \ \ \
\text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_609}$$ The function $g$ is an isotropic, log-concave function, and it is the density of $Proj_E(X)$. We invoke Proposition \[cor\_735\], for $\ell$ and $g$, based on (\[eq\_609\]). By the conclusion of that proposition, $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|Proj_E(X)|}{\sqrt{\ell}} - 1 \,
\right| \geq \eps \right \} \leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2
\ell}, \label{eq_625}$$ under the assumption that the subspace $E$ satisfies (\[eq\_609\_\]). Suppose that $F \in G_{n,\ell}$ is a random $\ell$-dimensional subspace in $\RR^n$, independent of $X$. Recall our choice of the integer $\ell$. According to Lemma \[lem\_dvo\], with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c
n^{0.99}}$, the subspace $E = F$ satisfies (\[eq\_609\_\]). We conclude from (\[eq\_625\]) that $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|Proj_F(X)|}{\sqrt{\ell}} - 1 \,
\right| \geq \eps \right \} \leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2
\ell} + e^{-c n^{0.99}} \leq \tilde{C} e^{-\tilde{c} \eps^2 \ell},$$ where the last inequality holds as $\ell \leq \log n$ and $0 \leq \eps \leq 1/3$. Since $X$ and $F$ are independent, then by Lemma \[lem\_find\_reference\], $$Prob \left \{ \left | \, |Proj_F(X)| -
\sqrt{\frac{\ell}{n}} |X| \, \right | \geq \eps
\sqrt{\frac{\ell}{n}} |X| \right \} \leq \hat{C} e^{-\hat{c}
\eps^2 \ell }.$$ To summarize, with probability greater than $1 -
\bar{C} e^{-\bar{c} \eps^2 \ell }$ we have
1. $\displaystyle \ \ \ (1 - \eps) \sqrt{\ell} \leq |Proj_F(X)| \leq (1 +
\eps) \sqrt{\ell}$, and also
2. $\displaystyle \ \ \ (1 + \eps)^{-1}
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\ell}} |Proj_F(X)| \leq |X| \leq (1 - \eps)^{-1}
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\ell}} |Proj_F(X)|$.
Hence, $$Prob \left \{ \frac{1 - \eps}{1+\eps} \leq
\frac{|X|}{\sqrt{n}} \leq \frac{1 + \eps}{1-\eps} \right \} \geq 1
- \bar{C} e^{-\bar{c} \eps^2 \ell}. \label{eq_841}$$ Note that $\frac{1+\eps}{1-\eps} \leq 1 + 3 \eps$ and $1 - 3 \eps
\leq \frac{1-\eps}{1+\eps}$, and recall that $0 \leq \eps \leq
\frac{1}{3}$ was arbitrary, and that $\ell = \lfloor \frac{c}{100
C_0} \log n \rfloor$. By adjusting the constants, we deduce from (\[eq\_841\]) that the inequality in the conclusion of the theorem is valid for all $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$. The theorem is thus proved. $\square$
The following lemma may be proved via a straightforward computation. Nevertheless, we will present a shorter, indirect proof that is based on properties of the heat kernel, an idea we borrow from [@brehm_voigt Theorem 3.1].
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer and let $\alpha, \beta > 0$. Then, $$\int_{\RR^n} \left|\gamma_{n,\alpha}(x) - \gamma_{n, \beta}(x)
\right| dx \leq C \sqrt{n} \left| \frac{\beta}{\alpha} - 1 \right|,
\label{eq_1021}$$ where $C > 0$ is a universal constant. \[lem\_929\]
*Proof:* The integral on the left-hand side of (\[eq\_1021\]) is never larger than $2$. Consequently, the lemma is obvious when $\frac{\beta}{\alpha} > 2$ or when $\frac{\beta}{\alpha} < \frac{1}{2}$, and hence we may assume that $\frac{1}{2} \alpha \leq \beta \leq 2 \alpha$. Moreover, in this case both the left-hand side and the right-hand side of (\[eq\_1021\]) are actually symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ up to a factor of at most $2$. Therefore, we may assume that $\alpha
< \beta \leq 2 \alpha$ (the case $\beta = \alpha$ is obvious). For $t
> 0$ and for a measurable function $f: \RR^n \rightarrow \RR$, we define $$(P_t f)(x) = \frac{1}{(4 \pi t)^{n/2}} \int_{\RR^n}
e^{-\frac{|x-y|^2}{4 t}} f(y) dy \ \ \ \ \ (x \in \RR^n)$$ whenever the integral converges. Then $(P_t)_{t > 0}$ is the heat semigroup on $\RR^n$. We will make use of the following estimate: For any smooth, integrable function $f: \RR^n \rightarrow \RR$ and any $t >0$, $$\int_{\RR^n} \left| (P_t f)(x) - f(x) \right| dx \leq 2 \sqrt{t}
\int_{\RR^n} |\nabla f(x)| dx. \label{eq_1032_}$$ An elegant proof of the inequality (\[eq\_1032\_\]), in a much more general setting, is given by Ledoux [@ledoux Section 5]. It is straightforward to verify that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \int_{\RR^n} |\nabla \gamma_{n, \alpha}(x)| dx
= \frac{1}{(2 \pi \alpha)^{n/2}} \int_{\RR^n} \frac{|x|}{\alpha}
e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{2 \alpha}} dx } \\ & \leq & \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(
\frac{1}{(2 \pi \alpha)^{n/2}} \int_{\RR^n} |x|^2
e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{2 \alpha}} dx \right)^{1/2} =
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\alpha}}. \phantom{aaaaaaaaaa}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, (\[eq\_1032\_\]) implies that $$\int_{\RR^n} \left| P_{\frac{\beta - \alpha}{2}}
\left( \gamma_{n, \alpha} \right) (x) - \gamma_{n, \alpha}(x)
\right| dx \leq 2 \sqrt{ \frac{\beta - \alpha}{2} }
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\alpha}}.
\label{eq_534}$$ It is well-known and easy to prove that $ \gamma_{n, \beta} =
P_{\frac{\beta - \alpha}{2}} \left( \gamma_{n, \alpha} \right)$. Since $\alpha < \beta \leq 2 \alpha$, then (\[eq\_534\]) implies (\[eq\_1021\]). The lemma is proved. $\square$
We are now able to prove Theorem \[thm\_uncond\] by combining the classical Berry-Esseen bound with Theorem \[cor\_202\].
*Proof of Theorem \[thm\_uncond\]:* We may assume that $n$ exceeds a given universal constant. Let $f$ and $X$ be as in the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_uncond\]. According to Theorem \[cor\_202\], $$Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|X|}{\sqrt{n}} - 1 \, \right| \geq
\eps \right \} \leq C n^{-c \eps^2} \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ 0
\leq \eps \leq 1. \label{eq_115_}$$ The case $\eps = \sqrt{2}-1$ in (\[eq\_115\_\]) shows that $\delta_0 := Prob \left \{ |X| \geq \sqrt{2 n} \right \} \leq C
n^{-c/4} \leq n^{-c/10}$, under the legitimate assumption that $n$ exceeds a certain universal constant. By (\[eq\_115\_\]) and by Lemma \[lem\_1010\](ii), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_115__} \lefteqn{ \EE \left| \, \frac{|X|^2}{n} - 1 \,
\right| = \int_0^{\infty} Prob \left \{ \left| \, \frac{|X|^2}{n}
- 1 \, \right| \geq t \right \} dt } \\ & \leq & \int_0^1
C^{\prime} n^{-c^{\prime} t^2} dt + \int_1^{\infty} (1 - \delta_0)
\left( \frac{\delta_0}{1 - \delta_0}
\right)^{(\sqrt{\frac{1+t}{2}} + 1)/2} dt \leq \frac{C^{\prime
\prime}}{\sqrt{\log n}}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\delta_1,...,\delta_n$ be independent Bernoulli random variables, that are also independent of $X$, such that $Prob \{
\delta_i = 1 \} = Prob \{ \delta_i = -1 \} = 1/2$ for $i=1,...,n$. For $t \in \RR$ and $x = (x_1,...,x_n) \in \RR^n$ denote $$P(x;t) = Prob \left \{ \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_i x_i}{\sqrt{n}}
\leq t \right \}.$$ We write $$\Phi_{\sigma^2}(t) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma}} \int_{-\infty}^t \exp \left( -
\frac{t^2}{2 \sigma^2} \right) dt$$ for $\sigma > 0$ and $t \in \RR$. By the Berry-Esseen bound (see, e.g., [@feller Section XVI.5] or [@stroock Section 2.1.30]), for any $x \in \RR^n$, $$\sup_{t \in \RR} \left| \, P(x; t) \, - \, \Phi_{|x|^2 / n}(t) \,
\right| \leq C \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n |x_i|^3}{|x|^3}, \label{eq_1230}$$ where $C > 0$ is a universal constant. Since $f$ is unconditional, the random variable $ \left( \sum_{i=1}^n X_i \right) / \sqrt{n}$ has the same law of distribution as the random variable $\left(
\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_i X_i \right) / \sqrt{n}$. For $t \in \RR$ we set $$P(t) = Prob \left \{ \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n X_i}{\sqrt{n}}
\leq t \right \} = Prob \left \{ \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_i
X_i}{\sqrt{n}} \leq t \right \} .$$ We denote the expectation over the random variable $X$ by $\EE_X$. Then $ P(t) = \EE_X P(X;
t) $ by the complete probability formula. For $i=1,...,n$, the random variable $X_i$ has mean zero, variance one, and its density is a log-concave function. Consequently, $\EE |X_i|^2 = 1$, and by Lemma \[lem\_1010\](i), for any $1 \leq i \leq n$, $$Prob \left \{ |X_i| \geq 20 \log n \right \} \leq 2 e^{-2 \log n} =
\frac{2}{n^2}.$$ Therefore, with probability greater than $1 -
\frac{2}{n}$ of selecting $X$, $$|X_i| \leq 20 \log n \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ 1 \leq i \leq n.
\label{eq_109}$$ Fix $t \in \RR$. We substitute into (\[eq\_1230\]) the information from (\[eq\_109\]), and from the case $\eps = 1/2$ in (\[eq\_115\_\]). We see that with probability greater than $1 - C
n^{-c/4} - \frac{2}{n}$ of selecting $X$, $$\left| \, P(X;t) \, - \, \Phi_{\frac{|X|^2}{
n}}(t) \, \right| \leq C \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n |X_i|^3}{|X|^3} \leq
C^{\prime} \frac{(\log n)^3}{\sqrt{n}}.$$ Since always $0 \leq P(X ;t) \leq 1$ and $0 \leq \Phi_1(t) \leq
1$, we conclude that $$\EE_X \left| \, P(X;t) \, - \,
\Phi_{\frac{|X|^2}{ n}}(t) \, \right| \leq C^{\prime} \frac{(\log
n)^3}{\sqrt{n}} + 2 C n^{-c/4} + \frac{2}{n} <
\frac{C^{\prime}}{n^{c^{\prime}}}. \label{eq_117}$$ According to Lemma \[lem\_929\], for any $x \in \RR^n$, $$\left| \, \Phi_{\frac{|x|^2}{n}}(t) \, - \, \Phi_1(t) \, \right|
\leq \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left| \gamma_{1,\frac{|x|^2}{n}}(s)
- \gamma_{1,1}(s) \right| ds \leq
\hat{C} \left| \, \frac{|x|^2}{n} - 1
\, \right |,$$ and therefore by (\[eq\_115\_\_\]) $$\EE_X \left| \, \Phi_{\frac{|X|^2}{n}}(t) \, - \, \Phi_1(t) \,
\right| \leq \hat{C} \EE_X \left| \, \frac{|X|^2}{n} - 1 \,
\right | \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{\log n}}. \label{eq_609__}$$ Recall that $ P(t) = \EE_X P(X; t) $ and that $t$ is an arbitrary real number. We apply Jensen’s inequality, and then combine (\[eq\_117\]) and (\[eq\_609\_\_\]) to obtain $$\forall t \in \RR, \ \ \ \left| \, P(t) \, - \, \Phi_{1}(t) \,
\right| \leq \EE_X \left| \, P(X ; t) \, - \, \Phi_{1}(t) \,
\right| \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{\log n}}. \label{eq_200}$$ The random variable $(X_1 + ... + X_n) / \sqrt{n}$ has mean zero, variance one and a log-concave density. Its cumulative distribution function $P(t) = Prob \left \{ (X_1 + ... + X_n) /
\sqrt{n} \leq t \right \}$ satisfies (\[eq\_200\]). Therefore, we may invoke [@BHVV Theorem 3.3], and conclude from (\[eq\_200\]) that $$d_{TV} \left( \, \frac{X_1 + ... + X_n}{\sqrt{n}} \, ,
\, Z \, \right) \leq \check{C} \left(
\frac{C \log \frac{C}{\sqrt{\log n}}}{\sqrt{\log n}} \right)^{1/2}
= \check{C}
\frac{\sqrt{\log \log n}}{(\log n)^{1/4}},$$ where $Z \sim N(0,1)$ is a standard gaussian random variable. The theorem follows, with $\eps_n \leq C (\log \log (n+2))^{1/2} /
(\log (n+1) )^{1/4}$. $\square$
*Remarks.*
1. Suppose that $f$ is a log-concave density in high dimension that is isotropic and unconditional. In Theorem \[thm\_uncond\], we were able to describe an explicit one-dimensional marginal of $f$ that is approximately normal. It seems possible to identify some multi-dimensional subspaces $E \subset \RR^n$, spanned by specific sign-vectors, such that $\pi_E(f)$ is guaranteed to be almost-gaussian. We did not pursue this direction.
2. Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_uncond\], we proved that $\langle X, \theta \rangle$ is approximately gaussian when $\theta = (1,...,1) / \sqrt{n}$. A straightforward adaptation of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_uncond\] shows that $\langle X, \theta \rangle$ is approximately gaussian under the weaker assumption that $|\theta_1|,...,|\theta_n|$ are rather small (as in Lindeberg’s condition).
3. Theorem \[thm\_basic\], with a worse bound for $\eps_n$, follows by combining Theorem \[cor\_202\] with the methods in [@ABP], and then applying [@BHVV Theorem 3.3]. We will deduce Theorem \[thm\_basic\] from the stronger Theorem \[thm\_multi\] in the next section.
Multi-dimensional marginals {#section5}
===========================
The next few pages are devoted to the proof of the following lemma.
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, let $\alpha \geq 10$, and let $f:
\RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Denote $g = f * \gamma_{n,n^{-30 \alpha}}$. Then, $$\int_{\RR^n} |g(x) - f(x)| dx \leq \frac{C}{n^{\alpha/10}},$$ where $C > 0$ is a universal constant. \[lem\_915\]
We begin with an addendum to Lemma \[lem\_1153\]. Rather than appealing to the Laplace asymptotic method once again, we will base our proof on an elegant observation by Bobkov regarding one-dimensional log-concave functions.
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, let $\alpha \geq 5$ and let $f: [0, \infty) \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be a log-concave function with $\int f < \infty$. Denote $t_0 = \sup \{ t > 0 ;
f(t) \geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0) \}$. Then, $$\int_0^{t_0} t^{n-1} f(t) dt \geq \left(1 - e^{-\alpha n / 8}
\right) \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{n-1} f(t) dt. \label{eq_329}$$ \[lem\_1153\_\]
*Proof:* If $\int f = 0$ then $f \equiv 0$ almost everywhere and (\[eq\_329\]) is trivial. Thus, we may suppose that $\int f >
0$. Moreover, we may assume that $f$ is continuous on $[0,
\infty)$ and $C^2$-smooth on $(0, \infty)$, by approximation (for example, convolve $f$ with $\gamma_{1, \eps}$ on $\RR$, restrict the result to $[0, \infty)$, and let $\eps$ tend to zero). Since $0 < \int f < \infty$ then $f$ decays exponentially fast at infinity, and $0 < \int_0^{\infty} t^{n-1} f(t) dt < \infty$. Multiplying $f$ by a positive constant, we may assume that $\int_0^{\infty} t^{n-1} f(t) dt = 1$.
For $t > 0$, denote, $$\phi(t) = t^{n-1} f(t) \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ \Phi(t) = \int_0^{t} \phi(s)
ds.$$ Then $\phi$ is a log-concave function with $\int \phi = 1$. Recall the definition of $t_n(f)$, that is, (\[eq\_106\]) from Section \[section4\]. According to that definition, $\phi^{\prime}(t_n(f)) = 0$. Denote $M = f(t_n(f)) > 0$. Then $M
\geq e^{-(n-1)} f(0)$ by (\[eq\_1127\]) from Section \[section4\], and hence $$t_0 \geq t_1 := \sup \left \{ t > 0; f(t) \geq e^{-(\alpha - 1) (n-1)} M \right \},$$ where $t_0$ is defined in the formulation of the lemma. Since $M
> 0$ and since $f$ is continuous and vanishes at infinity, the number $t_1$ is finite, greater than $t_n(f)$, and satisfies $f(t_1) = e^{-(\alpha -1) (n-1)} M$. From (\[eq\_1127\_2\]) of Section \[section4\] we see that $ t_1 \leq \alpha t_n(f)$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \phi(t_1) = \phi(t_n(f)) \cdot \left( \frac{t_1}{t_n(f)}
\right)^{n-1} \cdot \frac{f(t_1)}{M} } \\ & \leq & \phi(t_n(f))
\cdot \alpha^{n-1} \cdot e^{-(\alpha - 1)(n-1)} \leq \phi(t_n(f))
e^{-\alpha n / 8 } = e^{-\alpha n / 8} \cdot \max \phi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi(t_n(f)) = \max \phi$ because $\phi$ is log-concave, $\phi(t_n(f)) > 0$ and $\phi^{\prime}(t_n(f)) = 0$. Let $\Phi^{-1} : (0, 1) \rightarrow (0, \infty)$ stand for the inverse function to $\Phi$. A useful fact we learned from Bobkov’s work [@bobkov Lemma 3.2] is that the function $\psi(t) =
\phi(\Phi^{-1}(t))$ is concave on $(0,1)$. (To see this, differentiate $\psi$ twice, and use the inequality $(\log
\phi)^{\prime \prime} \leq 0$.)
Since $\phi$ attains its maximum at $t_n(f)$, then $\psi$ attains its maximum at $\Phi(t_n(f))$. The function $\psi$ is non-negative and concave on $(0,1)$, hence for $t \geq \Phi(t_n(f))$ and $0 <
\eps < 1$, $$\psi(t) \leq \eps \cdot \max \psi \ \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \ t \geq 1 - \eps.$$ Equivalently, for $s \geq t_n(f)$ and $0 < \eps < 1$, the inequality $\phi(s) \leq \eps \cdot \max \psi = \eps \cdot \max
\phi $ implies the bound $\Phi(s) \geq 1 - \eps$. We have shown that $t_1 \geq t_n(f)$ satisfies $\phi(t_1) \leq e^{-\alpha n / 8}
\max \phi$, and hence we conclude that $\Phi(t_1) \geq 1 -
e^{-\alpha n / 8}$. Recalling that $t_0 \geq t_1$, the lemma follows. $\square$
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, let $\alpha
\geq 5$, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be a log-concave function with $\int f = 1$. Denote $K = \{ x \in \RR^n ; f(x) \geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0) \}$. Then, $$\int_{K} f(x) dx \geq 1 - e^{-\alpha n / 8}.$$ \[cor\_302\]
*Proof:* For $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ set $$I(\theta) = \{ t \geq 0 ; f(t \theta) \geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0)
\} = \{ t \geq 0 ; t \theta \in K \}.$$ By log-concavity, $I(\theta)$ is a (possibly infinite) interval in $[0, \infty)$ containing zero. For $t \geq 0$ and $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ we denote $f_{\theta}(t) = f(t \theta)$. Then $f_{\theta}$ is log-concave. Since $\int f =1$, then, e.g., by [@psitwo Lemma 2.1] we know that $f$ decays exponentially fast at infinity and $\int
f_{\theta} < \infty$. Next, we integrate in polar coordinates and use Lemma \[lem\_1153\_\]. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \int_{K} f(x) dx = \int_{S^{n-1}} \int_0^{\sup
I(\theta)} t^{n-1} f_{\theta}(t) dt d\theta } \\ & \geq &
\left(1 - e^{-\alpha n/8} \right) \int_{S^{n-1}} \int_0^\infty t^{n-1} f_{\theta}(t)
dt d \theta = 1 - e^{-\alpha n/8}.\end{aligned}$$ $\square$
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. Suppose that $K \subset \RR^n$ is convex with $Prob \{ X \in K \}
\geq \frac{9}{10}$. Then, $$\frac{1}{10} D^n \subset K.$$ \[lem\_lovasz\]
*Proof:* Assume the contrary. Since $K$ is convex, then there exists $\theta \in S^{n-1}$ such that $ K \subset \left \{ x \in
\RR^n ; \langle x, \theta \rangle < 1 / 10 \right \}$. Hence, $$Prob \left \{
\langle X, \theta \rangle \leq \frac{1}{10} \right
\} \geq Prob \left \{ X \in K \right \} \geq \frac{9}{10}.
\label{eq_1018}$$ Denote $E = \RR \theta$, the one-dimensional line spanned by $\theta$, and let $g =
\pi_E(f)$. Then $g$ is log-concave and isotropic, hence $\sup g
\leq 1$ by (\[eq\_547\]) of Section \[section2\]. Since $g$ is the density of the random variable $\langle X, \theta \rangle$ and $\sup g \leq 1$, then $$Prob \left \{ 0 \leq \langle X, \theta \rangle \leq \frac{1}{10}
\right \} = \int_0^{1/10} g(t) dt \leq \frac{1}{10}.
\label{eq_956}$$ An appeal to [@bobkov Lemma 3.3] – a result that essentially goes back to Grünbaum and Hammer [@grunbaum] – shows that $$Prob \{ \langle X, \theta \rangle < 0 \} \leq 1 -
\frac{1}{e} < \frac{4}{5}. \label{eq_957}$$ After adding (\[eq\_957\]) to (\[eq\_956\]), we arrive at a contradiction to (\[eq\_1018\]). This completes the proof. $\square$
For two sets $A, B \subset \RR^n$ we write $A + B = \{ x + y; x \in A, y \in B \}$ and $A - B = \{ x -
y; x \in A, y \in B \}$ to denote their Minkowski sum and difference.
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, let $\alpha \geq 10$, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Consider the sets $K_0 =
\{ x \in \RR^n; f(x) \geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0) \}$ and $K = \{ x \in
\RR^n ; \exists y \not \in K_0 , |x - y| \leq n^{-3 \alpha} \}$. Then, $$\int_K f(x) dx \leq \frac{C}{n^{\alpha}}$$ where $C > 0$ is a universal constant. \[lem\_1208\]
*Proof:* Let $\mu$ be the probability measure on $\RR^n$ whose density is $f$. By Corollary \[cor\_302\], $$\mu( K_0 ) = \int_{K_0} f(x) dx \geq 1 - e^{-\alpha n / 8} \geq
\frac{9}{10}. \label{eq_304}$$ The set $K_0$ is convex, since $f$ is log-concave. According to (\[eq\_304\]) and Lemma \[lem\_lovasz\], $$\frac{1}{10}D^n \subset K_0. \label{eq_159}$$ By the definition, $K = (\RR^n \setminus K_0) + n^{-3 \alpha }
D^n$. Since $D^n \subset -10 K_0$, then $$K
\subset (\RR^n \setminus K_0) - 10 n^{-3 \alpha } K_0 \subset
\RR^n \setminus \left(1 - n^{-2 \alpha } \right) K_0,
\label{eq_944}$$ because $K_0$ is convex and $10
n^{-3 \alpha} \leq n^{-2 \alpha}$. We use (\[eq\_159\]) and Lemma \[zero\_large\_lem\] for $\beta = 1$. This implies the estimate $$\mu \left( \frac{D^n}{20} \right) =
\int_{\frac{D^n}{20}} f(x) dx
\geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0) \cdot Vol \left( \frac{D^n}{20} \right)
\geq
\left( \frac{c^{\prime} e^{-\alpha} }{\sqrt{n}} \right)^n, \label{eq_218}$$ where we also used the standard estimate $Vol(D^n) \geq \left( c /
\sqrt{n} \right)^n$. The inclusion (\[eq\_159\]) and the convexity of $K_0$ entail that $$\left( 2 n^{-2 \alpha} \right) \frac{D^n}{20} + \left(1 - 2 n^{-2
\alpha} \right) K_0 \subset \left(1 - n^{-2 \alpha} \right) K_0.$$ Therefore, according to the Prékopa-Leindler inequality, $$\mu \left( \left(1 - n^{-2 \alpha } \right) K_0 \right) \geq \mu
\left( \frac{D^n}{20} \right)^{ 2 n^{-2 \alpha} } \cdot \mu
\left( K_0 \right)^{1 - 2 n^{-2 \alpha}}. \label{eq_1015}$$ We combine (\[eq\_944\]), (\[eq\_1015\]), (\[eq\_218\]) and (\[eq\_304\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \mu(K) \leq \mu \left( \RR^n \setminus \left(1 - n^{-2
\alpha } \right) K_0 \right) = 1 - \mu \left( \left(1 - n^{-2
\alpha } \right) K_0 \right) } \\ & \leq & 1 - \left( \left(
\frac{c^{\prime} e^{-\alpha} }{\sqrt{n}} \right)^n \right)^{ 2
n^{-2 \alpha} } \cdot \left( 1 - e^{-\alpha n / 8} \right)^{1 - 2
n^{-2 \alpha}} \leq \frac{C^{\prime}}{n^{\alpha}},\end{aligned}$$ for some universal constant $C^{\prime} > 0$ (the verification of the last inequality is elementary and routine). The lemma is thus proved. $\square$
*Proof of Lemma \[lem\_915\]:* By approximation, we may assume that $f$ is continuously differentiable. Denote $\psi =
\log f$ (with $\psi = -\infty$ when $f = 0$). Then $\psi$ is a concave function. Consider the sets $K_0 = \{ x \in \RR^n; f(x)
\geq e^{-\alpha n} f(0) \}$ and $K = \{ x \in \RR^n ; \exists y
\not \in K_0 , |x - y| < n^{-4 \alpha} \}$. The first step of the proof is to show that $$\{ x \in K_0 ; |\nabla \psi(x)| > n^{5 \alpha} \} \subset
K. \label{eq_317}$$ Note that $f(0) > 0$ by [@fradelizi Theorem 4], and hence $f(x) > 0$ for all $x \in K_0$. Consequently, $\psi$ is finite on $K_0$, and $\nabla \psi$ is well-defined on $K_0$. In order to prove (\[eq\_317\]), let us pick $x \in K_0$ such that $|\nabla \psi(x)| > n^{5
\alpha}$. Set $\theta = \nabla \vphi(x) / |\nabla
\vphi(x)|$. To prove (\[eq\_317\]), it suffices to show that $$x - n^{-4 \alpha} \theta \not \in K_0,$$ by the definition of $K$. According to the definition of $K_0$, it is enough to prove that $$f \left( x - n^{-4 \alpha} \theta \right) < e^{-\alpha n} f(0).
\label{eq_551}$$ We thus focus on proving (\[eq\_551\]). We may assume that $f(x -
n^{-4 \alpha } \theta)
> 0$ since otherwise (\[eq\_551\]) holds trivially. By concavity, $\vphi(t) := \psi(x + t \theta) = \log f(x + t
\theta)$ is finite for $ -n^{-4 \alpha } \leq t \leq 0$, and $$\vphi^{\prime}(0) = \langle \nabla \psi(x), \theta \rangle
= |\nabla \psi(x)| > n^{5 \alpha}.$$ Since $\vphi$ is concave, then $\vphi^{\prime}$ is non-increasing. Consequently, $\vphi^{\prime}(t) > n^{5 \alpha}$ for $-n^{-4 \alpha} \leq t \leq
0$. Hence, $$\vphi(0) - \vphi(-n^{-4 \alpha}) >
n^{5 \alpha} \cdot n^{-4 \alpha} = n^{\alpha} \geq \alpha n + 1,
\label{eq_256}$$ as $\alpha \geq 10$ and $n \geq 2$. Recall that $f(0) \geq e^{-n}
f(x)$ by [@fradelizi Theorem 4] and that $f(x + t \theta) =
e^{\vphi(t)}$. We conclude from (\[eq\_256\]) that $f(0) \geq
e^{-n} f(x) > e^{\alpha n} f(x - n^{-4 \alpha} \theta)$, and (\[eq\_551\]) is proved. This completes the proof of (\[eq\_317\]).
For $x \in \RR^n$ and $\delta > 0$ denote $B(x, \delta) = \{ y \in
\RR^n ; |y-x| \leq \delta \}$. Fix $x \in K_0$ such that $B(x,
n^{-3 \alpha }) \subset K_0$. Then for any $y \in B(x, n^{-10
\alpha})$ we have $y \not \in K$ and hence $|\nabla \psi(y)| \leq
n^{5 \alpha }$, by (\[eq\_317\]). Consequently, $$|\psi(y) - \psi(x)| \leq n^{5 \alpha} |x - y| \leq n^{-5 \alpha} \
\ \ \text{for all} \ \ y \in B(x, n^{-10 \alpha}).$$ Recalling that $f = e^{\psi}$, we obtain $$|f(y) - f(x)| \leq 2 n^{-5 \alpha} f(x) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \
y \in B(x, n^{-10 \alpha }). \label{eq_659}$$ We will also make use of the crude estimate $$\int_{ \RR^n \setminus B(0, n^{-10 \alpha})} \gamma_{n,n^{-30
\alpha}}(x) dx \leq 2 \exp (-n^{4\alpha} / 10) \leq e^{-20
\alpha n}, \label{eq_659_}$$ that follows, for example, from Lemma \[lem\_1010\](i) as $\sqrt{\int_{\RR^n} |x|^2 \gamma_{n,n^{-30 \alpha}}(x) dx} =
n^{1/2-15 \alpha}$. According to [@fradelizi Theorem 4], $$\sup f \leq e^n f(0) \leq e^{(\alpha + 1)n} f(x), \label{eqn_521}$$ since $x \in K_0$. Recall that $g = f * \gamma_{n, n^{-30
\alpha}}$. We use (\[eq\_659\]), (\[eq\_659\_\]) and (\[eqn\_521\]) to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_738} \lefteqn{ |g(x) - f(x)| \leq \int_{\RR^n}
\gamma_{n,n^{-30 \alpha}}(x-y) \left| f(y) - f(x) \right| dy } \\
& \leq & 2 n^{-5 \alpha } f(x) + 2 \sup f \cdot \int_{\RR^n
\setminus B(x, n^{-10 \alpha})} \gamma_{n,n^{-30 \alpha}} (x-y) dy
\leq \frac{C}{n^{5 \alpha}} f(x). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Denote $T = \{ x \in K_0 ; B(x, n^{-3 \alpha}) \subset K_0 \}$. We have shown that (\[eq\_738\]) holds for any $x \in T$. Thus, $$\int_T |g(x) - f(x)| dx \leq \frac{C}{n^{5 \alpha}}
\int_T f(x) dx\leq \frac{C}{n^{5 \alpha}}. \label{eq_335}$$ Note that $\RR^n \setminus T \subset (\RR^n \setminus K_0) \cup \{
x \in \RR^n ; \exists y \not \in K_0, |x-y| \leq n^{-3 \alpha}
\}$. Corollary \[cor\_302\] and Lemma \[lem\_1208\] show that $$\int_T f(x) dx = 1 - \int_{\RR^n \setminus T} f(x) dx \geq 1 - e^{-\alpha n / 8} - \frac{C}{n^{\alpha}}
\geq 1 - \frac{C^{\prime}}{n^{\alpha/10}}.
\label{eq_607}$$ By (\[eq\_335\]) and (\[eq\_607\]), $$\int_{T} g(x) dx \geq \int_T f(x) dx - \int_T |g(x) - f(x)| dx
\geq 1 - \frac{\tilde{C}}{n^{\alpha / 10}}. \label{eq_608}$$ Since $\int f = \int g = 1$, then according to (\[eq\_607\]) and (\[eq\_608\]), $$\int_{\RR^n \setminus T} |g(x) - f(x)| dx
\leq \int_{\RR^n \setminus T} \left[ g(x) + f(x) \right] dx
\leq \hat{C} n^{-\alpha
/10}.
\label{eq_336}$$ The lemma follows by adding inequalities (\[eq\_335\]) and (\[eq\_336\]). $\square$
Lemma \[lem\_915\] allows us to convolve our log-concave function with a small gaussian. The proof of the next lemma is the most straightforward adaptation of the proof of Lemma \[lem\_fourier\]. We sketch the main points of difference between the proofs.
Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, let $\alpha \geq 10$, and let $f: \RR^n \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Assume that $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-5 \alpha n
\log n} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \
\text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_934}$$ Denote $g = f * \gamma_{n, n^{-\alpha}}$, where $*$ stands for convolution. Then, $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \leq e^{-\alpha n \log n} +
\inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} g(t \theta) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t
\geq 0.$$ \[lem\_fourier2\]
*Sketch of proof:* For $\xi_1, \xi_2 \in \RR^n$ with $|\xi_1|
= |\xi_2| = r$, $$\left| \hat{f}(\xi_1) - \hat{f}( \xi_2) \right| \leq 2 \pi r
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left| M_f \left( \frac{\xi_1}{|\xi_1|}, t
\right) -M_f \left( \frac{\xi_2}{|\xi_2|}, t \right) \right| dt$$ and consequently $\left| \hat{f}(\xi_1) - \hat{f}( \xi_2) \right|
\leq r e^{-2 \alpha n \log n}$, by (\[eq\_934\]) and Lemma \[lem\_1028\]. Note that $\hat{g}(\xi) = \hat{f}(\xi) \cdot \exp
(-2 \pi^2 n^{-\alpha} |\xi|^2 )$ (see, e.g., [@stein_weiss page 6]). Therefore $$\left| \hat{g}(\xi_1) - \hat{g}( \xi_2) \right| \leq r e^{-2 \pi^2
n^{-\alpha} r^2 } e^{-2 \alpha n \log n} \ \ \ \text{when} \ \
|\xi_1| = |\xi_2| = r. \label{eq_950}$$ Let $x \in \RR^n$ and $U \in O(n)$. From (\[eq\_950\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_959} \nonumber \lefteqn{ \left| \int_{\RR^n} \left(
\hat{g}(\xi) - \hat{g}(U \xi) \right) e^{2 \pi i \langle x, \xi
\rangle} d\xi \right| \leq e^{-2 \alpha n \log n} \int_{\RR^n}
|\xi| e^{-2 \pi^2 n^{-\alpha} |\xi|^2 } d \xi } \\ & =& e^{-2
\alpha n \log n} n^{\frac{\alpha (n+1)}{ 2}} \int_{\RR^n} |\xi|
e^{-2 \pi^2 |\xi|^2 } d \xi \leq e^{-\alpha n \log n}.
\phantom{aaaaaaaaaaa}\end{aligned}$$ Since $x \in \RR^n$ and $U \in O(n)$ are arbitrary, the lemma follows from (\[eqn\_959\]) by the Fourier inversion formula. $\square$
Later, we will combine the following proposition with Lemma \[lem\_dvo\] in order to show that a typical marginal is very close, in the total-variation metric, to a spherically-symmetric concentrated distribution. A random vector $X$ in $\RR^n$ has a spherically-symmetric distribution if $Prob \{ X \in U (A) \} =
Prob \{ X \in A \}$ for any measurable set $A \subset \RR^n$ and an orthogonal transformation $U \in O(n)$.
There exist universal constants $C_1,c, C > 0$ for which the following holds: Let $n \geq 2$ be an integer, and let $f: \RR^n
\rightarrow [0, \infty)$ be an isotropic, log-concave function. Let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with density $f$. Assume that $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_1 n \log n}
+ \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1}} M_{f}(\theta, t) \ \ \ \text{for all}
\ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_848__}$$ Then there exists a random vector $Y$ in $\RR^n$ such that
1. $\displaystyle d_{TV}(X, Y) \leq C / n^{10} $.
2. $Y$ has a spherically-symmetric distribution.
3. $\displaystyle
Prob \left \{ \big| \, |Y| - \sqrt{n} \, \big| \geq \eps
\sqrt{n}
\right \} \leq C e^{-c \eps^2 n } $ for any $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$.
\[prop\_842\]
*Proof:* Recall that $$Vol(\sqrt{n} D^n) \leq \hat{C}^n
\label{eq_1040}$$ for some universal constant $\hat{C}
> 1$. We will define two universal constants: $$\alpha_0 = 10^4
[\log (\hat{C}) +1] \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ C_1 = \max \{ 5
\alpha_0, 2 C_0 \}$$ where $C_0$ is the constant from Proposition \[cor\_735\] and $\hat{C}$ is the constant from (\[eq\_1040\]). Throughout this proof, $\alpha_0, C_0, C_1$ and $\hat{C}$ will stand for the universal constants just mentioned. We assume that inequality (\[eq\_848\_\_\]) – the main assumption of this proposition – holds, with the constant $C_1$ as was just defined. We may apply Proposition \[cor\_735\], based on (\[eq\_848\_\_\]), since $C_0 n \leq C_1 n \log n$. By the conclusion of that proposition, $$Prob \left \{ \big| \ |X| - \sqrt{n} \ \big| \geq \eps \sqrt{n} \right \} \leq
C e^{-c \eps^2 n} \ \ (0 \leq \eps \leq 1). \label{eq_954}$$ Let $Z^{\prime}$ be a gaussian random vector in $\RR^n$, independent of $X$, with $\EE Z^{\prime} = 0$ and $Cov(Z^{\prime})
= n^{-\alpha_0} Id$. Then $\EE |Z^{\prime}|^2 = n^{1-\alpha_0}$, and, for example, by Lemma \[lem\_1010\](i), we know that $$Prob \left \{ |Z^{\prime}| \geq 1 \right \} \leq
Prob \left \{ |Z^{\prime}| \geq 20 n \cdot \sqrt{n^{1-\alpha_0}} \right \} \leq
e^{-n}.$$ Consequently, the event $-1 \leq |X + Z^{\prime}| - |X| \leq 1$ holds with probability greater than $1 - e^{-n}$. By applying (\[eq\_954\]) we obtain that for $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_1002} \lefteqn{ Prob \left \{ \big| \ |X + Z^{\prime}| -
\sqrt{n} \ \big| \geq \eps \sqrt{n} \right \} } \\ & \leq &
\nonumber e^{-n} + Prob \left \{ \big| \ |X| - \sqrt{n} \ \big|
\geq \left( \eps - \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \sqrt{n} \right \}
\leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 n}\end{aligned}$$ (in obtaining the last inequality in (\[eq\_1002\]), one needs to consider separately the cases $\eps < 2 / \sqrt{n}$ and $\eps \geq
2 / \sqrt{n}$).
The density of $Z^{\prime}$ is $\gamma_{n, n^{-\alpha_0}}$. Denote by $g = f * \gamma_{n,n^{-\alpha_0}}$ the density of the random vector $X + Z^{\prime}$. Since $C_1 \geq 5 \alpha_0$ and $\alpha_0 \geq 10$, then (\[eq\_848\_\_\]) implies the main assumption of Lemma \[lem\_fourier2\] for $\alpha = \alpha_0$. By the conclusion of that lemma, for all $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in
S^{n-1}$ and $r \geq 0$, $$\left| g(r \theta_1) - g(r \theta_2) \right| \leq e^{-\alpha_0 n \log n}.
\label{eq_1122}$$ Denote, for $x \in \RR^n$, $$\tilde{g}(x) = \int_{S^{n-1}} g(|x| \theta)
d\sigma_{n-1}(\theta),$$ the spherical average of $g$. The function $\tilde{g}$ is a spherically-symmetric function with $\int \tilde{g} = 1$, and from (\[eq\_1122\]), $$\left| \tilde{g}(x) - g(x) \right| \leq e^{-\alpha_0 n \log n} \
\ \ \text{for all} \ \ x \in \RR^n. \label{eq_1014}$$ According to (\[eq\_1014\]) and the case $\eps = 1$ in (\[eq\_1002\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_1043} \nonumber \lefteqn{ \left \| \, \tilde{g} \, -
\, g \, \right \|_{L^1(\RR^n)} \leq \int_{|x|
\leq 2 \sqrt{n}} |\tilde{g}(x) - g(x)| dx + 2 \int_{|x| \geq 2 \sqrt{n}} g(x) dx } \\
& \leq & Vol(2 \sqrt{n} D^n) e^{-\alpha_0 n \log n} + 2 C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} n}
\leq C^{\prime \prime} e^{-c^{\prime \prime} n},
\phantom{aaaaaaaaaaaa}\end{aligned}$$ by the definition of $\alpha_0$, where $\| F \|_{L^1(\RR^n)} =
\int_{\RR^n} |F(x)| dx$ for any measurable function $F: \RR^n
\rightarrow \RR$.
Let $Y$ be a random variable that is distributed according to the density $\tilde{g}$. Then $Y$ satisfies the conclusion (ii) of the present proposition, since $\tilde{g}$ is a radial function. Additionally, (\[eq\_1002\]) shows that $Y$ satisfies (iii), since the random variables $|Y|$ and $|X +
Z^{\prime}|$ have the same distribution. It remains to prove (i). To that end, we employ Lemma \[lem\_915\]. The assumptions of Lemma \[lem\_915\] are satisfied for $\alpha = \alpha_0 / 30$, since $\alpha_0 \geq 300$. We use (\[eq\_1043\]) and the conclusion of Lemma \[lem\_915\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ d_{TV}(X, Y) = \| \, f \, - \, \tilde{g} \,
\|_{L^1(\RR^n)} \leq \| \, \tilde{g} \, - \, g \, \|_{L^1(\RR^n)} +
\| \, g \, - \, f \, \|_{L^1(\RR^n)} } \\ & \leq &
C^{\prime \prime} e^{-c^{\prime \prime} n} + C n^{-\alpha_0 /300}
\leq \tilde{C} n^{-10}, \phantom{aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa}\end{aligned}$$ as $\alpha_0 \geq 3000$. This completes the proof of (i). $\square$
Let $1 \leq k \leq n$ be integers, let $1 \leq r \leq n$, let $\alpha, \beta > 0$ and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with a spherically-symmetric distribution. Suppose $E \subset \RR^n$ is a $k$-dimensional subspace. Assume that for $0 \leq \eps \leq 1$, $$Prob \left \{ \big| \, |X| - \sqrt{n} \,
\big| \geq \eps \sqrt{n} \right \} \leq \beta e^{-\alpha \eps^2
r}. \label{eq_317_}$$ Then, $$d_{TV} \left ( \, Proj_E(X) \, , \, Z_E \, \right ) \leq C \frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{r}}$$ where $Z_E$ is a standard gaussian random vector in $E$, and $c, C
> 0$ are constants depending only on $\alpha$ and $\beta$. \[computation\]
*Proof:* In this proof we write $c, C, C^{\prime}, \tilde{C}$ etc. to denote various positive constants depending only on $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We may clearly assume that $n \geq 5$ and $k
\leq n-4$, as otherwise the result of the lemma is trivial with $C \geq 2$. Let $Y$ be a random vector, independent of $X$, that is distributed uniformly in $S^{n-1}$. Let $Z_E$ be a standard gaussian vector in $E$, independent of $X$ and $Y$. We will use a quantitative estimate for Maxwell’s principle by Diaconis and Freedman [@diaconis]. According to their bound, $$d_{TV} \left( \, Proj_E(t Y) \, , \, \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}} Z_E \,
\right) \leq 2 (k+3) / (n-k-3),$$ for any $t \geq 0$. Since $X$ is independent of $Y$ and $Z_E$, then also $$d_{TV} \left( \, Proj_E(|X| Y) \, , \, \frac{|X|}{\sqrt{n}} Z_E \,
\right) \leq 2 (k+3) / (n-k-3).
\label{eq_647}$$ For $t \geq 0$, the density of $t Z_E$ is the function $x \mapsto \gamma_{k, t^2}(x) \ (x \in E)$. Lemma \[lem\_929\] implies that $d_{TV}(t Z_E, Z_E) \leq C \sqrt{k} |t^2 - 1|$, for some universal constant $C \geq 1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_723}
\lefteqn{ d_{TV} \left( \, \frac{|X|}{\sqrt{n}} Z_E \, , \, Z_E \right)
\leq \EE_X \min \left \{ C \sqrt{k} \left| \frac{|X|^2}{n} - 1 \right|, 2 \right \}
}
\\ & = & \int_0^2 Prob \left \{ C \sqrt{k} \left| \frac{|X|^2}{n} - 1 \right| \geq t \right \} dt \leq \int_0^2 C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} r t^2 / k}dt \leq \tilde{C} \sqrt{\frac{k}{r}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we used (\[eq\_317\_\]). Note that the random vectors $X$ and $|X| Y$ have the same distribution, since the distribution of $X$ is spherically-symmetric. By combining (\[eq\_647\]) and (\[eq\_723\]), $$d_{TV} \left( \, Proj_E(X) \, , \, Z_E \, \right) \leq 2
\frac{k+3}{n-k-3} + \tilde{C} \sqrt{ \frac{k}{r}} \leq \bar{C}
\sqrt{\frac{k}{r}}$$ because $r \leq n$. This completes the proof. $\square$
We are now in a position to prove Theorem \[thm\_multi\]. Theorem \[thm\_multi\] is directly equivalent to the following result.
Let $n \geq 1$ and $1 \leq k \leq c
\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}$ be integers, and let $X$ be a random vector in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. Then there exists a subset $\E \subset G_{n,k}$ with $\sigma_{n,k}(\E)
\geq 1 - e^{-c n^{0.99}}$ such that for any $E \in \E$, $$d_{TV} \left ( \, Proj_E(X) \, , \, Z_E \, \right
) \leq C \sqrt{k} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\log \log n}{\log n}},$$ where $Z_E$ is a standard gaussian random vector in $E$, and $c, C
> 0$ are universal constants. \[thm\_405\]
*Proof:* We use the constant $C_1$ from Proposition \[prop\_842\], and the constant $c$ from Lemma \[lem\_dvo\]. We begin as in the proof of Theorem \[cor\_202\]. Denote the density of $X$ by $f$. Set $$\ell = \left \lfloor \frac{c}{100 C_1}
\frac{\log n}{\log \log n} \right \rfloor.$$ We may assume that $n$ exceeds a certain universal constant, hence $\ell \geq 1$. Fix a subspace $E \in G_{n, \ell}$ that satisfies $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_1
\ell \log \ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{f}(\theta,
t) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_1032}$$ Denote $g = \pi_E(f)$. Then $g$ is log-concave and isotropic, and by combining (\[eq\_1032\]) with (\[proj\_ok\]) from Section \[section2\], $$\sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{g}(\theta, t) \leq e^{-C_1
\ell \log \ell} + \inf_{\theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E} M_{g}(\theta,
t) \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \ t \in \RR. \label{eq_1102}$$ We invoke Proposition \[prop\_842\], for $\ell$ and $g$, based on (\[eq\_1102\]). Recall that $g$ is the density of $Proj_E(X)$. By the conclusion of Proposition \[prop\_842\], there exists a random vector $Y$ in $E$, with a spherically-symmetric distribution, such that $$d_{TV} \left ( \, Proj_E(X) \, , \, Y \, \right ) \leq
\frac{C}{\ell^{10}} \label{eq_1104}$$ and $$Prob \left \{ \big| \, |Y| - \sqrt{\ell} \, \big| \geq \eps
\sqrt{\ell}
\right \} \leq C^{\prime} e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 \ell } \ \ \
\text{for} \ \ 0 \leq \eps \leq 1. \label{eq_1105}$$ Fix $1 \leq k \leq \ell$, and let $F \subset E$ be a $k$-dimensional subspace. Since the distribution of $Y$ is spherically-symmetric, we may apply Lemma \[computation\] for $n=\ell$ and $r = \ell$, based on (\[eq\_1105\]). By the conclusion of that lemma, $$d_{TV} \left ( \, Proj_F(Y) \, , \, Z_F \, \right )
\leq C^{\prime \prime} \frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{\ell}},$$ where $Z_F$ is a standard gaussian random vector in $F$. We combine the above with (\[eq\_1104\]), and obtain $$d_{TV} \left ( \, Proj_F(X) \, , \, Z_F \, \right )
\leq C^{\prime \prime} \frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{\ell}}
+ \frac{C}{\ell^{10}} \leq \tilde{C}
\frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{\ell}}.
\label{eq_1128}$$ (Note that $d_{TV}(Proj_F(X), Proj_F(Y)) \leq d_{TV}(Proj_E(X),
Y)$.) In summary, we have proved that whenever $E$ is an $\ell$-dimensional subspace that satisfies (\[eq\_1032\]), then all the $k$-dimensional subspaces $F \subset E$ satisfy (\[eq\_1128\]).
Suppose that $E \in G_{n,\ell}$ is a random $\ell$-dimensional subspace. We will use Lemma \[lem\_dvo\], for $A = C_1 \log \ell$ and $\delta = 1/100$. Note that $\ell \leq \log n$, hence $\ell
\leq c \delta A^{-1} \log n$, by the definition of $\ell$ above. Therefore we may safely apply Lemma \[lem\_dvo\], and conclude that with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c n^{0.99}}$, the subspace $E$ satisfies (\[eq\_1032\]). Therefore, with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c n^{0.99}}$ of selecting $E$, all $k$-dimensional subspaces $F \subset E$ satisfy (\[eq\_1128\]).
Next, we select a random subspace $F$ inside the random subspace $E$. That is, fix $k \leq \ell - 4$, and suppose that $F
\subset E$ is a random subspace, that is distributed uniformly over the grassmannian of $k$-dimensional subspaces of $E$. Since $E$ is distributed uniformly over $G_{n,\ell}$, it follows that $F$ is distributed uniformly over $G_{n,k}$. We thus conclude that $F$ – which is a random, uniformly distributed, $k$-dimensional subspace in $\RR^n$ – satisfies (\[eq\_1128\]) with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c n^{0.99}}$. Recall that $\ell
> \bar{c} (\log n) / \log \log n$ for a universal constant $\bar{c} > 0$, and that our only assumption about $k$ was that $1 \leq k \leq
\ell$. The theorem is therefore proved. $\square$
*Proof of Theorem \[thm\_multi\]:* Observe that $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{c}} \cdot \sqrt{k} \cdot \sqrt{ \frac{\log \log n}{\log n}} \leq
\eps,$$ under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_multi\]. The theorem thus follows from Theorem \[thm\_405\], for an appropriate choice of a universal constant $c > 0$. $\square$
*Proof of Theorem \[thm\_basic\]:* Substitute $k = 1$ and $\eps =
\sqrt{\frac{\log \log n}{c \log n}}$ in Theorem \[thm\_multi\], for $c$ being the constant from Theorem \[thm\_multi\]. $\square$
An additional notion of distance between multi-dimensional measures is known in the literature under the name of “$T$-distance” (see, e.g., [@meckes], [@NR]). For two random vectors $X$ and $Y$ in a subspace $E \subset \RR^n$, their $T$-distance is defined as $$T(X, Y) = \sup_{\theta \in S^{n-1}, t \in \RR}
\left| \, Prob \left \{ \langle X, \theta \rangle \leq t \right \} - Prob \left \{ \langle
Y, \theta \rangle \leq t \right \} \, \right|.$$ The $T$-distance between $X$ and $Y$ compares only one-dimensional marginals of $X$ and $Y$, hence it is weaker than the total-variation distance. The following proposition is proved by directly adapting the arguments of Naor and Romik [@NR].
Let $\eps > 0$, and assume that $n > \exp(C / \eps^2)$ is an integer. Suppose that $X$ is a random vector in $\RR^n$ with an isotropic, log-concave density. Let $1 \leq k \leq c \eps^2 n$ be an integer, and let $E \in G_{n,k}$ be a random $k$-dimensional subspace. Then, with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c \eps^2
n}$ of choosing $E$, $$T \left( Proj_E(X), Z_{E} \right) \leq \eps,$$ where $Z_E$ is a standard gaussian random vector in the subspace $E$. Here, $c, C > 0$ are universal constants. \[prop\_T\]
*Sketch of Proof:* Let $g(x) = \int_{S^{n-1}} f(|x| \theta)
d\sigma_{n-1}(\theta) \ (x \in \RR^n)$ be the spherical average of $f$. For $0 \leq \delta \leq 1$, set $A_{\delta} = \{ x \in \RR^n
; \left| \, |x| / \sqrt{n} - 1 \, \right| \geq \delta \}$. According to Theorem \[cor\_202\], $$\int_{A_{\delta}} g(x) dx = \int_{A_{\delta}} f(x) dx \leq C^{\prime}
n^{-c^{\prime}
\delta^2} \ \ \ \text{for} \ 0 \leq \delta \leq 1.
\label{eqn_953}$$ Denote $\Phi(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int_{-\infty}^t
e^{-s^2/2} ds \ (t \in \RR)$ and fix $\theta_0 \in S^{n-1}$. We apply Lemma \[computation\] (for $r = \log n$ and $k = 1$) based on (\[eqn\_953\]), to obtain the inequality $$\left| \int_{S^{n-1}} M_f(\theta, t) d\sigma_{n-1}(\theta) -
\Phi(t) \right| = \left| M_g(\theta_0, t) - \Phi(t) \right| \leq
\frac{C^{\prime \prime}}{\sqrt{\log n}}, \label{e_1152}$$ valid for any $t \in \RR$. Let us fix $t \in \RR$. By Proposition \[lem\_bobkov\], the function $\theta \mapsto M_f(\theta, t) \
(\theta \in S^{n-1})$ is $\hat{C}$-Lipshitz. We apply Proposition \[dvoretzky\] for $L = \hat{C}$ and then we use (\[e\_1152\]) to conclude that with probability greater than $1 - e^{-\bar{c}
\eps^2 n}$ of selecting $E$, $$\left| M_f(\theta, t) - \Phi(t) \right| \leq \eps +
\frac{C}{\sqrt{\log n}} \leq \tilde{C} \eps \ \ \ \ \ \text{for all} \ \theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E.
\label{e_101}$$ Here we used the fact that $k \leq c \eps^2 n$. Recall that $t \in
\RR$ is arbitrary. Let $t_i = \Phi^{-1}(\eps \cdot i)$ for $i=1,...,\lfloor 1/\eps \rfloor,$ where $\Phi^{-1}$ is the inverse function to $\Phi$. Then, with probability greater than $1 -
e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 n}$ of selecting $E$, the estimate (\[e\_101\]) holds for all $t = t_i \ (i=1,...,\lfloor 1/\eps
\rfloor)$. By using, e.g., [@NR Lemma 6] we see that with probability greater than $1 - e^{-c^{\prime} \eps^2 n}$ of selecting $E$, $$\left| M_f(\theta, t) - \Phi(t) \right| < \bar{C} \eps \ \ \ \ \
\forall \theta \in S^{n-1} \cap E, \ t \in \RR. \label{e_128}$$ The proposition follows from (\[e\_128\]) and the definition of the $T$-distance. $\square$
At first glance, the estimates in Proposition \[prop\_T\] seem surprisingly good: Marginals of almost-proportional dimension are allegedly close to gaussian. The problem with Proposition \[prop\_T\] hides, first, in the requirement that $\eps > C / \sqrt{\log n}$, and second, in the use of the rather weak $T$-distance.
[99]{}
Anttila, M., Ball, K., Perissinaki, I.: [*The central limit problem for convex bodies*]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 355, no. 12, (2003), 4723–4735.
Ball, K.: [*Logarithmically concave functions and sections of convex sets in $\RR^n$.* ]{} Studia Math., 88, no. 1, (1988), 69–84.
Bastero, J., Bernués, J.: [*Asymptotic behavior of averages of $k$-dimensional marginals of measures on $\RR^n$.*]{} Preprint. Available at\
http://www.unizar.es/galdeano/preprints/2005/preprint34.pdf
Bobkov, S. G.: [*On concentration of distributions of random weighted sums.*]{} Ann. Prob., 31, no. 1, (2003), 195–215.
Bobkov, S. G., Koldobsky, A.: [*On the central limit property of convex bodies*]{}. Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (2001–02), Lecture Notes in Math., 1807, Springer, Berlin, (2003), 44–52.
Borell, C.: [*Convex measures on locally convex spaces.*]{} Ark. Mat., 12, (1974), 239–252.
Brehm, U., Voigt, J.: [*Asymptotics of cross sections for convex bodies.* ]{} Beiträge Algebra Geom., 41, no. 2, (2000), 437–454.
Brehm, U., Hinow, P., Vogt, H., Voigt, J.: [*Moment inequalities and central limit properties of isotropic convex bodies.* ]{} Math. Z., 240, no. 1, (2002), 37–51.
Dasgupta, S., Gupta, A.: [*An elementary proof of a theorem of Johnson and Lindenstrauss.*]{} Random Structures & Algorithms, 22, no. 1, (2003), 60–65.
Davidovič, Ju. S., Korenbljum, B. I., Hacet, B. I.: [*A certain property of logarithmically concave functions.*]{} (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 185, (1969), 1215–1218. English translation in Soviet Math. Dokl., 10, (1969), 477–480.
Diaconis, P., Freedman, D.: [*Asymptotics of graphical projection pursuit.* ]{} Ann. Statist., 12, no. 3, (1984), 793–815.
Diaconis, P., Freedman, D.: [*A dozen de Finetti-style results in search of a theory.* ]{} Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist., 23, no. 2, (1987), 397–423.
Feller, W.: [*An introduction to probability theory and its applications, volume II.*]{} John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney, 1971.
Fradelizi, M.: [*Sections of convex bodies through their centroid.*]{} Arch. Math. (Basel), 69, no. 6, (1997), 515–522.
Giannopoulos, A. A., Milman, V. D.: [*Euclidean structure in finite dimensional normed spaces.* ]{} Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, Vol. I, 707–779, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001.
Gordon, Y.: [*Gaussian processes and almost spherical sections of convex bodies.* ]{} Ann. Probab., 16, no. 1, (1988), 180–188.
Gordon, Y.: [*On Milman’s inequality and random subspaces which escape through a mesh in $\RR^n$.*]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (1986–87), Lecture Notes in Math., 1317, Springer, Berlin, (1988), 84–106.
Gromov, M.: [*Dimension, nonlinear spectra and width.*]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (1986–87), Lecture Notes in Math., 1317, Springer, Berlin, (1988), 132–184.
Grünbaum, B.: [*Partitions of mass-distributions and of convex bodies by hyperplanes.*]{} Pacific J. Math., 10, (1960), 1257–1261.
Hensley, D.: [*Slicing convex bodies—bounds for slice area in terms of the body’s covariance.* ]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 79, no. 4, (1980), 619–625.
Johnson, W. B., Lindenstrauss, J.: [*Extensions of Lipschitz mappings into a Hilbert space.* ]{} Conference in modern analysis and probability (New Haven, Conn., 1982), Contemp. Math., 26, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (1984), 189–206.
Klartag, B., Milman, V. D.: [*Geometry of log-concave functions and measures.* ]{} Geom. Dedicata, 112, (2005), 169–182.
Klartag, B.: [*Uniform almost sub-gaussian estimates for linear functionals on convex sets*]{}. Preprint. Available at\
http://www.math.princeton.edu/`~`bklartag/papers/psitwo.pdf
Koldobsky, A., Lifshits, M.: [*Average volume of sections of star bodies.*]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (1996–00), Lecture Notes in Math., 1745, Springer, Berlin, (2000), 119–146.
Ledoux, M.: [*Spectral gap, logarithmic Sobolev constant, and geometric bounds.* ]{} Appears in Eigenvalues of Laplacians and other geometric operators, Surveys in Differential Geometry 9, Somerville, MA, (2004), 219–240.
Leindler, L.: [ *On a certain converse of Hölder’s inequality*]{}. Linear operators and approximation (Proc. Conf., Oberwolfach, 1971), Internat. Ser. Numer. Math., 20, Birkhäuser, Basel, (1972), 182–184.
Lekkerkerker, C. G.: [*A property of Logarithmic concave functions I+II*]{}. Indagationes Math., 15, (also known as Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A. 56), (1953), 505–521.
Lindenstrauss, J.: [*Almost spherical sections; their existence and their applications*]{}. Jber. d. Dt. Math. Verein., (1992), 39–61.
Lovász, L., Vempala, S.: [*The geometry of logconcave functions and sampling algorithms.*]{} To appear in Random Structures & Algorithms. Available at\
http://www-math.mit.edu/`~`vempala/papers/logcon.pdf
Meckes, E. S., Meckes, M. W.: [*The central limit problem for random vectors with symmetries*]{}. Preprint. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/math.PR/0505618
Milman, E.: [*On gaussian marginals of uniformly convex bodies.*]{} Preprint. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/math.FA/0604595
Milman, V. D.: [*A new proof of A. Dvoretzky’s theorem on cross-sections of convex bodies.*]{} (Russian) Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen., 5, no. 4, (1971), 28–37. English translation in Funct. Anal. Appl., 5, (1971), 288–295.
Milman, V. D.: [*Dvoretzky’s theorem—thirty years later.* ]{} Geom. Funct. Anal., 2, no. 4, (1992), 455–479.
Milman, V. D., Pajor, A.: [*Isotropic position and inertia ellipsoids and zonoids of the unit ball of a normed $n$-dimensional space.*]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (1987–88), Lecture Notes in Math., 1376, Springer, Berlin, (1989), 64–104.
Milman, V. D., Schechtman, G.: [*Asymptotic theory of finite-dimensional normed spaces.* ]{} Lecture Notes in Math., 1200, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
Naor, A., Romik, D.: [*Projecting the surface measure of the sphere of $\ell_p^n$.* ]{} Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist., 39, no. 2, (2003), 241–261.
Paouris, G.: [*Concentration of mass and central limit properties of isotropic convex bodies.*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 133, (2005), 565-575.
Paouris, G.: [ *On the $\psi\sb 2$-behaviour of linear functionals on isotropic convex bodies.* ]{} Studia Math., 168, no. 3, (2005), 285–299.
Paouris, G.: [*Concentration of mass on isotropic convex bodies.*]{} C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 342, no. 3, (2006), 179–182.
Paouris, G.: [*Concentration of mass in convex bodies.*]{} To appear in Geom. Funct. Anal.
Pisier, G.: [*The volume of convex bodies and Banach space geometry.*]{} Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 94, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
Prékopa, A.: [*Logarithmic concave measures with application to stochastic programming.* ]{} Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), [ 32]{}, (1971), 301–316.
Prékopa, A.: [*On logarithmic concave measures and functions.*]{} Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), [ 34]{}, (1973), 335–343.
Romik, D.: [*Randomized central limit theorems – probabilisitic and geometric aspects.*]{} PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv university, 2001.
Schechtman, G.: [*A remark concerning the dependence on $\epsilon$ in Dvoretzky’s theorem.* ]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar (1987–88), Lecture Notes in Math., 1376, Springer, Berlin, (1989), 274–277.
Schechtman, G.: [*Two observations regarding embedding subsets of Euclidean spaces in normed spaces.*]{} Preprint. Available at\
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/`~`gideon/papers/dvoretzky.ps
Schoenberg, I. J.: [*On Pólya frequency functions. I. The totally positive functions and their Laplace transforms.* ]{} J. Analyse Math., 1, (1951), 331–374.
Sodin, S.: [*Tail-sensitive gaussian asymptotics for marginals of concentrated measures in high dimension.*]{} To appear in Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar, Lecture notes in Math. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/math.MG/0501382
Stein, E. M., Weiss, G.: [*Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces.* ]{} Princeton Mathematical Series, no. 32. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1971.
Stroock, D. W.: [*Probability theory, an analytic view.*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Sudakov, V. N.: [*Typical distributions of linear functionals in finite-dimensional spaces of high-dimension.*]{} (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 243, no. 6, (1978), 1402–1405. English translation in Soviet Math. Dokl., 19, (1978), 1578–1582.
von Weizsäcker, H.: [*Sudakov’s typical marginals, random linear functionals and a conditional central limit theorem*]{}. Probab. Theory and Related Fields, 107, no. 3, (1997), 313–324.
Wojtaszczyk, J. O.: [*The square negative correlation property for generalized orlicz balls.*]{} To appear in Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Israel seminar, Lecture notes in Math.
[^1]: The author is a Clay Research Fellow and is also supported by NSF grant $\#DMS-0456590$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For any semisimple real Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{R}$, we classify the representations of $\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{R}$ that have at least one nonzero vector on which the centralizer of a Cartan subspace, also known as the centralizer of a maximal split torus, acts trivially. In the process, we revisit the notion of $\mathfrak{g}$-standard Young tableaux, introduced by Lakshmibai and studied by Littelmann, that provides a combinatorial model for the characters of the irreducible representations of any classical semisimple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. We construct a new version of these objects, which differs from the old one for $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{so}(2r)$ and seems, in some sense, simpler and more natural.'
author:
- 'Ilia Smilga [^1]'
bibliography:
- '/home/ilia/Documents/Travaux\_mathematiques/mybibliography.bib'
title: Representations having vectors fixed by a Levi subgroup
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Background and motivation {#sec:background}
-------------------------
The present work is motivated by the following geometrical result, proved by the author earlier. Recall that, for a semisimple real Lie group $G_{\mathbb{R}}$, the *restricted Weyl group* is the group $W := N_{G_{\mathbb{R}}}({\mathfrak}{a})/Z_{G_{\mathbb{R}}}({\mathfrak}{a})$, where ${\mathfrak}{a}$ is the Cartan subspace (or maximal split torus) of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$; the *longest element* of $W$ is the unique element that maps all positive restricted roots to negative restricted roots. Also let $L$ denote the centralizer $Z_{G_{\mathbb{R}}}({\mathfrak}{a})$ (sometimes also known as $MA$, where $M$ is the centralizer of $A$ in the maximal compact subgroup of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$).
Let $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ be a semisimple real Lie group, $\rho$ a representation of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ on a finite-dimensional real vector space $V$. Assume that $\rho$ satisfies the following algebraic condition:
- the longest element $w_0$ of the restricted Weyl group $W$ of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ acts (via $\rho$) nontrivially on the subspace $V^L$ of vectors of $V$ that are fixed by all elements of $L$.
Then the representation $\rho$ has the following geometric property:
- The affine group $G_{\mathbb{R}}\ltimes_\rho V$ contains a subgroup $\Gamma$ that is free (of rank at least $2$), has linear part Zariski-dense in $G_{\mathbb{R}}$, and acts properly discontinuously on the affine space corresponding to $V$.
Moreover, it is conjectured that the converse is true, [i.e. ]{}that every representation with the property (\*\*) satisfies the condition (\*). The author has found a partial proof [@Smi18] of this converse.
Representations that have property (\*\*) are called *non-Milnor*, since they provide counterexamples to a conjecture by Milnor [@Mil77]. A weaker version of this conjecture, due to Auslander [@Aus64], remains open to this day, and provides the main motivation to a large body of work that includes, besides the author’s two papers cited above, [@AMS02; @AMS11; @AMS12; @DGKCox; @Dru92; @FG83; @GT; @Mar83; @Tom16] and many others. For a concise statement of these two conjectures and a brief overview of this background, see the introduction to [@Smi16b]. For a more detailed exposition, see the surveys [@AbSur] or [@DDGS].
This theorem naturally raises the problem of explicitly classifying the representations that satisfy (\*). In an earlier paper [@LFlSm], we did this in the special case where $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ is split: then (by definition) the Cartan subspace (or maximal split torus) ${\mathfrak}{a}$ is also a Cartan subalgebra (or maximal torus) of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$; hence its centralizer $L$ coincides with the Lie group $A$ that it generates, and $V^L = V^A$ is just the weight space in $V$ corresponding to the weight $0$. So [@LFlSm] consisted in classifying the representations where $w_0$ acts nontrivially on this zero-weight space.
In the general case, a natural first step towards this problem consists in classifying the representations for which at least the subspace $V^L$ itself is nontrivial. This latter classification is the goal of the present paper.
Basic notations {#sec:notations}
---------------
We now introduce some notations necessary to formulate the main theorem, and used throughout the paper. Most of them are standard; we have highlighted with asterisks those that are neither universally accepted nor easily guessable from context, even for a reader familiar with the theory of semisimple Lie algebras and their representations.
1. Let ${\mathfrak}{g}$ be a semisimple complex Lie algebra, ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ some real form of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ (so that ${\mathfrak}{g} = ({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})^{\mathbb{C}}$).
2. We choose in ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ a Cartan subspace ${\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}}$ (an abelian subalgebra of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ whose elements are diagonalizable over ${\mathbb{R}}$ and which is maximal for these properties); we set ${\mathfrak}{a} := ({\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}})^{\mathbb{C}}$.
3. We choose in ${\mathfrak}{g}$ a Cartan subalgebra ${\mathfrak}{h}$ (an abelian subalgebra of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ whose elements are diagonalizable and which is maximal for these properties) that contains ${\mathfrak}{a}$.
4. We denote by ${\mathfrak}{l}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$, or simply ${\mathfrak}{l}$ when clear from context, the centralizer of ${\mathfrak}{a}$ in ${\mathfrak}{g}$.
5. Let $\Delta$ be the set of roots of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ in ${\mathfrak}{h}^*$. We shall identify ${\mathfrak}{h}^*$ with ${\mathfrak}{h}$ via the Killing form. We call ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ the ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear span of $\Delta$; it is given by the formula ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})} = {\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}}\oplus i {\mathfrak}{t}_{\mathbb{R}}$, where ${\mathfrak}{t}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the orthogonal complement of ${\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}}$ in ${\mathfrak}{h} \cap {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$.
6. \[itm:lex\_ord\_choice\] We choose on ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ a lexicographical ordering that “puts ${\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}}$ first”, [i.e. ]{}such that every vector whose orthogonal projection onto ${\mathfrak}{a}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is positive is itself positive. (This condition is necessary to make Proposition \[Levi\_is\_Levi\] work.) We call $\Delta^+$ the set of roots in $\Delta$ that are positive with respect to this ordering, and we let $\Pi = \{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r\}$ be the set of simple roots in $\Delta^+$. Let $\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_r$ be the corresponding fundamental weights.
7. We call $P$ (resp. $Q$) the weight lattice (resp. root lattice), [i.e. ]{}the abelian subgroup of ${\mathfrak}{h}^*$ generated by $\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_r$ (resp. by $\Delta$). Elements of $P$ are called *integral weights*.
8. We introduce the dominant Weyl chamber: $${\mathfrak}{h}^+ := {\left\{ X \in {\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})} \; \middle| \; \forall \alpha \in \Pi,\quad \alpha(X) \geq 0 \right\}}.$$
9. When ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is simple, we call $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ the vectors called $({\varepsilon}_1, \ldots, {\varepsilon}_n)$ in the appendix to [@BouGAL456], which form a convenient basis of a vector space containing ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}^*$. Throughout the paper, we use the Bourbaki conventions [@BouGAL456] for the numbering of simple roots and their expressions in the coordinates $e_i$.
10. Given an integral weight $\lambda \in P$, we always denote $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n$ its coordinates in this last basis: $$\label{eq:coordinate_definition}
\lambda =: \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i e_i.
$$
11. In the sequel, all representations are supposed to be finite-dimensional and (except for a brief discussion at the beginning of the next subsection) complex. Recall ([@Kna96 Theorem 5.5] or [@Hall15 Theorems 9.4 and 9.5]) that to every irreducible representation of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, we may associate, in a bijective way, a vector $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ called its *highest weight*. We denote by $\rho_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ the irreducible representation of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ with highest weight $\lambda$, and by $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ the space on which it acts. When clear from context, we will shorten $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ to $V_\lambda$.
12. Given a representation $V$ of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, we denote by $V^{\mathfrak}{l} := {\left\{ v \in V \; \middle| \; \forall l \in {\mathfrak}{l},\;\; l \cdot v = 0 \right\}}$ the ${\mathfrak}{l}$-invariant subspace of $V$.
13. We denote by ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}n} ({\mathbb{C}})$, ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}n} ({\mathbb{R}})$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(p,q)$ some Lie algebras that have rank $n$ (or $p+q$) and a standard representation of dimension $2n$ (or $2p+2q$). Some authors, such as Bourbaki [@BouGAL456], denote them respectively by ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2n} ({\mathbb{C}})$, ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2n} ({\mathbb{R}})$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}(2p,2q)$; while other authors, such as Knapp [@Kna96], denote them respectively by ${\mathfrak}{sp}_n ({\mathbb{C}})$, ${\mathfrak}{sp}_n ({\mathbb{R}})$, and ${\mathfrak}{sp}(p,q)$).
Statement of main result {#sec:main_result}
------------------------
Here is the main theorem of this paper. In the process of proving it, we develop some other results that may be interesting on their own: we will describe these in Subsubsection \[sec:intro\_dYt\].
This theorem solves the problem raised at the end of Subsection \[sec:background\], after doing the following reductions:
1. \[itm:group\_to\_alg\] from representations of the Lie group $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ to representations of its Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$;
2. \[itm:Rrep\_to\_Crep\] from real representations to complex representations;
3. \[itm:Rgrp\_to\_Cgrp\] from representations of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ to representations of its complexification ${\mathfrak}{g}$;
4. \[itm:arb\_to\_irrep\] from arbitrary to irreducible representations;
5. \[itm:semisimple\_to\_simple\] from the case where ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is semisimple to the case where ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is simple.
These reductions rely on classical results of Lie theory and representation theory, and happen without any surprises. See [@Smi19] for more details about the steps \[itm:group\_to\_alg\] and \[itm:Rgrp\_to\_Cgrp\]–\[itm:semisimple\_to\_simple\].
Let ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ be a simple real Lie algebra. Then the set $$\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) := {\left\{ \lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+ \; \middle| \; V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})} \neq 0 \right\}}$$ is equal to the set $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$, defined as follows:
\[itm:main\_classical\] $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ is listed in Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\] when the complexification ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is a classical simple Lie algebra;
\[itm:main\_excep\_compact\] $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}} = \{0\}$ when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is an exceptional simple Lie algebra, and ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is its compact real form;
\[itm:main\_excep\_noncompact\] $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}} = Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is an exceptional simple Lie algebra, and ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is any noncompact real form;
\[itm:main\_complex\] $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}} = Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is not simple.
We recall (see [e.g. ]{}[@Kna96 Theorem 6.94]) that this last case occurs if and only if ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is “already” complex, [i.e. ]{}if it is obtained from some complex Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{C}}$ by restriction of scalars; and in this case we have ${\mathfrak}{g} = ({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})^{\mathbb{C}}\simeq {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{C}}\oplus {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{C}}$.
Note that, for algebras ${\mathfrak}{su}(p,q)$, ${\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(p,q)$, the behaviour is qualitatively different depending on whether $p$ lies in the lower or upper half of its range (the whole range, given the assumption $p \leq q$, goes from $0$ to $\frac{p+q}{2}$). Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_sx\_p\_q\] shows how the condition for having $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ simplifies in these two subcases.
${\mathfrak}{g} \quad$ $p < \frac{p+q}{4}$ $p \geq \frac{p+q}{4}$
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathfrak}{su}(p,q)$ $\lambda_{2p+1} = \lambda_{2p+2} = \cdots = \lambda_{q-p} = 0$ $\lambda_{q-p} \geq 0 \geq \lambda_{2p+1}$
$\underset{p+q \text{ odd}}{{\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)}$ $\begin{cases}\lambda_{2p+1} = 0\tnotex{tnote:so_p_3p_plus_1} \\ \sum_{i=1}^{2p} \lambda_i \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}\end{cases}$ either $\lambda_{q-p} > 0$, or $\sum_{i=1}^{q-p-1} \lambda_i \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$
${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(p,q)$ $\lambda_{4p+1} = 0$ true for all $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$
$\underset{p+q \text{ even}}{{\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)}$ $\lambda_{2p+1} = 0$ true for all $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$
: \[tab:conditions\_for\_sx\_p\_q\]Necessary and sufficient condition on $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ to have $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$, for algebras ${\mathfrak}{su}(p,q)$, ${\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(p,q)$ with $p \leq q$. (This is just a reformulation of part of Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\].)
\[tnote:su\_pp\] This formula only makes sense for $p < q$. For $q = p$, we have $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ for all $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$. Note that for $q = p+1$, this condition reduces to $\lambda_1 \geq 0 \geq \lambda_n$, which is also tautologically true.
\[tnote:so\_p\_3p\_plus\_1\] When $p = \frac{p+q-1}{4}$ ([i.e. ]{}$q = 3p+1$), we have $r = 2p$ and the condition $\lambda_{2p+1} = 0$ becomes tautologically true; only the parity condition remains.
\[tnote:sp\_11\] Except for ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(1,1)$, where the condition is $\lambda_2 \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Strategy of the proof {#sec:strategy}
---------------------
We start by treating some trivial cases in Subsection \[sec:trivial\]. In Subsection \[sec:Levi\], we make some preliminary remarks about a class of subalgebras that includes ${\mathfrak}{l}$: the Levi subalgebras.
The first key idea, suggested to the author by E. B. Vinberg and presented in Subsection \[sec:additivity\], is the following. By using the properties of the so-called Cartan product, we prove (in three lines) that the set $\mathcal{M}_{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}$ is closed under addition. For any given value of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$, this reduces the problem to a finite number of computations.
Now in order to compute the dimension of $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l}$ given $\lambda$ and ${\mathfrak}{l}$, we need so-called *branching rules*, [i.e. ]{}rules giving the decomposition into irreducible representations of the restriction of $V_\lambda$ from ${\mathfrak}{g}$ to ${\mathfrak}{l}$. For exceptional Lie algebras, of which there are a finite number, we only need (thanks to the previous paragraph) to do a finite number of computations; so all we need is an algorithmic implementation of branching rules, which is readily available. The case of exceptional Lie algebras is treated in Section \[sec:exceptional\].
For classical Lie algebras, since there are an infinite number of them, we need a conceptual description of branching rules. Such descriptions do exist in the special case of restrictions to Levi subalgebras. Note that the methods of this paper could probably be adapted to obtain a generalization of the Main Theorem to all Levi subalgebras ${\mathfrak}{l}$ of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, not just those that come from some real form.
The easier case, treated in Section \[sec:Ar\], is when ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ has a complexification ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of type $A_r$ ([i.e. ]{}${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_{r+1}({\mathbb{C}})$). Then there is a classical theory (that we recall in Subsection \[sec:Young\]) that identifies, for every $\lambda$, the character of the representation $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ with the set of semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$. Then the irreducible components of the restriction of $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ to a Levi subalgebra ${\mathfrak}{l} \subset {\mathfrak}{g}$ are identified with an easily-described subset of these Young tableaux. This reduces the proof of the main theorem for real forms of $A_r$ to a problem of combinatorics, that we solve in Subsections \[sec:supq\] and \[sec:slmH\].
### Doubled Young tableaux {#sec:intro_dYt}
In order to treat the remaining classical algebras, we need a similar description of the characters of representations of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$. Such a description has been found by Littelmann, Lakshmibai and Seshadri, although, as far as the author knows, no proofs have been given so far. We provide these proofs, and also present a slight improvement of their construction in the case $D_r$; these proofs, and this improvement, may be of interest independently of the remainder of the paper.
More precisely, Littelmann found [@Lit95] a description of the characters of representations (and a Levi branching rule) for an arbitrary semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$. His construction, that we recall in Subsection \[sec:Littelmann\], starts with the data of some path $\pi^+$ that connects $0$ to the weight $\lambda$, and lies entirely within the dominant Weyl chamber ${\mathfrak}{h}^+$. He then identifies the character of the representation $V_\lambda$ with a certain finite set of paths $B_{\pi^+}$ (called the *Littelmann path model*) obtained from $\pi^+$ by iterating some finite set of operations; and the irreducible components of the restriction of $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ to a Levi subalgebra ${\mathfrak}{l} \subset {\mathfrak}{g}$ to som easily-described subset of these paths.
We need however an even more explicit characterization of the path model, at least for the algebras $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$. Such a characterization was hinted at by Lakshmibai [@Lak86], and developed more fully by Littelmann in the appendix to [@Lit90] (although neither of them provided proofs). They gave, for representations of classical Lie algebras, a character formula involving Young tableaux on the alphabet $\{1, \ldots, n, \overline{n}, \ldots, \overline{1}\}$ satisfying some additional properties. Although these results predate the introduction of the path model, the set of these Young tableaux can be reinterpreted as the description of the path model $B_{\pi^+_{0, \mathrm{L}}(\lambda)}$ obtained from the starting path $$\label{eq:Littelmann_starting_path}
\pi^+_{0, \mathrm{L}}(\lambda) = x_1 \varpi_1 * \cdots * x_r \varpi_r,$$ defined (see Definition \[path\_notations\]) as the concatenation of $r$ linear segments, each of them equal to (a suitable translation of) the linear path going from $0$ to $x_i \varpi_i$, where $x_1, \ldots, x_r$ denote the coordinates of $\lambda$ in the basis $\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_r$.
However, we slightly modify this construction. After some preliminary work in Subsections \[sec:Bruhat\] to \[sec:admissible\], we give (and prove) in Subsection \[sec:dYt\] a description of the path model $B_{\pi^+_0(\lambda)}$ obtained from the path $$\label{eq:basic_path_definition}
\pi^+_0(\lambda) := (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) c_1 * \cdots * (\lambda_r - \lambda_{r-1}) c_{r-1} * |\lambda_r| c_r^{\operatorname{sgn}(\lambda_r)},$$ where we set $c_k = e_1 + \cdots + e_k$ for $k = 1, \ldots, r$, $c_r^+ = c_r$ and $c_r^- = c_{r-1} - e_r$. This description also involves some Young tableaux on the alphabet $\{1, \ldots, n, \overline{n}, \ldots, \overline{1}\}$, that we call *${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux*: see Definition \[tableau\_definition\]. (We chose this terminology because every column is “split into two” in some sense: see Remark \[why\_doubled\]). This reduces the proof of the main theorem for ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of types $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$ to a problem of combinatorics, which we solve in Section \[sec:BCD\_proof\].
When ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$, or when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$ but we have $x_{r-1} = x_r = 0$, then the two starting paths $\pi^+_{0, \mathrm{L}}(\lambda)$ and $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$ actually coincide; and indeed, in this case our “${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux” coincide (up to some cosmetic differences) with the “$G$-standard Young tableaux” defined in the appendix of [@Lit90].
However when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$ (and $x_{r-1} > 0$ or $x_r > 0$), the two starting paths differ, and so do the two notions of standard Young tableaux. Our notion is simpler: namely the complicated condition (3) from [@Lit90 A.3] is replaced by the much simpler condition \[itm:dsYt\_Young\] from our Definition \[tableau\_definition\]. The key result that makes this simplification possible is Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\], that allows us to circumvent the problem of the non-transitivity of the “Bruhat order” on weights (see the remark preceding Definition \[Bruhat\_tuple\_definition\].)
In the future, the author has some hope of extending this improved construction to exceptional Lie algebras, by finding, for arbitrary ${\mathfrak}{g}$ and $\lambda$, a starting path $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$ that satisfies some sort of generalization of Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\].
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements}
----------------
We would like to thank Peter Littelmann for some helpful discussions, in particular for his help in navigating the available literature; the tex.stackexchange community, for their help in typesetting this document; and the IH[É]{}S, where part of the work on this manuscript was carried out, for their amazing working conditions.
Basic remarks {#sec:basic}
=============
We start by establishing some basic properties of the set $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}}$ of integral weights $\lambda$ such that $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$, which will allow us to prove the Main Theorem in some easy cases and lay the groundwork for the proof in the remaining cases.
Trivial cases {#sec:trivial}
-------------
We start with some trivial remarks.
\[basic\_results\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight of ${\mathfrak}{g}$.
\[itm:nontriv\_implies\_radical\] If $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$, then necessarily $\lambda \in Q$.
\[itm:main\_split\] If ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is split, quasi-split ([i.e. ]{}${\mathfrak}{l}$ is abelian), or complex, then, conversely, $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ for all $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$.
\[itm:main\_compact\] If ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is compact, then $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ if and only if $\lambda = 0$.
This settles points \[itm:main\_complex\] and \[itm:main\_excep\_compact\] of the Main Theorem, as well as point \[itm:main\_classical\] for the groups ${\mathfrak}{sl}_{r+1}({\mathbb{R}})$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}r}({\mathbb{R}})$ (that are split) and ${\mathfrak}{su}(p,p)$ (that is quasi-split).
We always have ${\mathfrak}{a} \subset {\mathfrak}{h} \subset {\mathfrak}{l}$, hence $$V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \subset V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{h} = V_\lambda^0,$$ where $V_\lambda^0$ denotes the zero-weight space of $V_\lambda$. The latter is nontrivial if and only if $0$ is a weight of $V_\lambda$, which, by the well-known characterization of the set of weights of a representation (see [e.g. ]{}[@Hall15 Theorem 10.1]), occurs if and only if $\lambda \in Q$.
We claim that in all three cases, we have ${\mathfrak}{l} = {\mathfrak}{h}$, so that the converse also holds.
If ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is split, then we actually have ${\mathfrak}{a} = {\mathfrak}{h} = {\mathfrak}{l}$. If ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is quasi-split, then ${\mathfrak}{l}$, being an abelian subalgebra containing ${\mathfrak}{h}$, must be equal to ${\mathfrak}{h}$ (by maximality of ${\mathfrak}{h}$).
Finally, if ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is “complex”, or more precisely obtained by restriction of scalars (from ${\mathbb{C}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$) from some simple complex Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{C}}$, then ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is in fact also quasi-split. Indeed, let $J: {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ be the ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear map corresponding to multiplication by $i$ in ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{C}}$; it lifts to a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear map ${\mathfrak}{g} \to {\mathfrak}{g}$ that we shall also denote by $J$. Then it is straightforward to check that ${\mathfrak}{h} = {\mathfrak}{a} \oplus J {\mathfrak}{a}$. Now since $J$ commutes with everything, ${\mathfrak}{l}$ is also the centralizer of ${\mathfrak}{h}$, so it must coincide with ${\mathfrak}{h}$.
If ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is compact, then obviously ${\mathfrak}{a} = 0$, ${\mathfrak}{l} = {\mathfrak}{g}$, and $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ if and only if $V_\lambda$ is the trivial representation, [i.e. ]{}if and only if $\lambda = 0$.
Levi subalgebras {#sec:Levi}
----------------
The goal of this introduction is to describe ${\mathfrak}{l}$ in purely complex terms, so that we will (almost) not need to care about ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ any more.
Let $\Theta \subset \Pi$ be a set of simple roots. We define the *Levi subalgebra of type $\Theta$* in ${\mathfrak}{g}$ to be $${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta) := {\mathfrak}{h} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Delta \cap \langle \Theta \rangle} {\mathfrak}{g}^\alpha,$$ where $\langle \Theta \rangle$ denotes the linear span of $\Theta$.
In other terms, ${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)$ is a reductive Lie algebra whose Cartan subalgebra coincides with ${\mathfrak}{h}$, and whose root system is the subsystem of $\Delta$ generated by $\Theta$. Now the following result is straightforward (and well-known).
\[Levi\_is\_Levi\] For every real form ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, define $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) := \Pi \cap {\mathfrak}{a}^\perp$. Then the subalgebra ${\mathfrak}{l}$ corresponding to ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is a Levi subalgebra of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, of type $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$: $${\mathfrak}{l}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) = {\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})).$$
It easly to see that $${\mathfrak}{l}({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) = {\mathfrak}{h} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha \in \Delta \cap {\mathfrak}{a}^\perp} {\mathfrak}{g}^\alpha.$$ The proposition then follows, provided that $\Delta^+ \cap {\mathfrak}{a}^\perp$ is a system of positive roots for the root system $\Delta \cap {\mathfrak}{a}^\perp$. This works because of the way we have chosen the lexicographic order on ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ (see item \[itm:lex\_ord\_choice\] in Subsection \[sec:notations\]).
Later we will obtain a purely combinatorial criterion for deciding whether $V^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}_\lambda = 0$ that depends only on the data of $\Theta$ (Corollaries \[characterization\_for\_sln\] and \[combinatorial\_characterization\]). So the only information about ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ that will matter to us is the data of the set $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$.
This set $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ can be read off the Satake diagram of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ (see [@OV90], Chapter 5, §4, 3^o^ for a definition): it is precisely the set of blackened nodes (called $\Pi_0$ in [@OV90]). A table of the Satake diagrams of all the simple real Lie algebras is given in [@OV90], Reference Chapter, Table 9.
Additivity property {#sec:additivity}
-------------------
We finish this section by proving Proposition \[closed\_under\_addition\], which will considerably simplify our task for proving that $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}} \supset \mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$. Indeed it will now suffice to check that $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}}$ contains a basis of the monoid $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$, which, for any given group, is only a finite computation.
Let $G$ be a simply-connected complex Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$ and $N$ a maximal unipotent subgroup of $G$. Let ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$ denote the space of regular functions on the variety $G/N$. Pointwise multiplication of functions is $G$-equivariant and makes ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$ into a ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra without zero divisors (because the variety $G/N$ is irreducible).
\[thm:Vinberg\] Each finite-dimensional irreducible representation of $G$ (or equivalently of its Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$) occurs exactly once as a direct summand of the representation ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$. The ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$ is graded by the highest weight $\lambda$, in the sense that the product of a vector in $V_\lambda$ by a vector in $V_\mu$ lies in $V_{\lambda+\mu}$ (where $V_\lambda$ stands here for the subrepresentation of ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$ with highest weight $\lambda$).
For given $\lambda$ and $\mu$, we call *Cartan product* the induced bilinear map $\odot: V_\lambda \times V_\mu\to V_{\lambda+\mu}$. Given $u\in V_\lambda$ and $v\in V_\mu$, this defines $u\odot v\in V_{\lambda+\mu}$ as the projection of $u\otimes v\in V_\lambda\otimes V_\mu=V_{\lambda+\mu}\oplus\dots$. Since ${\mathbb{C}}[G/N]$ has no zero divisor, $u\odot v\neq 0$ whenever $u\neq 0$ and $v\neq 0$. We deduce the following.
\[closed\_under\_addition\] The set $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}}$ is a submonoid of the additive monoid $Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$, [i.e. ]{}is closed under addition.
Let $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be two elements of this set. Choose any two nonzero vectors $u_1$ and $u_2$ in $V_{\lambda_1}^{{\mathfrak}{l}}$ and $V_{\lambda_2}^{{\mathfrak}{l}}$ respectively. Then the vector $u_1 \odot u_2$ is in $V_{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}$, is invariant by ${\mathfrak}{l}$, and is still nonzero.
Exceptional Lie algebras {#sec:exceptional}
========================
We are now ready to prove the Main Theorem for all exceptional simple real Lie algebras. Proposition \[basic\_results\] \[itm:main\_compact\] takes care of the compact real forms of $E_6$, $E_7$, $E_8$, $F_4$ and $G_2$. Proposition \[basic\_results\] \[itm:main\_split\] takes care of their split real forms, namely $EI$, $EV$, $EVIII$, $FI$ and $G$; and of the quasi-split real form $EII$.
For the remaining noncompact real forms of exceptional simple Lie algebras, Proposition \[closed\_under\_addition\] together with Proposition \[basic\_results\] \[itm:nontriv\_implies\_radical\] show that it suffices to verify that $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}} \neq 0$ for all $\lambda \in Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ that are primitive ([i.e. ]{}not expressible as the sum of two nonzero elements of $Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$).
The (finite) list of primitive elements of $Q \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ for each exceptionnal simple ${\mathfrak}{g}$ can easily be deduced from the equations defining $Q$ in the basis $(\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_r)$, which are listed for example in Table A.1 in the appendix to [@LFlSm] (see the latest arXiv version, as the journal version was published without the appendix). For each of these weights $\lambda$, we computed the dimension of $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}}$, or in other terms the multiplicity of the trivial representation in the restriction of $V_\lambda$ to ${\mathfrak}{l}$, using branching rules implemented in the software LiE [@LiE]. The results are listed in Table \[tab:dimensions\_excep\_noncompact\]. (Note that we saved ourselves some work by taking advantage of the outer automorphism of $E_6$.) We observe that all these dimensions are indeed nonzero.
Type $A_r$ {#sec:Ar}
==========
We now prove the Main Theorem for ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, which has rank $r = n-1$; for the duration of this section, $n$ is some integer larger than or equal to $2$.
We will start, in Subsection \[sec:Young\], by establishing some notations and terminology about Young tableaux. We will then treat the case ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{su}(p,q)$ in Subsection \[sec:supq\], and the case ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$ in Subsection \[sec:slmH\]. (For the real form ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{R}})$, which is split, the Main Theorem follows from Proposition \[basic\_results\].\[itm:main\_split\].) We will put the pieces together in the brief subsection \[sec:An\_conclusion\].
Young tableaux: notations and definitions {#sec:Young}
-----------------------------------------
We start by establishing the conventions (Definition \[Young\_conventions\]) and notations (Definition \[Young\_notations\]) for the basic manipulation of Young tableaux and diagrams. They will also serve us in the Section \[sec:BCD\].
\[Young\_conventions\] Let $n \geq 0$. A *Young diagram of order $n$* is a top- and left-aligned Young diagram with at most $n$ rows. The *shape* of a Young diagram $\mathcal{P}$ is the $n$-tuple $(\#_1 \mathcal{P}, \ldots, \#_n \mathcal{P})$, where $\#_i \mathcal{P}$ stands for the length of the $i$-th row of $\mathcal{P}$ (see also the next definition); we will often identify the diagram with this tuple.
Let $\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}$ be two Young diagrams. We say that $\mathcal{Q}$ is *contained* in $\mathcal{P}$, denoted by $\mathcal{Q} \subset \mathcal{P}$, if we have $\#_i \mathcal{Q} \leq \#_i \mathcal{P}$ for all $i$. If this is the case, we define the *skew diagram* $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ to be the diagram comprising all the boxes that are in $\mathcal{P}$ but not in $\mathcal{Q}$.
Fix some ordered set $\mathcal{A}$. A *Young tableau on the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$*, denoted for example by $\mathcal{T}$, is a Young diagram $\mathcal{P}$ in which each box is filled with an element of $\mathcal{A}$; we then say that $\mathcal{T}$ is an *$\mathcal{A}$-filling* of $\mathcal{P}$. We define similarly a *skew tableau on the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$*. For $n \geq 0$, a *Young tableau of order $n$* is a $\{1, \ldots, n\}$-filling of a Young diagram of order $n$.
We say that a Young tableau, or skew tableau, is *semistandard* if the values written in its boxes form a strictly increasing sequence along each column (from top to bottom), and a nondecreasing sequence along each row (from left to right).
\[Young\_notations\] If $\mathcal{P}$ is any diagram or tableau, we introduce the following notations (see Figure \[fig:Young\_tableau\_example\] for an illustration):
- For $i \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we denote by ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{P}$ the $i$-th row of $\mathcal{P}$ (from the top).
- For $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we denote by ${
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{P}$ the $j$-th column of $\mathcal{P}$ (from the left).
- For $I \subset {\mathbb{N}}$, we denote by ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{I}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{I}{I}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{P}$ (resp. ${
\def\haut{I}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{I}{I} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{P}$) the subtableau or subdiagram comprising all the rows (resp. columns) of $\mathcal{P}$ indexed by $I$.
- We denote by $\# \mathcal{P}$ the total number of boxes in $\mathcal{P}$.
If $\mathcal{T}$ is any tableau on the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$, we introduce the following notations:
- For $s \in \mathcal{A}$ (resp. $S \in \mathcal{A}$), we denote by ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{s}{{\def\temp{s}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ (resp. ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{S}{{\def\temp{S}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$) the subtableau of $\mathcal{T}$ comprising only the boxes containing the symbol $s$ (resp. symbols from $S$).
- We denote by $\square \mathcal{T}$ the underlying diagram of $\mathcal{T}$, [i.e. ]{}the diagram obtained by erasing all the symbols from all the boxes.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T} &=
\smash[b]{\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,::::<{
\def\haut{4}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{4}{4} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}>,::::<\raisebox{.3ex}{$\downarrow$}>,112224,2333::<\longleftarrow {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{2}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2}{2}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}>,4,5,:~,:~)
\end{tikzpicture}.} &
\square \mathcal{T} &=
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,;;;;;;,;;;;,;,;)
\end{tikzpicture}
= (6, 4, 1, 1, 0); \\
{
\def\haut{4}
\def\bas{2}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{4}{4} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2}{2}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} &= 3; & \# \mathcal{T} &= 6+4+1+1 = 12. \\
{
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{2}{{\def\temp{2}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} &=
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,::;222,2)
\end{tikzpicture}; &
\# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{2}{{\def\temp{2}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} &= 4;\end{aligned}$$
These notations can of course be combined *ad libitum*. For example, $\# {
\def\haut{[1,x]}
\def\bas{[1,y]}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,x]}{[1,x]} \\
\IfValueT{[p,q]}{{\def\temp{[p,q]}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,y]}{[1,y]}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ stands for the total number of occurrences of symbols lying between $p$ and $q$ in the top left $x$-by-$y$ rectangle of $\mathcal{T}$. We also convene that ${
\def\haut{i}
\def\bas{j}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ stands (by slight notation abuse) for the symbol that fills the $(i, j)$-th box of $\mathcal{T}$.
The following simple (and well-known) trick provides a useful point of view for studying semistandard Young tableaux. Define the *thickness* of a skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ as the largest height of one of its columns: $$\textnormal{thickness}(\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}) := \max_j \#^j \left(\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}\right) = \max_j \left(\#^j \mathcal{P} - \#^j \mathcal{Q}\right).$$
\[layering\_trick\] The set of semistandard Young tableaux of order $n$ with underlying diagram $\mathcal{P}$ is in bijection with the set of nested sequences of Young diagrams $$\emptyset = \mathcal{P}_0 \subset \mathcal{P}_1 \subset \cdots \subset \mathcal{P}_n = \mathcal{P}$$ with the property that, for each $s = 1, \ldots, n$, the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}_s/\mathcal{P}_{s-1}$ is a *horizontal strip*, [i.e. ]{}has thickness at most $1$.
Given a semistandard Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$, we associate to it the sequence whose $s$-th term is the diagram comprising the boxes of $\mathcal{T}$ filled with symbols not exceeding $s$, [i.e. ]{}formally we set $\mathcal{P}_s := \square {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{[1,s]}{{\def\temp{[1,s]}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$.
Conversely, given a sequence with the required properties, we associate to it the tableau $\mathcal{T}$ obtained by filling, for each $s = 1, \ldots, n$, all the boxes that appear in the skew tableau $\mathcal{P}_s/\mathcal{P}_{s-1}$ with the symbol $s$.
It is then straightforward to check that these two maps are well-defined and are reciprocal bijections.
It is well-known that Young tableaux of order $n$ are closely related with irreducible representations of ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$: see Proposition \[classical\_character\_formula\] below. More specifically, we can describe the branching rule from ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ to a Levi subalgebra in terms of Young tableaux; this is the content of Proposition \[An\_Levi\_branching\_rule\] below. In order to state these two propositions, we need a few more definitions.
\[sln\_tableau\_concepts\] Note that these definitions are only valid for this section. In Section \[sec:BCD\], when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ will be of type $B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$, we will need to slightly modify them: see Definition \[BCD\_tableaux\_and\_weights\].
\[itm:offset\_and\_shape\] Let $\mathcal{P} = (\#_1 \mathcal{P}, \ldots, \#_n \mathcal{P})$ be a Young diagram of order $n$. We define its *offset* $a(\mathcal{P})$ as its average row length: $$a(\mathcal{P}) := \frac{1}{n}\# \mathcal{P} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \#_i \mathcal{P},$$ and its *${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape* $\lambda$ as the orthogonal projection of the vector $\sum \#_i \mathcal{P} e_i$ onto the Cartan subspace ${\mathfrak}{h}$ of ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$: in other terms, $\lambda = \sum \lambda_i e_i$ with $$\label{eq:lambda_i_and_P_i}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n,\quad \lambda_i := \#_i \mathcal{P} - a(\mathcal{P}).$$ We observe (compare Table \[tab:root\_lattice\_congruences\]) that this $\lambda$ is always an element of $P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$. Given some $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$, the *reduced* Young diagram of ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$ is the one whose $n$-th row has length $0$, or equivalently whose offset is equal to $-\lambda_n$.
\[itm:total\_weight\] We define the *total weight* $\nu(\mathcal{T})$ of a Young tableau or skew tableau $\mathcal{T}$ as $$\label{eq:An_total_weight_definition}
\nu(\mathcal{T}) := \sum_{i, j} \nu\left({
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}\right),$$ where, for all $s = 1, \ldots, n$, we define $\nu(s)$ as the orthogonal projection of $e_s$ onto ${\mathfrak}{h}$: $$\label{eq:An_symbol_interpretation}
\nu(s) := e_s - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n e_i.$$
\[itm:dominance\] Given a linear form $\alpha \in {\mathfrak}{h}^*$, we say that a Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is *$\alpha$-dominant* (resp. *$\alpha$-codominant*) if, whenever we cut $\mathcal{T}$ between two columns, the total weight of the right part (resp. of the left part) has nonnegative (resp. nonpositive) image by $\alpha$. In other terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T} \text{ is $\alpha$-dominant} \quad&:\iff\quad \forall j \geq 0,\quad \alpha \left( \nu \left( {
\def\haut{[j+1,N]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[j+1,N]}{[j+1,N]} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right) \right) \geq 0; \\
\mathcal{T} \text{ is $\alpha$-codominant} \quad&:\iff\quad \forall j \geq 0,\quad \alpha \left( \nu \left( {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right) \right) \leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $N = \#_1 \mathcal{T}$ is the width of $\mathcal{T}$.
In this paper, we will usually consider tableaux of total weight $0$, for which these two properties are obviously equivalent. Dominance is the most natural property in general, but we will find it more convenient to use codominance.
For a subset $\Theta \subset \Pi$, we say that $\mathcal{T}$ is *$\Theta$-(co)dominant* if it is $\alpha$-(co)dominant for all $\alpha \in \Theta$.
We then have the following classical character formula. It is given only for general context; we will not use it directly in the sequel. Recall that the *character* of a representation $V$ is the formal sum $$\label{eq:char_defn}
\operatorname{char}(V) := \sum_{\mu \in {\mathfrak}{h}^*} \left( \dim V^\mu \right) e^\mu,$$ where $V^\mu$ stands for the weight space in $V$ corresponding to the weight $\mu$.
\[classical\_character\_formula\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight of ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$. Then the character of the representation with highest weight $\lambda$ is given by: $$\operatorname{char}(V_\lambda) = \sum_{\mathcal{T}} e^{\nu(\mathcal{T})},$$ where $\mathcal{T}$ runs over all reduced semistandard Young tableaux of order $n$ and of ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$.
For a proof, see [e.g. ]{}[@FulHar], Proposition 15.15 together with the discussion that follows its proof.
We also have the following (closely related) classical branching rule, on which we will rely in the sequel.
\[An\_Levi\_branching\_rule\] Let $\Theta \subset \Pi$ be a set of simple roots of ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, and let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight. Then we have $${{\left. V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g}) \right|}_{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}} = \bigoplus_\mathcal{T} V_{\nu(\mathcal{T})}({\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)),$$ where $\mathcal{T}$ runs over all reduced $\Theta$-dominant semistandard Young tableaux of order $n$ and of ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$.
This is stated in this form in [@Lit90 Theorem 2.2.(b)], and can be deduced from Littelmann’s more general branching rule ([@Lit95 Restriction Rule], restated here as Proposition \[Vl\_in\_terms\_of\_paths\]) by using the ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-analog of Proposition \[BCD\_path\_model\_description\] (that links Littelmann paths with Young tableaux). It was however certainly known before Littelmann; see [@McDo].
Now of course $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}}$ is obtained by selecting, in this decomposition, the summands isomorphic to the trivial representation, [i.e. ]{}such that $\nu(\mathcal{T}) = 0$. So we obtain a criterion for the nontriviality of $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}}$, namely Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\] below. We will however start by introducing one more definition and a couple of remarks, so as to state this criterion in a purely combinatorial way.
We say that a Young tableau or skew tableau $\mathcal{T}$ on an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is *balanced* (with respect to $\mathcal{A}$) if each symbol from $\mathcal{A}$ occurs the same number of times: $$\forall s \in \mathcal{A},\quad \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{s}{{\def\temp{s}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = \frac{1}{\# \mathcal{A}} \# \mathcal{T}.$$ Clearly a Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ of order $n$ is then balanced if and only if it has total weight $0$. Moreover, by construction its total number of boxes is then $n a$, where $a$ is the offset of the diagram underlying $\mathcal{T}$; so $\mathcal{T}$ is balanced if and only if each symbol occurs exactly $a$ times: $$\forall s = 1, \ldots, n,\quad \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{s}{{\def\temp{s}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = a.$$ In particular all balanced Young tableaux have integer offset.
\[Young\_combinatorial\_reformulation\]
\[itm:full\_columns\] Note that any semistandard Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ of order $n$ is obtained from a reduced Young tableau with the same ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape by prepending some number of columns of height $n$, and then there is no choice but to fill each of these columns with all the symbols from $1$ to $n$ in order. These columns have in particular zero total weight, so that they are “invisible” when computing total weight or checking dominance. This explains why we no longer require $\mathcal{P}$ to be reduced in Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\].
\[itm:codominance\] Every simple root $\alpha \in \Pi$ is of the form $\alpha = \alpha_i = e_i - e_{i+1}$, for some $i = 1, \ldots, n-1$. Then $\mathcal{T}$ is $\alpha_i$-codominant if and only if, for any $j$, there are at least as many symbols $i+1$ as symbols $i$ among the first $j$ columns of $\mathcal{T}$: $$\label{eq:codominance_Ar}
\forall j \geq 0,\quad \# {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{i+1}{{\def\temp{i+1}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \geq \# {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{i}{{\def\temp{i}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}.$$
\[characterization\_for\_sln\] Let $\Theta \subset \Pi$ be a set of simple roots of ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$. Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight, and let $\mathcal{P}$ be any Young diagram with ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$.
Then $V^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}_\lambda \neq 0$ if and only if $\mathcal{P}$ admits a $\Theta$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{1, \ldots, n\}$-filling.
Thus we have reduced the proof of the Main Theorem for ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ to a purely combinatorial problem. We will now classify the diagrams that admit such a filling, first for $\Theta = \Theta({\mathfrak}{su}(p,q))$ and then for $\Theta = \Theta({\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}}))$.
The case ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{su}(p, n-p)$ {#sec:supq}
---------------------------------------------------------------
For the duration of this subsection, we fix some $p \leq \frac{n}{2}$, and we assume that ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{su}(p, n-p)$.
Let us then describe $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$. We introduce, for the whole remaining duration of the paper, the following notation shortcuts $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Theta_interval_definition} \Pi_{[x,y]} &:= \{\alpha_x,\; \alpha_{x+1},\; \ldots,\; \alpha_y\} \subset \Pi = \Pi_{[1,r]}; \\
\label{eq:Theta_odd_definition} \Pi_{\operatorname{odd}} &:= {\left\{ \alpha_i \in \Pi \; \middle| \; i \text{ is odd} \right\}},\end{aligned}$$ with the convention $\Pi_{[x,x-1]} = \emptyset$ for all $x$. (Recall that $r$ represents the rank of ${\mathfrak}{g}$; in this section, we have ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ so $r = n-1$.) From [@OV90], Reference Chapter, Table 9, we then get $$\Theta({\mathfrak}{su}(p, n-p)) = \begin{cases}
\Pi_{[p+1,\; n-p-1]} &\text{if } p < \frac{n}{2}; \\
\emptyset &\text{if } p = \frac{n}{2}.
\end{cases}$$
We can in fact reduce ourselves to considering sets $\Theta$ of the form $\Pi_{[1,k-1]}$ (see the final proof in Subsection \[sec:An\_conclusion\] for details). In remains to prove the following combinatorial result, which is the goal of this subsection.
\[supq\_combinatorics\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $n$, and let $k \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. Then $\mathcal{P}$ has a $\Pi_{[1,k-1]}$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{1, \ldots, n\}$-filling if and only if the offset $a$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is integer, and satisfies the inequalities $$\label{eq:su_pq_diagram_inequalities}
\#_k \mathcal{P} \geq a \geq \#_{n-k+1} \mathcal{P}.$$
The proof relies on the following “divide-and-conquer” strategy, which is a straightforward application of the “horizontal strip decomposition” trick (Proposition \[layering\_trick\]). It will also be useful in the next subsection.
\[dominance\_decomposition\] Let $\Theta \subset \Pi$, and suppose that $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$ is such that $\alpha_k = e_k - e_{k+1} \not\in \Theta$. Then a Young diagram $\mathcal{P}$ admits a $\Theta$-codominant, balanced, semistandard $\{1, \ldots, n\}$-filling if and only if there exists a diagram $\mathcal{Q} \subset \mathcal{P}$ such that:
- the Young diagram $\mathcal{Q}$ admits a $(\Theta \cap \Pi_{[1,k-1]})$-codominant, balanced, semistandard $\{1, \ldots, k\}$-filling;
- the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ admits a $(\Theta \cap \Pi_{[k+1,n-1]})$-codominant, balanced, semistandard $\{k+1, \ldots, n\}$-filling;
- the offset of $\mathcal{Q}$ (as a diagram of order $k$) coincides with the offset of $\mathcal{P}$, [i.e. ]{}$$\# \mathcal{Q} = \frac{k}{n} \# \mathcal{P}.$$
In our case, $\Theta \cap \Pi_{[1,k-1]}$ is the whole set $\Pi_{[1,k-1]}$ and $\Theta \cap \Pi_{[k+1,n-1]}$ is empty. It remains to characterize Young diagrams $\mathcal{Q}$ and skew diagrams $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ having these properties; this is respectively the object of the following two lemmas.
\[rectangle\_characterization\] For $k \geq 0$ and $a \geq 0$, define the tableau $\mathcal{R}_k^a$ that is shaped like a rectangle with $k$ rows of length $a$, with, for each $s = 1, \ldots, k$, the $s$-th row filled with the symbol $s$.
Let $k \geq 1$. Then the only $\Pi_{[1,k-1]}$-codominant balanced semistandard Young tableaux of order $k$ are the rectangles $\mathcal{R}_k^a$, for all (integer) offsets $a \geq 0$.
Note that, in the light of Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\], this is equivalent to the (trivial) statement that $V^{\mathfrak}{g}_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g}) \neq 0$ if and only if $\lambda = 0$ (for ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{sl}_k({\mathbb{C}})$). We nevertheless give the combinatorial proof.
We prove this by induction on $k$. For $k = 1$, this is obvious. Now assume this is true for all values $k' < k$, and let $\mathcal{T}$ be a tableau satisfying these properties. Let $a$ be its offset, so that each symbol occurs exactly $a$ times.
The tableau ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{[1,k-1]}{{\def\temp{[1,k-1]}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is a Young tableau of order $k-1$, is still balanced, and is $\Pi_{[1,k-2]}$-codominant; so by the induction hypothesis, it must be equal to $\mathcal{R}_{k-1}^a$. This implies that the tableau ${
\def\haut{[1,a]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,a]}{[1,a]} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ (obtained by truncating $\mathcal{T}$ after the $a$-th column) contains exactly $a$ times the symbol $k-1$. In order to be $\alpha_{k-1}$-codominant, it must also contain at least $a$ times the symbol $k$. This can only happen if the $k$-th row of ${
\def\haut{[1,a]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,a]}{[1,a]} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ has length at least $a$, and is filled with the symbol $k$. This forces ${
\def\haut{[1,a]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,a]}{[1,a]} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = \mathcal{R}_k^a$, hence $\mathcal{T} = \mathcal{R}_k^a$ as well.
\[thin\_skew\_tableaux\_admit\_nice\_filling\] Let $m \geq 0$, and let $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ be a skew diagram. Then it admits a balanced semistandard $\{1, \ldots, m\}$-filling if and only if it has thickness at most $m$ and its number of boxes is divisible by $m$.
The “only if” part is obvious. Conversely, let $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ be a skew diagram of thickness at most $m$ and containing $m a$ boxes, for some integer $a \geq 0$. By Proposition \[layering\_trick\], it suffices to find a Young diagram $\mathcal{P}'$ with the following properties:
$\mathcal{Q} \subset \mathcal{P}' \subset \mathcal{P}$;
$\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{P}'$ contains exactly $a$ boxes, and has thickness at most $1$;
$\mathcal{P}'/\mathcal{Q}$ contains exactly $(m-1)a$ boxes, and has thickness at most $m-1$.
We may then conclude by induction on $m$, filling all boxes of $\mathcal{P}'/\mathcal{Q}$ with the symbols from $1$ to $m-1$ in a balanced and semistandard way, and filling the remaining boxes, namely $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{P}'$, with the symbol $m$.
Denote by $X$ (resp. $Y$) the set of indices $j$ such that the height of the $j$-th column of the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ is exactly $m$ (resp. is nonzero). By the pigeonhole principle, we then have $$\# X \leq a \leq \# Y.$$ We now define $\mathcal{P}'$ by specifying its column heights $\#^j \mathcal{P}'$:
- whenever $j$ is in $X$ or is among the largest $(a - \# X)$ values in $Y \setminus X$, we set $\#^j \mathcal{P}' := \#^j \mathcal{P} - 1$;
- whenever $j$ is among the remaining values in $Y \setminus X$ or outside of $Y$, we set $\#^j \mathcal{P}' := \#^j \mathcal{P}$.
By case distinction, it is straightforward to verify that these column heights do indeed define a valid Young diagram, [i.e. ]{}that they form a nonincreasing sequence. As for the properties (i) through (iii) above, $\mathcal{P}'$ then satisfies them by construction.
We are now ready to prove the proposition.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be any Young diagram with ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$, and let $a$ be its offset. Plugging Lemmas \[rectangle\_characterization\] and \[thin\_skew\_tableaux\_admit\_nice\_filling\] into Lemma \[dominance\_decomposition\], we now see that the $\mathcal{P}$ has a filling with the required properties if and only if $a$ is integer and: $$\label{eq:slaloms_between_rectangles}
\begin{cases}
\text{the rectangular diagram $\square \mathcal{R}_k^a$ is contained in~$\mathcal{P}$;} \\
\text{the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\square \mathcal{R}_k^a$ has thickness at most $n-k$.}
\end{cases}$$
It remains to check that the condition is equivalent to the inequalites , namely $\#_k \mathcal{P} \geq a \geq \#_{n-k+1}\mathcal{P}$. Indeed we have, on the one hand: $$\square\mathcal{R}_k^a \subset \mathcal{P}
\;\iff\; \#^a \mathcal{P} \geq k
\;\iff\; \#_k \mathcal{P} \geq a,$$ and on the other hand: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall j,\quad \#^j \mathcal{P} - \#^j \square\mathcal{R}_k^a \leq n-k
&\;\iff\; \forall j > a,\quad \#^j \mathcal{P} \leq n-k \\
&\;\iff\; \#^{a+1}\mathcal{P} \leq n-k \\
&\;\iff\; \#_{n-k+1}\mathcal{P} \leq a. \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The case ${\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$ {#sec:slmH}
------------------------------------------
Fix some $m \geq 1$. For the duration of this subsection, we assume that $n = 2m$ and that ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$.
From [@OV90], Reference Chapter, Table 9, we then get $$\Theta({\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})) = \Pi_{\operatorname{odd}} = \{e_1 - e_2,\; e_3 - e_4,\; \ldots,\; e_{2m-1} - e_{2m}\}.$$
The Main Theorem for this ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ then follows, by Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\] (see the final proof in Subsection \[sec:An\_conclusion\] for details), from the following combinatorial result. This subsection is dedicated to proving it.
\[slmH\_combinatorics\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $n$. Then it admits a $\Pi_{\operatorname{odd}}$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{1, \ldots, n\}$-filling if and only if its offset $a$ is integer, and it satisfies the inequalities $${ \usetagform{argumenttag} \def\tagargument{$m$}\label{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -p_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{m+1} p_i - \sum_{i=m+2}^{2m} p_i \geq 0 \\
\displaystyle -\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} p_i + \sum_{i=m}^{2m-1} p_i - p_{2m} \leq 0,
\end{cases}$$ with the notation shortcut $p_i := \#_i \mathcal{P}$.
The proof, like the proof of Proposition \[supq\_combinatorics\], relies on Lemma \[dominance\_decomposition\]. However now the situation is more complex: while for $\Theta = \Pi_{[1,k-1]}$ we had a single “cutting point” (namely $k$), here we will “cut” at all the even indices at the same time. More rigorously, we will use $2m-2$ as the cutting point, and then proceed by induction on $m$. Overall, the proof is much more technical than in the previous subsection.
The proof relies on two big lemmas:
- Subsubsection \[sec:skew\_thickness\_two\] is dedicated to proving Lemma \[conditions\_for\_nice\_filling\_of\_skew\_diagram\], which, roughly, gives a condition for the existence of a suitable filling of the “bottom” skew tableau, namely ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{\{2m-1,2m\}}{{\def\temp{\{2m-1,2m\}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T}$.
- Subsubsection \[sec:induction\_step\] is dedicated to proving Lemma \[induction\_step\], which, roughly, deduces the result from the induction hypothesis and from this characterization.
For a more detailed explanation of how these lemmas fit together, see the schematic given in the final proof (Subsubsetion \[sec:slmH\_conclusion\]).
### Skew tableaux of thickness 2 {#sec:skew_thickness_two}
We now give the criterion for the existence of an $\alpha_{2m-1}$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{2m-1, 2m\}$-filling of a skew tableau. Clearly we lose no generality by considering the alphabet $\{1, 2\}$ instead. In order to give this criterion, we first need a definition.
\[bridge\_definition\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $n$, and let $\mathcal{Q}$ be a Young diagram contained in $\mathcal{P}$. The *bridge at height $i$* in $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ is the rectangle formed by all columns $j$ such that $\#^j \mathcal{Q} = i-1$ and $\#^j \mathcal{P} = i$ (see Figure \[fig:bridges\_example\]). For each $i = 1, \ldots, n$, we then denote by $b_i$ the length of the bridge at height $i$.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=13pt,y=13pt] \Yfillcolor{black!20}
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,:::::::::::::_2,,:::::::_3,::::_2,::_1);
\Yfillopacity{0}
\Ylinecolor{black!30}
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;;;,;;;;);
\Ylinecolor{black}
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,::::::::::::;111,::::::::::::;2,:::::::;112,:::;122,1122,22);
\draw[thick, <->](13,-0.5)--(15,-0.5) node[midway,below] {\footnotesize $b_1 = 2$};
\node[below] at (12,-1) {\footnotesize $b_2 = 0$};
\draw[thick, <->](7,-2.5)--(10,-2.5) node[midway,below] {\footnotesize $b_3 = 3$};
\draw[thick, <->](4,-3.5)--(6,-3.5) node[midway,below] {\footnotesize $b_4 = 2$};
\draw[thick, <->](2,-4.5)--(3,-4.5) node[pos=0,below right] {\footnotesize $b_5 = 1$};
\node[below] at (0,-5) {\footnotesize $b_6 = 0$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\[conditions\_for\_nice\_filling\_of\_skew\_diagram\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $n$, and let $\mathcal{Q}$ be a Young diagram contained in $\mathcal{P}$. Then the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ admits an $\alpha_1$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{1, 2\}$-filling if and only if:
\[itm:balanced\_implies\_even\] its total number of boxes $\# \mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ is even;
\[itm:thickness\_2\] it has thickness at most $2$;
\[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\] if we count the total number of boxes in all the bridges, no single bridge contains a majority of them: $$\label{eq:b_no_majority_bridge}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n,\quad b_i \leq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^n b_j.$$
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be any $\{1, 2\}$-filling of the skew-tableau $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$. First of all, note that this filling is semistandard if and only if it satisfies the following properties:
- No columns of height more than $2$ exist (this is condition \[itm:thickness\_2\]).
- Each column of height $2$ is filled with the symbols $1$ and $2$ in that order.
- For every $i$, there exists a number $c_i$ such that $$\label{eq:c_bounds}
0 \leq c_i \leq b_i,$$ with the $i$-th bridge of $\mathcal{T}$ having the first $c_i$ boxes filled with $1$ and the last $b_i - c_i$ boxes filled with $2$.
Assume now that $\mathcal{T}$ is semistandard. Recall that $\alpha_1$-codominance (resp. balancedness) of $\mathcal{T}$ means that the difference $\#{
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{2}{{\def\temp{2}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T} - \#{
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{1}{{\def\temp{1}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T}$ between the number of $2$’s and the number of $1$’s in the first $j$ columns is nonnegative for every $j = 1, \ldots, \#_1 \mathcal{P}$ (resp. is zero for $j = \#_1 \mathcal{P}$). Clearly columns of heights $0$ and $2$ make no contribution to this difference, so it suffices to focus on the bridges. Within the bridge at height $i$, this difference attains its minimum at the $c_i$-th column. Hence a semistandard filling $\mathcal{T}$ is $\alpha_1$-codominant if and only if it satisfies $$\label{eq:c_dominance_condition}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n,\quad \sum_{j=1}^i c_j \leq \frac{1}{2} \left( c_i + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} b_j \right).$$ and balanced if and only if it satisfies $$\label{eq:c_balancedness_condition}
\sum_{i=1}^n c_i = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n b_i.$$
Finally, observe that, when condition \[itm:thickness\_2\] holds, the total number of boxes in $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ has the same parity as the sum $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i$: indeed, the difference between these two numbers simply counts all the boxes in columns of height $2$.
The conclusion now follows from the following lemma.
Given a tuple of integers $(b_1, \ldots, b_n)$, there exists of a tuple of integers $(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$ satisfying conditions , and if and only if the $b_i$ have even sum and satisfy the system .
Suppose first that such a tuple $(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$ exists. Then directly implies that $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i$ is even. Furthermore, subtracting from , we obtain, for all $i = 1, \ldots, n$: $$\sum_{j=i+1}^n c_j \geq \frac{1}{2} \left( c'_i + \sum_{j=i+1}^n b_j \right),$$ where, for all $i$, we set $c'_i := b_i - c_i$. Subtracting both sides from twice the right-hand side, we see that the tuple $(c'_1, \ldots, c'_n)$ then satisfies a condition similar to , but with the order of the bridges reversed: $$\label{eq:c_prime_dominance_condition}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n,\quad \sum_{j=i}^n c'_j \leq \frac{1}{2} \left( c'_i + \sum_{j=i+1}^n b_j \right).$$ Finally, by adding together and , we obtain, for all $i = 1, \ldots, n$: $$\label{eq:b_no_majority_bridge_developed}
\left( \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} c_j \right) + b_i + \left( \sum_{j=i+1}^n c'_j \right) \;\leq\; \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^n b_j.$$ Since the left-hand side is not less than $b_i$ (the other terms are all nonnegative), follows.
Conversely, suppose that the tuple $(b_1, \ldots, b_n)$ has an even sum, that we shall denote by $b$, and satisfies the system . Then consider the tuple $(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$ defined as follows: $$c_i := \begin{cases}
0 &\text{ if } \sum_{j=1}^i b_j \leq \frac{1}{2}b; \\
b_i &\text{ if } \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} b_j \geq \frac{1}{2}b; \\
\frac{1}{2}b - \sum_{j=i+1}^n b_j &\text{ if } \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} b_j < \frac{1}{2}b < \sum_{j=1}^i b_j.
\end{cases}$$ Informally, this corresponds to filling with $2$’s the leftmost $\frac{1}{2}b$ of all the boxes contained in bridges, and with $1$’s the rightmost $\frac{1}{2}b$ of them; and then, if the cut-off point happens to be inside a bridge (which would break row-standardness), we swap the $1$’s and the $2$’s within that bridge (see Figure \[fig:bridges\_example\] for an example). Clearly this tuple satisfies and . Moreover:
- for all $i$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^i b_j \leq \frac{1}{2}b$, clearly $(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$ satisfies the condition ;
- for all $i$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} b_j \geq \frac{1}{2}b$, clearly $(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$ satisfies the condition , which (given and ) is equivalent to ;
- for the index $i$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} b_j < \frac{1}{2}b < \sum_{j=1}^i b_j$ (if it exists), the condition implies the condition , since all the additional terms on the left-hand side vanish. Now , being the sum of the two equivalent inequalities and , is equivalent to both.
### The induction step {#sec:induction_step}
This subsubsection is dedicated to proving the following result, which, when combined with Lemma \[conditions\_for\_nice\_filling\_of\_skew\_diagram\] from the previous subsubsection, provides the induction step for the proof of Proposition \[slmH\_combinatorics\]. More precisely, it provides the equivalence (D) in the outline given in the final proof (Subsubsection \[sec:slmH\_conclusion\]).
In this whole subsubsection, we assume that $m$ is an integer greater or equal than $2$, and $n = 2m$.
\[induction\_step\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $n = 2m \geq 4$. Then $\mathcal{P}$ satisfies the inequalities and has integer offset ([i.e. ]{}$\# \mathcal{P}$ is divisible by $n$) if and only if there exists a Young diagram $\mathcal{Q}$ of order $n-2$ with the following properties:
\[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] $\mathcal{Q}$ satsifies the system , [i.e. ]{}the system with $m$ replaced by $m-1$, which is explicitly: $$\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -q_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{m} q_i - \sum_{i=m+1}^{2m-2} q_i \geq 0 \\
\displaystyle -\sum_{i=1}^{m-2} q_i + \sum_{i=m-1}^{2m-3} q_i - q_{2m-2} \leq 0,
\end{cases}
\tag{\ref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}.$m-1$}$$ with the notation shortcut $q_i := \#_i \mathcal{Q}$;
\[itm:skew\_diagram\_even\] the difference $\# \mathcal{P} - \# \mathcal{Q}$ is even;
\[itm:thickness\_2\_bis\] $\mathcal{Q} \subset \mathcal{P}$, and the skew diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ has thickness at most $2$;
\[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\] no bridge in $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$ contains more boxes than all the remaining bridges combined;
\[itm:proportional\_size\] $\# \mathcal{Q} = \frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P}$.
The proof will require some preliminary work. Proving the “if” part will simply be a matter of rewriting the conditions on $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ as a system of inequalities, and then suitably combining some well-chosen inequalities from this system. The main difficulty lies in proving the “only if” part. Very roughly, the idea is to find such a $\mathcal{Q}$ for a few basic values of $\mathcal{P}$, and then take advantage of additivity. However it will not quite work like this; a slight adaptation will be needed. We will present a more detailed outline after introducing a few basic definitions and notations.
An element of a commutative monoid is *primitive* if it is not the sum of two nonzero elements of the monoid. Clearly, a subset of a monoid is a generating set if and only if it contains all the nonzero primitive elements. The set of nonzero primitive elements is called the *basis* of the monoid.
\[Young\_monoid\_definition\] For each integer $x \geq 0$, we denote by $\mathscr{M}^{(x)}$ the monoid of all the Young diagrams of order $x$, with the addition operation defined by adding the numbers of boxes row-wise: $$\forall i = 1, \ldots, x,\quad \#_i(\mathcal{P} + \mathcal{Q}) := \#_i \mathcal{P} + \#_i \mathcal{Q}.$$ When $x = n$, we will usually omit the index, [i.e. ]{}we set $\mathscr{M} := \mathscr{M}^{(n)}$. We denote by $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}}$ the submonoid of $\mathscr{M}$ determined by the system of linear inequalities . For each integer $k > 0$, we denote by $\mathscr{M}_{k | \#}$ the submonoid of diagrams whose number of boxes divisible by $k$: $$\mathscr{M}_{k | \#} := {\left\{ \mathcal{P} \in \mathscr{M} \; \middle| \; \# \mathcal{P} \in k{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}}.$$ For each $i = 0, \ldots, n$, we define $\mathcal{C}_i \in \mathscr{M}$ to be the diagram consisting of a single column of height $i$. Thus $\mathcal{C}_0 = 0$ is the empty diagram, and $(\mathcal{C}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}_n)$ is a basis of the additive monoid $\mathscr{M}$. (Note that the ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape of $\mathcal{C}_i$ is precisely $\varpi_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n-1$, and is zero for $i = n$.)
In this terminology, in order to prove the “only if” part of Lemma \[induction\_step\], we need to construct, for every diagram $\mathcal{P}$ lying in the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{n | \#}$, a diagram $\mathcal{Q}$ such that the pair $(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q})$ satisfies the conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:proportional\_size\]. We shall soon see (in Lemma \[good\_pairs\_closed\_under\_addition\], combined with the remark that follows it) that the set of such pairs is closed under addition; so it “suffices” to construct such diagrams $\mathcal{Q}$ for the primitive elements $\mathcal{P}$ of the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{n | \#}$.
Unfortunately, the basis of the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{n | \#}$ admits no simple description (for general $n$). To bypass this difficulty, we extend our field of consideration to the (larger) monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2 | \#}$, whose basis, on the contrary, can be readily described. The price to pay is that condition \[itm:proportional\_size\] becomes impossible to satisfy: it could force $\mathcal{Q}$ to have a non-integer number of boxes.
We solve this difficulty by replacing the equation \[itm:proportional\_size\] by a pair of inequalities: we construct, for every such $\mathcal{P}$, two different diagrams $\mathcal{Q}^\pm$, that satisfy conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\], but whose (integer, and even) numbers of boxes bound $\frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P}$ from above and from below. This is the content of Lemma \[horrible\_technical\_part\] below.
\[good\_pairs\_closed\_under\_addition\] The set of pairs $(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q})$ satisfying the conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\] is a submonoid of $\mathscr{M}^{(n)} \oplus \mathscr{M}^{(n-2)}$.
Note that this is (obviously) also true for the condition \[itm:proportional\_size\]; the discussion preceding this lemma explains why we did not include it.
Condition \[itm:skew\_diagram\_even\] is obviously stabe under addition. So is condition \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\], as it is a system of (homogeneous) linear inequalities, [i.e. ]{}a system of the form $$\label{eq:linear_ineq_syst}
\forall i \in I,\quad \phi_i(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) \geq 0,$$ where $(\phi_i)_{i \in I}$ is some family of linear forms, [i.e. ]{}linear maps from $\mathscr{M}^{(n)} \oplus \mathscr{M}^{(n-2)}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$. Condition \[itm:thickness\_2\_bis\] is also of this form: indeed, it is equivalent to the system of inequalities $$\forall i = 1, \ldots, n-2,\quad p_i \geq q_i \geq p_{i+2},$$ which can also be put into form .
The slightly nontrivial part is the additivity of condition \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\]. Let us show that it can, in fact, also be put into form . Indeed, it is given by the formula , that we may also rewrite as $$\label{eq:b_no_bridge_larger_than_others}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n-1,\quad \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{\delta_{ij}}b_j \geq 0,$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta symbol. We replaced here $n$ by $n-1$, because the condition that $\mathcal{Q}$ has order $n-2$ forces $b_n = 0$. Furthermore, by using the identity $\#_i \mathcal{P} \geq j \iff \#^j \mathcal{P} \geq i$ (or just by gazing long enough at Figure \[fig:bridges\_example\]), we can see that the $i$-th bridge length $b_i$ is given by the formula $$\label{eq:bridge_length_formula}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n-1,\quad b_i = \min(q_{i-1}, p_i) - \max(q_i, p_{i+1}),$$ with the convention that $q_0 = +\infty$ and $q_{n-1} = -\infty$.
Plugging into , and rearranging the sum so as to group the terms involving the same row-lengths of $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$, we see that condition \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\] is equivalent to $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{flalign}
& \forall i = 1, \ldots, n-1, &
\end{flalign} \\
\begin{multlined}[\displaywidth]
\qquad (-1)^{\delta_{i1}} p_1 \;\;+\;\; \sum_{\smash{j=1}}^{n-1} \left( -(-1)^{\delta_{i,j-1}} \max(q_{j-1}, p_j)\right. +\\ \left. +(-1)^{\delta_{ij}} \min(q_{j-1}, p_j) \right) \;\;-\;\; (-1)^{\delta_{i,n-1}}p_n \geq 0. \nonumber
\end{multlined}\end{gathered}$$ Using the identities $\max(x, y) + \min(x, y) = x+y$ and $\max(x, y) - \min(x, y) = |x-y|$, we can once again rephrase condition \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:no_majority_bridge}
\forall i = 1, \ldots, n &- 1, \\
&\Bigg( \sum_{\substack{j = 1 \\ j \;\neq\; i, i+1}}^n T_j \Bigg) - \hat{T}_i + \hat{T}_{i+1} \;\geq\; 0,
\tag{\theequation.$i$}\end{aligned}$$ where we set: $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 &:= p_1 &\text{and}\qquad \hat{T}_1 &:= p_1; \\
\forall j = 2, \ldots, n-1,\quad
T_j &:= - |q_{j-1} - p_j| &\text{and}\qquad
\hat{T}_j &:= q_{j-1} + p_j; \\
T_n &:= -p_n &\text{and}\qquad \hat{T}_n &:= p_n.\end{aligned}$$ Each of these inequalities is *a priori* nonlinear, of the form $$\phi_0(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) - \sum_{j=1}^N |\phi_j(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q})| \geq 0,$$ where $\phi_0, \phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N$ are some linear forms (depending on $i$). But any such inequality can be rewritten as a system of $2^N$ linear inequalities: indeed it is equivalent to $$\label{eq:absolute_values_expansion}
\forall (\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_N) \in \{\pm 1\}^N,\quad \phi_0(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) - \sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j \phi_j(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) \geq 0. \qedhere$$
\[horrible\_technical\_part\] Let $\mathscr{B}'$ be the basis of the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2 | \#}$. Then for each Young diagram $\mathcal{P} \in \mathscr{B}'$, there exist two Young diagrams $\mathcal{Q}^+(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathcal{Q}^-(\mathcal{P})$ of order $n-2$ with the following properties:
- Both pairs $(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}^+)$ and $(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}^-)$ satisfy conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\] from Lemma \[induction\_step\].
- The total number of boxes in $\mathcal{Q}^-$ is the largest even number not exceeding $\frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P}$, and symmetrically for $\mathcal{Q}^+$: $$\label{eq:Q_pm_size}
\begin{cases}
\# \mathcal{Q}^- = 2 \left\lfloor \frac{1}{2} \frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P} \right\rfloor; \\
\# \mathcal{Q}^+ = 2 \left\lceil \frac{1}{2} \frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P} \right\rceil.
\end{cases}$$
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be an element of $\mathscr{M}$, and let $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ be its coordinates in the basis $(\mathcal{C}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}_n)$ introduced in Definition \[Young\_monoid\_definition\]. Then the inequalities can be rewritten in terms of the $x_i$ as $${ \usetagform{argumenttag} \def\tagargument{$m$}\label{eq:slmH_lambda_condition_rewritten}}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \min(i-2,\; n-i) x_i \geq 0; \\
\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \min(i,\; n-i-2) x_i \geq 0
\end{cases}$$ (recall that $n = 2m$). For example, is $$\tag{\ref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition_rewritten}.$4$}
\systeme{
-x_1 + x_3 + 2x_4 + 3x_5 +2x_6 + x_7 \geq 0,
x_1 + 2x_2 + 3x_3 + 2x_4 + x_5 - x_7 \geq 0.
}$$
It is then easy to see that the basis $\mathscr{B}$ of the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}}$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{B} = &{\left\{ \vphantom{\Big(}\mathcal{C}_i \; \middle| \; 2 \leq i \leq n-2 \right\}} \cup \{\mathcal{C}_n\} \cup {} \nonumber \\
&\cup {\left\{ \vphantom{\Big(}\mathcal{C}_i + a\mathcal{C}_1 \; \middle| \; 0 < a \leq \min(i-2,\; n-i) \right\}} \cup \nonumber \\
&\cup {\left\{ \vphantom{\Big(}\mathcal{C}_i + a\mathcal{C}_{n-1} \; \middle| \; 0 < a \leq \min(i,\; n-i-2) \right\}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now consider a diagram $\mathcal{P} \in \mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2|\#}$. Its decomposition as a sum of elements of $\mathscr{B}$ will then involve an even number of odd-sized diagrams (where by “size” we mean the number of boxes). Denoting by $\mathscr{B}_{\text{even}}$ (resp. $\mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}}$) the subset of $\mathscr{B}$ comprising the diagrams of even (resp. odd) size, we obtain that the set $$\mathscr{B}_{\text{even}} \cup \Big( \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} + \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} \Big)$$ (where the “$+$” sign denotes the Minkowski, or elementwise, sum) generates the monoid $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2|\#}$.
It remains to eliminate the non-primitive elements. Clearly all elements of $\mathscr{B}_{\text{even}}$, being already primitive in $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}}$, are still primitive in $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2|\#}$. Now let $\mathcal{P}$ be some element of $\Big( \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} + \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} \Big)$, [i.e. ]{}a sum of two elements of $\mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}}$. Then necessarily it is of the form $$\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{C}_i + \mathcal{C}_j + a \mathcal{C}_1 + b \mathcal{C}_{n-1}$$ where $a, b \geq 0$, and $i$ and $j$ satisfy $2 \leq i \leq j \leq n-2$. We claim that, if either $a$ or $b$ is nonzero, then this element is not primitive. Indeed:
- Suppose that $a > 0$ and $b > 0$. Then we have, possibly up to exchanging $i$ and $j$: $$\mathcal{C}_i + a \mathcal{C}_1 \in \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathcal{C}_j + b \mathcal{C}_{n-1} \in \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}}.$$ From this, we deduce that, in the decomposition $$\mathcal{P} = \Big( \mathcal{C}_i + (a-1) \mathcal{C}_1 \Big) + \Big( \mathcal{C}_j + (b-1) \mathcal{C}_{n-1} \Big) + \Big( \mathcal{C}_1 + \mathcal{C}_{n-1} \Big),$$ all three terms are still in $\mathscr{B}$ (using the fact that $n \geq 4$), but have even number of boxes; [i.e. ]{}they are in $\mathscr{B}_{\text{even}}$. So $\mathcal{P}$ is not primitive.
- Suppose that $a > 0$ and $b = 0$. Then necessarily the decomposition of $\mathcal{P}$ as a sum of two elements of $\mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}}$ is of the form $$\mathcal{P} = \Big( \mathcal{C}_i + a_i \mathcal{C}_1 \Big) + \Big( \mathcal{C}_j + a_j \mathcal{C}_1 \Big).$$ In particular this means that both of the sums $a_i + i$ and $a_j + j$ are odd. On the other hand, from the assumption $a_i + a_j = a > 0$ we get that at least one of $a_i$ or $a_j$ must be positive.
Exchanging if necessary $i$ and $j$, assume that $a_i > 0$. Then we can rewrite $\mathcal{P}$ as $$\mathcal{P} = \Big( \mathcal{C}_i + (a_i - 1) \mathcal{C}_1 \Big) + \Big( \mathcal{C}_j + (a_j + 1) \mathcal{C}_1 \Big).$$ In this new decomposition, clearly both summands have even number of boxes; let us justify that they are both still in $\mathscr{B}$. For the first summand, this is obvious. As for the second summand, it suffices to see that, since $\min(j-2,n-j)$ always has the same parity as $j$ but $a_j$ has opposite parity, the inequality $a_j \leq \min(j-2,n-j)$ is in fact necessarily strict. We conclude that $\mathcal{P}$ is not primitive.
- The case $a = 0$ and $b > 0$ is analogous.
On the other hand, it is easy to see that the remaining elements of $\Big( \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} + \mathscr{B}_{\text{odd}} \Big)$ are primitive. It follows that $$\mathscr{B}' = \mathscr{B}_{\text{even}} \cup {\left\{ \mathcal{C}_i + \mathcal{C}_j \; \middle| \; 2 \leq i \leq j \leq n-2 \text{ with } i, j \text{ odd} \right\}}.$$
We now define, for each element $\mathcal{P} \in \mathscr{B}'$, two diagrams $\mathcal{Q}^-(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathcal{Q}^+(\mathcal{P})$ as given in Table \[tab:table\_of\_Ps\_and\_Qs\]. It remains only to check that, for each $\mathcal{P}$, both $\mathcal{Q}^-(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathcal{Q}^+(\mathcal{P})$ satisfy all of the required properties.
=0ex =0ex
- Checking that $\mathcal{Q}^-$ and $\mathcal{Q}^+$ have the correct number of boxes, [i.e. ]{}that they satisfy , is an immediate computation. In particular $\# \mathcal{Q}^-$ and $\# \mathcal{Q}^+$ are even; by assumption, so is $\# \mathcal{P}$; this yields condition \[itm:skew\_diagram\_even\].
- The fact that both $\mathcal{Q}^-$ and $\mathcal{Q}^+$ are well-defined and of order $n-2$ ([i.e. ]{}that all the terms $\mathcal{C}_k$ that comprise them satisfy $0 \leq k \leq 2m-2$), that they are contained in $\mathcal{P}$, and that the skew diagrams $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}^-$ and $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}^+$ have thickness at most $2$ (condition \[itm:thickness\_2\_bis\]) is apparent by inspection.
- We also notice that all of these skew diagrams have either no bridges at all, or exactly $2$ bridges of length $1$. In particular they satisfy condition \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\].
- Finally, for condition \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] [i.e. ]{} , it is helpful to rewrite it as : explicitly, for a diagram $\mathcal{Q} = \sum_{i=1}^{n-2} y_i \mathcal{C}_i$, the system is equivalent to $$\tag{\ref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition_rewritten}.$m-1$}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-3} \min(i-2,\; n-i-2) y_i \geq 0; \\
\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-3} \min(i,\; n-i-4) y_i \geq 0.
\end{cases}$$ Checking this for all the diagrams $\mathcal{Q}^\pm$ is somewhat tedious, but straightforward.
We are now ready to conclude this subsubsection.
- Assume first that a diagram $\mathcal{Q}$ satisfying conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:proportional\_size\] exists.
Then condition \[itm:skew\_diagram\_even\] combined with \[itm:proportional\_size\] implies that $\# \mathcal{P}$ is divisible by $n$.
Now consider condition \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\]: we have seen that it is equivalent to the system of inequalities . Consider specifically , [i.e. ]{}the first inequality of that system: $$-p_1 + q_1 + p_2 - \sum_{i=2}^{n-2}|q_i - p_{i+1}| - p_n \geq 0.$$ We may then expand this into a system of the form . That system contains among others the inequality $$-p_1 + q_1 + p_2 + \sum_{i=2}^{m} (-q_i + p_{i+1}) + \sum_{i=m+1}^{2m-2} (q_i - p_{i+1}) - p_{2m} \geq 0,$$ that we may rewrite as $$-p_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{m+1} p_i - \sum_{i=m+2}^{2m} p_i \;\;\geq\;\; -q_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{m} q_i - \sum_{i=m+1}^{2m-2} q_i;$$ and the first part of becomes a consequence of the first part of .
Similarly, by using the inequality , we deduce the second part of from the second part of .
- Conversely, let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram satisfying the assumptions, [i.e. ]{}let $\mathcal{P}$ be in $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{n | \#}$, which (since $n$ is even) is a submonoid of $\mathscr{M}_{\eqref{eq:slmH_lambda_condition}} \cap \mathscr{M}_{2 | \#}$. As announced, we take advantage of additivity by decomposing it as $$\mathcal{P} = \sum_{l=1}^N \mathcal{P}_{l},$$ with each $\mathcal{P}_{l}$ lying in the basis $\mathscr{B}'$ of the latter monoid. We then set, for each $k = 0, \ldots, N$: $$\mathcal{Q}_{k} := \sum_{l=1}^k \mathcal{Q}^-(\mathcal{P}_{l}) + \sum_{l=k+1}^N \mathcal{Q}^+(\mathcal{P}_{l}),$$ where $\mathcal{Q}^\pm(\mathcal{P}_l)$ are the diagrams constructed in Lemma \[horrible\_technical\_part\]. By construction of these diagrams and by Lemma \[good\_pairs\_closed\_under\_addition\], it follows that each of the pairs $(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}_{k})$ satisfies conditions \[itm:slmH\_mu\_condition\] through \[itm:no\_majority\_bridge\_bis\]. On the other hand, also by construction, the numbers $$\# \mathcal{Q}_{0},\; \# \mathcal{Q}_{1},\; \ldots, \# \mathcal{Q}_{N}$$ are all even, form a nondecreasing sequence with consecutive terms differing by at most $2$, and satisfy $$\# \mathcal{Q}_{0} \leq \frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P} \leq \# \mathcal{Q}_{N}.$$ This implies that for a suitable choice of $k$, we have $$\# \mathcal{Q}_{k} = \frac{n-2}{n} \# \mathcal{P}$$ as required.
### The case ${\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$: conclusion {#sec:slmH_conclusion}
It remains to put everything together.
As announced, we proceed by induction on $m$.
For $m = 1$, we have $\Theta = \{\alpha_1\} = \Pi$, and reduces to the condition $p_1 = p_2$. The result is then a particular case of Lemma \[rectangle\_characterization\] (for $k = 2$).
Assume now that $m \geq 2$, and that the result is true for $m-1$. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a Young diagram of order $2m$. The result for $\mathcal{P}$ then follows by combining the lemmas proved so far, along the following outline:
[2]{}[1.5]{}
Here “has $\Theta_m$-cbsf” is shorthand for “has a $\{\alpha_1, \alpha_3, \ldots, \alpha_{2m-1}\}$-codominant balanced semistandard $\{1, 2, \ldots, 2m\}$-filling”, and the symbol $\vdash$ is taken to mean “satisfies”. Naturally, $b_i$ here stands for the length of the $i$-th bridge (see Definition \[bridge\_definition\]) of the skew-diagram $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q}$. The ingredients of the proof are then as follows:
- equivalence (A) is the (obvious) “divide-and-conquer” Lemma \[dominance\_decomposition\], applied to $k = 2m-2$;
- equivalence (B) is the induction hypothesis;
- equivalence (C) is Lemma \[conditions\_for\_nice\_filling\_of\_skew\_diagram\] (the main result of Subsubsection \[sec:skew\_thickness\_two\]);
- equivalence (D) is Lemma \[induction\_step\] (the main result of Subsubsection \[sec:induction\_step\]).
Also the condition “$\#\mathcal{Q} \in (2m-2){\mathbb{Z}}$” is marked as redundant, as it follows from $\#\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{Q} \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$ together with $\#\mathcal{Q} = \frac{m-1}{m}\#\mathcal{P}$.
The case ${\mathfrak}{g} = A_r$: conclusion {#sec:An_conclusion}
-------------------------------------------
We are now ready to complete the proof of the Main Theorem when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $A_r$, where $r = n-1$ is some positive integer. Almost all of the substantial work has been done in the previous subsections; it just remains to put the pieces together.
- For the real form ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ which is split, the Main Theorem follows from Proposition \[basic\_results\].\[itm:main\_split\], as we have already noted in the introduction to this section.
Note that the same argument goes for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{su}(p,n-p)$ when $n = 2p$ or $n = 2p+1$: indeed, we then have $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) = \emptyset$, which is easily seen to be equivalent to ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ being quasi-split. But these cases are also covered in the next point.
- For ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{su}(p,n-p)$ with arbitrary $p$, the result follows from Proposition \[supq\_combinatorics\], applied to $k = n-2p$ if $p < \frac{n}{2}$ or $k = 1$ otherwise. Indeed, given the formula linking $\lambda_i$ and $\#_i \mathcal{P}$, we see that:
- $\mathcal{P}$ has integer offset if and only if its ${\mathfrak}{sl}_n$-shape $\lambda$ has integer coordinates $\lambda_i$ (in the basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$), which is equivalent (see Table \[tab:root\_lattice\_congruences\]) to $\lambda \in Q$;
- $\lambda$ satisfies the inequalities listed in the appropriate line of Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\] if and only if $\mathcal{P}$ satisfies the inequalities , for the given value of $k$.
On the other hand, the condition $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ can be translated via Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\].
It remains to explain how we pass from the set $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ to the set $\Pi_{[1,k-1]}$. If $p = \frac{n}{2}$, then both sets are empty, hence equal. Otherwise, we have $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) = \Pi_{[p+1,\; n-p-1]}$ and $\Pi_{[1,k-1]} = \Pi_{[1,\;n-2p-1]}$; and these two sets are mapped to each other by a certain element of the Weyl group (which acts by permutation of the indices $1, \ldots, n$). Hence the corresponding Levi subalgebras, say ${\mathfrak}{l}_1$, ${\mathfrak}{l}_2$, are conjugate in $G_{\mathbb{R}}= \operatorname{SU}(p, n-p)$, so that the two spaces $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}_{1,2}}$ have the same dimension.
- For ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$, the result follows from Proposition \[slmH\_combinatorics\]. Indeed, the condition $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$ has simply been translated via Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\]. Moreover, as in the previous point, we have $a \in {\mathbb{Z}}\iff \lambda \in Q$. Finally, the inequalities are simply a homogeneous version of the inequalities appearing in the line ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sl}_m({\mathbb{H}})$ of Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\]: we substituted $\lambda_i = p_i - a$, and then expanded the $a$ terms in terms of the $p_i$ (instead of passing $a$ to the right-hand side, as we did for ${\mathfrak}{su}(p,n-p)$).
Types $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$: the setup {#sec:BCD}
=======================================
The goal of this section is to obtain Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\], which is a purely combinatorial characterization of the weights $\lambda$ such that $V^{\mathfrak}{l}_\lambda \neq 0$ in the case when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$, analogous to Corollary \[characterization\_for\_sln\] from the previous section. It will allow us, in the next section, to actually classify these weights $\lambda$.
This criterion relies on so-called “${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux”, which play in types $B$, $C$ and $D$ the same role as ordinary semistandard Young tableaux in type $A$. More generally, these tableaux lead to a combinatorial character formula (Proposition \[BCD\_character\_formula\]) in types $B$, $C$ and $D$, analogous to Proposition \[classical\_character\_formula\] in type $A$, which may be of indepent interest. In types $B$ and $C$, this character formula already appears (without proof) in [@Lit90 Appendix A.2]. In type $D$, a similar formula appears (also without proof) in [@Lit90 Appendix A.3], but our formula constitutes a slight improvement, as discussed in the introduction (Subsubsection \[sec:intro\_dYt\]).
All of this work is based on the Littelmann path model (that gives a character formula for any semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$), whose construction we briefly recall in Subsection \[sec:Littelmann\].
In Subsection \[sec:Bruhat\], we explain how to describe the path model based on a long starting path in terms of the path models based on its segments, using the Bruhat order. This part is also essentially due to Littelmann.
Starting from this point, we specialize to the case where ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B$, $C$ or $D$. In Subsection \[sec:Young\_order\], we present a characterization of the Bruhat order in terms of Young tableaux, given some (reasonable) assumptions. This simple characterization is the key point that allows us to simplify the definition of the “doubled Young tableaux” in type $D$.
In Subsection \[sec:admissible\], we describe the path model on a “short” starting path of the form $e_1 + \ldots + e_{k-1} \pm e_k$, in terms of so-called “admissible pairs” (a notion due to Lakshmibai-Seshadri and Littelmann); and we give an explicit combinatorial description of these admissible pairs.
Finally, in Subsection \[sec:dYt\], we define a ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau, and give the announced character formula and Levi branching rule in terms of these tableaux.
The Littelmann path model {#sec:Littelmann}
-------------------------
In this subsection, we briefly recall Littelmann’s path technique, that provides a character formula for representations of an arbitrary semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$ (Proposition \[Littelmann\_character\_formula\]), as well as a branching rule from ${\mathfrak}{g}$ to any Levi subalgebra (Proposition \[Vl\_in\_terms\_of\_paths\]).
\[path\_notations\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be the set of continuous piecewise-linear paths in ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ starting at $0$, [i.e. ]{}maps $\pi: [0,1] \to {\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ such that $\pi(0) = 0$, considered up to reparametrization (by any increasing homeomorphism $[0,1] \to [0,1]$). We denote by $\mathscr{P}^+$ the subset of $\mathscr{P}$ formed by paths lying entirely within the Weyl chamber ${\mathfrak}{h}^+$.
For all $\nu \in {\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$, we identify $\nu$ with the linear path $${
\entrymodifiers={+!!<0pt,\fontdimen22\textfont2>}
\xymatrix@R=3pt{\llap{$\nu:$\;\;} {[0,1]} \ar@{->}[r] & {{\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}} \\ {t} \ar@{|->}[r] & {t\nu;}}
}$$ and, given two paths $\pi, \rho \in \mathscr{P}$, we define the concatenated path $\pi * \rho$ by $${
\entrymodifiers={+!!<0pt,\fontdimen22\textfont2>}
\xymatrix@R=3pt{\llap{$\pi * \rho:$\;\;} {[0,1]} \ar@{->}[r] & {{\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}} \\ {t} \ar@{|->}[r] & {\begin{cases}
\pi(2t) & \text{ for } t \leq \frac{1}{2} ; \\
\pi(1) + \rho(2t-1) & \text{ for } t \geq \frac{1}{2}. \end{cases}}}
}$$
For every simple root $\alpha \in \Pi$, Littelmann introduces two functions $e_\alpha$ and $f_\alpha$ from $\mathscr{P} \sqcup \{0\}$ to itself; we refer to [@Lit95 Section 1] for their definition. Here $0$ denotes a special element, that can be considered as the zero of the free ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module generated by $\mathscr{P}$; it is not to be confused with the constant zero path, about which we will never need to talk.
For every $\pi \in \mathscr{P}$, we define the *path model* corresponding to $\pi$ as the smallest subset $B_{\pi} \subset \mathscr{P}$ containing $\pi$ and such that $B_{\pi} \sqcup \{0\}$ is closed under all the operators $e_\alpha$ and $f_\alpha$, for all simple roots $\alpha \in \Pi$.
\[Littelmann\_character\_formula\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight of ${\mathfrak}{g}$. Choose any starting path $\pi^+ \in \mathscr{P}^+$ having endpoint $\pi^+(1) = \lambda$. Then the endpoints of the paths in $B_{\pi^+}$ describe the character of the representation with highest weight $\lambda$: $$\operatorname{char}(V_\lambda) = \sum_{\pi \in B_{\pi^+}} e^{\pi(1)}.$$
For every set $\Theta \subset \Pi$ of simple roots, let us define the “$\Theta$-dominant Weyl chamber” $$\label{eq:Theta_dom_Weyl_chamber}
{\mathfrak}{h}^{\Theta, +} := {\left\{ X \in {\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})} \; \middle| \; \forall \alpha \in \Theta,\; \alpha(X) \geq 0 \right\}},$$ which is just the dominant Weyl chamber of the reductive algebra ${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)$. Then we have:
Let $\lambda$ and $\pi^+$ be as before, and let $\Theta \subset \Pi$ be some set of simple roots. Then the subset $B_{\pi^+}^{\Theta}$ of $B_{\pi^+}$ formed by paths lying entirely within ${\mathfrak}{h}^{\Theta, +}$ parametrizes the decomposition of the restriction of the representation $V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g})$ to ${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)$ into irreducibles, in the following way: $${{\left. V_\lambda({\mathfrak}{g}) \right|}_{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}} = \bigoplus_{\pi \in B_{\pi^+}^{\Theta}} V_{\pi(1)}({\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)).$$
As a corollary, this allows us to compute the dimension of $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}$, which is just the multiplicity of the trivial representation of ${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)$ in that decomposition:
\[Vl\_in\_terms\_of\_paths\] Let $\lambda$, $\pi^+$ and $\Theta$ be as before. Then we have $$\dim V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)} = \# {\left\{ \pi \in B_{\pi^+}^{\Theta} \; \middle| \; \pi(1) = 0 \right\}}.$$
The Bruhat order {#sec:Bruhat}
----------------
In this subsection, we give a partial characterization (essentially due to Littelmann) of the path model $B_{\pi^+}$, given some fairly natural assumptions on the starting path $\pi^+$ (Proposition \[path\_model\_loc\_int\_concat\]). These assumptions are in particular satisfied by all starting paths of the form $$\label{eq:dominant_integral_segments}
\pi^+ = \nu^+_1 * \cdots * \nu^+_N$$ where each $\nu^+_i$ is a dominant integral weight; both Littelmann’s and our choice of a starting path for ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of types $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$ follow this pattern. For such paths $\pi^+$, we shall then decompose this result into two subresults.
- The first part (Corollary \[long\_path\_model\_characterization\]) is a characterization of the path model $B_{\pi^+}$ in terms of the path models $B_{\nu^+_i}$ corresponding to its segments.
- The second part (Corollary \[short\_path\_model\_characterization\]) will be given only later, in subsection \[sec:admissible\]. It consists of a description of each of these path models $B_{\nu^+_i}$, assuming that $\nu^+_i$ is “small enough”.
The main tool for this characterization is the so-called Bruhat order, whose definition we now recall.
The *Bruhat order* $\preceq_B$ is the partial order on $W$ defined as the transitive closure of the relations $${\left\{ w \preceq s_\alpha w \; \middle| \; w \in W,\; \alpha \in \Delta \text{ such that } \ell(w) < \ell(s_\alpha w) \right\}},$$ where $\ell(w)$ stands for the length of $w$ as a word on the generators ${\left\{ s_\alpha \; \middle| \; \alpha \in \Pi \right\}}$.
The following classical characterization (see [e.g. ]{}Proposition 3.2.14.(4) in [@CS]) of such pairs $(\alpha, w)$ is useful to have in mind:
\[Bruhat\_order\_characterization\] For all $w \in W$ and $\alpha \in \Delta^+$, we have $\ell(s_\alpha w) > \ell(w)$ if and only if $\alpha \in w \Delta^+$, or equivalently if and only if $$\label{eq:Bruhat_order_characterization}
\forall X \in {\mathfrak}{h}^+,\quad \alpha(w X) \geq 0.$$
We now use the Bruhat order to define the notion of a “Bruhat-nondecreasing” tuple of elements on ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$. Note however that such a tuple can not, in general, be thought of as a sequence that is nondecreasing for some partial order on ${\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$: indeed, the relationship of forming a Bruhat-nondecreasing pair is not transitive (see Example \[Bruhat\_not\_transitive\]).
\[Bruhat\_tuple\_definition\] Let $\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N \in {\mathfrak}{h}_{({\mathbb{R}})}$ be some weights. We say that the tuple $(\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N)$ is *Bruhat-nondecreasing* (once again, this is *not* a transitive relation, see Example \[Bruhat\_not\_transitive\]) if there exist some elements $w_i \in W$ such that:
- for every $i = 1, \ldots, N$, the weight $\nu_i$ lies in the Weyl chamber $w_i {\mathfrak}{h}^+$;
- we have $w_1 \preceq_B \ldots \preceq_B w_N$.
We say that a path $\pi$ is *Bruhat-nonincreasing* if the segments $(\nu_N, \ldots, \nu_1)$ of its subdivision $\pi = \nu_1 * \cdots * \nu_N$ into linear segments form a Bruhat-nondecreasing tuple.
(The order inversion between tuples and paths is explained by the order inversion that we will see in Definition \[BCD\_tableaux\_and\_weights\], more precisely in .)
\[Bruhat\_not\_transitive\] For ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{so}_6({\mathbb{C}})$, take $\nu_1 = \frac{1}{2}(- e_1 - e_2 + e_3)$, $\nu_2 = \frac{1}{2}(e_1 - e_2 + e_3)$ and $\nu_3 = e_1$. Then:
- the pair $(\nu_1, \nu_2)$ is Bruhat-nondecreasing: take for example $w_1 = w_2 = w$ with $w: (e_1, e_2, e_3) \mapsto (e_3, -e_2, -e_1)$;
- the pair $(\nu_2, \nu_3)$ is Bruhat-nondecreasing: take for example $w_2 = w_3 = w'$ with $w': (e_1, e_2, e_3) \mapsto (e_1, e_3, e_2)$;
- the pair $(\nu_1, \nu_3)$, and *a fortiori* the triple $(\nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3)$, is *not* Bruhat-nondecreasing. We will be easily able to check this once we obtain Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\].
We also need one final short definition.
Let $\pi$ be a path, $\pi = \nu_1 * \cdots * \nu_N$ its subdivision into linear segments. We define the *multishape* of $\pi$ to be the path $\pi^+ = \nu^+_1 * \cdots * \nu^+_N$, where, for each $i$, $\nu^+_i$ is the unique dominant element of the Weyl orbit of $\nu_i$: $$\{\nu^+_i\} := W \nu_i \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+.$$
Here is now the announced result.
\[path\_model\_loc\_int\_concat\] Let $\nu^+_1, \ldots, \nu^+_N$ be some dominant weights such that the path $\pi^+ = \nu^+_1 * \cdots * \nu^+_N$ is a locally integral concatenation (see [@Lit97 Definition 5.3]). Then a path $\pi$ lies in $B_{\pi^+}$ if and only if it is a locally integral concatenation and has multishape $\pi^+$.
By Proposition 5.9 in [@Lit97], local integrality is preserved by the root operators. The multishape is obviously invariant by the root operators. Denoting by $\hat{B}_{\pi^+}$ the set of locally integral concatenations with multishape $\pi^+$, it then follows from Lemma 6.11 in [@Lit97] that $$\hat{B}_{\pi^+} = \bigcup_{\pi \in \hat{B}_{\pi^+} \cap \mathscr{P}^+} B_{\pi}.$$ It remains to check that the only path with multishape $\pi^+$ that is a locally integral concatenation and lies entirely within ${\mathfrak}{h}^+$ is $\pi^+$ itself. Indeed, let $\pi$ be such a path; replacing if necessary $(\nu^+_1, \ldots, \nu^+_N)$ by a finer subdivision (whose concatenation then remains locally integral), we may assume that $\pi$ is of the form $$\pi = w_1 \nu^+_1 * \cdots * w_N \nu^+_N,$$ with $w_1 \succeq_B \cdots \succeq_B w_N$. It is then easy to verify, by induction on $k$ (and using Lemma \[Bruhat\_order\_characterization\]), that we have $w_k \nu^+_l = \nu^+_l$ for all $k, l$ such that $k \geq l$.
And here, as announced, is the interpretation of this result as a “divide-and-conquer” strategy.
\[long\_path\_model\_characterization\] Let $\nu^+_1, \ldots, \nu^+_N \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be some dominant integral weights, and let $\pi^+ = \nu^+_1 * \cdots * \nu^+_N$. Then a path $\pi$ lies in $B_{\pi^+}$ if and only if it is Bruhat-nonincreasing and of the form $\pi = \pi_1 * \cdots * \pi_N$, with $\pi_k \in B_{\nu^+_k}$ for each $k$.
The “only if” part is an immediate consequence of the previous proposition (Proposition \[path\_model\_loc\_int\_concat\]) and of the combination of Lemma 6.12 and Theorem 6.13 from [@Lit97].
For the “if” part, we only need to remark that if each of the paths $\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_N$ is a weakly locally integral concatenation and ends at an integral weight, then their concatenation is automatically weakly locally integral. Here by “weakly locally integral concatenation” we mean a path that satisfies all of the conditions from Definition 5.3 in [@Lit97], except possibly Bruhat-nonincreasingness.
The Young order {#sec:Young_order}
---------------
For these values of ${\mathfrak}{g}$, we will consider Littelmann paths whose segments lie (up to a very occasional $\frac{1}{2}$ factor) in the set $$\label{eq:infinity_norm_one}
\mathcal{X} := \{-1,0,1\}^r \setminus \{0\}$$ of vectors with integer coordinates (in the basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_r)$) that have $\|\cdot\|_\infty$-norm $1$. We will encode these vectors as “strongly-standard” columns ([i.e. ]{}Young tableaux of width $1$) on a certain alphabet: this is the object of Definitions \[alphabet\], \[strong\_stand\_col\] and \[cols\_vs\_weights\].
We then introduce (Definition \[Young\_order\]) a “Young order” on the set $\mathscr{C}$ of such columns, with an additional parity condition when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$. This leads us to the central result of this subsection: Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\], which says that, for a sequence of elements of $\mathcal{X}$ whose Weyl orbits are ordered in some natural way, being Bruhat-nondecreasing is equivalent to being nondecreasing for the Young order (or Young order with parity). In other terms, this assumption on the ordering of the Weyl orbits gets rid of the nontransitivity issues outlined in Example \[Bruhat\_not\_transitive\].
\[alphabet\] We introduce the alphabet $$\mathcal{A}_r := \{1, \ldots, r, \overline{r}, \ldots, \overline{1}\};$$ we also set $\mathcal{A} := \bigcup_{r \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{A}_r = {\mathbb{N}}\cup \overline{{\mathbb{N}}}$. We adopt the convention $\overline{\overline{s}} = s$, and we define an *absolute value* function $|\cdot|: \mathcal{A} \to {\mathbb{N}}$ and a *sign* function $\operatorname{sgn}: \mathcal{A} \to \{\pm 1\}$ by identifying $\overline{s}$ with $-s$.
We introduce on $\mathcal{A}_r$ two very similar orders:
- the total order $\preceq_{\mathcal{A}}$ given by $$1 \prec \cdots \prec r \prec \overline{r} \prec \cdots \prec \overline{1};$$
- the not quite total order $\preceq'_{\mathcal{A}}$ given by $$1 \prec' \cdots \prec' r-1 \prec' r, \overline{r} \prec' \overline{r-1} \prec' \cdots \prec' \overline{1},$$ [i.e. ]{}$r$ and $\overline{r}$ are both larger than $r-1$ and both smaller than $\overline{r-1}$ for this order, but neither is larger than the other.
The order that we shall use will depend on ${\mathfrak}{g}$: more precisely, we set $$\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{\mathcal{A}} := \begin{cases}
\preceq_{\mathcal{A}} & \text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$;} \\
\preceq'_{\mathcal{A}} & \text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$.}
\end{cases}$$ However the total order $\preceq_{\mathcal{A}}$ will occasionally be useful even in type $D_r$ (see Remark \[semistandard\_with\_parity\_is\_semistandard\]).
\[strong\_stand\_col\] Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a column ([i.e. ]{}a Young tableau of width $1$) filled with this alphabet. We say that $\mathcal{C}$ is *strongly standard* if, for each $s$, it contains at most one of the symbols $s$ and $\overline{s}$, and the symbols read from top to bottom form a strictly increasing sequence for the order $\prec_{\mathcal{A}}$ (or equivalently for the order $\prec'_{\mathcal{A}}$): $$\forall i < i',\quad
\begin{cases}
\overline{{
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}} \neq {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i'}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i'}{i'}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}; \\
{
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} \prec_{\mathcal{A}} {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i'}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i'}{i'}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}.
\end{cases}$$ We denote by $\mathscr{C}$ the set of all strongly standard columns.
\[cols\_vs\_weights\] We define the *weight* of a strongly standard column $\mathcal{C}$ to be the vector $$\nu(\mathcal{C}) := \sum_{i=1}^{\# \mathcal{C}} \nu\left( {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} \right),$$ with the function $\nu$ defined on $\mathcal{A}_r$ by $$\forall s = 1, \ldots, r,\quad
\begin{cases}
\nu(s) := e_s; \\
\nu(\overline{s}) := -e_s.
\end{cases}$$ This map $\nu$ then induces a bijection between $\mathscr{C}$ and the set $\mathcal{X}$ introduced in , that we shall henceforth identify with $\mathscr{C}$.
We now introduce an order on the set $\mathscr{C}$ of strongly standard columns. In types $B_r$ and $C_r$, we use the “Young order”, which simply encodes the notion of a semistandard Young tableau (a Young tableau is semistandard if and only if its columns form a nondecreasing sequence for this order); in type $D_r$, we use the Young order with an additional parity condition.
\[Young\_order\] We endow the set $\mathscr{C}$ (and, using the identification $\nu$, also the set $\mathcal{X}$) with an order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$, that once again depends on ${\mathfrak}{g}$: we set $$\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y := \begin{cases}
\preceq_Y & \text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$,} \\
\preceq'_Y & \text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$;}
\end{cases}$$ it remains to explain what $\preceq_Y$ and $\preceq'_Y$ are.
1. We define the *Young order* $\preceq_Y$ by saying that $\mathcal{C} \preceq_Y \mathcal{C}'$ if and only if the two columns set next to each other form a semistandard Young tableau for the order $\preceq_{\mathcal{A}}$. Formally: $$\label{eq:Young_order_definition}
\mathcal{C} \preceq_Y \mathcal{C}' :\iff
\begin{cases}
\# \mathcal{C} \geq \# \mathcal{C}'; \\
\forall i = 1, \ldots, \# \mathcal{C}',\quad {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} \preceq_A {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}'.
\end{cases}$$
2. We define the *Young order with parity* $\preceq'_Y$ by saying that $\mathcal{C} \preceq'_Y \mathcal{C}'$ if and only if the two columns set next to each other form a semistandard Young tableau for the order $\preceq'_{\mathcal{A}}$, and this tableau satisfies the following additional condition: whenever it contains a rectangle of width $2$ and height $k$ that contains only symbols with absolute value greater than $r-k$, the total number of symbols in that rectangle that are in ${\mathbb{N}}$ ([i.e. ]{}are without bars) must be even: $$\begin{gathered}
\text{if } \exists i_0, k \text{ with } 1 \leq i_0 \leq i_0 + k-1 \leq \# \mathcal{C}' \text{ such that } \nonumber \\
\label{eq:parity_condition} \left\{ \left| {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i_0}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_0}{i_0}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C} \right|,\; \ldots,\; \left| {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i_0+k-1}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_0+k-1}{i_0+k-1}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C} \right| \right\} = \left\{ \left| {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i_0}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_0}{i_0}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C}' \right|,\; \ldots,\; \left| {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i_0+k-1}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_0+k-1}{i_0+k-1}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C}' \right| \right\} = \{r-k+1,\; \ldots,\; r\}, \\
\text{then } \#{
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C} \equiv \#{
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{C}' \pmod{2}. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ One easily checks that this relation is transitive.
\[semistandard\_with\_parity\_is\_semistandard\] Note that the case $k = 1$ of the condition tells us that in a tableau whose columns form a $\preceq'_Y$-nondecreasing sequence, $r$ and $\overline{r}$ can never occur next to each other. So such a tableau will in particular be semistandard, not only for the partial order $\preceq'_{\mathcal{A}}$, but also for the total order $\preceq_{\mathcal{A}}$; and, for that matter, also for the total order $\preceq''_{\mathcal{A}}$ in which $r$ and $\overline{r}$ are swapped: $$1 \prec'' \cdots \prec'' r-1 \prec'' \overline{r} \prec'' r \prec'' \overline{r-1} \prec'' \cdots \prec'' \overline{1}.$$
Finally, as announced, we explain how the Young order (in types $B_r$ and $C_r$) or the Young order with parity (in type $D_r$) is related to the Bruhat order. The remainder of this subsection is dedicated to proving the following proposition.
\[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\] Let $\mathcal{C}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}_N \in \mathscr{C}$, and let $\nu_i := \nu(\mathcal{C}_i)$ be the corresponding weights. Then:
for ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of type $B_r$ or $C_r$, the sequence $(\mathcal{C}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}_N)$ is Young-nondecreasing if and only if: $$\begin{cases}
(\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N) \text{ is Bruhat-nondecreasing}; \\
\|\nu_1\|^2 \geq \cdots \geq \|\nu_N\|^2.
\end{cases}$$
for ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of type $D_r$, the sequence $(\mathcal{C}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{C}_N)$ is Young-nondecreasing with parity if and only if: $$\begin{cases}
(\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N) \text{ is Bruhat-nondecreasing}; \\
\|\nu_1\|^2 \geq \cdots \geq \|\nu_N\|^2; \\
\text{all $\nu_i$ such that $\|\nu_i\|^2 = r$ lie in the same $W$-orbit.}
\end{cases}$$
In order to prove this proposition, we need some preliminary work. Recall that a partially ordered set $(X, \preceq)$ can be characterized by its *Hasse diagram*, [i.e. ]{}the oriented graph whose vertices are the elements of $X$, with two vertices $x, y$ connected by an edge if and only if $y$ “covers” $x$, [i.e. ]{}$$x \preceq y \text{ and } {\left\{ z \; \middle| \; x \preceq z \preceq y \right\}} = \{x, y\}.$$ We then have the following description of the Hasse diagram of the order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$, for both ${\mathfrak}{g} = B_r$ or $C_r$ and ${\mathfrak}{g} = D_r$.
\[hasse\_edges\_description\] Let $\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}'$ be two strongly standard columns. Then the pair $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}')$ is an edge of the Hasse diagram for $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$ if and only if it has one of the following forms:
$\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}'$ have the same height, and differ in only one box:
\[eq:hasse\_edges\_description\] $$\label{eq:hasse_skip}
(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}') = \left(\,
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,s,\vdts)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\, ,\;
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,t,\vdts)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\,\right)$$ with $s \prec_\mathcal{A}^{{\mathfrak}{g}} t$ and such that for every symbol $x$ satisfying $s \prec_\mathcal{A}^{{\mathfrak}{g}} x \prec_\mathcal{A}^{{\mathfrak}{g}} t$, the value $\overline{x}$ is contained in some box of $\mathcal{C}$ (and of $\mathcal{C}'$).
$\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}'$ have the same height, and differ in only two boxes: $$\label{eq:hasse_swap}
(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}') = \left(\,
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,s,\vdts,<\overline{t}>,\vdts)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\, ,\;
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,t,\vdts,<\overline{s}>,\vdts)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\,\right)$$ with $s$ and $t$ such that $(s, t)$ is an edge of the Hasse diagram for the order $\preceq_\mathcal{A}^{{\mathfrak}{g}}$.
$\mathcal{C}'$ is equal to $\mathcal{C}$ with the last box removed: $$\label{eq:hasse_truncate}
(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}') = \left(\,
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,s)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\, ,\;
{\footnotesize}\Yboxdim{12pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\tgyoung(0cm,0cm,\vdts,:~)
\end{tikzpicture}
\normalsize
\,\right)$$
with $s$ a maximal element (for the order $\preceq_\mathcal{A}^{{\mathfrak}{g}}$) among the symbols that do not occur in $\mathcal{C}'$.
We omit the proof, which is a somewhat tedious but elementary exercise in combinatorics.
Before proving Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\], we also need to decompose the $W$-invariant set $\mathcal{X}$ into $W$-orbits, which is equivalent to describing the set $\mathcal{X}^+ := \mathcal{X} \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$, as we have $\mathcal{X} = \bigcup_{v \in \mathcal{X}^+} W v$. Setting, for all $k = 1, \ldots, r$, $$\label{eq:model_weight_definitions}
c_k := \sum_{i=1}^k e_i;\quad c^+_r := c_r;\quad c^-_r := c_{r-1} - e_r,$$ we have $$\label{eq:model_weights}
\mathcal{X}^+ = \begin{cases}
\{c_1, \ldots, c_r\} &\text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$~is of type $B_r$ or~$C_r$}; \\
\{c_1, \ldots, c_{r-1}, c_r^+, c_r^-\} &\text{ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$~is of type $D_r$}.
\end{cases}$$ This set is almost totally ordered by the restriction of the order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$, except in type $D_r$ where $c_r^+$ and $c_r^-$ are incomparable. More precisely, we have: $$\forall v, v' \in \mathcal{X}^+,\quad v \preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y v' \quad:\iff\quad v = v' \text{ or } \|v\|^2 > \|v'\|^2.$$
We are now ready for the proof.
- The “if” part is now equivalent to proving that the application map $${
\entrymodifiers={+!!<0pt,\fontdimen22\textfont2>}
\xymatrix@R=3pt{\llap{$\pi:$\;\;} {W \times \mathcal{X}^+} \ar@{->}[r] & {\mathcal{X}} \\ {(w, v)} \ar@{|->}[r] & {w v}}
}$$ is order-preserving, where $W \times \mathcal{X}^+$ is endowed with the product order $\preceq_B \times \preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$ and $\mathcal{X}$ is endowed with the order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$. This further reduces to proving the two identities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall (w, v) \in W \times \mathcal{X}^+,\;\; \forall \alpha \in \Delta^+, &&\ell(w) < \ell(s_\alpha w) \implies w v \preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y s_\alpha w v; \\
&\forall w \in W,\;\; \forall k = 1, \ldots, r-1, &&w c^\pm_{k+1} \preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y w c_k.\end{aligned}$$ The first identity easily follows from the characterization ; and the second identity is straightforward.
- Conversely, assume now that the sequence $(\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N)$ is nondecreasing for the order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$. Then clearly the Young ordering ensures that the heights of the columns $\|\nu_i\|^2 = \# \mathcal{C}_i$ form a nonincreasing sequence, and (in type $D_r$) the parity condition ensures that all the columns of height $r$ lie in the same Weyl orbit. It remains to prove that the sequence $(\nu_1, \ldots, \nu_N)$ is Bruhat-nondecreasing.
This can be proved by exhibiting a section $$\xi: \mathcal{X} \to W,$$ [i.e. ]{}a map such that every vector $\nu \in \mathcal{X}$ lies in the Weyl chamber $\xi(\nu) {\mathfrak}{h}^+$, which is also order-preserving.
We construct $\xi$ as follows. Let $\nu \in \mathcal{X}$, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be the corresponding strongly standard column; let $k = \# \mathcal{C} = \|\nu\|^2$. We define $\xi(\nu)$ as the unique element of $W$ whose action on $\{\pm e_1, \ldots, \pm e_r\}$, that we identify with $\mathcal{A}_r$ as usual, satisfies:
- for all $i \leq k$ (except possibly $i = r$ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$), we have $\xi(\nu) \cdot i = {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}$;
- $|\xi(\nu) \cdot (k+1)| < |\xi(\nu) \cdot (k+2)| < \cdots < |\xi(\nu) \cdot r|$;
- for all $i > k$ (except possibly $i = r$ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$), we have $\operatorname{sgn}(\xi(\nu) \cdot i) = -1$.
It is then straightforward to verify that $\xi$ is indeed a section. As for the fact that it is order-preserving, it suffices to check it on the edges of the Hasse diagram, which we have described in Lemma \[hasse\_edges\_description\]. Let $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}')$ be such a pair. We then easily check that:
- If $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}')$ is of the form or , then we have $$\label{eq:hasse_step_further_description}
\xi(\mathcal{C}') = s_\alpha \circ \xi(\mathcal{C}) \quad\text{with}\quad \alpha = e_s - e_t,$$ with the obvious convention $e_s := -e_{\overline{s}}$ if $s \in \overline{\mathbb{N}}$. By the characterization , we then immediately get that $\xi(\mathcal{C}) \preceq_B \xi(\mathcal{C}')$ as desired.
- If $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}')$ is of the form , then we simply have $\xi(\mathcal{C}') = \xi(\mathcal{C})$.
Admissible pairs {#sec:admissible}
----------------
We now give a reformulation of Proposition \[path\_model\_loc\_int\_concat\] when applied to “short” starting paths: this is Corollary \[short\_path\_model\_characterization\] (in its notations, “short” means that $k$ is small). We then further specify it to starting paths that lie in the set $\mathcal{X}^+$ introduced in the previous section.
\[short\_path\_model\_characterization\] Let $\nu^+ \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight, and consider the integer $k := \max_{\alpha \in \Delta} | \langle \nu^+, \alpha^\vee \rangle |$ (recall the notation $\alpha^\vee := \frac{2\alpha}{\|\alpha\|}$). Then:
\[itm:minuscule\] If $k = 1$ ([i.e. ]{}$\nu^+$ is minuscule), then $B_{\nu^+}$ is just the $W$-orbit of $\nu^+$.
\[itm:seconscule\] If $k \leq 2$, then $B_{\nu^+}$ is the set of paths $\pi$ of the form $$\pi = \textstyle (\frac{1}{2} \nu_1) * (\frac{1}{2} \nu_2)$$ with $\nu_1, \nu_2$ two elements of the $W$-orbit of $\nu^+$ that form an admissible pair, in the sense of [@Lit90] (definition given in Remark 3.4, and originally due to [@LS86 Definition 2.4]).
Note that this result is actually true for arbitrary ${\mathfrak}{g}$; and similar statements can be obtained for $k \leq 3$ (using the notion of an “admissible quadruple”, see [@Lit90 Definition 3.4]), $k \leq 4$ (leading to some notion of “admissible sextuple”) and higher values of $k$. But we go back to our assumption that ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$, for which these cases do not occur.
More specifically, we now consider the case where $\nu^+$ lies in the set $\mathcal{X}^+$: clearly, all of its elements satisfy $k \leq 2$. In order to characterize the path model for these starting paths, it remains to give an explicit combinatorial characterization of admissible pairs (in terms of strongly standard columns). This is the subject of the following proposition, whose proof is the main goal of this subsection.
\[admissible\_pair\_characterization\] Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}'$ be two strongly standard columns. Let $0 \leq a_1 < b_1 < \ldots < a_k < b_k \leq r$ be integers such that $${\left\{ \left| {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} \right| \; \middle| \; i = 1, \ldots, \# \mathcal{C} \right\}} = \bigcup_{i=1}^k \{a_i+1, a_i+2, \ldots, b_i\};$$ and, for every $i$, let $x_i$ denote the number of symbols in $\mathcal{C}$ whose absolute value lies in the interval $\{a_i+1, \ldots, b_i\}$ and that have sign $+1$. Define similarly integers $a'_1 < b'_1 < \ldots < a'_{k'} < b'_{k'}$ and $x'_i$ for $\mathcal{C}'$.
Then the pair of weights $(\nu(\mathcal{C}), \nu(\mathcal{C}'))$ is admissible if and only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
1. \[itm:adm\_Young\] $\mathcal{C} \succeq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y \mathcal{C}'$;
2. \[itm:adm\_same\_height\] $\# \mathcal{C} = \# \mathcal{C}'$;
3. \[itm:adm\_same\_decomp\] $k = k'$ and, for all $i = 1, \ldots, k$, $a_i = a'_i$ and $b_i = b'_i$;
4. \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\] for all $i = 1, \ldots, k$, the integers $x_i$ and $x'_i$ satisfy the following condition: $$\begin{cases}
\text{no restriction} &\text{if $b_i = r$ and ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$}; \\
x_i \equiv x'_i \pmod{2} &\text{if $b_i = r$ and ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$}; \\
x_i = x'_i &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\[admissible\_pairs\_of\_height\_n\] An important particular case of this proposition is the case of two columns of height $r$. For a column $\mathcal{C}$ of height $r$, we necessarily have $k = 1$, $(a_1, b_1) = (0, r)$, and $x_1 = \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}$. Now consider a pair $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}')$ of columns of height $r$, and let us additionally assume that they satisfy the condition \[itm:adm\_Young\]. Then conditions \[itm:adm\_same\_height\] and \[itm:adm\_same\_decomp\] are automatically true; as for condition \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\]:
- if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, it is also automatically true.
- if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$, it reduces to $\# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} \equiv \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}' \pmod{2}$, which is a consequence of the parity condition .
- if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $C_r$, it reduces to $\# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} = \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C}'$, which together with \[itm:adm\_Young\] forces $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{C}'$.
To summarize, in types $B_r$ and $D_r$, any pair of columns of height $r$ that satisfies \[itm:adm\_Young\] is admissible; whereas in type $C_r$, the only admissible pairs of columns of height $r$ are of the form $(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C})$.
Unpacking the definition (and taking into account Lemma \[Bruhat\_order\_characterization\]), we see that $\nu(\mathcal{C})$ and $\nu(\mathcal{C}')$ form an admissible pair if and only if one can pass from $\mathcal{C}'$ to $\mathcal{C}$ by a series of steps of the form $s_\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in \Pi$, where:
- An operation of the form $s_{e_i - e_{i+1}}$ (for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$) is admissible only if both of the symbols $i$ and $\overline{i+1}$ occur somewhere; it then replaces them by $i+1$ and $\overline{i}$ respectively.
- The operation $s_{e_{r-1} + e_r}$ is admissible only if both of the symbols $r-1$ and $r$ occur somewhere; it then replaces them by $\overline{r}$ and $\overline{r-1}$ respectively.
- The operation $s_{e_r}$ is admissible only if the symbol $r$ occurs somewhere; it then replaces it by $\overline{r}$.
- The operation $s_{2e_r}$ is never admissible.
Clearly each of these operations satisfies the conditions \[itm:adm\_Young\] through \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\], which are transitive; this proves the “only if” part.
Conversely, suppose that a pair of columns ($\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{C}'$) satisfies these four conditions. Let us then find a path going from $\mathcal{C}'$ to $\mathcal{C}$ in the Hasse diagram of the order $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$. Using Lemma \[hasse\_edges\_description\] and the description , we then easily check that each step of this path is an admissible operation (as described above).
Doubled Young tableaux {#sec:dYt}
----------------------
We are now ready to define a ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau, and to show (Proposition \[BCD\_path\_model\_description\]) that these tableaux describe the path model with starting path $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$ as given in . This yields the announced character formula (Proposition \[BCD\_character\_formula\]). We also give a combinatorial characterization (Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\]) of representations $V_\lambda$ satisfying $V^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)}_\lambda \neq 0$ for any Levi subalgebra ${\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)$ (where $\Theta \subset \Pi$), accompanied by a slightly modified version of this result (Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\_without\_sign\]) that exploits the outer automorphism of $D_r$, and will save us some work in the next section.
As we already mentionedin the introduction (Subsubsection \[sec:intro\_dYt\]), the following object is similar to the object defined in the appendix of [@Lit90], but is not identical: in type $D_r$, we replace the complicated condition (3) by the simpler condition \[itm:dsYt\_Young\].
\[tableau\_definition\] A *${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau* is a Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ on the alphabet $\mathcal{A}_r$ with the following properties:
1. \[itm:dsYt\_stst\] All columns of $\mathcal{T}$ are strongly standard: $$\forall j = 1, \ldots, \#_1 \mathcal{T},\quad {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \in \mathscr{C}.$$
2. \[itm:dsYt\_Young\] The sequence formed by the columns of $\mathcal{T}$ is Young-nondecreasing if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$, Young-nondecreasing with parity if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$: $$\forall j = 2, \ldots, \#_1 \mathcal{T},\quad {
\def\haut{j-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j-1}{j-1} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}.$$
3. \[itm:dsYt\_adm\] The columns form admissible pairs when grouped two by two starting from the right, [i.e. ]{}for all $j$ such that $1 < j \leq \#_1 \mathcal{T}$ and $j \equiv \#_1 \mathcal{T} \pmod{2}$, the pair $({
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}, {
\def\haut{j-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j-1}{j-1} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T})$ is admissible.
In order to verify \[itm:dsYt\_adm\], in practice, it suffices to check that every such pair satisfies conditions \[itm:adm\_same\_decomp\] (which implies \[itm:adm\_same\_height\]) and \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\] from Proposition \[admissible\_pair\_characterization\], since condition \[itm:adm\_Young\] is already covered by \[itm:dsYt\_Young\]. Note that the two columns are taken here “in the wrong order”, because the order of the columns in the Young tableau is backwards compared to the direction of the corresponding path (see below).
\[why\_doubled\] It is possible to extend this definition, and all the work done in the previous two subsections, also to the case where ${\mathfrak}{g} = A_r$, so that Proposition \[BCD\_path\_model\_description\] (suitably modified) remains true. However in this case, it turns out that two columns form an admissible pair only if they are equal (essentially because all the fundamental weights of $A_r$ are minuscule). So an $A_r$-standard doubled Young tableau is just an ordinary semistandard Young tableau, with every column repeated twice. We would then recover the character formula of Proposition \[classical\_character\_formula\] as a particular case of Proposition \[BCD\_character\_formula\].
\[BCD\_tableaux\_and\_weights\] Given a ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$, we define:
the *corresponding path* $$\label{eq:tableau_to_path}
\pi(\mathcal{T}) := \textstyle \left(\frac{1}{2} \nu({
\def\haut{N}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{N}{N} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T})\right) * \cdots * \left(\frac{1}{2} \nu({
\def\haut{1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{1}{1} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T})\right)$$ (where $N = \#_1 \mathcal{T}$), whose segments are the weights corresponding to the columns of $\mathcal{T}$ scaled by $\frac{1}{2}$ and taken in the reverse order.
the *total weight* of $\mathcal{T}$ as $$\label{eq:BCD_total_weight_definition}
\nu(\mathcal{T}) := \pi(\mathcal{T})(1) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{\#_1 \mathcal{T}} \nu({
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j} \nu({
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}).$$ Note that, in comparison with Definition \[sln\_tableau\_concepts\].\[itm:total\_weight\], there is an extra factor $\frac{1}{2}$: in fact, it is reasonable to think of doubled Young tableaux as having columns “of width $\frac{1}{2}$”.
We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is *null* if $\nu(\mathcal{T}) = 0$.
the *sign* $\epsilon$ of $\mathcal{T}$ as follows:
- If ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$, we adopt the convention that $\epsilon$ is always equal to $+1$.
- If ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$ and $\#_r \mathcal{T} > 0$, we take $\epsilon = (-1)^x$, where $x$ is the number of symbols with bars in any column of height $r$. (Note that the parity condition , whose prerequisite is automatically satisfied with $(i_0, k) = (1, r)$ for columns of height $r$, ensures that $\epsilon$ does not depend on the choice of the column).
- If ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$ but $\#_r \mathcal{T} = 0$, we adopt the convention that $\epsilon = 0$.
for $\alpha \in \Pi$ or $\Theta \subset \Pi$, we define *$\alpha$-(co)dominance* and *$\Theta$-(co)dominance* for doubled Young tableaux in the same way as for ordinary Young tableaux (see Definition \[sln\_tableau\_concepts\].\[itm:dominance\]). The factor $\frac{1}{2}$ does not change anything here, as this definition only involves signs of total weights. Clearly a doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is $\Theta$-dominant if and only if the path $\pi(\mathcal{T})$ lies entirely within the $\Theta$-dominant Weyl chamber ${\mathfrak}{h}^{\Theta, +}$, as defined in .
\[dominance\_explicit\] We can of course rephrase this last property in purely Young-tableau-theoretic terms. For example for $\alpha = e_i - e_{i+1}$, a doubled Young tableau is $\alpha$-codominant if and only if it satisfies $$\label{eq:codominance_BCD}
\forall j \geq 0,\quad \# {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{\overline{i}}{{\def\temp{\overline{i}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} + {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{i+1}{{\def\temp{i+1}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \geq \# {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{\overline{i+1}}{{\def\temp{\overline{i+1}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} + {
\def\haut{[1,j]}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{[1,j]}{[1,j]} \\
\IfValueT{i}{{\def\temp{i}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$$ (compare this with ), and similar formulas exist for $\alpha = e_r$, $2e_r$ or $e_{r-1} + e_r$.
Finally, we introduce a correspondence $\Psi$ between the set $P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ of dominant integral weights $\lambda$ and the set $\mathscr{M}^{(r)}$ of Young diagrams of height $r$. It is given by the formula $$\label{eq:psi_definition}
\left(\#_1 \Psi(\lambda), \ldots, \#_r \Psi(\lambda)\right) := (2\lambda_1, \ldots, 2\lambda_{r-1}, 2|\lambda_r|),$$ where, as usual, we decompose $\lambda = \sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i e_i$.
\[BCD\_path\_model\_description\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight of ${\mathfrak}{g}$. Then the set of paths $\pi(\mathcal{T})$, where $\mathcal{T}$ runs over all ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux of shape $\Psi(\lambda)$ with the same sign as $\lambda_r$, is equal to the path model $B_{\pi^+_0(\lambda)}$.
Recall that the starting path $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$ we are using here is defined as $$\pi^+_0(\lambda) := (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) c_1 * \cdots * (\lambda_r - \lambda_{r-1}) c_{r-1} * |\lambda_r| c_r^{\operatorname{sgn}(\lambda_r)}.$$
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be any doubled Young tableau, $\pi(\mathcal{T})$ the corresponding path. Our goal is to apply Corollary \[long\_path\_model\_characterization\]. Note that:
- It is straightforward to check that $\mathcal{T}$ has shape $\Psi(\lambda)$ and sign $\operatorname{sgn}(\lambda_r)$ if and only if $\pi(\mathcal{T})$ has multishape $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$.
- Assuming that this is the case, it follows from Proposition \[Bruhat\_vs\_Young\] that the columns of $\mathcal{T}$ form a nondecreasing sequence for the order $\preceq_Y^{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ if and only if the path $\pi(\mathcal{T})$ is Bruhat-nonincreasing.
On the other hand, from the integrality of $\lambda$, it follows that all the coefficients in the decomposition are integer, except possibly $|\lambda_r|$ which can be half-integer when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $D_r$. So let us decompose $\pi^+_0(\lambda)$ into a concatenation that first involves $\lfloor \lambda_1 \rfloor$ segments chosen among elements of the set $\mathcal{X}^+ = \mathcal{X} \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ (recall ) and then possibly ends with a segment equal to $\frac{1}{2} c_r^\pm$; and then apply Corollary \[long\_path\_model\_characterization\] to this decomposition.
We now conclude by Corollary \[short\_path\_model\_characterization\]. Indeed, we have already remarked that all weights $\nu \in \mathcal{X}^+$ satisfy $\max_{\alpha \in \Delta} |\langle \nu, \alpha^\vee \rangle| \leq 2$; as for the weights $\frac{1}{2} c_r$ (if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$) and $\frac{1}{2} c_r^\pm$ (if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$), they are minuscule.
1. If ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $D_r$, then the way we have cut the subpath $|\lambda_r| c_r^{\pm}$ into segments is somewhat arbitrary: we could have just as well decomposed it into any other combination of segments $\frac{1}{2} c_r^{\pm}$ and $c_r^{\pm}$, or, for that matter, exclusively into segments $\frac{1}{2} c_r^{\pm}$. We could have used any of these decompositions to write an alternative definition of a ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau. But all of these definitions would have been equivalent, thanks to Remark \[admissible\_pairs\_of\_height\_n\]: indeed, for pairs of columns of height $r$ (no matter the parity), the condition \[itm:dsYt\_adm\] automatically follows from the first two conditions.
2. If ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $C_r$, then the weight $c_r$ is in fact minuscule. This is also consistent with Remark \[admissible\_pairs\_of\_height\_n\]: in type $C_r$, two columns of height $r$ form an admissible pair if and only if they coincide.
\[no\_unpaired\_column\] From the characterization of $P$ given in Table \[tab:root\_lattice\_congruences\], one can easily see that *every* ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is in fact of shape $\Psi(\lambda)$ for some integral weight $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$. In particular its weight $\nu(\mathcal{T})$ is then one of the weights of the representation $V_\lambda$, hence the difference $\lambda - \nu(\mathcal{T})$ lies in the root lattice $Q$.
If the tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is null (which will always be the case in the sequel), this condition reduces to $\lambda \in Q$, which implies (we refer once again to Table \[tab:root\_lattice\_congruences\]) that all the $\lambda_i$ are integer. Hence all the row lengths of $\mathcal{T}$ are even; and in condition \[itm:dsYt\_adm\], the admissible pairs form a partition of all columns of $\mathcal{T}$, without any unpaired column.
By combining this with the Littelmann character formula (Proposition \[Littelmann\_character\_formula\]), we obtain the following, purely combinatorial character formula.
\[BCD\_character\_formula\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ be a dominant integral weight of ${\mathfrak}{g}$. Then the character of the representation with highest weight $\lambda$ is given by: $$\operatorname{char}(V_\lambda) = \sum_{\mathcal{T}} e^{\nu(\mathcal{T})},$$ where $\mathcal{T}$ runs over all ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux of shape $\Psi(\lambda)$ that have the same sign as $\lambda_r$.
This is of course very similar to Proposition \[classical\_character\_formula\]; keep in mind, though, that the definition of $\nu(\mathcal{T})$ has now slightly changed .
We can also combine this with Corollary \[Vl\_in\_terms\_of\_paths\] to obtain a purely combinatorial characterization of representations having ${\mathfrak}{l}$-invariant vectors:
\[combinatorial\_characterization\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ and $\Theta \subset \Pi$. Then $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)} \neq 0$ if and only if there exists a doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ satisfying the following seven conditions:
1. through \[itm:dsYt\_adm\] as in Definition \[tableau\_definition\], [i.e. ]{}the tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard.
2. \[itm:null\_total\_weight\] The tableau is null: $\nu(\mathcal{T}) = 0$.
3. \[itm:shape\] The tableau has shape $\Psi(\lambda) = (2\lambda_1, \ldots, 2\lambda_{r-1}, 2|\lambda_r|)$.
4. \[itm:sign\] The tableau has the same sign as $\lambda_r$ (if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$).
5. \[itm:l-codominant\] The tableau is $\Theta$-codominant (recall that, for null tableaux, codominance is equivalent to dominance).
We end this section with an additional small simplification: we can in fact get rid of condition \[itm:sign\]. Indeed, when we will study the properties satisfied by such tableaux, we will simply make no use of this property. When we will try to construct such tableaux, we will get around having to check this condition by way of the following (obvious) remark. Let $\sigma$ denote the outer automorphism of $D_r$: it acts on ${\mathfrak}{h}$ by $$\sigma(e_i) = \begin{cases}
e_i &\text{if } i < r; \\
-e_r &\text{if } i = r,
\end{cases}$$ and correspondingly on $\mathcal{A}_r$ by exchanging $r$ and $\overline{r}$.
\[Dn\_automorphism\] The set of $D_r$-standard doubled Young tableaux is invariant by $\sigma$. If $\mathcal{T}$ is such a tableau, then:
- $\sigma(\mathcal{T})$ has the same shape, but opposite sign compared to $\mathcal{T}$;
- $\sigma(\mathcal{T})$ is null if and only if $\mathcal{T}$ is null;
- for all $\alpha \in \Pi$, $\sigma(\mathcal{T})$ is $\alpha$-(co)dominant if and only if $\mathcal{T}$ is $\sigma(\alpha)$-(co)dominant.
This gives us the following variation on the “if” part of Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\], with condition \[itm:sign\] gone, at the expense of replacing $\Theta$ by a slightly larger set.
\[combinatorial\_characterization\_without\_sign\] Let $\lambda \in P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$ and $\Theta \subset \Pi$. Suppose that there exists a doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ satisfying the conditions:
1. through \[itm:shape\] as in Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\].
2. \[itm:l-codominant-sym\] The tableau $\mathcal{T}$ is $(\Theta \cup \sigma(\Theta))$-codominant (with the convention $\sigma = \operatorname{Id}$ if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$).
Then we have both $V_\lambda^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)} \neq 0$ and $V_{\sigma{\lambda}}^{{\mathfrak}{l}(\Theta)} \neq 0$.
Types $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$: the proof {#sec:BCD_proof}
=======================================
In this section, we prove the Main Theorem, [i.e. ]{}the equality $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}} = \mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$, for ${\mathfrak}{g}$ of types $B_r$ ($r \geq 1$), $C_r$ ($r \geq 1$) and $D_r$ ($r \geq 3$). Thanks to the work done in the previous section, it suffices, in order to do this, to prove the following two things:
- that every doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ that satisfies conditions \[itm:dsYt\_stst\]–\[itm:shape\] and \[itm:l-codominant\] above has a shape that satisfies the conditions from Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\];
- that every doubled Young diagram whose shape satisfies these conditions admits a filling that satisfies conditions \[itm:dsYt\_stst\]–\[itm:shape\] and [(H7’)]{} above.
In Subsection \[sec:linv\_in\_theor\] we accomplish the first task. In subsection \[sec:theor\_in\_linv\], we accomplish the second task for diagrams corresponding to primitive elements of $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$; and we conclude by additivity.
The inclusion $\mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}} \subset \mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ {#sec:linv_in_theor}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ be some real form of ${\mathfrak}{g} = B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$, and let $\lambda$ be a dominant integral weight such that the doubled Young diagram $\Psi(\lambda)$ admits a $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$-codominant null ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard filling. We must prove that $\lambda$ satisfies the corresponding condition from Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\].
From [@OV90], Reference Chapter, Table 9, we obtain the values of the sets $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ for all such real forms ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$; for quicker reference, we have reproduced them here in Table \[tab:Theta\_classical\].
Note that each of these sets contains the “tail” $\Pi_{[x+1, r]}$ (for some value of $x$) of the Dynkin diagram. It turns out that the other simple roots contained in $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ will not matter (except for two low-rank cases, that we treat by using exceptional isomorphisms). The bulk of this subsection is thus devoted to establishing a few inequalities (Proposition \[height\_restrictions\] and Corollary \[height\_limitation\]) satisfied by $\Pi_{[x+1, r]}$-codominant null ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableaux. At the end of this subsection, we put the pieces together.
${\mathfrak}{g}$ ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ Parameter range $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$
---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
$\underset{r \geq 1}{B_r}$ ${\mathfrak}{so}(p,2r+1-p)$ $0 \leq p \leq r$ $\Pi_{[p+1,r]}$
${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}(p, r-p)$ $0 \leq p \leq \frac{r}{2}$ $\Pi_{\operatorname{odd}} \cup \Pi_{[2p+1,r]}$
${\mathfrak}{sp}_{{{\scriptstyle 2 \cdot}}r}({\mathbb{R}})$ $\emptyset$
${\mathfrak}{so}(p,2r-p)$ $\begin{cases}0 \leq p \leq r \\ p \neq r-1\end{cases}$ $\Pi_{[p+1,r]}$
${\mathfrak}{so}(r-1,r+1)$ $\emptyset$
${\mathfrak}{so}^*(2r)$ $\Pi_{\operatorname{odd}} \setminus \{\alpha_r\}$
: \[tab:Theta\_classical\]Values of $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ for all real forms of simple Lie algebras of types $B_r$, $C_r$ and $D_r$. The (hopefully transparent) notations $\Pi_{[x,y]}$ and $\Pi_{\operatorname{odd}}$ are defined in and .
\[height\_restrictions\] Suppose that ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, $C_r$ or $D_r$; let $\mathcal{T}$ be any ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau. Let $h := \#^1 \mathcal{T}$ be the height of $\mathcal{T}$, and let $t := \max_{i, j} \left| {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right|$ be the largest number such that either $t$ or $\overline{t}$ appears somewhere in $\mathcal{T}$; these numbers satisfy $$\label{eq:height_upper_bound}
h \leq t.$$ Moreover, for every integer $x$ satisfying $0 \leq x \leq r$, we have the following inequalities.
\[itm:general\_case\] If $\mathcal{T}$ is $\Pi_{[x+1,r]}$-codominant and null, then we have: $$\label{eq:height_lower_bound}
h \geq 2(t-x).$$
\[itm:odd\_size\] If moreover the (automatically integer) number $\frac{1}{2} \# \mathcal{T}$ is odd, then necessarily ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$, $t=r$, and the inequality becomes strict, [i.e. ]{}$$\label{eq:height_better_lower_bound}
h \geq 2(r-x)+1.$$
By rearranging as $t \leq \frac{h}{2} + x$ and combining it with , we also obtain the following consequence.
\[height\_limitation\] Under the same assumptions on ${\mathfrak}{g}$ and $x$, every $\Pi_{[x+1,r]}$-codominant, null, ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ has height at most $2x$.
The proof of Proposition \[height\_restrictions\] relies on the following lemma; in order to formulate it, we first need to introduce a notation.
Given a Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ and a symbol $s$, we define the numbers $$\operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s) := \min {\left\{ j \; \middle| \; \exists i,\quad {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = s \right\}}$$ and $$\operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s) := \max {\left\{ j \; \middle| \; \exists i,\quad {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = s \right\}},$$ with the usual conventions $\min \emptyset = +\infty$ and $\max \emptyset = -\infty$.
\[mincol\_maxcol\_inequalities\] Let ${\mathfrak}{g}$, $x$ and $\mathcal{T}$ be as in Proposition \[height\_restrictions\]. Then the inequalities [\[eq:mincol\_min\]]{} [ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mincol_plat} &\leq \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{s+1}) \tag{\theequation{}a} \\
\label{eq:mincol_croise} \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{s})
\smash{\left.\begin{aligned}\vphantom{\overline{s}} \\ \vphantom{s+1} \\ \vphantom{s}\end{aligned}\right\{}
&\leq \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s+1) \tag{\theequation{}b} \\
\label{eq:mincol_embrasse} &\leq \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s) \tag{\theequation{}c} \end{aligned}$$ and [\[eq:maxcol\_max\]]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxcol_embrasse} \operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{s}) \leq& \tag{\theequation{}a} \\
\label{eq:maxcol_croise} \operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{s+1}) \leq&
\smash{\left.\begin{aligned}\vphantom{\overline{s}} \\ \vphantom{s+1} \\ \vphantom{s}\end{aligned}\right\}}
\operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s). \tag{\theequation{}b} \\
\label{eq:maxcol_plat} \operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s+1) \leq& \tag{\theequation{}c}\end{aligned}$$]{} hold for every $s$ such that $x < s \leq r - \mathbbm{1}_D$, where we set $$\mathbbm{1}_D := \begin{cases}
0 &\text{ if } {\mathfrak}{g} = B_r \text{ or } C_r; \\
1 &\text{ if } {\mathfrak}{g} = D_r.
\end{cases}$$
The proof of this lemma relies on the following obvious remark.
\[first\_and\_last\_column\] In a null $\Theta$-codominant ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$, the following statements hold for each $\alpha \in \Theta$:
\[itm:first\_nonzero\_is\_positive\] the first column of $\mathcal{T}$ with a nonzero total $\alpha$-height has negative total $\alpha$-height;
\[itm:last\_nonzero\_is\_negative\] the last column of $\mathcal{T}$ with a nonzero total $\alpha$-height has positive total $\alpha$-height,
where we define the *$\alpha$-height* of a column $\mathcal{C}$ as the number $\langle \nu(\mathcal{C}), \alpha^\vee \rangle$.
We start by proving the inequalities , for all $s$ within the given bounds. Assume that $\mathcal{T}$ contains at least one of the symbols $s$, $s+1$, $\overline{s+1}$ or $\overline{s}$ (otherwise the inequalities are vacuously true), and let $j$ be the index of the first column where one of these four symbols occurs. Then the inequalities are equivalent to the statement that the $j$-th column of $\mathcal{T}$ contains the symbol $\overline{s}$.
We shall prove it by descending induction on $s$.
- Let us first prove it for $s = r - \mathbbm{1}_D$. We distinguish two cases:
- Assume first that ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$, so that $s = r$, and $\alpha_r$ is equal to (possibly the double of) $e_r$. In particular the symbols $r+1$ and $\overline{r+1}$ do not occur anywhere in $\mathcal{T}$, and we may ignore them. By Remark \[first\_and\_last\_column\].\[itm:first\_nonzero\_is\_positive\] applied to $\alpha_r$, it then follows that the $j$-th column of $\mathcal{T}$ contains $\overline{r}$, as required.
- Assume now that ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$, so that $s = r-1$. Both $\alpha_{r-1} = e_{r-1} - e_r$ and $\alpha_r = e_{r-1} + e_r$ lie in $\Pi_{[x+1,r]}$; by applying Remark \[first\_and\_last\_column\].\[itm:first\_nonzero\_is\_positive\] to these two roots, we respectively obtain that:
- the $j$-th column must contain either $\overline{r-1}$ or $r$;
- the $j$-th column must contain either $\overline{r-1}$ or $\overline{r}$.
However the $j$-th column is strongly standard: it cannot contain $r$ and $\overline{r}$ simultaneously. Hence it contains $\overline{r-1}$ as required.
- Now let $s$ be such that $x < s < r - \mathbbm{1}_D$, and assume that the three inequalities are true. Since $s < r - \mathbbm{1}_D$, we have $\alpha_s = e_s - e_{s+1}$; so Remark \[first\_and\_last\_column\].\[itm:first\_nonzero\_is\_positive\] tells us that the $j$-th column contains either $s+1$ or $\overline{s}$. If it contained $s+1$, then would force it to also contain $\overline{s+1}$, which is a contradiction; so it has to contain $\overline{s}$ as required.
Similarly, the inequalities are equivalent to the statement that the last column of $\mathcal{T}$ that contains one of the symbols $s$, $s+1$, $\overline{s+1}$ or $\overline{s}$ must contain the symbol $s$; and we can similarly prove them by descending induction on $s$, using now Remark \[first\_and\_last\_column\].\[itm:last\_nonzero\_is\_negative\].
We are now ready to prove Proposition \[height\_restrictions\].
First of all, the inequality immediately follows from the fact that the symbols occurring in the first column of $\mathcal{T}$, which has height $h$, must have pairwise distinct absolute values.
Assume now that $\mathcal{T}$ is $\Pi_{[x+1,r]}$-codominant and null. Clearly holds if $t \leq x$; so assume that $t > x$. We introduce the numbers $$\label{eq:js_definition}
\forall s = x+1,\; \ldots,\; t,\quad
\begin{cases}
j_{\overline{s}} := \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{s}); \\
j_s := \operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(s).
\end{cases}$$ Since $\mathcal{T}$ is null, in fact, both $t$ and $\overline{t}$ must appear somewhere in $\mathcal{T}$. Now we apply Lemma \[mincol\_maxcol\_inequalities\]: from the inequalities for $s$ running from $x+1$ to $t-1$, it follows that $$\label{eq:first_half_increasing}
j_{\overline{x+1}} \leq \cdots \leq j_{\overline{t-1}} \leq j_{\overline{t}} < +\infty;$$ and from the inequalities for $s$ running from $x+1$ to $t-1$, it follows that $$\label{eq:second_half_increasing}
-\infty < j_t \leq j_{t-1} \leq \cdots \leq j_{x+1}.$$ In particular, for each $s = x+1, \ldots, t$, the value $j_s$ (resp. $j_{\overline{s}}$) is finite, [i.e. ]{}is the index of an actual column of $\mathcal{T}$ that contains the symbol $s$ (resp. $\overline{s}$). So let $i_s$ (resp. $i_{\overline{s}}$) denote the (unique) index such that ${
\def\haut{j_s}
\def\bas{i_s}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_s}{j_s} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_s}{i_s}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T} = s$ (resp. ${
\def\haut{j_{\overline{s}}}
\def\bas{i_{\overline{s}}}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_{\overline{s}}}{j_{\overline{s}}} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_{\overline{s}}}{i_{\overline{s}}}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T} = {\overline{s}}$), for every such $s$.
We will now establish some inequalities concerning the numbers $i_s$: either or , depending on the order between $j_{\overline{t}}$ and $j_t$.
- Assume first that $t \leq r - \mathbbm{1}_D$. Then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
j_{\overline{t}} &= \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(\overline{t}) \\
&\leq \operatorname{mincol}_{\mathcal{T}}(t) &\text{ by {\def\myref{\getrefnumber{eq:mincol_embrasse}}{\textup{(\myref.\mbox{$t$})}}}} \\
&\leq \operatorname{maxcol}_{\mathcal{T}}(t) &\text{ since $t$ actually occurs in $\mathcal{T}$} \\
&= j_t,\end{aligned}$$ so that we can combine and into $$j_{\overline{x+1}} \leq \cdots \leq j_{\overline{t}} \leq j_t \leq \cdots \leq j_{x+1}.$$ Now whenever we have two pairs of indexes $(i,j)$ and $(i',j')$ such that $j \leq j'$ but ${
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \succ_\mathcal{A} {
\def\haut{j'}
\def\bas{i'}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j'}{j'} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i'}{i'}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$, we must necessarily have $i > i'$ (else this would contradict $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$-semistandardness of $\mathcal{T}$, which holds by assumption when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ or $C_r$ and by Remark \[semistandard\_with\_parity\_is\_semistandard\] when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$). We conclude that $$\label{eq:distinct_rows}
i_{\overline{x+1}} > \cdots > i_{\overline{t}} > i_t > \cdots > i_{x+1}$$ as desired.
- Assume now that $t > r - \mathbbm{1}_D$, which means that ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $D_r$ and $t = r$. If we still have $j_{\overline{r}} \leq j_r$, then the same proof works, and still holds. So assume that $j_r \leq j_{\overline{r}}$; we then have $$j_{\overline{x+1}} \leq \cdots \leq j_{\overline{r-1}} \leq j_r \leq j_{\overline{r}} \leq j_{r-1} \leq \cdots \leq j_{x+1}$$ (using now and in addition to the chains of inequalities and ). We then claim that we have $$\label{eq:distinct_rows_switched}
i_{\overline{x+1}} > \cdots > i_{\overline{r-1}} > i_r > i_{\overline{r}} > i_{r-1} > \cdots > i_{x+1}.$$ Indeed, all of the inequalities except for the middle one once again follow from the semistandardness of $\mathcal{T}$; and the inequality $i_r > i_{\overline{r}}$ follows from the semistandardness of $\mathcal{T}$ for the alternative order $\preceq''_{\mathcal{A}}$, as given in Remark \[semistandard\_with\_parity\_is\_semistandard\].
No matter which one of or is true, we obtain that the integers $i_s$ are all distinct. Since there are $2(t-x)$ of them, and (being row numbers) they all lie between $1$ and $h$, the inequality follows.
Assume now that additionally $\frac{1}{2} \# \mathcal{T}$ is odd.
- Since $\mathcal{T}$ is null, we have $\# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} = \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{\overline{{\mathbb{N}}}}{{\def\temp{\overline{{\mathbb{N}}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$, and (recall Remark \[no\_unpaired\_column\]) the width $\#_1 \mathcal{T} = 2\lambda_1$ of $\mathcal{T}$ is even. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \# \mathcal{T}
&= \# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{2\lambda_1} \# {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \\
&= \sum_{j'=1}^{\lambda_1} \left( \# {
\def\haut{2j'-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'-1}{2j'-1} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} + \# {
\def\haut{2j'}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'}{2j'} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right),\end{aligned}$$ so this last sum is odd. This means that there exists at least one index, let us call it $j'_0$, such that $$\label{eq:uneven_twins}
\# {
\def\haut{2j'_0-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0-1}{2j'_0-1} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \not\equiv \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0}{2j'_0} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \pmod{2}.$$
Now by assumption, we know that the $(2j'_0-1, 2j'_0)$-th pair of columns is admissible; in particular it satisfies condition \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\] from Proposition \[admissible\_pair\_characterization\]. Observe that, in the notations of that proposition, we have $$\# {
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{C} = \sum_{i=1}^k x_i$$ for every strongly standard column $\mathcal{C}$. It follows that the inequality can only happen if ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is of type $B_r$ and both of the relevant columns have $b_i = r$ for some $i$, [i.e. ]{}both of them contain a symbol with absolute value $r$. In particular this means that $t = r$.
- It remains to prove . If $x = r$, then we only need to prove that $h \geq 1$ [i.e. ]{}that $\mathcal{T}$ is nonempty, which is obviously true (formally we can use to say that $h \geq \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0-1}{2j'_0-1} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \geq \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0-1}{2j'_0-1} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} > \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0}{2j'_0} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \geq 0$). So assume that $x < r$, which also means that $x < t$, so that the inequalities , and from part \[itm:general\_case\] still hold.
We have already observed that both the $2j'_0-1$-th column and the $2j'_0$-th column contain either $r$ or $\overline{r}$; in other terms $$j_{\overline{r}} \leq 2j'_0-1 < 2j'_0 \leq j_r.$$ Now consider the function $j \mapsto \# {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$. Since $\mathcal{T}$ is a semistandard Young tableau, this function is nonincreasing; hence we have $$\label{eq:barless_heights_inequality}
\# {
\def\haut{j_{\overline{r}}}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_{\overline{r}}}{j_{\overline{r}}} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}
\geq \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0-1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0-1}{2j'_0-1} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}
> \# {
\def\haut{2j'_0}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{2j'_0}{2j'_0} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}
\geq \# {
\def\haut{j_r}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_r}{j_r} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$$ (the middle inequality is strict because of ). On the other hand, by construction, we know that ${
\def\haut{j_r}
\def\bas{i_r}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_r}{j_r} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_r}{i_r}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ (resp. ${
\def\haut{j_{\overline{r}}}
\def\bas{i_{\overline{r}}}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_{\overline{r}}}{j_{\overline{r}}} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i_{\overline{r}}}{i_{\overline{r}}}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$) is equal to $r$ (resp. to $\overline{r}$), which, for the order $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$, is the last symbol without a bar (resp. the first symbol with a bar). Hence we have, by column-standardness: $$\label{eq:barless_heights_and_in}
\begin{cases}
i_{\overline{r}} = \# {
\def\haut{j_{\overline{r}}}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_{\overline{r}}}{j_{\overline{r}}} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} + 1; \\
i_r = \# {
\def\haut{j_r}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j_r}{j_r} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}.
\end{cases}$$ Plugging these identities into , we obtain $$i_{\overline{r}} > i_{\overline{r}}-1 > i_r.$$ This allows us to insert an extra step in the middle of the chain of inequalities (remember that $t = r$), and thus to improve to .
Let $\lambda \in \mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}} \subset P \cap {\mathfrak}{h}^+$. Then by Proposition \[basic\_results\] \[itm:nontriv\_implies\_radical\], we get that $\lambda \in Q$. For ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot r}({\mathbb{R}})$ (for any rank $r$) and ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}^*(2r)$ with $r \geq 4$, this is all there is to check.
In the remaining cases, Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\] tells us that the doubled Young diagram $\Psi(\lambda)$ admits a $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$-codominant null ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard filling, with $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}})$ given in Table \[tab:Theta\_classical\]. To satisfy Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\], we need to check the following conditions.
- The condition $\lambda_{2p+1} = 0$, or equivalently $\#^1 \Psi(\lambda) \leq 2p$, for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)$, no matter the parity of $p+q$. When $q \neq p+2$, we have $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) = \Pi_{[p+1,r]}$ and this condition follows from Corollary \[height\_limitation\]. For ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}(p,p+2)$, this condition is tautologically true, since $2p+1 = 2r-1 > r$.
- The condition $\lambda_{4p+1} = 0$, or equivalently $\#^1 \Psi(\lambda) \leq 4p$, for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(p,q)$ (a real form of $C_{p+q}$). We then have $\Theta({\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}) \supset \Pi_{[2p+1,r]}$, and similarly this follows from Corollary \[height\_limitation\]. (Note that for ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(1,1)$ this condition still holds, but was omitted from Table \[tab:conditions\_for\_classical\_algebras\] since it is trivial.)
- The inequality $\lambda_{2r-2p+1} > 0$, or equivalently $\#^1 \Psi(\lambda) \geq 2r-2p+1$, if the sum $\sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i = \frac{1}{2} \# \Psi(\lambda)$ is odd, for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)$ with $p+q$ odd. This is given by Proposition \[height\_restrictions\] \[itm:odd\_size\].
- The congruence $\lambda_1 \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$ for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(1,1)$. We prove this by noting that this algebra is isomorphic to ${\mathfrak}{so}(1,4)$, which we have just treated. (It is also fairly easy to find a direct combinatorial proof for this.)
- The inequality $|\lambda_3| \leq \lambda_1 - \lambda_2$ for ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}^*(6)$. We prove this by noting that this algebra is isomorphic to ${\mathfrak}{su}(1,3)$, which we have already treated in Section \[sec:Ar\]. (A direct combinatorial proof probably also exists, but seems fairly tedious on first approach.)
The inclusion $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}} \subset \mathcal{M}_{{\textnormal{${\mathfrak}{l}$-inv}}}$ {#sec:theor_in_linv}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove that, conversely, all elements $\lambda \in \mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ satisfy $V^{\mathfrak}{l}_\lambda \neq 0$. We rely for this on Proposition \[closed\_under\_addition\], that reduces the problem to the basis of the monoid $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ (which, in contrast to the $A_r$ case, can be easily described). For each $\lambda$ lying in this basis, thanks to the work done in Section \[sec:BCD\], our goal is to construct a doubled Young tableau of shape $\Psi(\lambda)$ satisfying conditions \[itm:dsYt\_stst\]–\[itm:shape\] and [(H7’)]{} from Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\_without\_sign\].
We start by presenting (Definition \[example\_tableaux\_definition\]) nine infinite families of doubled Young tableaux, and checking their properties (Proposition \[prop\_example\_tableaux\_properties\]). All the required doubled Young tableaux will then be picked from this pool, sometimes with the symbols all shifted by some constant $x$. This “shift” operation will be rigorously defined in Definition \[shift\_definition\].
\[example\_tableaux\_definition\] We introduce the doubled Young tableaux $\mathcal{T}_K$ and $\mathcal{T}'_K$ (of shape $2\mathcal{C}_K$), $\mathcal{T}_{K,L}$ and $\mathcal{T}'_{K,L}$ (of shape $2\mathcal{C}_K + 2\mathcal{C}_L$), $\mathcal{S}_{K,K}$ and $\mathcal{S}'_{K,K}$ (of shape $4\mathcal{C}_K$) for some values of the parameters $K$ and $L$, as given in Figure \[fig:example\_tableaux\].
[0.3]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,:|4:,|3,: ) (0cm,0cm,1<k+2>:,|2:,:;<2k+1>:,<k+1><[k+1]{}>:,<[2k+1]{}>|2:,<>:,<[k+2]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|4|3,:|4:,|3)
[0.3]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,,|4|4) (0cm,0cm,1<k+1>:,|2|2,<k><2k>:,<[2k]{}><[k]{}>:,|2|2,<[k+1]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|4|4,|4|4)
[0.3]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,,|4|4) (0cm,0cm,1k,,<k-1>,<k+1><2k>,<[2k]{}><[k+1]{}>,,<[k+2]{}>,<[k]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|3|1,:|3:,:,|1,|3|1,:|3:,:,|1)
0
[0.48]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,,::|[9.5]{}|[9.5]{}:,,,,|7|7) (0cm,0cm,1<k-l+1><k+2><k+2>,|6|3|2|2,::;<k+l+1><k+l+1>,:;<k+1><[k+1]{}><[k+1]{}>,:;<k+l+2>|[7.5]{}|[7.5]{}:,:;,<k+1><2k+1>,<[2k+1]{}><[k+l+1]{}>,|5|2,:;<[k+2]{}>,:;<[k-l]{}>/[0.5]{},::;<[k-l+1]{}><[k-l+1]{}>/[0.5]{},:;,<[k+2]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|8|5|4|4,::|[9.5]{}|[9.5]{}:,:|3,|7|4,:|3)
1
[0.48]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,::|[10.5]{}|[10.5]{}:,,,,,,|6|6) (0cm,0cm,1<k-l+1><k+3><k+3>,|7|2,::;<k+l+1><k+l+1>,:;<k><[k+2]{}><[k+2]{}>,:;<k+1><[k+1]{}><[k+1]{}>,:;<k+2><[k]{}><[k]{}>,:;<k+l+2>|[6.5]{}|[6.5]{}:,:;,<k+2><2k+1>,<[2k+1]{}><[k+l+1]{}>,|4,:;<[k+3]{}>,:;<[k-l]{}>/[0.5]{},::;<[k-l+1]{}><[k-l+1]{}>/[0.5]{},:;,<[k+3]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|9|6|3|3,::|[10.5]{}|[10.5]{}:,,,:|3,|6|3,:|3)
2
[0.48]{}
(0cm,0cm,::|1|1,,,,,|4|4) (0cm,0cm,1<k+1><[k+2]{}><[k+2]{}>,|2|3:,,k,<k+2><2k+1>,<[2k+1]{}><[k]{}>,|2:,<[k+3]{}>,<[k+1]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|4|5|1|1,,,,|1,|3|4:,,,|1)
3
[0.48]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,::|[9.5]{}|[9.5]{}:,,,,:|7:,|6) (0cm,0cm,1<k-l+1><k+2><k+2>,|6|2,::;<k+l+1><k+l+1>,:;<k+1><[k+1]{}><[k+1]{}>,:;<k+l+2>|[7.5]{}|[7.5]{}:,::,:;<2k>,<k+1><[k+l+1]{}>,<[2k]{}>,|4,:;<[k-l]{}>,:|2/[0.5]{},::;<[k-l+1]{}><[k-l+1]{}>/[0.5]{},,<[k+2]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|8|4|3|3,::|[9.5]{}|[9.5]{}:,:|3,:|3:,|6:,,:|4)
01
[0.4]{}
(0cm,0cm,,,,,:|5|5|5:,,|3) (0cm,0cm,11<k+1><k+2>,|3|2|2|2,:;k<2k><2k+1>,<k+1><[2k+1]{}><[2k+1]{}><[k+1]{}>,<2k+1>|3|3:,<[2k]{}>:|2:,,<[k+2]{}><[k+1]{}><[1]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|5|4|4|4,:|5|1|5:,|1:|4:,|3)
[0.4]{}
(0cm,0cm,,::|8|8:,,,,,,:|2) (0cm,0cm,11<2k-1><2k+1>,|4|4,::;<[2k]{}><[2k-1]{}>,::;<[2k-2]{}><[2k-2]{}>,::|4|4:,<2k-2><2k-2>,<2k-1><2k>,<2k><[2k+1]{}>,<2k+1><[2k-1]{}><[1]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,|6|6|1|1,::|2|8:,,::|6:,,,|3|1,:|1,:|1)
\[prop\_example\_tableaux\_properties\] Let $\mathcal{T}$ be any Young tableau from this list, and let ${\mathfrak}{g}$ be any of the Lie algebras listed in the second column of Table \[tab:example\_tableaux\_properties\]. Then $\mathcal{T}$ is a ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard doubled Young tableau, is null, and is $\alpha$-codominant for all simple roots $\alpha$ of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ that do *not* belong to the list given in the third column of Table \[tab:example\_tableaux\_properties\].
Beware that the value of $r$ is now allowed to vary, while the tableaux are fixed.
Observe that all of these tableaux $\mathcal{T}$ happen to satisfy the following condition:
- Each column of $\mathcal{T}$ is filled with symbols with consecutive absolute values, [i.e. ]{}$k = 1$ in the notations of Proposition \[admissible\_pair\_characterization\].
Also recall (Definition \[tableau\_definition\]) that ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standardness involves the three conditions \[itm:dsYt\_stst\] (strong semistandardness of columns), \[itm:dsYt\_Young\] (that the columns form a $\preceq^{{\mathfrak}{g}}_Y$-nondecreasing sequence) and \[itm:dsYt\_adm\] (that some pairs of consecutive columns are admissible).
- Strong semistandardness of columns \[itm:dsYt\_stst\], and the fact that these tableaux are all null, are completely straightforward to check.
- Condition \[itm:dsYt\_Young\] can be seen as encompassing two properties. First of all, we can check that these tableaux are all $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$-semistandard. This is fairly tedious, but straightforward.
- When ${\mathfrak}{g} = B_r$ or $C_r$, this is all; but when ${\mathfrak}{g} = D_r$, condition \[itm:dsYt\_Young\] also involves the parity condition . Given the property (\*), this parity condition can be rephrased as follows: whenever we have, for some $j$, $$\label{eq:parity_precondition}
b_1 \left( {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right) = b_1 \left( {
\def\haut{j+1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j+1}{j+1} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right) = r,$$ (where $b_1$, as per the notations of Proposition \[admissible\_pair\_characterization\], stands for the largest absolute value of a symbol in the column), we need to have $$\label{eq:parity_reformulated}
\# {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \equiv \# {
\def\haut{j+1}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j+1}{j+1} \\
\IfValueT{{\mathbb{N}}}{{\def\temp{{\mathbb{N}}}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \pmod{2}.$$ We observe moreover that $b_1$ never exceeds the height of the column, which is at most $K$ ([i.e. ]{}$2k$ or $2k+1$); so the parity condition is vacuously true for $r > K$. When $r = K$, the prerequisite is satisfied:
- For the first two columns only in the tableaux $\mathcal{T}_{2k}$, $\mathcal{T}_{2k}'$ and $\mathcal{T}_{2k+1,1}'$, and for all columns in the tableaux $\mathcal{S}_{2k+1,2k+1}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{2k+1,2k+1}'$. Condition is then easily checked.
- For the first two columns only in the tableaux $\mathcal{T}_{2k+1,2l+1}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{2k+1,2l+1}'$, as long as $k > l$ (and condition is then easily checked). However when $k = l$, the prerequisite becomes satisfied also for the last two columns; but condition fails between the 2nd and the 3rd column. This is the reason why we have to explicitly exclude these cases (and introduce the tableaux $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}'$ to replace them).
- Condition \[itm:dsYt\_adm\] reduces, by Proposition \[admissible\_pair\_characterization\], to checking the four properties \[itm:adm\_Young\] through \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\] for the first and last pair of columns. In fact, condition \[itm:adm\_Young\] is already part of \[itm:dsYt\_Young\]; condition \[itm:adm\_same\_height\] is immediate by inspection; as for conditions \[itm:adm\_same\_decomp\] and \[itm:adm\_x\_condition\], they become immediate by inspection once we take into account property (\*).
- Finally, verification of $\alpha$-codominance for all $\alpha$ except the listed exceptional values is very tedious, but straightforward.
\[shift\_definition\] Given a doubled Young tableau $\mathcal{T}$ and an integer $x \geq 0$, we define the *shifted tableau* ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ to be the tableau with the same shape, with every symbol $s$ replaced by $s+x$ and every symbol $\overline{s}$ replaced by $\overline{s+x}$. Thus, formally, it is given by: $$\forall i, j,\quad
\begin{cases}
\left| {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right| &:= x + \left| {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right|; \\
\operatorname{sgn}\left( {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right) &:= \operatorname{sgn}\left( {
\def\haut{j}
\def\bas{i}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{j}{j} \\
\IfValueT{}{{\def\temp{}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{i}{i}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T} \right).
\end{cases}$$
The following statement is then obvious:
\[shift\_properties\] Keeping the same setup, let us also fix some integer $r$; and let ${\mathfrak}{g} = B_r$ (resp. $C_r$, $D_r$) and ${\mathfrak}{g}' = B_{r+x}$ (resp. $C_{r+x}$, $D_{r+x}$). For all $s$ within the appropriate bounds, we denote by $\alpha_s$ (resp. $\alpha'_s$) the $s$-th simple root of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ (resp. of ${\mathfrak}{g}'$) in the usual Bourbaki ordering. Then:
${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is ${\mathfrak}{g}'$-standard if and only if $\mathcal{T}$ is ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard.
${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is null if and only if $\mathcal{T}$ is null.
For $s < x$, ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is always $\alpha'_s$-codominant.
For $s = x$, ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is always $\alpha'_x$-codominant, as soon as $\mathcal{T}$ is semistandard for the $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$ order.
For $s > x$, ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{x+}{{\def\temp{x+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!} \mathcal{T}$ is $\alpha'_s$-codominant if and only if $\mathcal{T}$ is $\alpha_{s-x}$-codominant.
By Proposition \[closed\_under\_addition\], it suffices to prove that, for every $\lambda$ lying in the basis of the monoid $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$, we have $V_\lambda^{\mathfrak}{l} \neq 0$. By Corollary \[combinatorial\_characterization\_without\_sign\], it suffices to find, for every such $\lambda$, a $(\Theta \cup \sigma \Theta)$-codominant null ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard filling of the doubled Young diagram $\Psi(\lambda)$.
=.2ex =.2ex
For most values of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$, this is done in Table \[tab:tableaux\_for\_monoid\_basis\]. First of all, it is straightforward to verify that, for each of the ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ mentioned in that table, the image of the basis of the monoid $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ by the map $\Psi$ is as listed in the second and third column. (Recall from Definition \[Young\_monoid\_definition\] that $\mathcal{C}_i$ denotes the Young diagram comprising a single column of height $i$: thus we have, for every $i$, $$2\mathcal{C}_i = \Psi(c^\pm_i),$$ where $c^\pm_i$ is as defined in ).
Moreover, for every such diagram $\Psi(\lambda)$, we deduce as a particular case of Proposition \[example\_tableaux\_definition\], possibly using Lemma \[shift\_properties\] when a shift is involved, that its filling $\mathcal{T}$ listed in the fifth column has the following properties.
- $\mathcal{T}$ is null and ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard. This can be checked by a simple lookup in Table \[tab:example\_tableaux\_properties\], and applying a shift as needed.
- The set of simple roots $\alpha \in \Pi({\mathfrak}{g})$ for which $\mathcal{T}$ is *not* codominant — let us call it the *syndrome* of $\mathcal{T}$ — is as listed in the sixth column. Indeed the syndrome is obtained by taking the list given in the third column of Table \[tab:example\_tableaux\_properties\], shifting it if needed, and intersecting it with $\Pi({\mathfrak}{g})$.
- This syndrome is disjoint from $(\Theta \cup \sigma \Theta)$, whose value we have reminded in the first column. This usually easily follows from the inequalities and parity conditions on $k$. It is maybe worth explaining why the root $\alpha_r = \alpha_3$, which sometimes occurs in the syndrome of $\mathcal{T}$ when ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}(p,q)$ with $p+q = 6$, never lies in $\Theta \cup \sigma \Theta$. Indeed this happens only when $\mathcal{T}$ has height $2k+1 = 3$; since we always have $k < p$, this means that $p = 2$ or $3$. But in both cases, we actually have $\Theta = \emptyset$ (in other terms ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$ is quasi-split).
It remains to take care of the remaining values of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}$. Specifically:
- The algebras ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(p,r-p)$ with $1 \leq r \leq 2$. There are only three of them. For the compact real forms ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(1)$ and ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(2)$, we have $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}} = \{0\}$ and the statement is trivial.
For ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(1,1)$, we have $\Theta = \{\alpha_1\}$ (and $\sigma$ is by convention the identity), and we easily check that the basis of $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ maps by $\Psi$ to $\{4\mathcal{C}_1, 4\mathcal{C}_2\}$. The respective fillings
(0cm,0cm,::\_2) (0cm,0cm,22<[2]{}><[2]{}>) (0cm,0cm,\_2\_2)
(also known as ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{1+}{{\def\temp{1+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T}_{1,1}$) and
(0cm,0cm,::‘22) (0cm,0cm,11<[2]{}><[2]{}>,22<[1]{}><[1]{}>) (0cm,0cm,‘22‘22)
of these two diagrams are then both ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard, null, and have syndrome $\{\alpha_2\}$. (Alternatively, we may of course simply invoke the exceptional isomoprhism ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(1,1) \simeq {\mathfrak}{so}(1,4)$, like we did in the previous section.)
- The algebras ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot r}({\mathbb{R}})$ are split, so we conclude by Proposition \[basic\_results\] \[itm:main\_split\]. (Alternatively, we can of course use the same doubled Young tableaux as for ${\mathfrak}{sp}_{2\cdot}(p,r-p)$ for any $p \geq \frac{r}{4}$.)
- For ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbb{R}}= {\mathfrak}{so}^*(6)$, we have $\Theta = \sigma \Theta = \{\alpha_1\}$, and we easily check that the basis of $\mathcal{M}_{{\operatorname{Table}}}$ maps by $\Psi$ to $\{4\mathcal{C}_1, 2\mathcal{C}_2, 2\mathcal{C}_3 + 2\mathcal{C}_1\}$. In fact this almost follows the general pattern for ${\mathfrak}{so}^*(2r)$ with $r \geq 4$, with only $4\mathcal{C}_3$ missing (which corresponds to the last line in Table \[tab:tableaux\_for\_monoid\_basis\]). The respective fillings ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{1+}{{\def\temp{1+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T}_{1,1}$, ${
\def\haut{}
\def\bas{}
\def\matrix{{
\null\,\vcenter\bgroup
\Let@\restore@math@cr\default@tag
\baselineskip0pt \lineskip0.4pt \lineskiplimit0pt
\ialign\bgroup\ifcl\else\hfil\fi$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\ifcr\else\hfil\fi&&\thickspace\hfil
$\m@th\scriptstyle##$\hfil\crcr
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{} \\
\IfValueT{1+}{{\def\temp{1+}\ifx\temp\empty {} \else \text{\fbox{$\temp$}} \fi}}{} \\
\mathstrut\IfValueT{}{}
\crcr\egroup\egroup\,}}
\!
\ifx\haut\empty
\ifx\bas\empty \smash{\matrix} \else \smash[t]{\matrix} \fi
\else
\ifx\bas\empty \smash[b]{\matrix} \else \matrix \fi
\fi
\!}\mathcal{T}_2$ and $\mathcal{T}_{3,1}$ of these tableaux are then ${\mathfrak}{g}$-standard, null, and have respective syndromes $\{\alpha_2\}$, $\{\alpha_2\}$ and $\{\alpha_2, \alpha_3\}$, all disjoint from $\Theta$ and from $\sigma \Theta$. (Alternatively, we may of course simply invoke the exceptional isomorphism ${\mathfrak}{so}^*(6) \simeq {\mathfrak}{su}(1,3)$, like we did in the previous section.)
[^1]: The author is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant 647133 (ICHAOS).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $A$ be an abelian variety over a number field $k$. We show that weak approximation holds in the Weil-Châtelet group, ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)$, but that it may fail when one restricts to the $n$-torsion subgroup. This failure is however relatively mild; we show that weak approximation holds outside a finite set of primes which is generically empty. This can be seen as an analog of the Grunwald-Wang theorem in class field theory which asserts that similar results hold for abelian extensions of number fields. The methods apply, for the most part, to arbitrary finite $G_k$-modules and so may be of interest in their own right.'
address: 'Mathematisches Institut Universität Bayreuth 95440 Bayreuth, Germany'
author:
- Brendan Creutz
date: 'October 15, 2010'
title: 'A Grunwald-Wang type theorem for abelian varieties'
---
Introduction
============
Let $k$ be a number field and denote its completion at a prime $v$ by $k_v$. The Grunwald-Wang theorem is an existence theorem for abelian extensions of $k$ with prescribed local behavior. Namely, given abelian extensions $K_v/k_v$, for $v$ in some finite set $S$, with Galois groups $H_v$, all of which may be embedded in some abelian group $H$, the theorem asserts that there is an abelian extension $K/k$ with completions $K_v$. Usually one is also allowed the requirement that ${\operatorname{Gal}}(K/k)$ can be embedded in $H$. It is only in a particular set of well understood circumstances that this stronger requirement can fail. For example, the unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}_2$ of degree $8$ cannot be realized by any degree $8$ cyclic extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}$. In general, obstructions can only occur when $8$ divides the exponent of $H$, and then only at primes of $k$ lying above $2$.
These global (resp. local) extensions correspond to continuous homomorphisms from the absolute Galois group, $G_k$ (resp. decomposition groups), to $H$. Considering $H$ as a finite $G_k$-module with trivial action, we have ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,H)={\operatorname{Hom}}_{cont}(G_k,H)$ and similarly for the local cohomology groups. So the Grunwald-Wang theorem can be rephrased as a statement about the surjectivity of the restriction map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,H) \to \prod_{v\in S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,H)$.
Now let $A$ be an abelian variety over a number field $k$ and $n$ a positive integer. The Weil-Châtelet group, ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)$, parameterizes torsors under $A/k$. In [@LangTate p. 683] Lang and Tate write
[*“In analogy with Grunwald’s theorem in class field theory, one may conjecture that if $k$ is an algebraic number field and $\frak{p}$ a given prime, then given $\alpha_{\frak{p}} \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_\frak{p},A)$, there exists $\alpha \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)$ restricting to $\alpha_{\frak{p}}$.”*]{}
For any $n$, there is a surjective map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n]) \to {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n]$ (here $H[n]$ denotes the $n$-torsion in an abelian group $H$). One can also ask for analogs of the Grunwald-Wang theorem at finite level.
\[Question1\] Given an abelian variety $A$ over a number field $k$, an integer $n \ge 2$ and a finite set of primes $S$, is the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n]) \to \prod_{v\in S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A[n])$ surjective?
\[Question2\] Given an abelian variety $A$ over a number field $k$, an integer $n \ge 2$ and a finite set of primes $S$, is the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n] \to \prod_{v \in S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A)[n]$ surjective?
Perhaps motivating their ‘conjecture’, Lang and Tate showed that the answer to these questions is yes when $\mu_n \subset k$ and the action of the Galois group on $A[n]$ is trivial ([@LangTate], see also [@Silverman Exercise 10.8]). This also follows directly from the Grunwald-Wang theorem. Assuming the finiteness of the Tate-Shafarevich group${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(A/k)$, Tate went on to characterize the image of the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A) \to \bigoplus_{\text{all }v} {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A)$ in terms of a kind of reciprocity coming from the dual abelian variety (see [@ADT I.6.26b]). However, this settles neither the ‘conjecture’ nor the questions above, even under the assumption that${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(A/k)$ is finite.
Statement of results
--------------------
In this paper we prove the ‘conjecture’, independently of the finiteness of${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(A/k)$. With regard to questions \[Question1\] and \[Question2\] we show, in analogy with the Grunwald-Wang theorem, that the answer can be no in general, but generically will be yes.
\[WCweakapproximation\] Let $A/k$ be an abelian variety over a number field $k$ and let $S$ be any finite set of primes. Then the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A) \to \prod_{v \in S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A)$ is surjective.
\[counterexamples\] There exists an abelian variety $A/{{\mathbb Q}}$ such that, for infinitely many $n$ (including $n=2$), the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},A)[n] \to {\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}}_2,A)[n]$ is not surjective.
\[genericwa\] Let $A/k$ be an abelian variety over a number field $k$. There exists a constant $c = c(A,k)$ such that if $n$ is an integer divisible by no prime less than $c$ and $S$ is any finite set of primes, then the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n]) \to \prod_{v \in S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A[n])$ is surjective.
The Grunwald-Wang theorem shows that while weak approximation does not always hold for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,{{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}})$, it does hold outside some finite set of primes. Along these lines we prove the following.
\[weakweakapproximation\] Let $A/k$ be an abelian variety over a number field $k$ and $n$ an integer. Let $S$ be any set of primes containing all primes of bad reduction and all primes dividing $n$. Let${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,A[n],S^c)$ denote the subgroup of ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ consisting of classes that are locally trivial on $S$. The restriction map${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,A[n],S^c) \to \prod_{v \notin S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A[n])$ has dense image in the product of the discrete topologies.
A slightly weaker form of this result (with${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,A[n],S^c)$ replaced by ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$) can be deduced rather easily from [@ADT Lemma I.9.8]. In a forthcoming paper this stronger form is used to show that the $p$-torsion in the Tate-Shafarevich group of any principally polarized abelian variety over a number field is unbounded as one ranges extensions of degree $\mathcal{O}(p)$, the implied constant depending only on the dimension of the abelian variety.
As we show below, these results are closely related to various local-global properties of the group ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$. More generally, Dvornicich and Zannier have studied the local-global principle in $G(k)/nG(k)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,G[n])$, for a commutative algebraic group $G$ (see [@DZ1; @DZ2; @DZ3]). Their results and ideas play a large role in the development below. On the other hand, it seems the related problem of weak approximation has only been addressed in the case of linear algebraic groups (for example [@ADT Theorem I.9.10] and the Grunwald-Wang theorem itself).
Organization
------------
Section \[Preliminaries\] contains a quick review of Potiou-Tate duality and other results in Galois cohomology of number fields needed in what follows. In section \[LocalGlobal\] we study various local-global ‘principles’ for cohomology groups of finite $G_k$-modules. Much of this section is influenced by the ideas in [@DZ1; @DZ3]. In section \[WeakApproximation\] we use Poitou-Tate duality to characterize (weak) weak approximation in terms of the local-global principles of the previous section. The main result here is proposition \[GW\], which gives a broad generalization of theorem \[weakweakapproximation\]. All of this is then applied to the particular case of abelian varieties in section \[AbelianVarieties\], where the proofs of theorems \[WCweakapproximation\], \[counterexamples\] and \[genericwa\] are given.\
Preliminaries {#Preliminaries}
=============
We recall several well known results in Galois cohomology that will be used below. For details we refer the reader to [@GC Section II.5-6] or [@CON Chapters VII-VIII].
Throughout the paper we adopt the following notation: $k$ is a number field, $G_k$ denotes its absolute Galois group, $M$ is a finite $G_k$-module of exponent $n$ and $M^\vee = {\operatorname{Hom}}(M,\mu_n)$ is its dual. We use ${\operatorname{H}}^i(k,-)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^i(k_v,-)$ to denote global and local Galois cohomology groups. Our convention for indexing (co)products will be that if no index set is specified, then the (co)product is to be taken over all primes $v$ of $k$. Similarly, an expression such as $\prod_{v \notin S}$ is understood to run over all primes of $k$ not in the set $S$. When we say something holds almost everywhere or almost everywhere locally, this means at all but a finite number of primes of $k$.
For each prime $v$ of $k$, duality and the cup-product induce a nondegenerate bilinear pairing (the Tate pairing) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TatePairing}
(\,, )_v:{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)\times{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee) \to {\operatorname{Br}}(k_v)[n]\,. \end{aligned}$$ For almost all $v$, the unramified subgroups of ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ are exact annihilators with respect to this pairing.
We denote the global pairing induced by the cup product and duality by $$(\,, ):{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)\times{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee) \to {\operatorname{Br}}(k)[n]\,.$$ This pairing is no longer nondegenerate, but it is compatible with the local pairings via the restriction maps. For this reason we will often behave as though the Tate pairings are defined on global classes as well (i.e. for $\xi \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$, we may write $(\xi,-)_v$ to mean $({\operatorname{res}}_v(\xi),-)_v$ and similarly for classes in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)$).
For nonarchimedean primes $v$, there is a canonical isomorphism ${\operatorname{inv}}_v: {\operatorname{Br}}(k_v) \to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}$ (in the archimedean case a canonical injection). The groups ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ are finite, and the Tate pairing identifies ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ as Pontryagin duals of one another (i.e. ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)= {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)^* := {\operatorname{Hom}}({\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M),{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})\,$).
The Brauer group of $k$ satisfies a local-global principle expressed by the exactness of $$0 \to {\operatorname{Br}}(k) \stackrel{\prod {\operatorname{res}}_v}{{\longrightarrow}} \bigoplus {\operatorname{Br}}(k_v) \stackrel{\sum {\operatorname{inv}}_v}{{\longrightarrow}} {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\to 0\,.$$ This gives rise to a product rule for global classes. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ProductRule}
\sum {\operatorname{inv}}_v(\xi,\eta)_v = 0 \text{ for all $\xi\in{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ and $\eta\in{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)$.}\end{aligned}$$ Note that since any global class is unramified almost everywhere, this sum is in fact finite.
Given $(\xi_v) \in \prod{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$, there are two obvious necessary conditions for the existence of a lift of $(\xi_v)$ to a global cocycle. First, $(\xi_v)$ must be unramified outside of some finite set of primes. Second, $(\xi_v)$ must obey the aforementioned product rule. In fact these conditions are already sufficient. This is expressed by the (middle third of the) Poitou-Tate exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Poitou1}
{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M) \to \prod '{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M) \to {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)^*\,. \end{aligned}$$ Here the product is the restricted product taken with respect to unramified subgroups. The map on the right is given by $$(\xi_v) \mapsto \Bigl( \eta \mapsto \sum{\operatorname{inv}}_v(\xi_v,\eta) \Bigr) \in {\operatorname{Hom}}\bigl({\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee),{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\bigr)\,.$$
As a set, the restricted product consists of all families $(\xi_v)$ such that $\xi_v$ is in the unramified subgroup for almost all $v$. It is endowed with a natural topology making it into a locally compact group. The topology is defined by specifying a neighborhood base of $0$ to be the family of all subgroups $\prod_{v\notin T} {\operatorname{H}}^1_{nr}(k_v,M)$, as $T$ ranges over the finite sets of primes of $k$ containing all primes where $M$ is ramified.
Local-global principles {#LocalGlobal}
=======================
\[Definition1\] Let $M$ be a finite $G_k$-module and $V \subset {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ a subgroup.
1. For a set $T$ of primes of $k$, we define${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T)$ to be the kernel of the restriction map $V \to \prod_{v \notin T} {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$.
2. We say that the [*Hasse principle*]{} holds for $V$ if${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,\emptyset)=0$.
3. We say that the [*strong Hasse principle*]{} holds for $V$ if${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T) = 0$, for every finite set of primes $T$.
4. For a finite set of primes $T$, we say that $V$ is [*$T$-singular*]{} if the image of the map${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T) \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$ is not trivial.
5. We say that $V$ is [*nonsingular*]{} if it is not $T$-singular for any finite set of primes $T$.
One easily sees that the strong Hasse principle holds for $V$ if and only if $V$ is nonsingular and the Hasse principle holds. We will see below that the Hasse principle and nonsingularity are, however, independent.
If $\xi \in {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T)$ for some finite set of primes $T$, we will say that $\xi$ is [*finitely supported*]{}. If in addition $\xi \notin {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,\emptyset)$ we say that $\xi$ is [*$T$-singular*]{} (or simply [*singular*]{}). When $V = {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ we will use the abbreviation${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T)$ for${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}({\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M),T)$. For a profinite group $G$ and finite $G$-module $M$, let ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(G,M)$ denote the kernel of the map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(G,M) \to \prod_{Z}{\operatorname{H}}^1(Z,M)$, where the product runs over all closed cyclic subgroups of $G$. This group was introduced by Tate (see [@Serre6471] and [@ADT Section I.9]). This group is also used by by Dvornicich and Zannier to study the Hasse principle for divisibility in commutative algebraic groups, see [@DZ1; @DZ3]. The following lemma is similar (see also [@ADT Lemma I.9.3]).
\[Hcyc\] Let $M$ be a finite $G_k$-module and let $K/k$ denote the minimal Galois extension over which the action on $M$ is trivial. The strong Hasse principle holds for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*({\operatorname{Gal}}(K/k),M) = 0$.
Let $T$ be any finite set of primes. The inflation and restriction maps give a commutative diagram with exact rows $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r]& {\operatorname{H}}^1(K/k,M) \ar[r]^{\inf_{K/k}}\ar[d]^{\prod{\operatorname{res}}_v}& {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M) \ar[r]^{{\operatorname{res}}_{K/k}}\ar[d]^{\prod{\operatorname{res}}_v}& {\operatorname{H}}^1(K,M)\ar[d]^{\prod {\operatorname{res}}_v} \\
0 \ar[r]& \prod_{v \notin T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(K_v/k_v,M) \ar[r]& \prod_{v\notin T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M) \ar[r]& \prod_{v \notin T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(K_v,M) }$$ (Here $K_v$ denotes the completion of $K$ at some prime above $v$; the cohomology groups do not depend on this choice). The groups on the right consist of continuous homomorphisms. The Chebotarëv density theorem then shows that the vertical map on the right is injective. So the kernels of the other two vertical maps are isomorphic.
It thus suffices to show that ${\operatorname{H}}^1(K/k,M)$ satisfies the strong Hasse principle if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M) = 0$. This also follows from the Chebotarëv density theorem. For all but finitely many primes (namely those where $K/k$ is ramified) the decomposition groups are cyclic and every cyclic subgroup occurs as the decomposition group at a positive density set of primes. So ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M)$ consists entirely of finitely supported classes and every finitely supported in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(K/k,M)$ is contained in ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M)$. The proof is completed by noting that the strong Hasse principle holds if and only if every finitely supported class is trivial.
Let $M$ and $K/k$ be as in the proposition.
1. The Hasse principle holds for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M) \cap {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(K/k,M,\emptyset) = 0$.
2. ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ is nonsingular if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M) \subset {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(K/k,M,\emptyset)$.
As noted in the proof above, every finitely supported class in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ is contained in (the image under the inflation map of) ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(K/k,M)$. The intersection in (1) is trivial if and only if there is no nontrivial class in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ with trivial support. Similarly the containment in (2) holds if and only if every finitely supported class has trivial support.
From the proof we also extract the following useful observation.
\[finitesupport\] Let $M$ be a finite $G_k$-module and $S$ the finite set of primes consisting of all primes where the decomposition group in ${\operatorname{Gal}}(K/k)$ is not cyclic. Let $V$ be a subgroup of ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ and $T$ any finite set of primes. Then
1. ${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T) \subset {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,S)$.
2. if $T \cap S = \emptyset$, then${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V,T)=0$.
Note that the set $S$ in the corollary is contained in the finite set of primes where $M$ is ramified.
Local-global principles for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,\mu_n)$
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case $M = \mu_n$, one can give a complete description of the finitely supported classes in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,\mu_n)$. Recall that Hilbert’s theorem 90 gives an isomorphism ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,\mu_n) \simeq k^\times/k^{\times n}$, so this can be interpreted as the study of local-global properties of divisibility in ${{\mathbb G}}_m$. We summarize with the following theorem. For the proof we refer the reader to [@CON IX.1]. The Grunwald-Wang theorem can be derived as a consequence using, for example, theorem \[characterize1\] below.
\[GWlocalglobal\] Let $T$ be a finite set of primes of $k$, $n = 2^rn'$ be a positive integer with $n'$ odd and let $\kappa$ be the kernel of the map $k^\times/k^{\times n} \to \prod_{v \notin T} k_v^\times/k_v^{\times n}$. Then
1. $\kappa$ has order dividing $2$.
2. $\kappa$ is nontrivial if and only if $k(\mu_{2^r})/k$ is not cyclic and $T$ contains all primes $v$ which do not decompose in $k(\mu_{2^r})$
3. If $n$ is even, then $\kappa$ is contained in $k^{\times (n/2)}/k^{\times n} \subset k^\times/k^{\times n}$.
Since $k(\mu_4) = k(\sqrt{-1})$ is cyclic, the $\kappa$ can be nontrivial only when $r \ge 3$, i.e. $8 \mid n$. Suppose $k(\mu_{2^r})/k$ is not cyclic and let $S$ be the set of primes of $k$ which do not decompose in $k(\mu_{2^r})/k$. Then $S$ consists entirely of $2$-adic primes. Indeed, all other primes are unramified, so the decomposition groups are cyclic, but $k(\mu_{2^r})|k$ is not.
By way of example, consider $V := {\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},\mu_8) \simeq {{\mathbb Q}}^\times/{{\mathbb Q}}^{\times 8}$. For a finite set of primes $T$, the kernel of the map ${{\mathbb Q}}^\times/{{\mathbb Q}}^{\times 8} \to \prod_{v \notin T }{{\mathbb Q}}_v^\times/{{\mathbb Q}}_v^{\times 8}$ is nontrivial if and only if $2 \in T$. Thus the Hasse principle holds for $V$, and the singular sets for $V$ are the finite sets of primes containing $2$. When $2 \in T$, the nontrivial class in the kernel is represented by $16$. In other words $16$ is a $v$-adic $8$-th power if and only if $v \ne 2$. Adjoining a square root of $7$ to ${{\mathbb Q}}_2$ gives a ramified extension in which $16$ is an $8$-th power. However, $16$ is not an $8$-th power in ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{7})^\times$. Thus ${\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{7}),\mu_8)$ is nonsingular but the Hasse principlie fails. Note that, in agreement with theorem \[GWlocalglobal\](3), $16$ is a $4$-th power.
Weak approximation {#WeakApproximation}
==================
Suppose $\xi \in {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T)$ is a class supported entirely on some finite set of primes $T$. Consider its image ${\operatorname{res}}_T(\xi) \in \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$. It follows from the product rule (\[ProductRule\]) that the image of ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee:{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee) \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ must be orthogonal to ${\operatorname{res}}_T(\xi)$ with respect to the nondegenerate pairing $$(\,, )_T: \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M) \times \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee) \to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\,,$$ given by $\sum_{v\in T}{\operatorname{inv}}_v(\,, )_v$. In fact, this is the only restriction on the image of ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$.
\[characterize1\] Let $M$ be a finite $G_k$-module with dual $M^\vee$ and $T$ a finite set of primes. An element $(\xi_v) \in \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ is in the image of ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$ if and only if it is orthogonal to ${\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T)$ with respect to the pairing $(\,,\,)_T$.
The theorem is a special case of proposition \[GW\]. The more technical version below will allow us to determine also the image of ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$ modulo arbitrary subgroups of $\prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$. This in turn will be used to characterize weak approximation in the $n$-torsion of the Weil-Châtelet group of an abelian variety, and ultimately to prove that weak approximation holds in the Weil-Châtelet group. First we give two corollaries. The second, together with the criterion of Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich, implies theorem \[weakweakapproximation\].
\[cor1\] The map ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee:{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee) \to \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ is surjective if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ is not $T$-singular. In particular, weak approximation holds for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)$ if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$ is nonsingular.
This follows from the fact that $(\,,\,)_T$ is nondegenerate.
\[wwa2\] Let $S$ be the finite set of primes consisting of primes where $M$ is ramified. The map ${\operatorname{res}}_S^\vee:{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M^\vee,S) \to \prod_{v \notin S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ has dense image in the product of the discrete topologies.
Suppose $T$ is any finite set of primes and $(\eta_v) \in \prod_{v \in T \cup S}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ with $\eta_v = 0$, for all $v$ in $S$. We need to show that $(\eta_v)$ is orthogonal to ${\operatorname{res}}_{T\cup S}{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T\cup S)$. Clearly $(\eta_v)$ is orthogonal to ${\operatorname{res}}_{T \cup S}{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,S)$. The result then follows from Corollary \[finitesupport\] which implies that${{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T\cup S) \subset {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,S)$.
Weak approximation for abelian extensions
-----------------------------------------
Let $T$ be a finite set of primes and, for each $v \in T$, let $K_v/k_v$ be an abelian extension. There exists an abelian extension $K/k$ with completions $K_v$.
Choose an abelian group $A$ for which we can find, for each $v \in T$, an embedding $f_v :{\operatorname{Gal}}(K_v/k_v) \to A$. It suffices to find an abelian group $B \supset A$ such that $(f_v)$ is in the image of the map ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{cont}(G_k,B) \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{cont}(G_{k_v},B)$. We reduce to the case that $B$ and, hence, $A$ are cyclic. Suppose $A = {{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}}$ and let $B = {{\mathbb Z}}/2n{{\mathbb Z}}$. Let $\xi \in {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,\mu_{2n},T)$. The dual of $B$ is $\mu_{2n}$, so by theorem \[characterize1\], it suffices to show that $(f_v)_{v \in T}$ is orthogonal to ${\operatorname{res}}_T(\xi) \in \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,\mu_{2n})$. By theorem \[GWlocalglobal\], $\xi$ lies in the subgroup $n{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,\mu_{2n})$. On the other hand, the $f_v$ are $n$-torsion and the pairing $(\,,\,)_T$ is bilinear. The result follows.
If every cyclic factor ${{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}}$ of $A$ is such that ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,\mu_n)$ is nonsingular, then one can take $B = A$ in the proof above. Precisely when this is the case is determined by theorem \[GWlocalglobal\]. Taken together these two results give what is commonly known as the Grunwald-Wang theorem (see [@CON IX.2]).
Weak approximation modulo open subgroups
----------------------------------------
Let $U$ be an open subgroup of the restricted product $\prod'{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$. $U$ is a product of subgroups $U_v \subset {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$. If $U$ is a proper subgroup, then all but finitely many of these are equal to the unramified subgroup. If $U_v^\perp$ denotes the exact annihilator of $U_v$ with respect to the Tate pairing, then $U^\perp := \prod U_v^\perp$ is an open subgroup of $\prod'{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)$. Note that when $U = 0$, $U^\perp$ is the entire restricted product and conversely.
Let us use $V_U$ and $V_{U^\perp}$ to denote the subgroups of global classes which map into $U$ and $U^\perp$, repsectively (i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
V_U &= \{ \xi \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)\,|\,\forall v,\, {\operatorname{res}}_v(\xi) \in U_v\}, \text{ and}\\ V_{U^\perp} &= \{ \eta \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)\,|\,\forall v,\,{\operatorname{res}}_v(\eta) \in U_v^\perp\}\,).\end{aligned}$$ Let $T$ denote any finite set of primes and let $I' = ({\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T))^\perp \subset \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ be the orthogonal complement of ${\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)$ with respect to the pairing $(\,,\,)_T$. Let $I$ denote the image of $I'$ under the quotient map $q:\prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee) \to \prod_{v \in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)}{U_v^\perp}$.
\[GW\] The composition $${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee) \stackrel{{\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee}{{\longrightarrow}} \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee) \stackrel{q}{{\longrightarrow}} \prod_{v \in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)}{U_v^\perp}$$ maps ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)$ surjectively onto $I$. In particular, $q \circ {\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$ is surjective if and only if $V_U$ is not $T$-singular.
Our proof of this proposition is based on (the discussion leading up to) [@CON Theorem 9.2.3]. Theorem \[characterize1\] follows by taking $U$ to be the entire restricted product $\prod'{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)$ so that $V_U = {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M)$, $U^\perp = 0$ and $I$ is the orthogonal complement of ${\operatorname{res}}_T({{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(k,M,T))$. We start with a couple lemmas.
\[Iproper\] I is a proper subgroup of $\prod_{v \in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)}{U_v^\perp}$ if and only if $V_U$ is $T$-singular.
Suppose there is some nonzero element $\xi_T \in {\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)$. Since the pairing $(\,,\,)_T$ is nondegenerate, this will be the case if and only if there exists some $\eta_T \in \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M^\vee)$ pairing nontrivially with $\xi_T$. This means $\eta_T \notin I'$. Since $\prod_{v\in T}U_v^\perp$ pairs trivially with ${\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)$, this is equivalent to requiring that the class of $\eta_T$ modulo $\prod_{v\in T}U_v^\perp$ does not lie in $I$.
\[computeIstar\] The Pontryagin dual of $I$ is canonically isomorphic to $\frac{\prod_{v \in T}U_v}{{\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)}$.
For finite abelian groups $A_1 \subset A_2 \subset A_3$, with character groups $A_i^*$, let $A_i^\perp$ denote the orthogonal complement of $A_i$ in $A_3^*$ with respect to the natural pairing. One checks that $(A_2/A_1)$ and $A_1^\perp/A_2^\perp$ are canonically identified as duals. The result follows by applying this with $$A_1 = {\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T) \subset A_2 = \prod_{v\in T}U_v \subset A_3 = \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,M)\,,$$ since by definition, $I = \frac{\left({\operatorname{res}}_T{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)\right)^\perp}{\prod_{v\in T}U_v^\perp}$.
[Proof of Proposition \[GW\]:]{}
The discussion leading up to theorem \[characterize1\] shows that the image of ${\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$ is contained in the set $I'$. As $I$ is the image of $I'$ under $q$, the image of the composition in the proposition is contained in $I$.
By definition $V_{U^\perp}$ is contained in the kernel of $q \circ {\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the cokernel $q \circ {\operatorname{res}}_T^\vee$. Taking Pontryagin duals, we have an exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{C}^* \to I^* \to \Bigl(\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)}{V_{U^\perp}}\Bigr)^*\,.$$ Our goal is to show that $\mathcal{C}^*$ is trivial.
The Poitou-Tate exact sequence (\[Poitou1\]) expresses the fact that an element of $U$ is obtained by restriction of some global class (necessarily in $V_U$) if and only if it is trivial as an element of ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)^*$. Since $U$ pairs trivially with $V_{U^\perp}$ we have an exact sequence $$V_U \to U \to \Bigl(\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)}{V_{U^\perp}}\Bigr)^*\,.$$ This induces an exact sequence $$V_U \to \frac{U}{{\operatorname{res}}\left({{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)\right)} \to \Bigl(\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)}{V_{U^\perp}}\Bigr)^*\,.$$
Fitting all of this together, we have a commutative and exact diagram $$\xymatrix{ &&0& \\
{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]& V_U \ar[r]& \prod_{v \notin T}U_v \ar[u] & \\
{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar@{=}[u] & V_U \ar[r]\ar@{=}[u] & \frac{U}{{\operatorname{res}}\left({{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)\right)} \ar[r]\ar[u] & \Bigl(\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,M^\vee)}{V_{U^\perp}}\Bigr)^* \\
& & \frac{\prod_{v \in T}U_v}{{\operatorname{res}}_T\left({{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)\right)} \ar[u] \ar@{=}[r] &I^*\ar[u]\\
&& 0 \ar[u]& \mathcal{C}^* \ar[u] \\
&&& 0 \ar[u] \\
}$$
The non-tautological equality here is the identification given by lemma \[computeIstar\]. Consideration of the appropriate kernel-cokernel exact sequence shows that $\mathcal{C}^* \simeq {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T)/{{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}(V_U,T) = 0$.
$\Box$
Application to abelian varieties {#AbelianVarieties}
================================
Local-global principles for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$
----------------------------------------------------------
Let $A$ and $A^\vee$ be dual abelian varieties over $k$ and $n \ge 2$. The following theorem summarizes some of the results of [@DZ1; @DZ3] regarding the strong Hasse principle in the group ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$. Together with corollary \[cor1\] this proves theorem \[genericwa\].
\[DZ\] The strong Hasse principle holds for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ if any one of the following hold.
1. $A$ is an elliptic curve and $n$ is prime.
2. $A$ is an elliptic curve over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ and $n = p^e$ is any power of a sufficiently large prime (independent of $A$).
3. $n = p^e$ is any power of a sufficiently large prime (depending on $A$ and $k$).
Parts (1) and (2) are shown in [@DZ1] and [@DZ3 Theorem 1], respectively. The argument for (3) is given for elliptic curves in [@DZ3] (see also [@DZ1 Remark 2.6]). It is not particularly difficult to deduce the same for arbitrary abelian varieties. This goes as follows.
Let $K/k$ be the minimal Galois extension over which the action on $A[p^e]$ is trivial. [*Suppose*]{} there exists an element $\sigma \in G := {\operatorname{Gal}}(K/k)$ which acts on $A[p^e]$ as a homothety in $({{\mathbb Z}}/p^e{{\mathbb Z}})^\times \subset {\operatorname{Aut}}(A[p^e])$ which has no nontrivial fixed points. In other words $\sigma \in G$ is a central element and $P \mapsto \sigma(P) - P$ is an automorphism of $A[p^e]$. It follows from Sah’s lemma (see [@LangEC Theorem V.5.1]), that ${\operatorname{H}}^1_*(G,A[p^e])\subset{\operatorname{H}}^1(G,A[p^e])=0$. Then, by lemma \[Hcyc\], the strong Hasse principle holds for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[p^e])$.
The existence of such a $\sigma$ follows from a result of Serre [@Serre79] (see also [@McQuillan Corollary 2.1.7]). There exists a contant $d = d(A,k)$ depending only on $A$ and $k$, such that, for any $n$, all $d$-th powers in $({{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}})^\times$ arise as homotheties via the action of $G_k$ on $A[n]$. For any prime $p > d+1$ there exists a nontrivial $d$-th power in ${{\mathbb F}}_p^\times$. Hence, there exists an element $\sigma \in G_k$ which acts on $A[p^e]$ as multiplication by some integer $m_\sigma \ne 1 \mod p$. This implies that $\sigma$ does not fix any nontrivial element of $A[p^e]$.
Weak approximation for abelian varieties
----------------------------------------
We apply the results of the previous section to characterize weak approximation in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n]$. For primes $v$ of $k$, we make the convention that ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$ denotes Tate’s modified cohomology group; if $v$ is nonarchimedean then ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A) = A(k_v)$, if $v$ is archimedean ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$ is the component group of $A(k_v)$.
\[WAforAV\] The map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee[n]) \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee[n])$ is surjective if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ is not $T$-singular. The map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)[n] \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]$ is surjective if and only if the $n$-Selmer group of $A$ is not $T$-singular. In particular, weak approximation holds in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee[n])$ if and only if ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ is nonsingular while weak approximation holds in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]$ if and only if ${\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k)$ is nonsingular.
This implies that weak approximation holds if any of the conditions in theorem \[DZ\] are met.
The statements about ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ follow from the corollaries to theorem \[characterize1\]. The statement for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n]$ will follow by taking $V_U$ in proposition \[GW\] to be the $n$-Selmer group of $A$.
For any $n$, one has a Kummer sequence, $${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A) \stackrel{n}{\to} {\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A) \stackrel{\delta_v}{{\longrightarrow}} {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A[n]) \to {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n] \to 0\,,$$ and similarly for $A^\vee$. The subgroup $U := \prod {\operatorname{Im}}(\delta_v) \subset \prod{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A[n])$ is known to be an open subgroup of the restricted product (the claim is that the image of $\delta_v$ is equal to the unramified subgroup at almost all primes). By definition, the subgroup $V_U \subset {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ of classes restricting into $U$ is the $n$-Selmer group of $A$.
Tate’s local duality theorems (e.g. [@ADT Corollary 3.4]) show that the orthogonal complement of ${\operatorname{Im}}(\delta_v)$ is equal to the image of ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A^\vee)$ under the connecting homomorphism in the Kummer sequence for the dual abelian variety. So proposition \[GW\] implies that the diagonal map in the commuative diagram below is surjective if and only the $n$-Selmer group of $A$ is not $T$-singular.
$$\xymatrix{ {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee[n]) \ar[r]\ar[d]\ar[dr] & \frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)}{\delta({\operatorname{H}}^0(k,A))} \ar@{=}[r]\ar[d] & {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)[n] \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \\
\prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee[n]) \ar[r]& \prod_{v\in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)}{\delta_v({\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A))} \ar@{=}[r]& \prod_{v\in T} {\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n] \ar[r] & 0 \\ }$$ Clearly the same is true of the vertical map on the right. This is what we wanted to prove.
For any $n$, Tate has defined a bilinear pairing $$\langle\,,\,\rangle:{\operatorname{H}}^0(k,A)/n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k,A)\times{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)[n] \to {\operatorname{Br}}(k)\,.$$ This pairing is compatible with the pairing $$(\,,\,):{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])\times{\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee[n]) \to {\operatorname{Br}}(k)$$ via the Kummer sequences of $A$ and $A^\vee$. Namely, for any $P \in {\operatorname{H}}^0(k,A)/n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k,A)$ and $\eta \in {\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)[n]$, $\langle P,\eta \rangle = (\delta(P),\tilde{\eta})$, where $\delta(P)$ denotes the image of $P$ under the connecting homomorphism and $\tilde{\eta}$ denotes any lift of $\eta$ to ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee[n])$. The same is true locally and $\langle\,,\,\rangle_v$ indentifies ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)/n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$ and ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A)[n]$ as Pontryagin duals.
For any finite set of primes $T$, $$\langle\,,\,\rangle_T := \sum_{v \in T} {\operatorname{inv}}_v\langle\,,\,\rangle_v\,$$ defines a nondegenerate pairing $$\langle\,,\,\rangle_T:\prod_{v\in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)}{n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)}\times\prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]\to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\,.$$ Since, for any $v$, ${\operatorname{res}}_v\left({\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k)\right)$ is contained in the image of ${\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)/n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$ under the connecting homomorphism, this also gives a pairing $$\langle\,,\,\rangle_T : {\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k) \times \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]) \to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\,.$$
Combining proposition \[GW\] with the proof above readily yields the following.
\[WAWCn\] Let $T$ be a finite set of primes. An element $\eta_T \in \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]$ is in the image of the restriction map ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A^\vee)[n] \to \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[n]$ if and only if $$\langle \xi,\eta_T\rangle_T = 0, \text{ for every } \xi \in {{\mbox{{
{\fontencoding{OT2}\fontfamily{cmr}\fontseries{m}\fontshape{n}\selectfont Sh}}}}}({\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k),T)\,.$$\
Counter-examples to weak approximation
--------------------------------------
Using proposition \[WAforAV\] we can give examples where weak approximation fails for $n$-coverings and principal homogeneous spaces of period $n$.\
Dvornicich and Zannier [@DZ2] have shown that the point $(1561/12^2,19459/12^3)$ on the curve $E : y^2 = (x+15)(x-5)(x-10)$ is divisible by $4$ in $E({{\mathbb Q}}_v)$ if and only if $v \ne 2$. This provided one of the first examples of the failure of the strong Hasse principle for $n$-divisibility on an elliptic curve. Under the connecting homomorphism, the point gives rise to a $\{ 2 \}$-singular class in ${\operatorname{Sel}}^{(4)}({{\mathbb Q}},E) \subset {\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},E[4])$. Weak approximation fails for both ${\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},E)[4]$ and $4$-coverings of $E$ since, by proposition \[WAforAV\], ${\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},E)[4] \to {\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}}_2,E)[4]$ cannot be surjective.\
Prior to the example above, Cassels and Flynn [@CaFlynn p. 61] constructed an abelian surface $A$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ for which the Hasse principle for $2$-divisibility fails. We briefly describe their example. Let $C : Y^2 = P(X)Q(X)R(X)$ where $P, Q, R$ are irreducible polynomials of degree $2$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Q}}$ and constant term equal to $1$, splitting over ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{2})$, ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{17})$ and ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{34})$, respectively. The point $a = (0,1) \in C({{\mathbb Q}})$ gives rise to the point $\mathfrak{a} = \{ a, a \} \in A({{\mathbb Q}})$, where $A$ is the Jacobian of $C$. It follows from their lemma 6.5.1 that $\mathfrak{a} \notin 2A({{\mathbb Q}})$. However, for any $v\le \infty$, at least one of $P,Q,R$ has a root $r_v$ in ${{\mathbb Q}}_v$. Then the point $\mathfrak{b} = \{ a , (r_v,0) \} \in A({{\mathbb Q}}_v)$ is such that $2\mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{a}$.
Using the same idea, we can construct an example where weak approximation for ${\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},A)[2]$. Let $C$ be the hyperelliptic curve of genus $2$ given by $$y^2 = -(x^2+1)(x^2+5)(x^2-5)\,.$$ We have a point $(0,5) \in C({{\mathbb Q}})$. One can check that this gives a ${{\mathbb Q}}$-point of infinite order $\mathfrak{a} = \{ (0,5),(0,5)\}$ on the Jacobian $A = {\operatorname{Jac}}(C)$. One easily checks that at least one of the quadratic polynomials defining $C$ has a root in ${{\mathbb Q}}_v$ if and only if $v \ne 2$. So as above we see that $\mathfrak{a}$ is divisible by $2$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}_v$ if and only if $v \ne 2$. So the image of $\mathfrak{a}$ in ${\operatorname{Sel}}^{(2)}({{\mathbb Q}},A) \subset {\operatorname{H}}^1({{\mathbb Q}},A[2])$ is $\{2\}$-singular.\
The next proposition illustrates how the counterexamples above propagate to higher level.
Suppose that weak approximation fails for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[n]$. Then weak approximation fails for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[mn]$ for infinitely many $m$.
We prove the statement for the dual abelian variety. By assumption there is a singular class $\xi \in {\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k)$. For any positive integer $m$ and any prime $v$, the map $i:A[n] \to A[mn]$ induces a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ {\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{res}}_v}\ar[r]^{i_*}& {\operatorname{Sel}}^{(mn)}(A/k) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{res}}_v} \\
A(k_v)/nA(k_v) \ar[r]^m & A(k_v)/mnA(k_v) }$$ If ${\operatorname{res}}_v(\xi) = 0$, then ${\operatorname{res}}_v(i_*\xi) = 0$. So, since $\xi$ is finitely supported, $i_*(\xi)$ is finitely supported. By assumption there exists $v$ such that ${\operatorname{res}}_v(\xi) \ne 0$. Choose $Q_v \in A(k_v)$ representing ${\operatorname{res}}_v(\xi) \in A(k_v)/nA(k_v)$. Then ${\operatorname{res}}_v(i_*(\xi))$ is represented by $mQ_v$. Now suppose ${\operatorname{res}}_v(i_*(\xi)) = 0$. Then there exists some $P_v \in A(k_v)$ such that $m(Q_v - nP_v) = 0$. Thus $Q_v - nP_v \in A(k_v)[m]$. The torsion subgroup of $A(k_v)$ is finite, so there are infinitely many $m$ for which this cannot happen. For such $m$ we have that $i_*(\xi)$ is singular. The result follows from proposition \[WAforAV\].
In a similar fashion, Paladino has shown that a counterexample to the Hasse principle in $A(k)/p^nA(k)$ can lead to counterexamples in $A(k)/p^{n+s}A(k)$ for all $s \ge 0$ [@Paladino2]. She has also given examples where the Hasse principle fails for divisibility by $9$ in elliptic curves over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ [@Paladino1]. Similar methods give rise to examples of singular classes and the failure of weak approximation in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[9]$.
The ‘conjecture’ of Lang and Tate
---------------------------------
We now come to the proof of theorem \[WCweakapproximation\]. Since ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)$ is torsion, the Bézout identity shows that it will suffice to prove the following theorem.
\[pprimary\] For any prime number $p$, weak approximation holds in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[p^\infty]$.
Here ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A)[p^\infty]$ denotes the subgroup consisting of elements of $p$-powered order. Since we will be working only with $p$-th powers, we use the notation $S^{(n)}(A/k)$ to denote the $p^n$-Selmer group, ${\operatorname{Sel}}^{(p^n)}(A/k)$. For any positive integers $m$ and $n$, multiplication by $p^{m}$ induces an exact sequence $$0 \to A[p^m] \stackrel{i_*}\to A[p^{m+n}] \stackrel{p^m}{\longrightarrow}A[p^{n}] \to 0\,,$$ and consequently a map $p^m_*:S^{(m+n)}(A/k) \to S^{(n)}(A/k)$. Let $S(A/k)$ denote the projective limit of the groups $S^{(n)}(A/k)$ with respect to these maps and use $\phi_n:S(A/k) \to S^{(n)}(A/k)$ for the canonical map. One knows that $S(A/k)$ satisfies the strong Hasse principle [@ADT Proposition I.6.22]. Using this we deduce the following.
\[Selnonsingular\] For every $n > 0$, there exits $m$ such that the image of any finitely supported class in $S^{(m+n)}(A/k)$ under the map to $S^{(n)}(A/k)$ is trivial.
We will show below that, for any nontrivial finitely supported class in $S^{(n)}(A/k)$, there exists some $m_0$ such that, for any $m \ge m_0$, no lift of $\xi$ to $S^{(m+n)}(A/k)$ is finitely supported. Using this we prove the lemma as follows. Take $M_0$ to be the maximum of the $m_0$’s as we range over the finitely many nontrivial finitely supported classes in $S^{(n)}(A/k)$ (recall that the $n$-Selmer group is itself finite). Let $M \ge M_0$ and consider a finitely supported class in $S^{(M+n)}(A/k)$. Its image in $S^{(n)}(A/k)$ cannot be equal to any nontrivial finitely supported class. On the other hand, its image is finitely supported. It follows that its image must be trivial.
To establish the claim above, let $L_{\xi} \subset S(A/k)$ be the set of elements which map to $\xi$ in $S^{(n)}(A/k)$. For each $\zeta \in L_\xi$, define $m(\zeta)$ to be the least positive integer such that $\phi_{m(\zeta)+n}(\zeta)$ is not finitely supported. This is well defined since $S(A/k)$ satisfies the strong Hasse principle. Set $m_0 = \sup_{\zeta \in L_\xi}m(\zeta)$. If this supremum is finite the claim follows. So suppose this is not the case. Then we can find a sequence $\{\zeta_i\}_{i=1}^\infty \subset L_\xi$ such that, for each $i$, $\phi_{n+i}(\zeta_i) \in S^{(n+i)}(A/k)$ is finitely supported. Note that $S(A/k)$ is sequentially compact (being a profinite group, it is compact and first countable). So, replacing with a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that the sequence $\zeta_i$ converges to some $\zeta \in S(A/k)$. Clearly $\phi_n(\zeta) = \xi \ne 0$. Our claim will be established if we can show that $\zeta$ is finitely supported, for this will contradict the strong Hasse principle for $S(A/k)$.
Let $S$ be the finite set of primes consisting of primes of bad reduction for $A$ and primes dividing $p$. By the criterion of Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich $A[p^e]$ is unramified outside $S$. Suppose ${\operatorname{res}}_v(\zeta) \ne 0$ for some $v \notin S$. Then there exists some $M$ such that ${\operatorname{res}}_v(\phi_{M+n}(\zeta)) \ne 0$. Since $\zeta$ is the limit of the $\zeta_i$, we can choose $i > M$ such that $\phi_{M+n}(\zeta_i) = \phi_{M+n}(\zeta)$ in $S^{(M+n)}(A/k)$. Now $i > M$ and $\phi_{i+n}(\zeta_i)$ is finitely supported, so $\phi_{M+n}(\zeta_i)$ must be as well. By corollary \[finitesupport\] it follows that $\phi_{M+n}(\zeta) = \phi_{M+n}(\zeta_i)$ is supported on $S$. This contradiction shows that $\zeta$ is supported on $S$, which is a finite set of primes. This is what we intended to show.
[Proof of Theorem \[pprimary\]:]{}
We will prove the statement for the dual abelian variety. Let $T$ be any finite set of primes and $\eta_T := (\eta_v)_{v \in T} \in \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[p^\infty]$. Let $n$ be a positive integer such that, for all $v \in T$, $\eta_v$ is killed by $p^n$. Choose $m$ as in lemma \[Selnonsingular\] and let $\xi$ be any finitely supported class in the $p^{m+n}$-Selmer group of $A$. We may consider $\eta_T$ as an element in $\prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[p^{n+m}]$. Using proposition \[WAWCn\], the theorem will follow if we can show that $\eta_T$ is orthogonal to $\xi$ with respect to the pairing $$\langle\,,\,\rangle_T : S^{(n+m)}(A/k) \times \prod_{v\in T}{\operatorname{H}}^1(k_v,A^\vee)[p^{n+m}] \to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\,.$$
We have the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ S^{(m+n)}(A/k) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{res}}_v} \ar[rr] && S^{(n)}(A/k) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{res}}_v}\\
\prod_{v \in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)}{p^{m+n}{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)} \ar[rr] && \prod_{v \in T}\frac{{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)}{p^n{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)} }$$ By assumption, the image of $\xi$ in the upper-right hand corner is trivial, so this is also true of its image in the lower-right corner. From commutativity it follows that there exists some $P_T \in \prod_{v \in T}{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$ such that ${\operatorname{res}}_T(\xi) \equiv p^nP_T \mod \prod_{v \in T}p^{m+n}{\operatorname{H}}^0(k_v,A)$. The pairing $\langle\,,\,\rangle_T$ is bilinear, so $$\langle \xi,\eta_T\rangle_T = \langle p^{n}P_T, \eta_T \rangle_T = \langle P_T,p^n\eta_T \rangle_T = \langle P_T, 0\rangle_T = 0\,.$$ This is what we wanted to show.
$\Box$
Corollary \[finitesupport\] shows that any finitely supported class in ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ is unramified outside the set of primes of bad reduction and the primes above $n$. It follows that there can only be finitely many singular classes. The strong Hasse principle is also valid for the projective limit of the groups ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$. The proof of \[Selnonsingular\] carries over for ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ in place of ${\operatorname{Sel}}^{(n)}(A/k)$. A similar argument to that in the proof above then shows that weak approximation holds for the direct limit of the groups ${\operatorname{H}}^1(k,A[n])$ with respect to the maps induced by the obvious inclusion $A[n] \to A[mn]$.
Aknowledgements {#aknowledgements .unnumbered}
---------------
I would like to thank Michael Stoll for comments on a preliminary version of this paper and would like to appologize to Roberto Dvornicich and Umberto Zannier for having failed to properly attribute their results in an earlier draft of this paper.
[MM]{}
: Prolegomena to a middlebrow arithmetic of curves of genus $2$, [*London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series*]{} [**230**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
: Local-global divisibility of rational points in some commutative algebraic groups, [*Bull. Soc. Math. France*]{} [**129**]{} (2001) 317-338.
An analogue for elliptic curves of the Grunwald-Wang example, [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} [**Ser. I 338**]{} (2004) 47-50.
On a local-global prinicple for the divisibility of a rational point by a positive integer, [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**39**]{} (2007) 27-34.
: Elliptic curves: Diophantinve analysis, [*Springer-Verlag*]{}, Berlin and New York, 1978.
: Principal homogeneous spaces over abelian varieties, [*Amer. Journal of Math.*]{} [**Vol. 80, No. 3**]{} (1958) 659-684.
: Division points on semi-abelian varieties, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**120**]{}, No. 1, (1995) 143-159.
: Arithmetic duality theorems. [*Perspectives in Mathematics*]{} [**1**]{}, Academic Press, Boston, 1986.
: Cohomology of number fields (second edition). [*Grundlehren der math. Wissenschaften*]{} [**323**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
: Elliptic curves with ${{\mathbb Q}}(E[3])={{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_3)$ and counterexamples to local-global divisibility by $9$, [*Jour. de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux*]{}, to appear.
On counterexamples to local-global divisibility in commutative algebraic groups, [*Acta Arithmetica*]{}, to appear.
: Sur les groupes de congruence des variétés abéliennes, I. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. 28 (1964), 3-20; ibid., 35 (1971), 731-737.
Abelian $\ell$-adic representations and elliptic curves, [*Lectures at McGill University*]{}, W.A. Benjamin Inc., 1968.
Quelques propriétes des groupes algébriques commutatifs, Appendix in Astérisque [**69-70**]{}, (1979) 191-202.
Galois cohomology, [*Springer Monographs in Mathematics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 2002.
: The arithmetic of elliptic curves. [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{} [**106**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1986.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a possible way to solve the problem of inconsistency between the neutron star long-period precession and superfluid vortex pinning, which is the basis of the most successful theories of pulsar glitches. We assume that the pinning takes place in the region of the neutron star core, which, being magnetically decoupled, can rotate relative to the crust. In the framework of a simple three-component model we show that these two phenomena can coexist in the same pulsar. Some constraints on the formally introduced interaction coefficients following from observation data are formulated.'
author:
- |
O. A. Goglichidze [^1] and D. P. Barsukov\
Ioffe Institute, Saint Petersburg 194021, Russian Federation
bibliography:
- 'mn-jour.bib'
- 'paper.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'A possible way to reconcile long-period precession with vortex pinning in neutron stars'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: neutron; pulsars: general
Introduction
============
Radio pulsars are the sources of exceptionally stable pulse sequences with very slowly decreasing frequency. Some pulsars, besides smooth slow-down, demonstrate so called glitches, which are sudden increases of the frequency and its time derivative followed by smooth recovery towards pre-glitch values. The relative amplitude of the glitches $\Delta \Omega/\Omega$ lies in the range of $ \sim 10^{-12} - 10^{-5}$ [@EspinozaLyneStappersKramer2011][^2] while the recovery time-scale is of the order of days to months [@LyneShemarSmith2000]. The long time-scales of the glitch recovery indicate that the nucleon superfluidity supposed to be present in neutron star interiors participates in this phenomenon [@BaymPethickPines1969b]. The most successful theories of glitches are based on the assumption that the neutron superfluid vortices are pinned in some region of the neutron star interior [@HaskellMelatos2015]. The pinned superfluid conserves angular momentum and, from time to time, releases part of it, spinning up the outer component of the star. There are several pieces of evidence that isolated neutron stars can precess with long periods. Pulsar B1821-11 demonstrates correlated periodic variations of spin-down rate and beam shape [@StairsLyneShemar2000]. The most favorable explanation for this is the precession of the neutron star with period $T_p \approx 500$ d [@AshtonJonesPrix2016]. Several pulsars show periodic variations of spin-down rate without significant correlation with beam shape [@KerrHobbsJohnstonShannon2016]. The time-scales of the variations are 0.5 – 1.5 yr. Some pulsars switch between two spin down states. Despite the fact that the switching itself is a fast process ( < 1 min), there are at least six pulsars for which the probability of being in a particular state is a quasi-periodic function with a characteristic time-scale $\sim 10^2$ days [@LyneEtAl2010]. Hence, it is natural to assume that this probability depends on the precession phase [@Jones2012].
Besides the directly observed variations, there are observational data, which can also be interpreted as manifestations of neutron star precession but with much longer periods. @LyneEtAl2013 found a steady increase in separation between the main pulse and the interpulse of Crab pulsar at 0.62$^\circ \pm 0.03^\circ$ per century. The authors concluded that this is a consequence of the increase of the pulsar inclination angle. The rate of increase seems to be too large for secular evolution but it can be ensured by free precession with period $\sim 10^2$ yr [@ArzamasskiyEtAl2015]. @BiryukovBeskinKarpov2012 argued that anomalously large braking indices indicate that the pulsar spin-down rate can oscillate at the time-scale of $10^3-10^4$ years. This oscillation can be caused by precession with corresponding periods. The stellar magnetic field by itself should make neutron stars precess at such time-scales [@Melatos2000].
The problem is that it is difficult for neutron vortex pinning and long-period ($\gtrsim $1 year) precession to coexist in the same neutron star. As it was first pointed out by @Shaham1977, the pinning of superfluid vortices dramatically decreases the period of precession. [Thus, on the one hand, the glitch theories require about 1 percent of the total stellar moment of inertia to be contained in a pinned superfluid [@AnderssonGlampedakisHoEspinoza2012]. On the other hand, if a neutron star precess with periods $\sim$1 yr or longer, only part of $<10^{-8}$ of the total moment of inertia can be in the pinned superfluid.]{} Shaham considered a simple model with perfectly pinned vortices. Several attempts to attack this problem with more detailed models of pinned vortex dynamics [@SedrakianWassermanCordes1999; @LinkCutler2002; @Alphar2005] or assuming that pinning is absent [@Link2006; @KitiashviliGusev2008] have been made. However, to date the problem remains current [@JonesAshtonPrix2017].
In the present paper we suggest a way that may allow these two phenomena to be to reconciled. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:rigid\_body\] we introduce basic notations and formulate the problem. [In Section \[sec:two\_comps\_cs\] we perform a linear mode analysis for a two-component neutron star with the superfluid pinned in the crust. Section \[sec:two\_comps\_gs\] contains the same analysis but for a system with the superfluid located in the core. ]{} In Section \[sec:three\_comps\] we formulate a full three-component model and perform the linear mode analysis for it. Section \[sec:qstat\_evolution\] is devoted to the derivation of quasi-stationary equations, allowing the long-term evolution of the precessing neutron stars to be studied. In Section \[sec:glitch\] we study the ability of the model to show glitch-like events and what restrictions for formally introduced coefficients can be obtained from the glitch observation data. In Discussion we speculate on the possible physical realization of the model, discuss some observational data and draw conclusions.
Formulation of the problem {#sec:rigid_body}
==========================
Let us consider a rotating neutron star. From the point of view of an observer in an inertial frame of reference the following equation should be satisfied: $$\label{eq:dM_rigid_body}
d_t{{\boldsymbol{M}}} = {\boldsymbol{K}},$$ where ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ is the stellar angular momentum and ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ is external electromagnetic torque.
We start with the the “rigid-body” approximation assuming that the whole star rotates with a uniform angular velocity that we denote by ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$. The index “$c$” is introduced for the sake of notation unification with the subsequent sections of this paper. We assume that the star has an axisymmetric shape maintained by the crust rigidity [@CutlerUshomirskyLink2003] or by the magnetic field [@Wasserman2003]. In this case, the angular momentum can be represented in the following form: $$\label{eq:M_rigid_star}
{\boldsymbol{M}} = I {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + I \epsilon ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c,$$ where $I$ is the star’s moment of inertia, ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ is the unit vector directed along the star’s symmetry axis and $\epsilon$ is the oblateness parameter.
To date, there is no consensus concerning the exact form of external torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ acting on isolated neutrons stars [@BeskinChernovGwinnTchekhovskoy2015]. However, it is generally accepted that it consists of two parts of different nature [[@DavisGoldstein1970; @GoodNg1985; @Melatos2000]]{}: $$\label{eq:K}
{\boldsymbol{K}} = {\boldsymbol{K}}_2 + {\boldsymbol{K}}_3,$$ where [${\boldsymbol{K}}_2 \propto \Omega_c^2$]{} is the so-called anomalous torque originating from the inertia of the near-zone electromagnetic field [@GoodNg1985; @BeskinZheltoukhov2014; @GBT2015] while [${\boldsymbol{K}}_3 \propto \Omega_c^3$]{} is related to the angular momentum transfer away from the star to infinity by both particles and electromagnetic radiation [@DavisGoldstein1970; @Jones1976; @BeskinGurevichIstomin1983; @BarsukovPolyakovaTsygan2009; @PhilippovTchekhovskoyLi2014].
Relation ${K}_3/{K}_2$ can be estimated as $\sim (r_\mathrm{ns}\Omega_c/c)$, i.e. it is small for the most pulsars (except the fastest millisecond ones, which are not considered in the present paper) We will ignore term ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$ in Sections \[sec:rigid\_body\]-\[sec:three\_comps\] restricting ourselves to the consideration of time-scales much smaller than $\tau_x \sim \Omega_c/K_3$. The effects of this term are discussed in Section \[sec:qstat\_evolution\].
In the case of an axisymmetric stellar magnetic field, anomalous torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}_2$ can be represented in the following form [@GBT2015]: $${\boldsymbol{K}}_2 = -\delta I_m ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_{m})[{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\times{\boldsymbol{e}}_m],$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}_m$ is the unit vector directed along the field symmetry axis, $$\delta I_m \sim
10^{32} r_6^5 B_{12}^2 \mbox{ g cm}^2,$$ $r_6$ is the neutron star radius in units of $10^6$ cm and $B_{12}$ is the surface magnetic field in units of $10^{12}$G. In the special situation of vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_m$ coinciding with vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$, the anomalous torque can be taken into account just by redefining the oblateness parameter [@ZanazziLai2015; @GBT2015]: $$\label{eq:epsilon_new}
\epsilon_\mathrm{new} =\epsilon_\mathrm{old} + \delta I_m/I,$$ where $\epsilon_\mathrm{old}$ characterizes the stellar matter deformarion only. In general case, the anomalous torque can be taken into account by modification of star moment of inertia tensor.
Ignoring ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$ and including ${\boldsymbol{K}}_2$ in ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ (without changing the notation), we can reduce equation to $$\label{eq:dM_rigid_body_free}
d_t {\boldsymbol{M}} = 0.$$ In Sections \[sec:rigid\_body\]-\[sec:three\_comps\] we will consider only the axisymmetric case. Therefore, formula is assumed to be valid, where the oblateness parameter is now calculated with formula . The more general case of a triaxial star is discussed in Section \[sec:qstat\_evolution\].
Equation formally states the conservation of total angular momentum. It is easy to verify that the mechanical energy $E = ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{M}})/2$ is also conserved. It is natural because we neglect torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$ describing the energy and angular momentum flows away from the star. The effects of this term are discussed in Section \[sec:qstat\_evolution\].
Substituting angular momentum expression into equation and changing to the co-rotating frame of reference, we obtain $$\label{eq:dOm_rigid_body}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = \epsilon ({\boldsymbol{e}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c) [{\boldsymbol{e}}_c \times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c].$$ Here and further we will denote by a superscript dot the time derivative in the frame of reference rotating with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$. The solution to this equation is the uniform rotation of vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ about symmetry axis ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ with angular frequency $$\label{eq:omega_p_rigid_body}
\omega_p = \epsilon\cos\theta\Omega_c,$$ [ where $\theta$ is the angle between angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ and symmetry axis ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$.]{} This type of motion is called free precession. [ Introducing pulsar rotational period $P = {2\pi}/{\Omega_c}$ and period of pulsar precession $T_p={2\pi}/{\omega_p}$, directly from we have $$\label{eq:Tp_rigid_body}
T_p = \frac{P}{\epsilon \cos\theta}.$$ ]{} Equation has a fixed point corresponding to stationary rotation about the symmetry axis: $${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0 ={\mathrm{const}}, \ \ \ {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0\parallel {\boldsymbol{e}}_c.$$ In order to study perturbations to the stationary rotation let us introduce a departure vector: $$\label{eq:mu_rigid_star}
{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_c = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c - {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0.$$ Further, it will be convenient to use the following notations, which can be applied to an arbitrary vector ${\boldsymbol{V}}$: $$V^\parallel = ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_z), \ \ \ V^\perp = ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_x) + i ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_y),$$ where $({\boldsymbol{e}}_x,{\boldsymbol{e}}_y,{\boldsymbol{e}}_z)$ is an orthonormal basis fixed in co-rotating frame of reference such that ${\boldsymbol{e}}_z = {\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. Substituting into and neglecting the quadratic in ${\mu}_c^\parallel$ and ${\mu}_c^\perp$ terms, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dmu_par_rigid_star}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\parallel = 0, \\
\label{dmu_perp_rigid_star}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\perp = i \epsilon \Omega_0 \mu_c^\perp.
\end{aligned}$$
Free precession motion is described by the “perpendicular” equation . Substituting $\mu_c^\perp \propto \exp(p t)$ we find $$p = i\epsilon \Omega_0.$$ Hence, the perpendicular part of vector ${\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ rotates about the symmetry axis with angular frequency $\omega_p = \epsilon \Omega_0$, which in the linear approximation ($\cos\theta \approx 1$, $\Omega_c \approx \Omega_0$) coincides with expression . Thus, knowing pulsar period $P$ and period of pulsar precession $T_p$, one can estimate the oblateness parameter as $$\epsilon \sim \frac{P}{T_p}.$$
As it was first pointed out by @Shaham1977, the situation dramatically changes if a neutron star contains a pinned superfluid. In this case, the stellar angular momentum expression requires some modification, namely, $$\label{eq:M_rigid_star_wpin}
{\boldsymbol{M}} = \tilde{I} {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + \epsilon \tilde{I} ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c + {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}.$$ where ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is the angular momentum of the pinned superfluid and $\tilde{I}$ is the moment of inertia of the rest of the stellar matter (excluding the pinned superfluid).
The angular momentum of the superfluid is totally determined by the distribution of quantum vortices. If the vortices are pinned, their density and orientation are fixed in the frame of reference rotating with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$. Therefore, angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is constant in the co-rotating frame of reference: $$\label{eq:dL_rigid_body}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{L}}}_\mathrm{sf} = 0.$$
For the sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves to the consideration of a particular configuration of ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}\parallel{\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. Such a configuration is not unrealistic but it is far from the general case. The analysis of star rotation with arbitrarily oriented ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ was given by @Shaham1977. It shows no significantly different results.
Substituting expressions and into equation and changing to the co-rotating frame of reference, we obtain $$\label{eq:dOm_rigid_body_wpin}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = \left(\epsilon + \frac{L_\mathrm{sf}}{\tilde{I}\Omega_c\cos\theta}\right) \Omega_c \cos\theta [{\boldsymbol{e}}_c \times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c].$$ At first sight this equation is similar to equation . However, the rate of vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ rotation is now determined by the sum of the two terms in parentheses. The second term can be estimated as $\sim I_\mathrm{pin}/\tilde{I}$, where $I_\mathrm{pin}$ is the moment of inertia of the pinned superfluid. If the understanding of glitches as a manifestation of neutron vortex dynamics is correct, at least about 1 percent of star’s moment of inertia should be contained in the pinned superfluid ($I_\mathrm{pin}/\tilde{I} \gtrsim 10^{-2}$) to ensure the observed glitch activity of the pulsars [@AnderssonGlampedakisHoEspinoza2012]. [ As for the first term, $\epsilon$, it hardly can reach such large magnitudes. Calculations give values at least several orders of magnitude smaller [@CutlerUshomirskyLink2003; @Wasserman2003]. Hence, the second term in parentheses is dominant.]{}
After linearization we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dmu_par_rigid_star_wp}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\parallel = 0, \\
\label{dmu_perp_rigid_star_wp}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\perp = i \tilde{\epsilon} \Omega_0 \mu_c^\perp,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the effective oblateness parameter $$\tilde{\epsilon} = \epsilon + \frac{L_\mathrm{sf}}{\tilde{I}\Omega_0} \approx I_\mathrm{pin}/\tilde{I} \gtrsim 10^{-2}.$$ Substituting $\mu_c^\perp \propto \exp(p t)$ into equation , we find $$\label{eq:prec_mode_rigid_star_wp}
p = i\tilde{\epsilon} \Omega_0 $$
[Thus, one can see that the free precession is governed almost exclusively by the amount of pinned superfluid which does not allow the star to precess with periods substantially longer than ]{} $$T_p \lesssim \frac{P}{\tilde{\epsilon}} \sim 10^2 P.$$ Such short periods are many orders of magnitude smaller than the observed values.
Two-component system {#sec:two_comps_cs}
====================
In the previous section we assumed that the whole star except the pinned superfluid rotates as a rigid body. Let us relax this assumption. First we consider the simplest case supposing that the neutron star consists of two dynamically distinguished components: an outer c-component whose rotation is directly observed and an inner g-component [@Shaham1977; @SedrakianWassermanCordes1999]. At this point, the components are introduced phenomenologically. The indices “c” and “g” are chosen for the sake of unification with the full model presented in Section \[sec:three\_comps\]. [For the components we can write]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dMc_two_comp}
&d_t {{\boldsymbol{M}}}_c = {\boldsymbol{N}}_{gc}, \\
\label{eq:dMg_two_comp}
&d_t {{\boldsymbol{M}}}_g = {\boldsymbol{N}}_{cg},
\end{aligned}$$ where
${\boldsymbol{M}}_i$ are the components angular momenta and ${\boldsymbol{N}}_{ij}$ are the components interaction torques, $i,j = c, g$. The c-component consists of the “normal" fraction and the pinned superfluid fraction. By the “normal" fraction we mean all the possible constituents of the c-component except the pinned neutron superfluid. It includes the ions in the crust lattice sites, electrons and possible non-superfluid neutrons. It could also include the part of stellar core matter that is rigidly connected to the crust. The “normal" fraction is assumed to be axisymmetric with moment of inertia $I_c$ and oblateness parameter $\epsilon_c$. It rotates with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$. The pinned superfluid contains angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ directed along the “normal" fraction symmetry axis ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. Thus, the total c-component angular momentum has the form $$\label{eq:Mc_two_comp}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_c = {I}_c {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + {I}_c \epsilon_c ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c + {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}.$$
The g-component is the part of the core that is not rigidly connected to the crust. This component, for simplicity, is assumed to be spherically symmetric. It is characterized by moment of inertia $I_g$ and rotates with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g$. Therefore, its angular momentum is equal to $$\label{eq:Mg_two_comp}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_g = {I}_g {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g.$$
Since the total stellar angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{M}} = {\boldsymbol{M}}_c+{\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ should be conserved, ${\boldsymbol{N}}_{cg} = - {\boldsymbol{N}}_{gc}$. However, for the mechanical energy we have $$d_t E = -({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c-{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g)\cdot{\boldsymbol{N}}_{cg}.$$ Therefore, the non-zero components of the interaction torque parallel to angular velocity difference $({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c-{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g)$ lead to the dissipation of mechanical energy inside the star.
Substituting expressions and into equations and , changing to the frame of reference co-rotating with the c-component, and taking into account equation , we obtain the equations for angular velocities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dOmega_c_two_comps_cs}
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c + \left(\epsilon_c + \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}}{\Omega\cos\theta}\right)({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \times {\boldsymbol{e}}_c ] \\
\nonumber
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ={\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc} - \frac{\epsilon_c}{1+\epsilon_c} ({\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c, \\
\label{dOmega_g_two_comps_cs}
& \dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_g + [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g]= {\boldsymbol{R}}_{cg},
\end{aligned}$$ where the following notations have been introduced: ${\boldsymbol{R}}_{ij} = {\boldsymbol{N}}_{ij}/I_j$ and ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf} = {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}/I_c$. Note that ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is just a convenient notation. In the general case, it is not have the meaning of superfluid angular velocity.
This system of equations has a fixed point corresponding to the uniform rotation of both components with the same angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0$ parallel to ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. In order to consider the linear perturbations to the equilibrium state, it is convenient to introduce small departure vectors: $$\label{eq:mu_two_coms_cs}
{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_i = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_i - {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0.$$ Let us also assume that, with linear in ${\boldsymbol{\mu_{i}}}$ accuracy, the interaction torques [have a simple frictional form]{}: $$\label{eq:Rij_two_comps}
{\boldsymbol{R}}_{ij} = \alpha_{ij} ({\boldsymbol{\mu}}_i - {\boldsymbol{\mu}}_j),$$ [ where coefficients $\alpha_{ij} >0 $.]{} From the angular momentum conservation it follows that $$\alpha_{ij} = \frac{I_i}{I_j}\alpha_{ji}.$$
Substituting expressions and into equations , and neglecting the quadratically small terms, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dmu_c_par_two_comps_cs}
& \dot{{\mu}}_c^\parallel - \frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+\epsilon_c} (\mu_g^\parallel-\mu_c^\parallel) = 0, \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_par_two_comps_cs}
& \dot{{\mu}}_{g}^\parallel - \alpha_{cg} \left( \mu_c^\parallel -\mu_g^\parallel \right)=0, \\
\label{eq:dmu_c_perp_two_comps_cs}
& \dot{\mu}_c^\perp - i\tilde{\epsilon}_c \Omega_0 \mu_c^\perp - \alpha_{gc} (\mu_g^\perp - \mu_c^\perp) = 0, \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_perp_two_comps_cs}
&\dot{\mu}_g^\perp + i \Omega_0 (\mu_g^\perp - \mu_c^\perp) - \alpha_{cg}\left(\mu_c^\perp - \mu_g^\perp\right) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:tilde_eps_two-comps}
\tilde{\epsilon}_c = \epsilon_c + \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel}{\Omega_0}$$ is the c-component effective oblateness parameter. One can see that the system of equations falls into two independent parts. The “parallel” part describes the evolution of the difference in absolute values of the angular velocities while the “perpendicular” part [works]{} when the angular velocities decline from the symmetry axis. Substituting $\mu_i^\parallel \propto \exp(p t)$ into equations –, we obtain $$\label{eq:par_mode_two_comps_cs}
p_\parallel = -\alpha _{cg} - \frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+{\epsilon}_{c}}.$$ The angular velocity difference, being excited, decays exponentially at the characteristic time-scale $\sim p_\parallel^{-1}$.
Since our main goal is studying the precession, the “perpendicular" modes are more interesting for us. Substituting $\mu_i^\perp \propto \exp(p t)$ into equations -, we obtain the following characteristic equation: $$\label{eq:char_eq_two_comps_cs}
p^2 + p (i\Omega_0-i\tilde{\epsilon}_c\Omega_0+\alpha_{cg}+\alpha_{gc}) + \tilde{\epsilon}_c\Omega_0^2-i\tilde{\epsilon}_c\Omega_0\alpha_{cg} = 0.
$$ This equation can be solved exactly. However, it would be more informative to obtain the approximate roots corresponding to different limiting cases.
Introducing an [auxiliary]{} interaction parameter, $$\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma = \frac{\alpha_{cg} + \alpha_{gc}}{\Omega_0},$$ we can rewrite equation in the following form: $$\label{eq:char_eq_two_comps_cs_wsigm}
p^2 + i p (1-\tilde{\epsilon}_c)\Omega_0 + \tilde{\epsilon}_c\Omega_0^2 + \sigma \Omega_0 (p -i \tilde{\epsilon}\Omega_0) = 0,$$ where $$\tilde{\epsilon} = \frac{I_c \tilde{\epsilon}_c}{I_c + I_g}$$ is the effective oblateness parameter of the star as a whole. If the interaction between the components is weak ($\sigma\ll1$), the roots of equation can be found in the form of the expansion in $\sigma$. Keeping the linear in $\sigma$ terms, after returning to the initial interaction coefficients we obtain [@SedrakianWassermanCordes1999]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_mode_two_comps_cs}
&p_1 \approx - i \Omega_0 -\alpha_{cg} -\frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_c}, \\
\label{eq:prec_mode_two_comps_cs}
&p_2 \approx i \tilde{\epsilon}_c \Omega_0 - \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_c}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_c}\alpha_{gc}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $p_1$ is the rotational mode corresponding to the angular velocities misalignment. According to expression the angular velocity difference vector , ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}_{cg} ={\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c-{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g$, rotates with angular velocity $-{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_0$ if it is observed from the co-rotating frame of reference. Therefore, in the inertial frame of reference, the direction of vector ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}_{cg}$ is constant. The absolute value of vector ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}_{cg}$ decreases with time. The characteristic time-scale of the mode decay is $$\label{eq:tau_d_rot_mode_two_comps_cs}
\tau_d \sim \left(\alpha_{cg} +\frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_c}\right)^{-1} \approx \frac{1}{\sigma\Omega_0} \gg \frac{1}{\Omega_0}.
$$ Note, that, in contrast to “parallel" mode $p_\parallel$, this one contains $\tilde{\epsilon}_{c}$ instead of $\epsilon_{c}$.
The second mode represents the free precession motion. The imaginary part of mode is similar to mode . But now it has a real part and, hence, it decays with time as well as the rotational mode. The characteristic time-scale of the precession damping is $$\label{eq:tau_d_prec_mode_two_comps_cs}
\tau_d \sim {\tilde{\epsilon}_c\alpha_{gc}} \gg \frac{1}{\tilde{\epsilon}_c\Omega_0}.$$ [The star will complete of the order of $\Omega_0/\alpha_{gc}\gg1$ precession cycles before the angular velocities align with the symmetry axis but the precession, being, as in the rigid-body case, governed by the pinned superfluid, remains fast.]{}
In the opposite limiting case of strong interaction ($\sigma\gg1$), the approximate roots obtained as the expansion in $\sigma^{-1}$ are [@SedrakianWassermanCordes1999] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_mode_two_comps_cs_si}
&p_1 \approx -i \left( 1 + \tilde{\epsilon} -\tilde{\epsilon}_c\right)\Omega_0 - \alpha_{gc} - \alpha_{cg}, \\
\label{eq:prec_mode_two_comps_cs_si}
&p_2 \approx i \tilde{\epsilon}\Omega_0 - \frac{{(1+\tilde{\epsilon})(\tilde{\epsilon}_c - \tilde{\epsilon})}}{\alpha_{cg}+\alpha_{gc}}\Omega_0^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Again, we have one rotational mode, $p_1$, and one precession mode, $p_2$. The real part of mode is much larger than its imaginary part. Therefore, being excited, this mode dacays before the first rotational cycle completes. Hence, the rotational mode is not oscillatory in the strong interaction limit.
The real part of relates to the imaginary part approximately as $(\alpha_{ij}/\Omega_0)^{-1} \ll 1$. Therefore, the precession mode is slowly damped as well as the weak-interaction precession mode. The imaginary part of mode relates to the imaginary part of mode as $I_c/(I_c+I_g)$.
Hence, the period of precession is longer in the strong-interaction limit but the precession is still governed by the pinned superfluid. Passing $(\alpha_{ij}/\Omega_0)$ to infinity we reproduce the rigid-body precession mode .
In sum, the introduction of the internal dissipation in the way described above leads to the damping of the precession but the precession frequency remains high. However, the two-component approximation gives us another possible configuration.
Two-component system with pinning in the core {#sec:two_comps_gs}
=============================================
[Let us [shift]{} the pinned superfluid into the inner g-component. With all the other assumptions being kept, the angular momenta of the components would have the following form: ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Mc_two_comp_gs}
&{\boldsymbol{M}}_c = I_c {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + I_c \epsilon_c ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c, \\
\label{eq:Mg_two_comp_gs}
&{\boldsymbol{M}}_g = {I}_g {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g + {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}.
\end{aligned}$$
Substituting expressions and into equations and , and changing to the c-component frame of reference, we obtain the equations for the angular velocities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dOmega_c_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c + {\epsilon}_c({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \times {\boldsymbol{e}}_c ] = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc} - \frac{\epsilon_c}{1+\epsilon_c} ({\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c, \\
\label{eq:dOmega_g_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_g + [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g] + [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g\times{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}] = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{cg},
\end{aligned}$$ where vector $$\label{eq:omega_sf}
{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf} = \frac{{\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}}{I_g}$$ has been reintroduced.
Since the angular momentum of the pinned superfluid is now fixed in the g-component, for an observer in the c-component we have the following equation for vector ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$: $$\label{eq:dom_sf_two_comp_gs}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}_\mathrm{sf} = ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g - {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c) \times{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}.$$
The rotation of the star is stationary if ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\parallel{\boldsymbol{e}}_c$, ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g\parallel{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c={\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g$. Considering the linear perturbations to this equilibrium state, let us first multiply equation by vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ scalarly. In terms of “parallel” and “perpendicular” components the result has the form $$\label{eq:dom_sf_par_two_comps_gs_tmp}
\dot{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel = -{\mathrm{Re}}\left[i \omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp (\mu_g^\perp - \mu_c^\perp)^\dagger\right],$$ where $\dagger$ denotes the complex conjugation. Since, in the zeroth approximation, vector ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is parallel to ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$, quantity ${\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^\perp$ can be treated as a small variable together with four variables $\mu_c^\parallel$, $\mu_c^\perp$, $\mu_g^\parallel$ and $\mu_g^\perp$, which were introduced earlier. Therefore, the right-hand side of equation is quadratically small. Thus, operating in the linear approximation we can put $$\label{eq:dom_sf_par_two_comps_gs}
{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel = {\mathrm{const}}.$$ Keeping this in mind, we can formulate a system of equations for the linear perturbations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dmu_c_par_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\parallel - \frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+\epsilon_c} (\mu_g^\parallel-\mu_c^\parallel) = 0 \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_par_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{\mu}_{g}^\parallel - \alpha_{cg} ( \mu_c^\parallel -\mu_g^\parallel )=0, \\
\label{eq:dmu_c_perp_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\perp - i{\epsilon}_c \Omega_0 \mu_c^\perp - \alpha_{gc} (\mu_g^\perp - \mu_c^\perp) = 0, \\
\nonumber
&\dot{\mu}_g^\perp - i \Omega_0 \mu_c^\perp + i \Omega_0 (1-\tilde{\epsilon}_g) \mu_g^\perp + i\tilde{\epsilon}_g \Omega_0^2 \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel} \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_pepr_two_comps_gs}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \alpha_{cg}(\mu_c^\perp - \mu_g^\perp) = 0, \\
\label{eq:dom_sf_perp_two_comps_gs}
&\dot{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^\perp + i \omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel (\mu_g^\perp-\mu_c^\perp) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have introduced the g-component effective oblateness parameter as $\tilde{\epsilon}_g = \omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel/\Omega_0$. Note that due to equality the system of equations falls into two independent subsystems. Since equations and coincide with equations and , the “parallel" mode remains the same. Let us consider the “perpendicular” modes. Substituting $\mu_i^\perp, \omega_g^\perp \propto \exp(p t)$ into equations – we obtain the third-order characteristic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&p^3 + i p^2 (1- {\epsilon}_c-\tilde{\epsilon}_g)\Omega_0 + p ({\epsilon}_c + \tilde{\epsilon}_g - {\epsilon}_c\tilde{\epsilon}_g)\Omega_0^2 \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -i \epsilon_c\tilde{\epsilon}_g\Omega_0^3 + \sigma \Omega_0(p^2 - i p \tilde{\epsilon} \Omega_0) = 0,
\label{eq:char_eq_two_comps_gs}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have again used the interaction parameter and introduced the whole star oblateness parameter as $$\tilde{\epsilon} = \frac{I_c {\epsilon}_c + I_g \tilde{\epsilon}_g }{I_c + I_g}.$$
Assuming weak interaction between the stellar components ($\sigma \ll 1$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_mode_two_comps_gs}
&p_1 \approx - i \Omega_0 -\frac{\alpha_{cg}}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g} -\frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+{\epsilon}_c}, \\
\label{eq:prec_c_mode_two_comps_gs}
&p_2 \approx i {\epsilon}_c \Omega_0 - \frac{{\epsilon}_c}{1+{\epsilon}_c}\alpha_{gc}, \\
\label{eq:prec_g_mode_two_comps_gs}
&p_3 \approx i \tilde{\epsilon}_g \Omega_0 - \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_g}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g}\alpha_{cg}.
\end{aligned}$$ The first mode is the rotational mode, similar to mode . The second and the the third ones are the precession modes, each of which represents the precession motion of a single component. Mode $p_3$ corresponds to the g-component fast precession caused by the superfluid pinned to it. The c-component precession mode $p_2$, in contrast to mode , contains the real (not “effective”) oblateness parameter. [ Hence, the c-component precession period is not constrained by the pinned superfluid and therefore it can be sufficiently long if $\epsilon_c$ is small enough.]{} Strictly speaking, oblateness parameter $\epsilon_c$ can be both positive (oblate star) and negative (prolate star). In the second case the mode is unstable. The reason for this is as follows. Introducing [internal dissipation]{} we allow the star to convert mechanical energy into thermal energy. However, [ the dissipation]{} cannot substantially affect the stellar angular momentum. Thus, the star tends to the state with minimum possible mechanical energy for a given angular momentum. This state is rotation about the major principal axis [@LandauLifshitz_Mech]. If $\epsilon_c>0$, this axis is ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. Otherwise, it is an axis perpendicular to ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. In the second case, one just needs to redefine the basic equilibrium state. For definiteness, further we will assume that $\epsilon_c>0$.
In the case of strong interaction, the approximate roots of equation are the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_mode_two_comps_gs_si}
&p_1 \approx -i (1+\tilde{\epsilon}-\epsilon_c-\tilde{\epsilon}_g)\Omega_0 - \alpha_{gc}- \alpha_{cg}, \\
\label{eq:prec1_mode_two_comps_gs_si}
&p_2 \approx i \tilde{\epsilon}\Omega_0 - \frac{{(1+\tilde{\epsilon})(\tilde{\epsilon}-{\epsilon}_c)(\tilde{\epsilon}_g - \tilde{\epsilon})}}{\tilde{\epsilon}(\alpha_{cg}+\alpha_{gc})}\Omega_0^2\\
&p_3 \approx i \frac{{\epsilon}_c\tilde{\epsilon}_g}{\tilde{\epsilon}} \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}({\epsilon}_c+\tilde{\epsilon}_g)-{\epsilon}_c\tilde{\epsilon}_g(1+\tilde{\epsilon})}{\tilde{\epsilon}^2(\alpha_{cg}+\alpha_{gc})^2}\Omega_0 -\frac{{\epsilon}_c\tilde{\epsilon}_g}{\tilde{\epsilon}}\frac{\Omega_0^2}{\alpha_{cg}+\alpha_{gc}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The first two of these are similar to the corresponding roots obtained for the c-component superfluid model (cf. and ). It is easy to verify that combination $(\tilde{\epsilon}-{\epsilon}_c)(\tilde{\epsilon}_g - \tilde{\epsilon})$ is always positive and hence the real part of mode is always negative. Therefore, mode is damped. The third mode arises when both $\epsilon_c$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$ are non-zero. However, it is easy to see that this mode is not oscillatory. Thus, if we assume that the pinning takes place in the internal component, the slow long-lived precession mode can exist in the case of weak interaction. [It is also necessary to make sure that this mode is observable. Substituting mode into equations - , we can express $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_c^\perp &= \big((1+\epsilon_c)\Omega_0 + O(\sigma) \big) \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel}, \\
\mu_g^\perp &= \big( \Omega_0 + O(\sigma) \big) \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel},
\end{aligned}$$ where $O(\sigma)$ are small corrections due to the component interaction. Using expressions and it can also be shown that $${M}^\perp = \left(M^\parallel + O(\sigma)\right) \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel},$$ where ${\boldsymbol{M}} = {\boldsymbol{M}}_c + {\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ is the total angular momentum. We see that, if the $p_2$ mode is excited, vectors ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ remain directed almost along the (fixed in the inertial frame of reference) stellar angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ while vectors ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ are declined from it. In the case of an infinitely small parameter $\sigma$, this mode corresponds to the independent precession of the external c-component. ]{}
Three-component system {#sec:three_comps}
======================
Having considered the basic idea, we turn to the full model. Let us assume that the neutron star consists of three dynamically distinguished components that we will denote as c-, g-, and r-component.
The c-component is the outer component. [The c-component as before is assumed to have axisymmetric shape.]{} Its angular momentum can be represented as $$\label{eq:Mc_three_comps}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_c = I_c {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + I_c \epsilon_c ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c.$$ The g-component is an inner component. [It consists of a “normal" fraction and a pinned superfluid fraction. The “normal" fraction, for more generality, is assumed to have axisymmetric shape. It is characterized by moment of inertia $I_g$ and oblateness parameter $\epsilon_g$. The “normal" fraction rotates with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g$. The pinned superfluid contains angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$. Thus, the total angular momentum of the g-component can be represented as ]{} $$\label{eq:Mg_three_comps}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_{g} = I_g{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g + I_g \epsilon_g ({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_g){\boldsymbol{e}}_g + {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf},$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}_g$ is unit vector directed along the g-component symmetry axis. We will assume that vector ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is directed along the g-component symmetry axis, i.e. $$\label{eq:Lg_assumption}
{\boldsymbol{e}}_g = \frac{{\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}}{{L}_\mathrm{sf}} = \frac{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}},$$ where ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is defined by expression .
The r-component is the other inner component. It rotates with angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_{r}$. Its possible asymmetries would not lead to substantially new effects but would complicate the expressions. Hence, we will assume this component to be spherically symmetric. Therefore, the angular momentum of the r-component is assumed to have the form $$\label{eq:Mr_three_comps}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_r = {I}_r {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_r.$$
The angular momentum conservation law can be represented in the form of three equations: $$\label{eq:dMi_three_comps}
d_t{\boldsymbol{M}}_i = \sum_{j \neq i} {\boldsymbol{N}}_{ji},$$ where $i, \ j = c, \ g, \ r$ and ${\boldsymbol{N}}_{ij}$ is the torque acting on the $i$th component from the $j$th component. In the general case, all the components are supposed to interact with each other.
The further analysis is similar to that performed for the two-component system. We will describe it briefly mentioning the main steps and focusing only on new features. Substituting expressions - into equations and changing to the frame of reference co-rotating with the c-component we obtain the following equations for the angular velocities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c + \epsilon_c (\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) {\boldsymbol{e}}_c + {\epsilon}_c({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \times {\boldsymbol{e}}_c ] = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc} + {\boldsymbol{R}}_{rc},
\label{eq:dOmega_c_three_comps} \\
\nonumber
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_g + \epsilon_g \left(\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_g\cdot \frac{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}}\right) \frac{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}}+ [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g] \\
\label{eq:dOmega_g_three_comps}
& \ +\left(\epsilon_g \left({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g\cdot \frac{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}}\right) + \omega_\mathrm{sf} \right) \left[{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g\times\frac{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}}\right] = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{cg} + {\boldsymbol{R}}_{rg}, \\
\label{eq:dOmega_r_three_comps}
&\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_r + [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_r] = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{cr} + {\boldsymbol{R}}_{gr}.
\end{aligned}$$ From the angular momentum conservation it is follows that $$\label{eq:R_ij_relation}
{\boldsymbol{R}}_{ij} = - \frac{I_i}{I_j}{\boldsymbol{R}}_{ji}.$$ In order to close this system, equation should be added. [ It is assumed that if]{} $$\label{eq:unif_rot}
{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_g = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_r.$$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\parallel{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}\parallel{\boldsymbol{e}}_c$, the system is in stable equilibrium. The reasoning leading to approximate equality remains valid. Hence, if the star rotates near the fixed point, there are seven small variables, namely $\mu_c^\parallel$, $\mu_c^\perp$, $\mu_g^\parallel$, $\mu_g^\perp$, $\mu_r^\parallel$, $\mu_r^\perp$ and $\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\perp$.
We assume that there are no preferred directions for the components interaction except the angular velocities. However, since the exact interaction mechanisms are not specified at this point, we consider a more general form of vectors ${\boldsymbol{R}}_{ij}$. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R_tree_comps}
&{R}_{ij}^\parallel = \alpha_{ij} ({\mu}^{\parallel}_{i} - {\mu}^{\parallel}_{j}), \\
\label{eq:R_tree_comps_perp}
&{R}_{ij}^\perp = \xi_{ij} ({\mu}^{\perp}_{i} - {\mu}^{\perp}_{j}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{ij} = \beta_{ij} + i \gamma_{ij}$ and $\alpha_{ij}$, $\beta_{ij}$, $\gamma_{ij}$ are the phenomenological interaction constants. The particular case of simple linear friction corresponds to $\beta_{ij} = \alpha_{ij}, \gamma_{ij} = 0$. If we consider, for instance, the mutual friction interaction between the $i$- and $j$-component, one of which is superfluid, the coefficients can be represented in the following form [@SedrakianWassermanCordes1999; @BGT2013]: $$\alpha_{ij} = 2 \Omega_0 \frac{x}{1+x^2}, \ \beta_{ij} = \Omega_0 \frac{x}{1+x^2}, \ \gamma_{ij} = - \Omega_0 \frac{x^2}{1+x^2}$$ where $x$ is the coupling parameter. From relations it follows that $$\label{eq:coeffs_relations_three_comps}
\alpha_{ij} = \frac{I_i}{I_j}
\alpha_{ji}, \ \ \ \beta_{ij} = \frac{I_i}{I_j} \beta_{ji}, \ \ \ \gamma_{ij} = \frac{I_i}{I_j} \gamma_{ji}.$$
The linearized system of equations has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dmu_c_par_three_comps}
&(1+\epsilon_c)\dot{\mu}_c^\parallel + \left(\alpha_{gc} + \alpha_{rc} \right) \mu_c^\parallel - \alpha_{gc} \mu_g^\parallel- \alpha_{rc} \mu_r^\parallel = 0 \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_par_three_comps}
&(1+\epsilon_g)\dot{\mu}_g^\parallel + \left(\alpha_{cg} + \alpha_{rg} \right) \mu_g^\parallel - \alpha_{cg} \mu_c^\parallel- \alpha_{rg} \mu_r^\parallel = 0 \\
\label{eq:dmu_r_par_three_comps}
&\dot{\mu}_r^\parallel + \left(\alpha_{cr} + \alpha_{gr} \right) \mu_r^\parallel - \alpha_{cr} \mu_c^\parallel- \alpha_{gr} \mu_g^\parallel = 0 \\
\label{eq:dmu_c_perp_three_comps}
&\dot{\mu}_c^\perp + \left( \xi_{gc} + \xi_{rc} - i{\epsilon}_c \Omega_0 \right) \mu_c^\perp - \xi_{gc} \mu_g^\perp - \xi_{rc} \mu_r^\perp = 0, \\
\nonumber
&\dot{\mu}_g^\perp + \left(\xi_{cg} + \xi_{rg} + i \Omega_0 (1-\tilde{\epsilon}_g) \right)\mu_g^\perp - \left( i \Omega_0 + \xi_{cg}\right)\mu_c^\perp \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_pepr_three_comps}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \xi_{rg}\mu_r^\perp + i\tilde{\epsilon}_g \Omega_0^2 \frac{\omega_g^\perp}{\omega_g^\parallel} = 0, \\
\nonumber
&\dot{\mu}_r^\perp + \left(\xi_{cr} + \xi_{gr} + i \Omega_0 \right)\mu_r^\perp - \left( i \Omega_0 + \xi_{cr}\right)\mu_c^\perp \\
\label{eq:dmu_g_pepr_three_comps}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\xi_{gr}\mu_g^\perp = 0, \\
\label{eq:dom_sf_perp_three_comps}
&\dot{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^\perp + i \omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel (\mu_g^\perp-\mu_c^\perp) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ [ where the g-component effective oblateness parameter is equal to $$\label{eq:epsilon_g_three_comps}
\tilde{\epsilon}_g = \epsilon_g + \frac{L_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel}{I_g \Omega_0} = \epsilon_g + \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel}{\Omega_0}.$$ ]{} As before, the system falls into “parallel” and “perpendicular” parts.
Let us first consider “parallel” modes. Substituting $\mu_i^\parallel \propto \exp (p t)$ into equations – we obtain the following second-order characteristic equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&p^{2} + \Omega_0(\sigma_{cg} + \sigma_{cr} +\sigma_{gr})p +\Omega_0^2\left(\sigma_{cg}\sigma_{cr} + \sigma_{cg}\sigma_{gr} + \sigma_{cr}\sigma_{gr}\right) \\
\label{eq:char_equations_par_modes_three_comps}
&- \frac{\alpha_{gc}\alpha_{rc}}{(1+\epsilon_c)^2} - \frac{\alpha_{cg}\alpha_{rg}}{(1+\epsilon_g)^2} - {\alpha_{cr}\alpha_{gr}}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have introduced three interaction parameters $$\sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{\Omega_{0}}\left(\frac{\alpha_{ij}}{1+\epsilon_j} + \frac{\alpha_{ji}}{1+\epsilon_i}\right),$$ it is easy to see that $\sigma_{ij} = \sigma_{ji}$. The exact roots of equation can be given. However, instead of that we focus on the one particular case of $$\label{eq:sigma_cond}
\sigma_{cg}\gg\sigma_{cr}, \ \sigma_{gr}$$ which appears to be the most suitable for the glitch model considered in Section \[sec:glitch\]. With relations the roots can be represented in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
p_{+} &\approx - \sigma_{cg}\Omega_0 - \frac{(1+\epsilon_g)I_g \alpha_{rc} + (1+\epsilon_c)I_c \alpha_{rg}}{ (1+\epsilon_g)I_g+(1+\epsilon_c)I_c} \\
\label{eq:par_mode_+_three_comps}
&\approx -\frac{\alpha_{cg}}{1+\epsilon_g} - \frac{\alpha_{gc}}{1+\epsilon_c}, \\ \nonumber
p_{-} &\approx -(\sigma_{cr} + \sigma_{gr})\Omega_0 + \frac{(1+\epsilon_g)I_g \alpha_{rc} + (1+\epsilon_c)I_c \alpha_{rg}}{ (1+\epsilon_g)I_g+(1+\epsilon_c)I_c} \\
\label{eq:par_mode_-_three_comps}
&= - \frac{(1+\epsilon_c)I_c + (1+\epsilon_g)I_g + I_r}{(1+\epsilon_c)I_c + (1+\epsilon_g)I_g}(\alpha_{cr} + \alpha_{gr}).
\end{aligned}$$ In this particular case, $p_+\gg p_-$.
Let us turn to the “perpendicular" part. We do not give here the fourth-order characteristic equation because of its awkwardness. By analogy with the “parallel“ case we can introduce three interaction parameters $$Z_{ij} = \frac{\xi_{ij} + \xi_{ji}}{\Omega_0}.$$ In the weak-interaction limit ($|Z_{ij}|\ll1$) the approximate expressions for the modes can be represented in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_mode_1_three_comps}
&p_1 \approx -i \Omega_0 +\delta p_1 \\
\label{eq:rot_mode_2_three_comps}
&p_2 \approx -i \Omega_0 + \delta p_2 \\
\label{eq:prec_mode_c_three_comps}
&p_3 \approx i \epsilon_c \Omega_0 - \frac{\epsilon_c}{1+\epsilon_c}\left(\xi_{gc} + \xi_{rc}\right)\\
\label{eq:prec_mode_g_three_comps}
&p_4 \approx i\tilde{\epsilon}_g \Omega_0 - \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_g}{1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g}(\xi_{rg} +\xi_{cg}).
\end{aligned}$$ With the introduction of the third component the rotational mode becomes degenerate. It splits into two modes when the dissipation corrections $\delta p_1$ and $\delta p_2$ are taken into account. They can be found as the roots of the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\delta p^2 - \delta p \left[ (1+\epsilon_c)\xi_{cg} + (1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g)(\xi_{gc}+\xi_{rc}) +\right.\\
\nonumber
&\left. + (1+\epsilon_c)\xi_{rg} +(1+\epsilon_c)(1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g)(\xi_{gr}+\xi_{cr})) \right] - \\
\nonumber
&-(1+\epsilon_c)(\xi_{cr}\xi_{rg} + \xi_{cg}\xi_{cr}+ \xi_{cg}\xi_{rc}) - \\
\nonumber
&-(1+\tilde{\epsilon}_g)(\xi_{gc}\xi_{cr}+\xi_{gc}\xi_{gr}+\xi_{rc}\xi_{gr})- \\
\label{eq:dp}
&-(\xi_{gc}\xi_{rg}+\xi_{rc}\xi_{rg}+\xi_{cg}\xi_{rc}) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ To make some estimations by analogy with ”parallel" modes we assume that $|Z_{cg}| \gg |Z_{cr}|, |Z_{gr}|$. This allows us to treat relations $Z_{cr}/Z_{cg}$ and $Z_{gr}/Z_{cg}$ as small parameters and represent the roots of equation in the form of expansion in them. The resulting expressions formally coincide with expressions and with corresponding replacements of $\alpha_{ij}$ by $\xi_{ij}$ and $\epsilon_g$ by $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$. Since our goal is estimating the damping time-scales, for the sake of brevity, we neglect all the oblateness parameters, assuming their smallness. To the first order in the small interaction parameters we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta p_1 \approx - \xi_{cg} - \xi_{gc} - \frac{I_g\xi_{rc} + I_c\xi_{rg}}{I_c+I_g}, \\
&\delta p_2 \approx - \frac{I_c(\xi_{rc}+\xi_{cr}+\xi_{gr}) + I_g(\xi_{cr}+\xi_{gr}+\xi_{rg})}{I_c+I_g}.
\end{aligned}$$ Another possible case is $\tilde{\epsilon}_g\gg$1, for which we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta p_1 \approx - \frac{\xi_{cg}+ \tilde{\epsilon}_g\xi_{gc}}{\tilde{\epsilon}_g} - \frac{I_c\xi_{rg} + \tilde{\epsilon}_g^2I_g\xi_{rc}}{\tilde{\epsilon}_g(I_c + \tilde{\epsilon}_g I_g)},\\
&\delta p_2 \approx - \frac{I_c(\xi_{rc}+\tilde{\epsilon}_g\xi_{cr}+\tilde{\epsilon}_g\xi_{gr}) + I_g(\tilde{\epsilon}_g\xi_{cr}+\tilde{\epsilon}_g\xi_{gr}+\xi_{rg})}{I_c + \tilde{\epsilon}_gI_g}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, assuming that the cg-interaction is much stronger than the other two, we obtain the hierarchy of damping time-scales. Namely, the real part of $p_+$ and $p_1$ is determined by the strength of the strongest interaction (i.e. cg-intraction) while $p_-$ and $p_2$ modes are damped rather due to the cr- and gr-interactions.
Mode $p_3$ corresponds to the c-component slow precession. It is almost similar to mode obtained in the framework of the two-component model. However, let us note that the precession period, in the general case, would be equal to $$\label{eq:Tp_three_comps}
T_p = \frac{P}{\epsilon_c \left(1 - \frac{\gamma_{gc} + \gamma_{rc}}{\Omega_0}\right)}.$$ Mode $p_4$ corresponds to the fast precession of the g-component. We do not take into account the possible non-sphericity of the r-component. However, one can see that in the weak-interaction limit each component precesses almost independently. Hence, the precession mode for the r-component can easily be obtained from $p_3$ or $p_4$ by the corresponding interchange of the indices. We restrict ourselves to considering only the weak-interaction limit between all pairs of components. [We have seen in Section \[sec:two\_comps\_gs\] that the strong-interaction limit between the c- and g-component does not allow the observed c-component to precess with long period. ]{} Hence, the gc-interaction should be weak. On the other hand, we will see in sec. \[sec:glitch\] that the cg-interaction should be the strongest among all pair interactions. Thus, the only possible case is the weak interaction between all the components. Recall that by weak interaction we mean that $$\label{eq:weak_limit_three-comps}
\frac{\alpha_{ij}}{\Omega_0}, \ \frac{\beta_{ij}}{\Omega_0}, \ \frac{\gamma_{ij}}{\Omega_0} \ll 1.$$
Quasi-stationary evolution {#sec:qstat_evolution}
==========================
We have seen that the long-period precession mode can arise if we assume that the region of superfluid pinning can [rotate]{} relative to the crust. [This result was obtained for a freely rotating neutron star perturbed from stable equilibrium.]{} Such a formulation of the problem, however, could be not quite realistic. As it was mentioned at the beginning of the paper, strictly speaking, the rotation of neutron stars is not free. Even isolated neutron stars rotate under the action of electromagnetic torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ caused by the rotation of the strong magnetic field anchored to the star [@DavisGoldstein1970; @BeskinGurevichIstomin1983; @Melatos2000]. The part of this torque that we have denoted by ${\boldsymbol{K}}_2$ can be easily taken into account by redefinition of the stellar moment of inertia tensor (see Section \[sec:rigid\_body\]). As for the second part, ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$, we have not taken it into account because its effects are negligibly small at precession time-scales. Now we are going to formulate the equations that allow us to consider the evolution of pulsar rotation at the pulsar life time-scales.
We will consider the three-component model introduced in the previous section. Equations , and remain the same. Equation should be replaced by a slightly modified one that is more convenient for subsequent consideration. First, let us re-establish the third-order external torque term ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$, which we put on the right-hand side of equation . After simple rearrangement the equation takes the following form: $$\label{eq:dOm_c_quasistat_tmp}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c + \epsilon_c (\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) {\boldsymbol{e}}_c = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc} + {\boldsymbol{R}}_{rc} +{\boldsymbol{S}},$$ where we have introduced vector $${\boldsymbol{S}} = \frac{{\boldsymbol{K}}_3}{I_c} -{\epsilon}_c({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\cdot {\boldsymbol{e}}_c) [{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c \times {\boldsymbol{e}}_c ].$$ Multiplying equation by ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ and substituting the obtained expression for $({\boldsymbol{e}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c)$ back into equation we get $$\label{eq:dOm_c_quasistat_tmp_2}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = {\boldsymbol{\mathrm{RHS}}} - \frac{\epsilon_c}{1+\epsilon_c} ({\boldsymbol{\mathrm{RHS}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c){\boldsymbol{e}}_c,$$ where by ${\boldsymbol{\mathrm{RHS}}}$ we mean the right-hand side of equation . Recall that the c-component oblateness parameter is supposed to be of the order of $10^{-8}$ or smaller. Therefore, the second term on the right-hand side of equation is negligibly small. Thus, the c-component equation becomes $$\label{eq:dOm_c_quasistat}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = {\boldsymbol{R}}_{gc} + {\boldsymbol{R}}_{rc} +{\boldsymbol{S}}.$$
The c-component angular velocity vector time derivative can be represented as a sum of two terms: $$\label{eq:dOm_two_parts}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = \dot{\Omega}_c{\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega + \Omega_c \dot{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_\Omega,$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c/\Omega_c$. Here, the first term represents the change of the angular velocity absolute value while the second term arises due to change of its orientation. Again it will be convenient to introduce the “parallel” and “perpendicular” parts of the vectors. However, in contrast to previous sections, we define the parts relative to the direction of vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ instead of ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. Let ${\boldsymbol{e}}_x, \ {\boldsymbol{e}}_y, \ {\boldsymbol{e}}_z$ be an orthonormal basis oriented such that ${\boldsymbol{e}}_z \parallel {\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega$ and ${\boldsymbol{e}}_x \parallel \dot{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_\Omega$. Having fixed the basis, we can introduce the following notations: $$\label{eq:V_par_perp_quasistat}
V^{(\parallel)} = ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_z), \ \ \ {V}^{(\perp)} = ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_x) + i ({\boldsymbol{V}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_y),$$ where ${\boldsymbol{V}}$ is an arbitrary vector. Taking into account expression and , we can represent equation as two equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dOm_c_par_quasistat}
&\dot{\Omega}_c = R_{gc}^{(\parallel)} + R_{rc}^{(\parallel)} + S^{(\parallel)},\\
\label{eq:dOm_c_perp_quasistat}
&\Omega_c \dot{{e}}_{\Omega} =
{R}_{gc}^{(\perp)} + {R}_{rc}^{(\perp)} + {S}^{(\perp)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The next step is linearization. Let us introduce departure vectors $$\label{eq:mu}
{\boldsymbol{\nu}}_{ij} = {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_i - {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_j = {\boldsymbol{\mu}}_i - {\boldsymbol{\mu}}_j$$ We will assume that all the components rotate with almost the same angular velocity and the g-component rotates almost about its symmetry axis ${\boldsymbol{e}}_g$. However, the angle between ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ and ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ is now not necessarily small. Multiplying equation by vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega$ we obtain $$\label{eq:dom_sf_par_quasistat}
\dot{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)} = - {\mathrm{Re}}\left[ i {\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}{\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)\dagger} + {\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}\dot{{e}}_\Omega\right].$$ Since, in the zeroth approximation, vector ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is parallel to ${\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega$, quantity ${\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}$ can be treated as a small variable together with the components of the angular velocity departure vectors. Hence, the first term on the right-hand side of equation is straightforwardly quadratically small. According to equation time derivative $\dot{{e}}_{\Omega}$ is linearly small. Therefore, the second term on the right-hand side of equation is quadratically small as well. Thus, the parallel part of vector ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}$ with linear accuracy can be treated as a constant.
The interaction between the components is described by vectors ${\boldsymbol{R}}_{ij}$. It is assumed that in the small departure approximation (${\nu}_{ij}/\Omega_0\ll 1$) they can be represented in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R_quasistat}
&{R}_{ij}^{(\parallel)} = \alpha_{ij} {\nu}^{(\parallel)}_{ij}, \\
&{R}_{ij}^{(\perp)} = \xi_{ij} {\nu}^{(\perp)}_{ij} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{ij} = \beta_{ij} + i \gamma_{ij}$ and $\alpha_{ij}$, $\beta_{ij}$, $\gamma_{ij}$ are the interaction constants. If ${\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\approx{\boldsymbol{e}}_c$, this representation, up to linear terms, reproduces expressions and . Hence, the interaction constants $\alpha_{ij}$, $\beta_{ij}$, $\gamma_{ij}$ coincide with the coresponding interaction constants introduced in Section \[sec:three\_comps\].
Substituting definition into equations , and and neglecting quadratically small terms, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dnu_gc_par_quasistat}
& {\dot{\nu}_{gc}^{(\parallel)}} =
\frac{R_{cg}^{(\parallel)}}{1+\epsilon_g} + \frac{R_{rg}^{(\parallel)}}{1+\epsilon_g}
- R_{gc}^{(\parallel)} -R_{rc}^{(\parallel)} - S^{(\parallel)},
\\
\label{eq:dnu_rc_par_quasistat}
& {\dot{\nu}_{rc}^{(\parallel)}} =
{R_{cr}^{(\parallel)}}+ {R_{gr}^{(\parallel)}}
- R_{gc}^{(\parallel)} -R_{rc}^{(\parallel)} - S^{(\parallel)},
\\
\nonumber
& {\dot{{\nu}}_{gc}^{(\perp)}} +
i(1-\tilde{\epsilon}_g) {\Omega}_c{\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)}
+ i \tilde{\epsilon}_g \Omega_c^2 \frac{{\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^\parallel} \\
\label{eq:dnu_gc_perp_quasistat}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ = {R}_{cg}^{(\perp)} + {R}_{rg}^{(\perp)}
- {R}_{gc}^{(\perp)} - {R}_{rc}^{(\perp)} - {S}^{(\perp)},
\\
\nonumber
& {\dot{{\nu}}_{rc}^{(\perp)}} +
i{\Omega}_c {\nu}_{rc}^{(\perp)} \\
\label{eq:dnu_rc_perp_quasistat}
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ = {R}_{cr}^{(\perp)} + {R}_{gr}^{(\perp)}
- {R}_{gc}^{(\perp)} - {R}_{rc}^{(\perp)} - {S}^{(\perp)},
\\
\label{eq:dom_sf_perp_quasistat}
& {\frac{\dot{{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}}} + i {\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)} =
- \frac{1}{\Omega_c}
\left(
{R}_{gc}^{(\perp)} + {R}_{rc}^{(\perp)} + {S}^{(\perp)}
\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:epsilon_g_quasistat}
\tilde{\epsilon}_g = \epsilon_g + \frac{L_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}}{I_g \Omega_c} = \epsilon_g + \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}}{\Omega_c}.$$ The equation for ${\nu}_{gr}^{(\parallel)}= {\nu}_{gc}^{(\parallel)} - {\nu}_{rc}^{(\parallel)}$ and ${\nu}_{gr}^{(\perp)} = {\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)} - {\nu}_{rc}^{(\perp)}$ can be obtained from equations – . Equations - together with equations and form a closed system describing the rotation evolution of our three-component neutron star.
We have linearized the system of equations with respect to $\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}$, $\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)}$, ${\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)}$, ${\nu}_{rc}^{(\perp)}$ and ${\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}$. However, equations , and - contain different combinations with vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ which is not small. In its present form this system of equations is quite difficult to solve. Fortunately, the analysis performed in Section \[sec:three\_comps\] gives us a way to simplify this system.
Let us highlight the following:
1. \[item:I\]The observed quasi-periodic processes that are interpreted as a manifestation of the long-period precession mode have the time-scale $T_p\sim10^2$ d or longer and, hence, $\epsilon_c \sim 10 ^{-8}$ or smaller.
2. \[item:II\] If at least 1 percent of the total moment of inertia is contained in the g-component pinned superfluid, according to expression the g-component effective oblateness parameter $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$ cannot be smaller that $\sim 10^{-2}$. The estimations that will be done in Section \[sec:glitch\] provide $\tilde{\epsilon}_g \sim 10$.
3. \[item:III\] The interactions between the components are assumed to be weak but not too weak. It is required that $\alpha_{ij}/\Omega_c, |\xi_{ij}|/\Omega_c \ll 1$ for all pairs of the components. Let us also constrain the coefficient values from the other side assuming that $$\label{eq:qusistat_ineq_val}
\frac{\epsilon_c\Omega_0}{\tilde{\epsilon}_g(\beta_{cg}+\beta_{gc})}\ll1, \ \ \ \
\frac{\epsilon_c\Omega_0}{\mathrm{min}(\alpha_{ij}, \ \beta_{ij})}\ll1.$$
From points \[item:I\] – \[item:III\] it is follows that there is a gap between the long-period precession time-scale ($\sim T_p$) and the time-scales of all the other modes except the long-period precession one. In other words, if we introduce the internal relaxation time-scale $\tau_r$ as a smallest real part of all the other modes except the long-period precession mode, condition $\tau_r \ll T_p$ is assumed to be satisfied. Such a hierarchy of time-scales allows us to consider the behaviour of the system on the different time-scales separately.
Let us first consider the evolution of the system at the internal relaxation time-scale. At this time-scale, the absolute value of angular velosity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ and its orientation relative to vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$ can change only slightly. Therefore, we can treat vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ as well as vector ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ as constants. In this case, equations – become a closed system of linear equations. [ The system is inhomogeneous. Therefore, the general solution consists of a particular solution to system – and the general solution to this system with zeroth ${\boldsymbol{S}}$. The first can be found by putting all the time derivatives in equations – equal to zero. We will call this solution “quasi-stationary" where by “quasi” we mean that it is an approximate solution, valid as long as vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ can be treated as a constant. The general solution of homogeneous equations is a sum of modes proportional to $\exp(pt)$. It is not difficult to see that they are the same modes as were obtained in Section \[sec:three\_comps\] (except the long-period precession mode). Indeed, making the following formal change of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
&\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)} = \mu_{g}^\parallel - \mu_{c}^\parallel, \ \ \
\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)} = \mu_{r}^\parallel - \mu_{c}^\parallel, \\
&\nu_{gc}^{(\perp)} = \mu_{g}^\perp - \mu_{c}^\perp, \ \ \
\nu_{rc}^{(\perp)} = \mu_{r}^\perp - \mu_{c}^\perp, \\
& \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}} = \frac{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{\perp}}{\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{\parallel}} - \frac{\mu_{c}^\perp}{\Omega_0},
\end{aligned}$$ and renaming $\Omega_0$ to $\Omega_c$, we can obtain system of equation – with zeroth ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ from system of equations – with zeroth $\epsilon_c$.]{} Since all the real parts of modes , and – are negative, small perturbations decay to the quasi-stationary solution. The quasi-stationary values of $\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}$, $\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)}$, ${\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)}$, ${\nu}_{rc}^{(\perp)}$ and ${\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}$ can be obtained from equations – with simple algebra. The expressions, however, are quite cumbersome. We do not give exact expressions, restricting ourselves to estimations. Let us first look at the “parallel" part of the system of equations. Since the time derivatives are negligibly small, the non-zeroth value of $S^{(\parallel)}$ can be counterbalanced only by interaction torques $R_{ij}^{(\parallel)}$, i.e. $R_{ij}^{(\parallel)}\sim S^{(||)}$ and $\nu_{ij}^{(\parallel)} \sim S^{(||)} /\mathrm{min}(\alpha_{jk})$. The precession term does not contribute to $S^{(\parallel)}$. Therefore, $S^{(\parallel)} \sim K_3/I_c \sim(I/I_c) (\Omega_c/\tau_c)$ where $\tau_c$ is the characteristic age of the pulsar. For the “perpendicular" part we have ${\nu}_{ij}^{(\perp)}, \ {\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}\sim {S}^{(\perp)}/\Omega_c$. The leading term in ${S}^{(\perp)}$ is the precession term. Hence, ${\nu}_{ij}^{(\perp)}, \ {\omega}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)} \sim \epsilon_c \Omega_c$. Thus, we see that the quasi-stationary values of these quantities are small as it was assumed.
[ Let us turn to the long-period precession time-scale. If the small perturbations are not excited during stellar evolution, they should all be damped on this time-scale.]{} However, we obviously can no longer ignore the evolution of vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$. It produces corrections to the quasi-stationary expressions arising to compensate the time derivatives in equations – . The time derivatives, in turn, arise due to changing the components of vector ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ contained in the quasi-stationary expressions. Hence, $\dot{\nu}_{ij} \sim \nu_{ij} (\dot{\Omega}_c/\Omega_c)$. According to equations and we have $\dot{\Omega}_c \sim \alpha_{ij} \nu_{ij}$ and ${\dot{e}}_\Omega \sim \nu_{ij}$. Hence, $\dot{\nu}_{ij} \sim \nu_{ij}^2$, i.e. the corrections are quadratically small. Thus, we can continue to use the quasi-stationary expressions for small departures at the long-period time-scales if the three following conditions are satisfied. First, the departures from the solid-body rotation should be small. Secondly, the internal relaxation time-scale should be much smaller than the slow precession period $T_p$ (ensured by conditions ). [Thirdly, the time-dependent perturbations are not excited during the star’s life-time. The last condition is obviously violated if the neutron star is glitching. This case is the subject of the next section.]{}
The quasi-stationary approximation allows us to exclude the rotation of the internal components from consideration. Let us first look at the “parallel" part. The quasi-stationary expressions for $\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}$ and $\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)}$, being expressed from equations and , can be substituted into the right-hand side of equation . However, a more illustrative way to obtain the same result is the following. Taking a look at equations and , we notice that the three last terms on their right-hand sides (cf. equation ) are exactly equal to $\dot{\Omega}_c$. After transposing $\dot{\Omega}_c$ to the left-hand sides of the equations one can compose the combination $I_c$$+ (1+\epsilon_g)I_g$$+ I_r$. Neglecting quadratically small time derivatives $\dot{\nu}_{ij}^{(\parallel)}$ and taking into account relations , we finally obtain $$\label{eq:braking}
\tilde{I}\dot{\Omega}_c = K_3^{(\parallel)},$$ where we have denoted $\tilde{I} = I_c+(1+\epsilon_g)I_g + I_r$. According to this equation the neutron star is braked by the external torque as if it is a rigid body with the moment of inertia equal to $\tilde{I}$. It does not contain the moment of inertia of the pinned superfluid because the superfluid does not slow down as long as it remains pinned. The rigid-body braking is a general feature of the quasi-stationary approximation [@BGT2014 section 2.3]. Let us turn to the “perpendicular" part. According to equation , the right-hand side of equation is equal to $-\dot{{e}}_\Omega$. Therefore, from equation in the quasi-stationary approximation ($\dot{{\omega}}_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}\approx 0$) we have $$\label{eq:nu_gc_perp_quasistat}
{\nu}_{gc}^{(\perp)} = i \dot{{e}}_\Omega.$$ Substituting equation into equations and (with zeroth time derivatives), we obtain the system of linear equations for $\nu_{rc}^{(\perp)}$ and $\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)}$, allowing us to express these quantities as functions of $\dot{{e}}_\Omega$. The solution is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nu_rc_perp_quasistat}
&\nu_{rc}^{(\perp)} = i \dot{e}_\Omega - \frac{ \xi_{cr}}{ \Omega_c - i \xi_{cr} - i \xi_{gr} }\dot{e}_\Omega, \\
\label{eq:omega_sf_perp_quasistat}
&\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\perp)} = i \dot{e}_\Omega + \frac{\dot{e}_
\Omega}{\tilde{\epsilon}_g}\left( \frac{\xi_{cg}}{\Omega_c} + i \frac{\xi_{rg}}{\Omega_c} \frac{ \xi_{cr}}{ \Omega_c - i \xi_{cr} - i \xi_{gr}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ We see that all three quantities – contain the same term $i \dot{{e}}_\Omega$. The last two contain some corrections to it that, however, are small in the weak-interaction limit. Substituting equations and into equation and making some rearrangement, we finally obtain the equation for $\dot{e}_\Omega$, which after returning to the vector form can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
I_c \Omega_c \dot{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{\Omega} =- (1+\Gamma) \frac{{\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times\left[{\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times{\boldsymbol{K}}_3\right] + I_c{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times{\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}}{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c}{(1+\Gamma)^2+B^2} \\
\label{eq:precess}
+B \frac{{\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times({\boldsymbol{K}}_3-I_c{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times{\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}}{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c)}{(1+\Gamma)^2+B^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where coefficients $B$ and $\Gamma$ are determined by equality $$\label{eq:precess_coeffs}
B + i \Gamma = \xi_{gc} + \xi_{rc} + \frac{\xi_{rc} \xi_{cr} }{\Omega_c - i
\xi_{cr} - i \xi_{gr} }.$$ Here we have used notation $$\label{eq:epsilon_axisym}
{\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}}{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c = \epsilon_c {\boldsymbol{e}}_c ({\boldsymbol{e}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c).$$ However, all steps of the derivation of equation remain valid if we assume a more general form for the c-component angular momentum $${\boldsymbol{M}}_{c} = I_{c} {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c + I_{c} {\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}} {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$$ instead of form , where ${\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}}$ is an arbitrary symmetric tensor describing small deviations of the c-component from spherical symmetry.
Since the weak-interaction limit is assumed ($|\xi_{ij}|/\Omega_c\ll1$), the coefficients in equation approximately are equal to $$\label{eq:precess_coeffs_weak_limit}
B \approx \frac{\beta_{gc} + \beta_{rc}}{\Omega_c}, \ \ \ \ \Gamma \approx \frac{\gamma_{gc} + \gamma_{rc}}{\Omega_c}.$$ Replacing expression by expressions , we ignore the difference between the rotation of the two internal components (the second term in equation is neglected).
If the internal components do not interact with the c-component at all, both coefficients $B$ and $\Gamma$ are equal to zero. In this case, equation takes the form $$I_c \Omega_c \dot{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{\Omega} =- {\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times\left[{\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times{\boldsymbol{K}}_3\right] - I_c{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c\times{\hat{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}}{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c.$$ With ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3 = 0$ and equality it reproduces the rigid-body free precession equation . The influence of ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$ at the precession evolution is beyond the scope of the present paper. This question has already been well studied [@Goldreich1970; @Melatos2000; @ArzamasskiyEtAl2015; @GBT2015]. The electromagnetic torque can force the precession amplitude to both increase or decrease at the time-scales of pulsar characteristic age $\tau_c$. It is difficult to formulate any more specific statement because the result depends strongly on the mutual orientation of the stellar magnetic axis and its principal axes as well as on the exact form of the external electromagnetic torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3$.
Next, let us switch off the external torque but take into account the interaction with the internal components. If ${\boldsymbol{K}}_3 = 0$, according to equation we have $\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = \Omega_c\dot{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{\Omega}$. Since the interaction is assumed to be weak, we keep only the linear in $B$ and $\Gamma$ terms. The equation in the axisymmetric case would be the following: $$\label{eq:precess_wo_K3}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c = \epsilon_c({\boldsymbol{e}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c)\left\{(1-\Gamma) [{\boldsymbol{e}}_c\times{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c]+ B {\boldsymbol{e}}_\Omega\times [{\boldsymbol{e}}_c\times{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c]\right\}.$$ The interaction with the internal components modifies the rigid-body precession equation in two ways. Coefficient $\Gamma$ produced by non-dissipative interaction renormalizes the precession period [(cf. with expression ): $$\label{eq:Tp_withGamma}
T_p \approx \frac{P}{(1-\Gamma) \epsilon_c \cos\theta}.$$ ]{} [It is easy to see that in the small-angle approximation]{} this coincides with value obtained in the framework of the linear analysis. Considering the influence of coefficient $B$, let us multiply equation by vector ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$: $$\label{eq:align}
(\dot{{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{e}}_c) = \Omega_c d_t \cos\theta = \epsilon_c B \Omega_c^2\cos\theta\sin^2\theta$$ Here, $({\boldsymbol{e}}_c\cdot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c)>0$ by choosing the direction of ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$; coefficient $B$ calculated with formula is positive because interaction should reduce the difference between the rotation the components. Therefore, angular velocity ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ tends to align with the symmetry axis ${\boldsymbol{e}}_c$. The characteristic time-scale of the alignment is [ $$\label{eq:tau_align_quasistat}
\tau_\mathrm{align} \sim \frac{T_p}{2\pi B}.$$ ]{} This is the same time-scale that we obtained for $p_3$ mode in Section \[sec:three\_comps\].
The quasi-stationary evolution formalism confirms the results obtained in the framework of the linear mode analysis for the more general case of an arbitrary angle between the angular velocity and the c-component symmetry axis. However, the main advantage of this formalism is that it allows us to obtain equations and , which can be used for studying the stellar rotation evolution at the time-scales comparable to the pulsar life time.
Glitch-like event {#sec:glitch}
=================
We have formulated a model of a rotating neutron star with pinned superfluid that allows the neutron star to precess with long period. The model should also be examined for the ability to demonstrate glitch-like behaviour.
We assume that the glitch relaxation (the longest glitch stage) is governed by internal relaxation processes. As it was discussed in the previous section, at internal relaxation time-scale $\tau_r$, vectors ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ and ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ can be treated as constants in equations – . In this case, the full solution can be represented as a sum of the quasi-stationary solution (considered in the previous section) and a time-dependent solution to the homogeneous system of equations (with zeroth $S^{(\parallel)}$ and $S^{(\perp)}$). The last, in turn, is a sum of the linear modes studied in Section \[sec:three\_comps\] (except the $p_3$ mode, which has already been taken into account in the quasi-stationary solution; see Section \[sec:qstat\_evolution\]). Generally speaking, the glitch can excite both “parallel" and “perpendicular" modes. However, in the present paper, we will consider only the “parallel" perturbations, which allow us to reproduce the main glitch manifestation – the pulsar rotation frequency jump. Thus, the system of equations is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dOm_c_par_glitch}
&\dot{\Omega}_c = \alpha_{gc}\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}+\alpha_{rc}\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)},\\
\label{eq:dnu_gc_par_glitch}
& {\dot{\nu}_{gc}^{(\parallel)}} =
- \left( \alpha_{gc} +\frac{\alpha_{cg}}{1+\epsilon_g} + \frac{\alpha_{rg}}{1+\epsilon_g}\right) \nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)} \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\left(\alpha_{rc} - \frac{\alpha_{rg}}{1+\epsilon_g}\right)\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)} \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:dnu_rc_par_glitch}
& {\dot{\nu}_{rc}^{(\parallel)}} =- \left( \alpha_{rc} +\alpha_{cr} + \alpha_{gr}\right) \nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)} - \left(\alpha_{gc} - \alpha_{gr}\right)\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}.
\end{aligned}$$
The exact glitch-triggering mechanism is not known at present [@HaskellMelatos2015]. The mechanism is likely based on some non-linear process that cannot be described by simple linear equations. We will model it in the following way. It is assumed that at $t=0$ the superfluid pinned in the g-component instantly releases a small part of the stored angular momentum $\Delta {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$. Since we are interested in studying the “parallel" modes, released angular momentum $\Delta {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$ is supposed to be parallel to ${\boldsymbol{\Omega_c}}$. The whole released angular momentum is assumed to be instantly injected into the “normal" fraction of the g-component such that the total g-component angular momentum is conserved. Thus, at $t=0$ the value of $\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}$ decreases by $\Delta L_g/I_g$ while angular velocity $\Omega_g$ increases by $\Delta L_g/I_g$. The value of $\omega_\mathrm{sf}^{(\parallel)}$ is not contained in equations – . Thus, right after the triggering we have: $\Omega_c = \Omega_0$, $\nu_{rc}^{(\parallel)} = 0$, $\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)} = \Delta L_g/I_g$. We can consider these values as initial conditions and study how the system evolves.
[ To find the c-component rotation response to the glitch in the g-component we can substitute the solution to equations – into equation and then integrate it. The result can be represented in the following form:]{} $$\label{eq:Omega_glitch}
\Omega_c(t) = \Omega_0 + \Delta\Omega
\left( 1 - e^{p_{+}t} - Q (1-e^{p_{-}t}) \right),$$ where $\Delta\Omega = {\Delta \Omega_{\infty}}/{(1-Q)}$, $\Delta\Omega_{\infty} = { \Delta L_{g}}/{\tilde{I}}$, $$\label{eq:Q}
Q = \frac{\tilde{I} \alpha_{gc} + (1+\epsilon_g)I_{g} p_{+} }{ \tilde{I} \alpha_{gc} +(1+\epsilon_g) I_{g} p_{-} }$$ and coefficients $p_{+}$ and $p_{-}$ are the two “parallel" modes. If one wants to relate the solution to observed pulsar glitches, function should have the form shown in Fig. \[fig:glitch\].
Values $1/p_{+}$ and $1/p_{-}$ should be interpreted as glitch rise and glitch relaxation time-scales respectively. Hence, it is required that $p_+ \gg p_-$. This condition is satisfied if one of the pair interactions is much stronger than the other two (see Section \[sec:three\_comps\]). [Let us first assume that assume that the strongest one is the cg-interaction, i.e. inequality is satisfied.]{} In this case, coefficients $p_+$ and $p_-$ can be calculated with expressions and . If we want to reproduce the angular velocity behaviour sketched in Fig. \[fig:glitch\], we should also ensure that [@LyneShemarSmith2000] $$\label{eq:Q_cond}
0<Q<1.$$ Substitutting expressions and into expression we obtain $$\label{eq:Q_est}
Q \approx \frac{I_r}{\tilde{I}}.$$ If we choose another interaction to be the strongest one assuming, for instance, that $\sigma_{cr} \gg \sigma_{cg}, \sigma_{gr}$, the estimations for $p_+$ and $p_-$ can be obtained from expressions and by the corresponding interchange of indices. However, condition , [in this case, requires fine tuning of the interaction parameters, which is unlikely to be able to be maintained for long time since the parameters evolve with the neutron star’s internal temperature. ]{} Thus, the case of inequality is most plausible.
From the physical point of view the picture is as follows. The glitch suddenly increases the g-component [ “normal" fraction]{} angular velocity making angular velocity lag $\nu_{gc}^{(\parallel)}$ exceed its quasi-stationary value. Right after that the c-component spins up due to the cg-interaction at the (observationally unresolved) $p_+$-time-scale. The spinning up is followed by spinning down due to the reaction of the r-component. Thus, in the framework of the proposed model, the glitch relaxation is provided by the presence of the r-component. Indeed, putting $I_r=0$ in expression , we obtain $Q=0$ and, hence, $\Delta\Omega_{\infty} = \Delta\Omega$.
[Observations could give us some constraints for $p_+$ and $p_-$ and, hence, for the interaction coefficient parameters. From expression it is follows that $$\label{eq:sigma_cg_glitch}
\sigma_{cg} \sim \ \frac{P}{2\pi \tau_\mathrm{glitch}},$$ where $\tau_\mathrm{glitch}$ is the characteristic glitch rise time. Supposing that $\beta_{ij}\sim\alpha_{ij}$ and taking into account condition , we can relate $\sigma_{cg}$ to $B$: $$\label{eq:sigma_cg_B}
\sigma_{cg} \sim \frac{I_c +(1+\epsilon_g)I_g}{(1+\epsilon_g)I_g} B.$$ The relaxation time-scale $\tau_\mathrm{g.relax.}$ allows us to estimate the other interaction coefficients. From expression , we have $$\label{eq:alpha_relax-time}
\alpha_{cr} + \alpha_{gr} \sim \frac{I_c +(1+\epsilon_g)I_g}{\tilde{I}} \tau_{g.relax.}$$ ]{}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
[We have formulated a simple model of a rotating neutron star supposing the existence of three abstract dynamically distinguished components. ]{} Let us now speculate on the possible physical counterparts of these components.
The outer c-component can be represented by the neutron star’s crust and part of its core strongly coupled with the crust. Therefore, the moment of inertia of the c-component can be estimated as $I_c\sim(10^{-2}-10^{-1})I$.
The role of the g-component can be performed by tangles of closed flux tubes that could be formed from chaotic small-scale magnetic field after protons became superconductive. Alternatively it could be a torus composed of closed flux tubes [@GugercinougluAlpar2014]. If, for instance, the characteristic cross-section $S_\mathrm{tor}$ of the region occupied by the toroidal field is of the order of 1 km$^{2}$, then $I_g\sim \rho_p S_\mathrm{tor} r_\mathrm{ns}^3 \sim 10^{-3}I$, where $\rho_p$ is the proton mass density. Some of the superfluid neutron vortices located in the core can be pinned to the closed flux tubes. On the one hand, this interaction prevents the tangles or torus collapsing. On the other hand, when the critical rotational lag is reached, the vortices unpin, triggering the glitch. These pinned vortices carry angular momentum ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mathrm{sf}$. [If we assume that 1 percent of the total stellar moment of inertia is contained in the pinned superfluid, then ${L}_\mathrm{sf}/I_g\Omega_0 \approx 10^{-2} (I/I_g)$. Assuming that a thin ring is a good approximation for the g-component mass distribution, the real oblateness parameter can be estimated as $\epsilon_g \approx 2$. Hence, the second term in expression is dominant and $\tilde{\epsilon}_g \sim 10^{-2} (I/I_g) \sim 10$. ]{} Since the flux tubes are closed in the core, the g-component, being magnetically decoupled, can rotate with an angular velocity different from ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_c$ [@GlampedakisLasky2015]. As it has been argued, the cg-interaction should be quite strong to ensure the rapid c-component spin up but not too strong to allow the g-component to [rotate]{} relative to the crust. We guess that this interaction can be implemented by the viscosity of crust-core interface region with the possible inclusion of the Ekman pumping mechanism. [ Unfortunately, there are not many observational data for glitch rise times at present. The Crab pulsar is the only pulsar for which partially resolved spin-up data have been obtained [@ShawEtAl2018]. The delayed frequency increase lasted for 0.5–1.7 days. However, this phenomenon was observed only in three large Crab glitches. Therefore, it could be more correct to apply the upper limit for the fast unresolved part of the glitch spin-up for estimating the cg-interaction coefficients. For the 2017 glitch @ShawEtAl2018 placed the upper limit $\tau_\mathrm{glitch}<6$ h. Hence, for the Crab pulsar with $P=3.3\times10^{-2}$ s [@ATNF_paper][^3], using estimation , we obtain $\sigma_{cg} > 2.4\times10^{-7}$. For the Vela pulsar much stiffer restrictions were obtained. For 2004 glitch, @DodsonLewisMcCulloch2007 obtained that $\tau_\mathrm{glitch}<30$s and, hence, $\sigma_{cg} > 4.7\times 10^{-4}$, where $P=8.9\times10^{-2}$ s for the Vela pulsar. The value of $\sigma_{cg}$ can vary substantially from one pulsar to another due to different internal temperatures and magnetic flux tube organization. Moreover, we do not state that the presented model describes all glitching pulsars. In some of them the g- and the c-component could be tightly coupled. This part, however, cannot precess with long periods, as it was shown earlier. ]{}
[From the observed glitch relaxation time-scales [@LyneShemarSmith2000], using expression , we obtain the following estimation for the corresponding interaction parameters: $$\alpha_{cr} + \alpha_{gr} \sim \frac{I_c +I_g}{\tilde{I}} (1 - 10^2) \mbox{ days}.$$ ]{} The weakly interacting r-component is likely composed of superfluid matter. We suppose this component consists of some of the neutrons superfluid that is not pinned [and possibly some of the normal matter coexisting with it and weakly coupled with c-component.]{} Hence, in order of magnitude, we can estimate that $I_r\sim I$. [Strictly speaking, it would be more consistent to treat the superfluid and normal fractions of the r-component as two separate components because of their weak interaction. It would complicate the calculations and would probably lead to a more complex glitch relaxation but qualitatively the model remains the same.]{}
It is generally accepted that the neutrons in the inner crust should be superfluid and, hence, the superfluid vortices can pin to the crust lattice. According to theoretical calculations, about 1 percent of the total moment of inertia is contained in the crust superfluid. If all that superfluid is pinned, the crust’s effective oblateness parameter would be of the order of $10^{-2}$ and, hence, long-period precession becomes impossible. However, as shown by @LinkCutler2002, the Magnus force, acting on the crust vortices could be enough to unpin them. Thus, we assume that the crust superfluid is unpinned in precessing stars. Strictly speaking, in this case, it should be included in the model as an additional component. Again, it can modify coefficients $B$ and $\Gamma$ and complicate the glitch relaxation. The exact effects of mentioned additional components are the subject of future study.
[ @AshtonJonesPrix2017 found that the modulations in spin-down rate and beam shape of pulsar B1828-11 become faster. If the modulations are induced by precession, the rate of precession period decrease is $\dot{T}_p \approx - 10^{-2} \mbox{s s}^{-1}$. According to expression this may indicate the gradual increase of the star’s oblateness, which would be quite counter-intuitive. Alternatively, the variation of precession period could be caused by a decrease in angle $\theta$. In the case of a rigidly rotating star, the angle evolution can be caused only by electromagnetic torque ${\boldsymbol{K}}$; this process would occur on the same time-scale as the pulsar spin-down and, hence, it cannot be the source of such fast variation. However, the pulsar could align due to internal dissipation. Taking the time derivative of precession period and using equation , we can obtain the estimation for the corresponding coefficient: $$\label{e:B_dTp}
B \approx - \frac{\dot{T}_p}{2\pi} \frac{\cos\theta}{\sin^2\theta}.$$ Since the spin-down rate is not affected by internal dissipation (see equation ) in the quasi-stationary approximation, the rotation frequency can be treated as a constant at the considered time-scale. Due to the symmetry of the problem there are two configurations with $\theta = 5^\circ$ and $\theta = 89^\circ$, which fit the observational data equally well [@ArzamasskiyEtAl2015]. For the small angle configuration with estimations and we formally obtain $B \approx 0.2$ and $\sigma_{cg} \sim 1 - 10 $. This case is not self-consistent because the weak-interaction condition is not satisfied. In the case of the large angle configuration we have $B \approx 3\times10^{-5}$ and $\sigma_{cg} \sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-3}$. This, according to estimation , leads for the pulsar with $P=0.4$ s to $\tau_\mathrm{glitch} \sim 10^2 - 10^3$ s. These values seem to be quite plausible. The configuration with large angle $\theta$ assumes a small angle between the symmetry axis and the magnetic dipole axis. Therefore, speculatively we can guess that, some time in the past, a starquake occurred, which led to the rearrangement of the crust almost along the magnetic axis. This occasion started the precession. The phenomenon of decreasing $T_p$, however, could have an alternative explanation. For example, the crust superfluid, which is unpinned due to precession, can gradually re-pin, which caused the increase of the crust’s effective oblateness. ]{}
[ In the present paper we proposed a way in which the vortex-pinning-based pulsar glitches can be reconciled with the long-period precession. Basically it is assumed that the superfluid is pinned in the region located in the stellar interior, which has sufficient freedom to rotate relative to the crust. This allows the pinned superfluid’s angular momentum to stay aligned almost along the stellar rotation axis and, hence, to not affect the precession period. At the same time, this region should be sufficiently effectively coupled with the crust to ensure the sufficiently rapid spin-up of the crust after a glitch there has happened. Since the precession and the glitches are governed by different regions of the star, it is natural that the glitch has almost no effect on the precession characteristics [@JonesAshtonPrix2017]. The exact glitch-triggering mechanism, however, is beyond the scope of the model in its present form. It is rather brought into it by hand. Therefore, the model by itself does not allow us to predict the sizes and the waiting times of the glitches but these questions could be addressed in the existing core-located glitch models. The main new point that we assume is the possible weakness of cg-interaction. This assumption does not affect the “normal" fraction spin-down relative to the pinned superfluid, which is usually supposed to be the key process for glitch triggering. ]{}
Unfortunately, our model in its present form does not allow us to obtain the whole range of observed recovery fraction values. According to estimation it is of the order of unity. It is not so bad for young pulsars but the older ones demonstrate a wide range of recovery parameters [@YuEtAl2013]. However, we believe that this discrepancy arises due to oversimplification of the model. [In particular, the injection of the angular momentum from the pinned superfluid into the “normal" fraction requires more self-consistent consideration. Thus, further research is required.]{}
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to A I Tsygan, K Y Kraav, M V Vorontsov, and A N Yurkin for fruitful discussions. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Ashton for many useful comments.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: see also http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/pulsar/glitches.html
[^3]: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Aperture synthesis techniques are increasingly being employed to provide high angular resolution images in situations where the object of interest is in the near field of the interferometric array. Previous work has showed that an aperture synthesis array can be refocused on an object in the near field of an array, provided that the object is smaller than the effective Fresnel zone size corresponding to the array-object range. We show here that, under paraxial conditions, standard interferometric techniques can be used to image objects which are substantially larger than this limit. We also note that interferometric self-calibration and phase-closure image reconstruction techniques can be used to achieve near-field refocussing without requiring accurate object range information. We use our results to show that the field of view for high-resolution aperture synthesis imaging of geosynchronous satellites from the ground can be considerably larger than the largest satellites in Earth orbit.'
author:
- 'David F. Buscher'
title: 'Field of view for near-field aperture synthesis imaging'
---
The techniques of aperture synthesis were initially developed for astronomical imaging, where the distance to the object being studied could in most cases be assumed to be infinite. This “far field” approximation is not valid for more recent applications such as microwave remote sensing [@martin-neira_microwave_2014], terahertz imaging [@bandyopadhyay_terahertz_2006] and tracking of space debris[@tingay_detection_2013], because the objects are sufficiently close to the interferometric array that the curvature of the wavefronts from the target at the location of the imaging array cannot be neglected.
This “near field” condition occurs when the distance $R$ between the array and the object is given by $R{\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}}B_{\rm max}^{2}/\lambda$ where $B_{\rm max}$ is the maximum interferometric baseline used and $\lambda$ is the observing wavelength. To give a practical example, obtaining 10cm-resolution images from the ground of satellites in geosynchronous orbit requires an interferometer with a maximum baseline length of $B_{\rm max}\sim350$m, assuming an operating wavelength of $\lambda=1\,\mu$m. For such an interferometer, near-field effects become important for objects closer than about $10^{8}$km, so all geosynchronous satellites, which orbit approximately 36,000km from the Earth’s surface, are well inside the near field.
Carter [@carter1989refocusing] showed that the wavefront curvature occurring in the near field could be compensated for in an interferometer by a procedure analogous to refocussing a telescope. However the analysis assumed that the maximum extent $X_{\rm max}$ of the object satisfies $X_{\rm max}\ll \sqrt{\lambda R}$ where $R$ is the distance from the array to the object, equivalent to the object being smaller than the first Fresnel zone radius for propagation over a distance $R$. This restriction is quite limiting in many cases. In the geosynchronous satellite example given above, only objects much less than 6m in size satisfy Carter’s assumption. Many satellites in geosynchronous orbit are significantly larger than this, with “bus” sizes of 10-15m and solar panels up to 50m in span.
Lazio [@lazio_near-field_2009] discusses a method for getting around this restriction using an adaptation of the “w-projection” algorithm used for far-field but wide-angle interferometric measurements. This procedure requires the use of additional data processing steps and cannot directly use standard astronomical image reconstruction software.
In this letter, estimates are derived for the field of view which can be imaged using standard interferometric image reconstruction software with little or no modification. It is shown that objects significantly larger than the field of view suggested by Carter can be straightforwardly imaged in a number of situations of practical interest.
\[sec:model\]
![Geometric model of the interferometer and object.[]{data-label="fig:geom-model-interf"}](geometry){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The geometric model for the imaging system is shown in Figure \[fig:geom-model-interf\]. Both the interferometer and the object under observation consist of a set of points in arbitrary three-dimensional arrangements. In the case of the object these points represent the locations of emitters of radiation and in the interferometer these points represent collectors of radiation (telescopes at optical wavelengths and antennae at radio wavelengths). It is assumed that the collectors are clustered around an array center $O$ and that the emitters are clustered around a “phase center” $P$. The vector from $O$ to $P$ is denoted by the vector $\vec R$ and its length $R$ is called the “range”. The choice of the locations $O$ and $P$ is to some extent arbitrary but a good choice for each location is one which minimises the distance to the furthestmost point in the respective cluster.
The vector from $P$ to emitter $i$ is given by $\vec X_i=(x_i, y_i, z_i)R$ where the coordinate system is a Cartesian one such that the $z$ axis is parallel to $\vec{R}$. The vector from array point $j$ to $O$ is given by $\vec B_j=(u_j,v_j,w_j)R$ using the same coordinate axes. Note that the $u$, $v$ and $w$ coordinates defined in this way differ from the standard aperture synthesis variables of the same name because they are normalised by the range $R$ rather than by the wavelength $\lambda$.
An important assumption is that the maximum dimension of the object $X_{\rm max }$ and the maximum dimension of the interferometer $B_{\rm max}$ are much less than $R$. In other words $|x_i|^{2}+|y_i|^{2}+|z_i|^{2}\ll 1$ and $|u_j|^{2}+|v_j|^{2}+|w_j|^{2}\ll 1$ for any $i$ or $j$. This “paraxial” condition is more restrictive on the collector array size than the geometry adopted by Carter [@carter1989refocusing] who assumed that the collectors can be distributed over a half-sphere surrounding the emitters. However, paraxial conditions are satisfied in many conditions of practical interest, with the geosynchronous satellite example serving as one case in point.
The emitters are assumed to be isotropic emitters and incoherent with one another. Only quasi-monochromatic radiation at a single wavelength $\lambda$ is considered. The interferometer is modelled as an abstract device which measures complex “fringe visibilities” (more accurately “coherent fluxes”, since these have units of flux, rather than being normalised to unity for a point source) given by $$\label{eq:4}
V_{jk}=\left\langle \psi(\vec B_{j}) \psi^{*}(\vec B_{k})\right\rangle,$$ where $\psi(\vec B_{j})$ is the instantaneous complex wave amplitude measured at collector $j$ and angle brackets denote averaging over a time much longer than the coherence time of the radiation. In an optical interferometer these visibilities would be obtained by formation of interference fringes and measurement of the fringe parameters, whereas in a radio interferometer the direct product of the measured field amplitudes would be formed and averaged.
Considering the radiation from a single emitter $i$ of strength $A_{i}$, then using a scalar wave approximation, the complex wave amplitude received at collector $j$ is given by $$\label{eq:1}
\psi(\vec B_{j})\propto\frac{A_{i}\exp\left[2\pi {{\rm i}}|\vec r_{ij}|/\lambda\right]}{|\vec r_{ij}|}$$ where $\vec r_{ij}$ is the vector from collector $j$ to emitter $i$. This vector is given by $$\label{eq:2}
\vec r_{ij}=\vec B_{j}+\vec{R}+\vec X_{i}$$ and so writing $\vec{R}=(0,0,1)R$, the distance $r_{ij} = |\vec r_{ij}|$ between the emitter and collector is given by $$\label{eq:3}
r_{ij} =\left([x_{i}+u_{j}]^{2}+[y_{i}+v_{j}]^{2}+[1+z_i+w_j]^{2}
\right)^{1/2}R.$$
Under paraxial assumptions the denominator in equation (\[eq:1\]) can be approximated as $r_{ij}\approx R$. Substituting equation (\[eq:1\]) into equation (\[eq:4\]) gives an expression for the complex fringe visibility $$\label{eq:5}
V_{jk}\propto \frac{|A_{i}|^{2}\exp\left[2\pi {{\rm i}}d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j},\vec B_{k})/\lambda\right]}{R^2}$$ where $d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j},\vec B_{k})$ is the optical path difference (OPD) given by $$\label{eq:6}
d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j},\vec B_{k})=r_{ij}-r_{ik}.$$
Without loss of generality, we can consider the visibility $V_{j0}$ on a baseline where one collector is situated at $O$ and define the OPD as a function of two coordinates $$\label{eq:9}
d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})=d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j},0).$$ The following results can be straightforwardly extended to any collector pair in the array, since $$\label{eq:10}
d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j},\vec B_{k})=d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})-d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{k}).$$
Defining a scale parameter $a$ which is the greater of $X_{\rm max}/R$ and $B_{\rm max}/R$, the OPD can be expanded to second order in $a$ to give $$\label{eq:8}
d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})=R \left( x_{i}u_{j}+y_{i}v_{j}+w_j+\frac{1}{2}u_j^2+\frac{1}{2}v_j^{2}
+\mathcal{O}(a^{3})
\right).$$ The first two terms in the expansion can be recognized as giving rise to the linear dependence of the fringe phase on the off-axis angle of the emitter, identical to that for far-field interferometry. The following three terms are independent of the emitter position. The $w$ term is normally removed using an internal delay in the interferometer which “points” the array at the phase center. The quadratic terms arise from the spherical nature of the wavefront from the emitter and so are negligible in the far field when $$\label{eq:11}
R(u_{j}^{2}+v_j^2)\ll \lambda.$$ This is equivalent to the standard far-field condition $$\label{eq:12}
R\gg \frac{ B_{\rm max}^{2}}{\lambda}.$$
In the near-field, the observed visibility phase can be corrected to the value which would be observed if the source were in the far field by subtracting a phase offset which is quadratically dependent on the distance between the collector and $O$. This correction is equivalent (to second order) to the “focussing” correction suggested by Carter [@carter1989refocusing]. We choose to write this phase correction in terms of the visibility phase which would be observed for a point emitter at the phase centre, so that the phase-corrected visibility is given by $$\label{eq:13}
{V_{j0}}^{\prime}=V_{j0}\exp\left[-2\pi{{\rm i}}d(0,\vec B_{j})/\lambda\right].$$
For a collection of incoherent sources then the phase-corrected visibility will be given by $$\label{eq:7}
V_{j0}^{\prime}\propto \frac{1}{R^2}\sum_{i} |A_{i}|^{2}\exp\left[2\pi {{\rm i}}d^{\prime}(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})/\lambda\right].$$ where $d^{\prime}$ is the corrected OPD given by $$\label{eq:15}
d^{\prime}(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})= d(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})-d(0,\vec B_{j}).$$ If a continuous emitter brightness distribution $I(x,y,z)$ is approximated by a set of discrete emitter brightnesses given by $|A_{i}|^{2}\propto I(x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\,dxdydz$ then we recover the usual two-dimensional Fourier relationship between the phase-corrected visibility and the (depth-integrated) brightness distribution $$\label{eq:16}
V_{j0}^{\prime}\propto \int \exp\left[2\pi {{\rm i}}(U_{j}x+V_{j}y)\right]\left( \int I(x,y,z)\,dz \right)\,dxdy,$$ where $U_{j}=Ru_{j}/\lambda$ and $V_{j}=Rv_{j}/\lambda$ are the standard interferometric “u-v” coordinates. In other words, providing the visibility data is phase-corrected for focus, then images can be reconstructed from near-field interferometric data using standard far-field aperture synthesis software.
It is important to note that explicit phase correction of the visibility data is not required if closure phase or equivalent “self-calibration” [@Pearson1984] image reconstruction methods are used. These methods assume that the measured visibility is corrupted by arbitrary “antenna-dependent” phase errors (for example due to atmospheric seeing) and solve for these errors simultaneuosly with solving for the image intensity distribution. It is straightforward to demonstrate that the near-field focus correction as written in equation (\[eq:13\]) is in an antenna-dependent form and so the closure phase/self-calibration process will solve for the sum of the near-field phase error and any phase errors due to seeing. Thus if closure phase or self-calibration imaging software is used, then near-field visibility data can be used directly without requiring pre-processing to provide focus correction.
Using self-calibration or closure phase imaging software to correct the visibility phases has the additional advantage that a precise estimate of the range to the target is not required in order to derive a precise focus correction. For geosynchronous satellite imaging, the satellite range must be known to better than $0.01$% in order to compute an a-priori phase correction accurate to 1 radian at 1 micron wavelength, and this kind of range accuracy may be difficult to achieve.
In practice, the high-precision phase correction afforded by self-calibration or closure phase software may need to be accompanied by lower-precision OPD adjustments in hardware in order to deal with temporal coherence effects. For example, the fringes formed in an interferometer operating at a central wavelength of 1$\mu$m with a bandpass of 10nm will have a fringe envelope which extends over approximately $\pm100\,\mu$m of OPD. When imaging a satellite in geosynchronous orbit using baseline lengths of 350m, the OPD error due to near-field effects will be about 1.7mm, and so the instrumental OPD will need to be adjusted compared with the far-field case in order to see high-contrast fringes. This hardware adjustment needs only to be accurate at the sub-100$\mu$m level: any remaining phase errors will be antenna-dependent and so can be taken care of by self-calibration or closure phase software. The imaging equation given in equation (\[eq:16\]) is correct to second order in the scale parameter $a$. Expanding $d^{\prime}$ to third order in $a$ gives $$\label{eq:16b}
d^{\prime}(\vec X_{i},\vec B_{j})=R \left[ x_{i}u_{j}+y_{i}v_{j}-\epsilon +\mathcal{O}(a^{4}) \right]$$ where $\epsilon$ is a third-order error term given by $$\label{eq:17}
\epsilon= ( x_{i}u_j+y_{i}v_{j})(z_{i}+w_{j})
+\frac{1}{2} \, w_{j} (x_i^{2}+ y_i^{2})
+\frac{1}{2} \,z_{i}( u_j^{2}+ v_j^{2}).$$ It is notable that all the terms in $\epsilon$ contain a factor which depends either on the depth of the array $w_{j}$ or the depth of the object $z_{i}$. This means that if both the array and object are planar so that $w_{j}=z_{i}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$ then the third-order terms vanish and only fourth-order error terms need to be considered.
In general however, the array and/or the object will be three-dimensional, and in this case the field-of-view limitations will arise when the third-order terms lead to phase errors which are comparable to a radian, i.e. when $R\epsilon\sim\lambda$. The terms in $\epsilon$ are all products of object-dependent distances and array-dependent distances. If the interferometer is large compared to the object, the largest terms in $\epsilon$ will be of order $B_{\rm max}^{2}X_{\rm max}/R^{3}$, while if the object is larger than the interferometer, then the largest terms will be of order $B_{\rm max}X_{\rm max}^{2}/R^{3}$.
In the former case, the third-order phase errors will be negligible when $$\label{eq:18}
X_{\rm max}\ll \left( R\frac{\lambda}{B_{\rm max}} \right) \frac{R}{B_{\rm max}}.$$ The factor $R\frac{\lambda}{B_{\rm max}}$ is approximately the size of a resolution element $x_{\rm res}$ in the interferometric image, so the maximum size of object which can be imaged is approximately $R/B_{\rm max}$ resolution elements across. Thus the field of view expression in equation (\[eq:18\]) can also be written $$\label{eq:19}
X_{\rm max}\ll {x_{\rm res}}\left( \frac{x_{\rm res}}{\lambda} \right)$$
If instead the object is larger than the interferometer, then the phase errors will be negligible when $$\label{eq:20}
X_{\rm max}^{2}\ll \left( R\frac{\lambda}{B_{\rm max}} \right) R,$$ which can be written in terms of the interferometric resolution $x_{\rm res}$ as $$\label{eq:21}
X_{\rm max}\ll \sqrt{{x_{\rm res}}R}.$$
Equations (\[eq:19\]) and (\[eq:21\]) give expressions for the field of view for imaging using standard self-calibration/closure phase image reconstruction methods. It is interesting to apply these results to some cases of practical interest.
A one-dimensional teraherz aperture synthesis experiment is described by Bandyopadhyay et al. [@bandyopadhyay_terahertz_2006] using an array of collectors with $B_{\rm max}=5$cm and $R=40.9$cm. The spatial resolution of this arrangement at the operating frequency of 0.535THz (corresponding to $\lambda=0.542$mm) is $x_{\rm res}\approx 4.43$mm, so using equation (\[eq:19\]) gives a value for the field of view of about 8 resolution elements or 36mm. Bandyopadhyay et al. image a point source approximately 10 resolution elements away from the optical axis and find the image reconstruction adequate, indicating that the field of view given by equation (\[eq:19\]) may be pessimistic in this case.
In the case of a geosynchronous satellite observation aiming for $x_{\rm res}$=10cm resolution at $\lambda=1{\,\ensuremath{\mu}{\rm m}\xspace}$, then the maximum object size that can be observed is given by equation (\[eq:19\]) as 10km. This is much larger than the maximum baselines needed to provide the desired resolution, and so instead equation (\[eq:21\]) must be used to estimate the field of view. This gives $X_{\rm max}\approx 1.9$km which is still much larger than the 50m dimensions of the largest satellite solar panels.
Geosynchronous satellite imaging at microwave frequencies may be less straightforward: equation (\[eq:19\]) suggests that, if 10cm resolution is required at a wavelength of 1cm, third-order phase aberrations can become become significant for fields of view of as small as 1 meter. However, the field of view improves quadratically as the resolution requirement is relaxed: if 50cm resolution is adequate for a given investigation, then imaging a field of view of 25m would be unproblematic.
The above analysis shows that standard self-calibration imaging algorithms should work well for geosynchronous satellite imaging applications at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. In this case, factors other than the imaging algorithm, such as providing sufficient dense sampling of the $u-v$ plane [@young_interferometric_2013], are likely to be the key challenges to successful imaging of the largest objects.
[7]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/2013RS005230) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/JOSAA.23.001168) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/103) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.000525) in [**](\doibase 10.1109/AERO.2013.6496937) () pp.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is devoted to the thermally activated dynamics of the capillary condensation. We present a simple model which enables us to identify the critical nucleus involved in the transition mechanism. This simple model is then applied to calculate the nucleation barrier from which we can obtain informations on the nucleation time. We present a simple estimation of the nucleation barrier in slab geometry both in the two dimensional case and in the three dimensional case. We extend the model in the case of rough surfaces which is closer to the experimental case and allows comparison with experimental datas.'
address:
- ' Laboratoire de Physique (UMR CNRS 5672, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 46 allée d’Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France, '
- ' Département de Physique des Matériaux (UMR CNRS 5586), Université Lyon I, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France'
author:
- 'Frédéric Restagno , Lydéric Bocquet Thierry Biben and Élisabeth Charlaix'
title: Thermally Activated Dynamics of the Capillary Condensation
---
Introduction
============
When two surfaces are brought together in a condensable vapor near saturation, a first order phase transition from gas to liquid occurs at small gap width provided that the solid wets the solid substrate [i.e.]{} has a contact angle smaller than 90[$\mathsurround=0pt{}^\circ$]{}. Macroscopic considerations predict that the condensation occurs for distance between the solid surfaces $H$ less than a critical distance $H_c$ verifying $$\Delta\rho~\Delta\mu \simeq {{2(\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL})} / H_c}
\label{Kelvin}$$ where $\Delta\rho=\rho_l-\rho_g$ is difference between the bulk densities of the liquid and the gas and $\Delta\mu=\mu_{sat}-\mu$ is the (positive) undersaturation in chemical potential, with $\mu_{sat}$ the chemical potential at bulk coexistence [@Israelachvili85]. If the vapor is assumed to be a perfect gas, then $\Delta \mu \approx k_BT\ln(P_{sat}/P_{vap})=k_BT\ln(1/RH)$, where $RH$ is the the so-called relative humidity. At standard ambient conditions for water ($\gamma_{LV}=72 \ \textrm{mJ.m}^{-2}$, $\rho_L\approx 3.10^{28}\ \textrm{m}^{-3}$, $H=40\%$), we obtain $H_c\approx 2 \ \textrm{nm}$. Capillary condensation is usually invoked to interpret adsorption isotherms of gases in mesoporous media [@Perez98]. This transition is now well understood and documented, both from the experimental [@Crassous94; @Israelachvili79; @Christenson84] and theoretical point of view [@Evans86; @Evans89].
On the other hand, the problem of the [*dynamics*]{} of the transition has receive very little attention. Experimentally, only indirect informations on the dynamics are available in the litterature. Experimental studies of capillary condensation using the Surface Force Apparatus (SFA) technique systematically show an important hysteresis in the interaction force between two substrates when the separation of the surfaces is first decreased and then increased. This large hysteresis points out the strong metastability of the gas phase when $H<H_c$, which persists over macroscopic times. Recent experiments with SFA have studied the growth of the liquid meniscus after the nucleation [@Kohonen99] but no attention has been given to the nucleation time which is much larger than this growing time. Experiments measuring the cohesion inside divided materials may provide indirect information on the dynamics of the transition too [@Bocquet98; @Restagno99; @Crassous99]. Theoretically, lattice-gas simulations showed that the (topologically equivalent) drying transition occurs via the creation of “tubes” connecting the two wetting films [@Lum97].
Beyond these results, a theory proposing a mechanism for the dynamics of the capillary condensation is still needed.
In the following, we show how to construct the critical nucleus for capillary condensation. First, a simplified model in the slab geometry keeping only the main ingredients for capillary condensation will be considered. The latter has both advantages to allow tractable calculations and to capture the essential features of the involved physics. In a second part, we show how the natural roughness of the surfaces on a nanometric scale can be taken into account on the dynamics of the transition. Applications to the adsorption kinetics in a granular medium shall be discussed.
The slab geometry
=================
In a first step, we restrict our attention to a system confined between two perfectly smooth and flat solid surfaces, and in contact with a reservoir of temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$.
Let us consider the situation in which planar liquid films of varying thickness $e$ ($e<H/2$) develop on both solid surfaces. Following Evans [*et al.*]{} [@Evans85; @Evans86], the grand potential of the system may be written $$\Omega=-p_V V_V-p_L V_L+2\gamma_{SL} A+2\gamma_{LV} A
\label{omega}$$ where $V_V$ (resp. $V_L$) is the volume of the gas (resp. liquid) phase and $A$ is the surface area. Using $V_L=2Ae$, $V_V=A(H-2e)$ and $p_V-p_L\simeq \Delta\rho\Delta\mu$, one gets $$\Delta\omega(e)\equiv{1\over A}(\Omega-\Omega(e=0))=\Delta\rho\Delta\mu~ 2e
\label{domega}$$ Note that in the complete wetting situation $\Omega(e=0)$ can be identified with $\Omega_V$, the grand-potential of the system filled with the gas phase only. The situation $e=H/2$ corresponds to the opposite case where the two liquid films merge to fill the pore. The grand potential thus exhibits a discontinuity in $e=H/2$ corresponding to the disappearance of the two liquid-vapor interfaces, and its value is reduced by $2\gamma_{LV}A$. When $e=H/2$, expression (\[domega\]) must then be replaced by $\Delta\omega(e=H/2)=-\Delta\rho\Delta\mu (H_c-H)$, where $H_c$ is the critical distance defined in eq. (\[Kelvin\]). One may note that the minimum of the grand potential corresponds to a complete filling of the pore by the liquid phase when $H<H_c$, as expected. If we now allow deformation of the interfaces, [*i.e.*]{} the thickness $e$ is now a function of the lateral coordinates, the corresponding cost has to be added to the grand potential. We assume also a mirror symetry of the interfaces, so that one finds in this case: $$\Delta\Omega_{tot}= \gamma_{LV} \Delta A_{LV}+\int dS \Delta \omega(e)
\label{eq1}$$ with $\Delta\Omega_{tot}=\Omega(\{e\})-\Omega_V$ and $\Delta A_{LV}=A_{LV}-A$ is the excess $L-V$ area. The integration in the last term runs over the solid surface.
The 2D case
-----------
Let us consider first the [**2D case**]{}. Within the small slope assumption, $\Delta A_{LV} \simeq \int dx~{\gamma_{LV}}\vert\nabla e\vert^2$, extremalization of the grand potential leads to the following Euler-Lagrange equation for $e(x)$, where $x$ denotes the lateral coordinate: $$2\gamma_{LV} {d^2e\over{dx^2}} - {d\Delta \omega(e)\over de} =0
\label{eq2}$$ We look for solutions satisfying $e=0$ and $de/dx=0$ at infinity. We can choose $e(x=0)=H/2$ to fix the origin. The complete solution, depicted in fig \[fig1\].a, can be obtained in the form of parabolic branches with a spatial extension $x_c=\sqrt{H R_c}$ where $R_c=H_c/2$. Let us note that the cusp in the solution in $x=0$ stems from the discontinuity of $\Delta\omega$ in $e=H/2$ resulting from the assumption of an infinitesimely narrow liquid-vapor interface. Condensation thus occurs through the exitation of short wavelength fluctuations, in agreement with the simulations results for the drying transition [@Lum97]. The corresponding energy of the nucleus (per unit length in the perpendicular direction) can be calculated by integration of eq. (\[eq1\]): $$\Delta \Omega^{\dag} = {4\over 3} (\Delta\mu \Delta\rho \gamma_{LV})^{1/2}
H^{3/2}
\label{eq6}$$
It is easy to check that $\Delta \Omega^{\dag} $ corresponds to a saddle-point of the grand-potential. It is greater than both free energies of the gas and liquid phases. Moreover $\Delta \Omega^{\dag} $ is smaller than the free energy of any other configuration maximizing the grand potential since it is the only solution of finite extension. We just point out that the parabolic solution obtained above is the small slope approximation to the circle with radius of curvature $R_c$.
![a : Picture of the critical nucleus for capillary condensation in two dimensions and perfect wetting case ($\theta=0$). The radius of curvature of the meniscus is equal to $R_c=H_c/2$, which is only approximatively verified within the small slope assumption. See text for details. b: Picture of the critical nucleus in three dimensions and perfect wetting case. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1Restagno){width="100mm"}
We mention that the prediction for $\Delta \Omega^{\dag}$ in eq. \[eq6\] is in agreement with numerical simulations results, using a Landau-Ginzburg model for the grand potential of the system together with a non conserved Langevin dynamics. Full details of these simulations are given elsewhere [@Bocquet99].
These results can be generalized to the partial wetting case. The only difference is that the contact angle $\theta$ on the surfaces is now non vanishing and obeys Young’s law, $\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL}=\gamma_{LV}\cos\theta$. To leading order on $H/H_c$, one gets [@Bocquet99] : $$\Delta \Omega^{\dag} \simeq 2 \gamma_{LV}\sin \theta H$$
The 3D case
-----------
The previous approach can now be directly generalized to the [**3D case**]{}. The physical understanding of the results can be however greatly simplified if one realizes that [*maximization*]{} of the grand potential, eq. (\[eq1\]), leads to two [*mechanical equilibrium*]{} conditions : the usual Laplace equation, relating the local curvature $\kappa$ to the pressure drop ${\gamma_{LV} \kappa}=\Delta p\simeq \Delta \mu\Delta \rho$; and the Young’s law which fixes the contact angle of the meniscus on the solid substrate according to $\gamma_{LV} \cos\theta=\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL}$ ([*i.e.*]{} $\theta=0$ in the perfect wetting case). These non-linear equations cannot be solved analytically in 3D, but one can easily understand that the corresponding critical nucleus takes the form of a liquid bridge of finite lateral extension $R^*$, connecting the two solid surfaces (see fig \[fig1\]b). This finite extension results physically from the balance between a “surface” contribution $\Delta\Omega_1 \approx
(\Delta\rho\Delta\mu H-2(\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL})) \pi R^2$ which drives capillary condensation, and a linear contribution $\Delta\Omega_2 \approx 2\pi\gamma_{LV} R H$ specific to the 3D case which tends to close the bridge. Maximization of the free energy gives a finite extension $R^*$, yielding for the free energy barrier : $$\Delta \Omega^\dag \approx {\pi \gamma _{LV}^2\over {2(\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL})}}
{H^2 H_c \over {H_c-H}}
\label{NRJbarrier3D}$$ Full details in the 3D case shall be given in a forthcoming paper [@Bocquet99b].
The rough case
==============
Although a lot can be learned from the perfectly flat slab geometry, the latter is certainly too idealized to account for the kinetics of adsorption in “real” experimental systems. In particular, very slow logarithmic depedence have been measured on various static properties of granular media in the presence of humidity (see fig \[fig3\] and text hereafter) [@Bocquet98; @Restagno99]. As we shall show hereafter, these logarithmic time dependence may be understood by taking into account the influence of roughness on the dynamics of capillary condensation. Let us consider a simple model consisting of two surfaces facing each other and rough at the nanometric scale, as depicted on fig. (\[fig2\].a). As emphasized in the introduction capillary condensation typically occurs in pores of nanometric size. We thus have to consider the roughness of the surfaces at the [*nanometer level*]{}.
![a : Typical representation of two rough surfaces. Note that we consider the roughness at the nanometric scale.\
b : Schematic representation of an asperity. $v_d$ is the excess volume of the defect, $a_d$ the area of the defect.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2Restagno)
Without loss of generality, one may consider that one of the walls is perfectly flat. When roughness is present, there is a broad range of gaps between the surfaces. In particular, there are regions where the two surfaces are in close contact. In such regions, condensation should take place on a very short time-scale. Thus at “early times”, one has to consider a set of wetted islands, which we shall consider as independent. Once these islands have formed, they should grow up to a point where the distance between the surfaces is equal to $H_c$, so that a meniscus of radius $R_c=H_c/2\cos\theta$ forms at the liquid-vapor interface, allowing for mechanical equilibrium.
In doing so however, the wetted area has to overcome unfavorable regions where the distance between the two surfaces is larger then $H_c$. Let us consider a specific jump over such a “defect”, as idealized in fig. (\[fig2\].b). We denote by $e_d$ the “averaged” gap inside the defect ($e_d>H_c$), and by $a_d$ its area. The free energy cost for the liquid bridge to overcome this defect is approximatively given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta \Omega^{\dag} &\simeq a_d \left(\Delta\mu\Delta\rho~e_d-2\Delta\gamma\right)\nonumber\\
& & \equiv v_d \Delta\mu\Delta\rho
\label{CCR1}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_d$ is the excess volume of the defect, $v_d=a_d~(e_d-H_c)$. We can thus estimate the time to overcome the defect as $$\tau=\tau_0 exp \left\{ {\Delta \Omega^{\dag} \over {k_BT}}\right\}
\label{CCR2}$$
![a : Evolution of the mass $m$ of a pile of glass beads of radius smaller than 50 $\mu$m as a funtion of the logarithm of the resting time $t$ in hours. Note that the time is comprised between a few minutes and 2 weeks. The temperature is fixed at $31\pm 0.1$ [$\mathsurround=0pt{}^\circ$]{}C. The relative humidity is fixed at $68 \% $ by the salt method described in reference [@Restagno99]. The straight line is the best linear fit of the datas. b : Evolution of the tangente of the maximum stability angle $\theta_m$ of a an assembly of glass beads as a function of the logarithm of the “resting” time $t$ in seconds (divided by the cosine of this angle which comes from geometrical arguments). This angle is measured in a cylinder. The full experimental setup is described in [@Restagno99]. () : $RH=3\%$, () : $RH=43 \% $. The straight lines are the best linear fits of the datas.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3Restagno)
One may expect the defects to exhibit a broad distribution of excess volume $v_d$, so that the activation times $\tau$ are accordingly widely distributed. After a time $t$, only the defects with an activation time $\tau$ smaller than $t$ have been overcomed. Using eq. \[CCR1\] and \[CCR2\] these have an excess volume $v_d$ which verifies $v_d<v_{dmax}(t)=k_BT(\Delta\mu\Delta\rho)^{-1}\ln(t/\tau_0)$. At a time $t$, the number of overcomed defects is then typically $N(t)=v_{dmax}(t)/v_0$ where $v_0$ is the typical width of the distribution of excess volume of the defects. Now, once a liquid bridge has bypassed a defect, it fills locally the volume surrounding the nucleating site and the wetted area increases by some typical (roughness dependent) amount $\delta A_0$. The time dependent wetted area can thus be written : $$A_w(t) \simeq N(t)\delta A_0 =\frac{\delta A_0}{\Delta\mu/(k_BT)\Delta\rho v_0}\ln\left(\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right)
\label{equ10}$$
Similar expressions with logarithmic dependence on time, can be found on other quantities, like the time dependent adsorbed amount, or the adhesion force between rough surfaces.
These logarithmic dependence have been observed in two kinds of experiments. In the first one (see fig. \[fig3\].a), we have measured the evolution of the mass of a sample of glass beads with a diameter smaller than 50 micrometers at fixed humidity ($RH = 68\%$) as a function of the resting time $t$ [@Restagno2000]. The glass beads where first dried at high temperature and put at the fixed humidity controlled by the saturated-salt method described in [@Restagno99]. The evolution of the mass fits well with a logarithmic behavior, as described on eq. \[equ10\]. On the other hand, the cohesion force resulting from condensation of liquid bridges has been probed in a granular medium by measuring the maximum angle of stability as a function of resting time. As shown on figure \[fig3\].b, the latter exhibits a slow logarithmic dependence in agreement with eq. \[equ10\] [@Bocquet98; @Restagno99].
The authors would like to thank J. Crassous, J.C. Geminard and H. Gayvallet for many interesting discussions. This work has been partly supported by the PSMN at ENS-Lyon, the MENRT under contract 98B0316 and the franco-british program ALLIANCE (contract 99041)
[**References**]{}
[10]{}
Israelachvili J 1985 [*Intermolecular and Surfaces Forces*]{} (London: Academic Press)
P[é]{}rez L, Sokolowski S and Pizio O 1998 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**109**]{} 1147–1151
Crassous J, Charlaix E and Loubet J 1994 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**28**]{} 37–42
Israelachvili J N 1979 [*Nature*]{} [**277**]{} 548–549
Christenson H K 1984 [*J. Colloid Interface Sci.*]{} [**104**]{} 234–249
Evans R, Marconi U M B and Tarazona P 1986 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**84**]{} 2376–2399
Evans R 1989 [*Liquids and Interfaces*]{}, edited by J Charvolin, J Joanny and J Zinn-Justin (Elsevier Science Publishers)
Kohonen M, Maeda N and Christenson H 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{} 4667–4670
Bocquet L, Charlaix E, Ciliberto S and Crassous J 1998 [*Nature*]{} [**396**]{} 735
Restagno F, Gayvallet H, Bocquet L and Charlaix E 1999 [*Dynamics in Small Confining Systems [IV]{}*]{}, edited by J Drake, G Grest, J Klafter and R Kopelman MRS (Boston: MRS) vol. 543
Crassous J, Bocquet L, Ciliberto S and Laroche C [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**(in press)**]{}
Lum K and Luzar A 1997 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**56**]{} R6283–R6286
Evans R, Marini U and Marconi B 1985 [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**114**]{} 415
Bocquet L, Restagno F and Biben T (see cond-mat/9901180 ) [*Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}
Bocquet L, Restagno F, Charlaix E and Biben T [*in preparation*]{}
Restagno F, Gayvallet H, Bocquet L and Charlaix E [*In preparation*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we introduce two experimental proposals that could shed some light upon the inertial properties of intrinsic spin. In particular we will analyze the role that the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth could have on a quantum system with spin $1/2$. We will deduce the expression for Rabi transitions, which depend, explicitly, on the coupling between the spin of the quantum system and the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth. Afterwards, the continuous measurement of the energy of the spin $1/2$ system is considered, and an expression for the emerging quantum Zeno effect is obtained. Thus, it will be proved that gravitomagnetism, in connection with spin $1/2$ systems, could induce not only Rabi transitions but also a quantum Zeno effect.'
author:
- |
A. Camacho [^1] [^2]\
Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam.\
An der Sternwarte 16, D–14482 Potsdam, Germany.
title: 'Quantum Zeno effect and the detection of gravitomagnetism.'
---
=7.8in =6 in = -1 cm
Introduction.
=============
In more than three–quarters of a century the theory of general relativity (GR) has achieved a great experimental triumph. Neverwithstanding, at this point it is also important to comment that all the current direct confirmations of GR are confirmations of weak field corrections to the Galilei–Newton mechanics \[1\]. We must also add that one of the most important, and yet undetected, predictions of GR is the so called gravitomagnetic field \[1\], sometimes also called Lense–Thirring effect \[2\], which is generated by mass–energy currents. Its measurement would constitute a direct experimental evidence against an absolute inertial frame of reference, and would at the same time show the basic role that local inertial frames play in nature, i.e., it would be a direct proof that local inertial frames are influenced and dragged by mass–energy currents relative to other mass.
The first efforts in the detection of this gravitomagnetic field are quite old \[3\] and have already included many interesting proposals \[4, 5, 6\].
An additional topic in connection with gravitomagnetism is related to its coupling with intrinsic spin, this issue is of fundamental interest since it comprises the inertial properties of intrinsic spin. It is noteworthy to comment that this point is under constant analysis \[7\].
In this work we introduce two experimental proposals that could lead to the detection of the coupling between intrinsic spin and the gravitomagnetic field. We analyze the role that the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth could have on a quantum system with spin $1/2$, i.e., our results could allow us to confront the effects of mass–energy density currents upon spin. In particular we deduce a Rabi formula, which depends on the coupling between the spin of the quantum system and the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth. Afterwards, the continuous measurement of the energy of the spin $1/2$ system is considered, and a Zeno effect is obtained.
Rabi transitions and the gravitomagnetic field.
===============================================
Let us consider a spin $1/2$ system immersed in the gravitational field of a rotating uncharged, idealized spherical body with mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$. In the weak field and slow motion limit the metric, in the Boyer–Lindquist coordinates, reads \[8\]
[$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = -c^2\left( 1 - {2GM\over c^2r}\right)dt^2 + \left( 1 - {2GM\over c^2r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 \nonumber\\
+ r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2\right) - {4GJ\over c^2r}\sin^2\theta d\phi dt.\end{aligned}$$]{}
The gravitomagnetic field in this case is approximately \[1\]
[$$\begin{aligned}
\vec {B} = 2{G\over c^2}{\vec {J} - 3(\vec {J}\cdot\hat {x})\hat {x}\over |\vec {x}|^3}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
We will assume that the expression that describes the precession of orbital angular momentum, immersed, for instance, in the gravitational field of the Earth, can be also used for the description of the dynamics in the case of intrinsic spin. This is a natural extension of general relativity \[7\].
Let us now denote the angular momentum of our spherical body by $\vec {J} = J\hat {z}$, being $\hat {z}$ the unit vector along the direction of the angular momentum. Our quantum particle is prepared such that $\vec {S} = S_z\hat {z}$, it has vanishing small velocity and acceleration, and it is located on the $z$–axis, with coordinate $Z$.
There is a formal analogy between the weak field and slow motion of the gravitomagnetic field in general relativity and the magnetic field in electromagnetism \[1\]. Following this analogy we may write down the interaction Hamiltonian (acting in the two–dimensional spin space of our spin $1/2$ system), which gives the coupling between $\vec {B}$ and the spin, $\vec {S}$, of our particle
[$$\begin{aligned}
H = - \vec {S}\cdot\vec {B}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Introducing expression (2) we may rewrite the interaction Hamiltonian as follows
[$$\begin{aligned}
H = 2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\left[|+><+| - |-><-|\right].\end{aligned}$$]{}
Here $|+>$ and $|->$ represent the eigenkets of $S_z$. Clearly, the introduction of the gravitomagnetic field renders two energy states
[$$\begin{aligned}
E_{(+)} = 2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3},\end{aligned}$$]{}
[$$\begin{aligned}
E_{(-)} = -2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3},\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $E_{(+)}$ ($E_{(-)}$) is the energy of the spin state $+\hbar/2$ ($-\hbar/2$). Let us now define the frequency
[$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega = \left(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)}\right)/\hbar = 4{GJ\over c^2Z^3}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
The present analogy allows us to consider the emergence of Rabi transitions \[9\]. In order to do this let us now introduce a rotating magnetic field, which, at the point where the particle is located, has the following form
[$$\begin{aligned}
\vec {b} = b\left[\cos(wt)\hat {x} + \sin(wt)\hat {y}\right],\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $\hat {x}$ and $\hat {y}$ are two unit vectors perpendicular to the $z$–axis, and $b$ is a constant magnetic field.
Under these conditions the total Hamiltonian reads
[$$\begin{aligned}
H_T = 2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\left[|+><+| - |-><-|\right] \nonumber\\
- {eb\hbar\over 2mc}\left[e^{-iwt}|+><-| + e^{iwt}|-><+|\right].\end{aligned}$$]{}
Looking for a solution in the form $|\alpha> = c_{(+)}(t)|+> +~c_{(-)}(t)|->$, we find the usual situation \[9\] (our quantum system has been initially prepared such that $c_{(-)}(0) = 1$ and $c_{(+)}(0)= 0$.)
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(-)}(t) = \exp\left[-i{E_{(-)}\over\hbar}t\ + {i\over 2}(w - \Omega)t\right]\left[\cos(\Gamma t) - i{(w - \Omega)\over 2\Gamma}\sin(\Gamma t)\right],\end{aligned}$$]{}
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(+)}(t) = i{eb\over 2mc\Gamma}\exp\left[-i{E_{(+)}\over\hbar}t\ - {i\over 2}(w - \Omega)t\right]\sin(\Gamma t).\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $\Gamma = \sqrt{({eb\over 2mc})^2 + {(w - \Omega)^2\over 4}}$.
In this way we find
[$$\begin{aligned}
{|c_{(-)}(t)|^2\over |c_{(-)}(t)|^2 + |c_{(+)}(t)|^2} =
\left[ 1 + {({eb\over 2mc\Gamma})^2\sin^2(\Gamma t)\over \cos^2(\Gamma t) +
{(w - \Omega)^2\over 4\Gamma^2}\sin^2(\Gamma t)}\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Clearly, the Rabi transitions depend upon the coupling between spin and the gravitomagnetic field.
[$$\begin{aligned}
\left(4{GJ\over c^2Z^3} - w\right)^2 = 4\left[\Gamma^2 - \left({eb\over 2mc}\right)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$]{}
Quantum Zeno effect and gravitomagnetism.
=========================================
Let us now measure, continuously, the energy of our spin $1/2$ system, such that $E$ is the measurement output, and that this experiment lasts a time $T$. This kind of measuring process can be described by the so called effective Hamiltonian formalism \[10, 11\], which is one of the models that exist in the topic of quantum measurement theory \[12\]. In our case the corresponding effective Hamiltonian reads
[$$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff} = 2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\left[1 +
i{2\hbar\over T\Delta E^2}\left(E - {GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\right)\right]|+><+|\nonumber\\
- 2{GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\left[1 +
i{2\hbar\over T\Delta E^2}\left(E + {GJ\hbar\over c^2Z^3}\right)\right]|-><-|\nonumber\\
- {eb\hbar\over 2mc}\left[e^{-iwt}|+><-| + e^{iwt}|-><+|\right] -
i{E^2\hbar\over T\Delta E^2}\Pi,\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $\Pi$ is the unit operator in the spin space of our particle. Looking for solutions with the form $|\alpha> = c_{(+)}(t)|+> +~c_{(-)}(t)|->$, we deduce
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(-)}(t) = \exp\left[-i{E_{(-)}\over\hbar}t\ - {(E_{(-)} - E)^2\over T\Delta E^2}t
+ i\tilde{\Gamma} t\right]\nonumber\\
\times\left[c_{(-)}(0)\cos(\beta t) - i{c_{(-)}(0)\tilde{\Gamma} + (\gamma/\hbar) c_{(+)}(0)\over \beta}\sin(\beta t)\right],\end{aligned}$$]{}
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(+)}(t) = \exp\left[-i{E_{(+)}\over\hbar}t\ - {(E_{(+)} - E)^2\over T\Delta E^2}t
-i\tilde{\Gamma} t\right]\nonumber\\
\times\left[c_{(+)}(0)\cos(\beta t) + i{c_{(+)}(0)\tilde{\Gamma} - (\gamma/\hbar) c_{(-)}(0)\over \beta}\sin(\beta t)\right],\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $\tilde{\Gamma} = {(w - \Omega)\over 2} + {i\over 2T\Delta E^2}
\left[(E_{(+)} - E)^2 - (E_{(-)} - E)^2\right]$, $\beta^2 = (\gamma/\hbar)^2 + \tilde{\Gamma}^2$, and finally $\gamma = -{eb\hbar\over 2mc}$.
Let us now suppose that the measurement output is the energy of the ground state, $E_{(-)}$, that we have a resonant perturbation, and that initially only the lowest energy state was populated, in other words, $E = E_{(-)}$, $\hbar w = E_{(+)} - E_{(-)}$, and $c_{(-)}(0) = 1$, $c_{(+)}(0) = 0$.
Hence (15) and (16) become
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(-)}(t) = \exp\left[-i{E_{(-)}\over\hbar}t\ - {(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)})^2\over 2T\Delta E^2}t\right]
\left[\cos(\beta t) - i{\tilde{\Gamma}\over \beta}\sin(\beta t)\right],\end{aligned}$$]{}
[$$\begin{aligned}
c_{(+)}(t) = -i{\gamma\over \beta\hbar}\exp\left[-i{E_{(+)}\over\hbar}t\ - {(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)})^2\over 2T\Delta E^2}t\right]\sin(\beta t).\end{aligned}$$]{}
Let us now assume that ${(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)})^4\over 4T^2\Delta E^4}> \gamma^2/\hbar^2$, then
[$$\begin{aligned}
P_{(-)}(t) =
\left[1 + {\sinh^2({\gamma\over\hbar}\tilde{\Omega}t)\over
\tilde{\Omega}^2
[\cosh({\gamma\over\hbar}\tilde{\Omega}t) + {\hbar(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)})^2\over 2T\gamma\tilde{\Omega}\Delta E^2}
\sinh({\gamma\over\hbar}\tilde{\Omega}t)]^2}\right]^{-1},\end{aligned}$$]{}
where $\tilde{\Omega} = \sqrt{{\hbar^2(E_{(+)} - E_{(-)})^4\over 4T^2\gamma^2\Delta E^4} - 1}$, $\gamma = -{eb\hbar\over 2mc}$, and $P_{(-)}(t) = {|c_{(-)}(t)|^2\over |c_{(-)}(t)|^2 + |c_{(+)}(t)|^2}$.
In the case $t\rightarrow \infty$ this last expression reduces to
[$$\begin{aligned}
P_{(-)}^{(\infty)} = \left[1 + {\left({c^2Z^3\over 4GJ\hbar}\right)^2}{ebT\Delta E^2\over mc}
\left(\sqrt{1 - {({c^2Z^3\over 4GJ\hbar})^4}({ebT\Delta E^2\over mc})^2} -1\right)^{-2}\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Clearly, Rabi transitions are inhibited, and the asymptotic value that here appears depends explicitly upon the coupling between intrinsic spin and the gravitomagnetic field, i.e., $J$ emerges in expression (20).
At this point it must be commented that the behavior of spin leads, in some cases, to the emergence of a non–geometric element in gravity \[13\].
In this work Ahluwalia has considered two different classes of flavor–oscillation clocks. The first one comprises the superposition of different mass eigenstates, associated to a quantum test particle, such that all the terms of the corresponding superposition have the same spin component. The second class of flavor–oscillation clocks, contains, at least, two distinct spin projections.
If the gravitomagnetic field is absent, then both clocks redshift identically in the corresponding gravitational field. Nevertheless, if the source of the gravitational field has a nonvanishing angular momentum, then these redshifts do not coincide any more . This fact depends not only upon the gravitomagnetic component of the gravitational field, but also on the quantum mechanical features of the employed quantum test particle. In other words, here a non–geometric element appears when gravitational and quantum mechanical phenomena are considered simultaneously.
Clearly, in the present essay we have a quantum system with spin immersed in a nonvanishing gravitomagnetic field. Nevertheless, our case is an eigenstate of the spin operator $S_z$, something that in Ahluwalia’s second class of flavor–oscillation clocks does not happen. This last remark means that our quantum system is closer to Ahluwalia’s first class of flavor–oscillation clocks than to his second one.
Finally, we must add that it is now possible to test, experimentally, the quantum Zeno effect \[12\], particularly using Penning traps to analyze Rabi transitions \[14\].
The author would like to thank A. A. Cuevas–Sosa his help, and D.-E. Liebscher for the fruitful discussions on the subject. It is also a pleasure to thank R. Onofrio for bringing Refs. 6 and 11 to my attention. The hospitality of the Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam is also kindly acknowledged. This work was supported by CONACYT Posdoctoral Grant No. 983023.
[99]{}
I. Ciufolini and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation and Inertia,” Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, (1995).
J. Lense and H. Thirring, Phys. Z. [**19**]{}, 711–750 (1918).
B. and I. Friedländer, “Absolute and relative Bewegung,” Simion–Verlag, Berlin, (1896).
V. B. Braginsky, A. G. Polnarev, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev Lett. [**53**]{}, 863–866 (1984).
S. Vitale, M. Bonaldi, P. Falferi, G. A. Prodi, and M. Cerdonio, Phys. Rev. [**B39**]{}, 11993–12002 (1989).
I. Ciufolini, E. Pavlis, F. Chieppa, E. Fernandes–Vieira, and J. Pérez–Mercader, Science [**279**]{}, 2100–2103 (2000).
B. Mashhoon, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**31**]{}, 681–691 (1999).
R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist, J. Math. Phys. [**8**]{}, 265–281 (1967).
J. J. Sakurai, “Modern Quantum Mechanics,” Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass. (1995).
M. B. Mensky, “Continuous Quantum Measurements and Path Integrals,” IOP, Bristol and Philadelphia (1993).
R. Onofrio, C. Presilla, and U. Tambini, Phys. Lett. [**A183**]{}, 135–140 (1993).
C. Presilla, R. Onofrio, and U. Tambini, Ann. Phys. [**248**]{}, 95–121 (1996).
D. V. Ahluwalia, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**29**]{}, 1491-1501 (1997).
W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}, 2295–2302 (1990).
[^1]: email: [email protected]
[^2]: This essay received an “honorable mention” in the Annual Essay Competition of the Gravity Research Foundation for the year 2000 — Ed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the evolution of the pairing from weak to strong coupling on a honeycomb lattice by Quantum Monte Carlo. We show numerical evidence of the BCS-BEC crossover as the coupling strength increases on a honeycomb lattice with small fermi surface by measuring a wide range of observables: double occupancy, spin susceptibility, local pair correlation, and kinetic energy. Although at low energy, the model sustains Dirac fermions, we do not find significant qualitative difference in the BCS-BEC crossover as compared to those with an extended Fermi surface, except at weak coupling, BCS regime.'
author:
- 'Shi-Quan Su$^{a,b}$, Ka-Ming Tam$^{c}$ and Hai-Qing Lin$^a$'
date: today
title: Evolution of pairing from weak to strong coupling on a honeycomb lattice
---
INTRODUCTION
============
It has long been known that the pairing formed from an attractive coupling has a smooth crossover between the weak coupling and the strong coupling[@Eagles; @Leggett; @Nozieres]. In the weak coupling limit, singlet pairs are formed around the fermi surface, according to the BCS theory. In the strong coupling limit, local bound pairs can be formed, and these “preformed pairs” condense as the temperature is further lowered where the Bose-Einstein condensation(BEC) occurs. The interest on this crossover has been revitalized [@psgapRev1; @psgapRev2; @SymmDimPsgap; @DMFTspingap; @PairScAtt; @Kyung; @Garg], mainly due to the quest of understanding the pseudogap phase in the high temperature superconductors.
Recently, condensed matter systems sustain on fermions with linear dispersion, typical examples are honeycomb lattice models and nodal fermions for $d$-wave superconductors, have generated huge surge of intensive studies. These models possess substantial differences from models with extended Fermi surface such as models on square lattice. In particular, it has been suggested that the quantum phase transition (QPT) between the metallic phase and the degenerate charge density wave/pairing phase at half-filling in the attractive Hubbard model (AHM) on honeycomb lattice is related to its BCS-BEC crossover away from half-filling [@MFHexCO]. This certainly does not happen on the square lattice, in which the flat Fermi surface at half-filling renders the Umklapp scattering becoming the dominant channel, its BCS-BEC crossover is not related to any QPT through tuning the attractive coupling [@SquKTT]. In the honeycomb lattice, the density of state is zero at half-filling, therefore any instability from the band structure is weakened, and strong coupling is needed to induce ordering. It can be shown that all the short range interactions are irrelevant. In order to tackle the strong coupling problem, besides breaking the symmetry by mean field ansatz, we choose Quantum Monte Carlo method in this work to study the BCS-BEC crossover in the honeycomb lattice.
Various studies [@DMFTspingap; @PairSpinGap; @BSSAtt; @KePePair] have been devoted to the BCS-BEC crossover of the AHM on a square lattice. The objective of this work is to study how do the linear dispersion, and the aforementioned QPT at half-filling affect the BCS-BEC crossover of the slightly doped system.
Our main finding can be summarized as follow. At the weak coupling, BCS-like regime, pseudogap phenomena are observed, however we expect that it is mainly due to the band structure of honeycomb lattice, rather than the bound pair formation. At the intermediate coupling, crossover regime, we can identify two temperature scales, the high temperature one where the performed pair formed with associated pseudogap phenomena; and the low temperature one where the system enters the pairing phase. At strong coupling, BEC-like regime, the electrons form pairs at high temperature and condense as hard core bosons at low temperature. However, we do not find distinctive feature compares to the square lattice, except at the weak coupling regime where the band structure dominates the quasi-particle dispersion. Further interpretations of the QMC results are next presented by applying the mean field (MF) approximation to lattice models and continuum model for fermions with linear dispersion.
MODEL and METHOD
================
The AHM in honeycomb lattice reads $$H =-t\sum_{<i,j>,\sigma} c^+_ {i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} -U\sum_i
n_{i\uparrow}n_{i\downarrow}-\mu\sum_{i\sigma}n_{i\sigma},
\label{eq:hamitl2}$$ where $c_{i\sigma}(c^+_{i\sigma})$ annihilates (creates) a particle with spin $\sigma$ at site $i$, $\left\langle i,j \right\rangle$ denotes the nearest-neighbor lattice sites $i$ and $j$, $t$ is the hopping matrix element, $U$ is the on-site attractive interaction, and $ \mu $ is the chemical potential. In the following we set $t=1$ as the energy scale of the system, all the observable are in units of $t$. The bare electronic ($U=0$ limit) dispersion is given by $\epsilon_{\textbf{k}} = \pm\sqrt{3+2cos(\sqrt{3}k_{y}) +
4cos(\sqrt{3}k_{y}/2)cos(3k_{x}/2)}$, and the band width $W$ is 6. At half filling this is linear around the Fermi points. Keeping only the low energy excitations, in the first quantized form the wave function follows the 2D Weyl equation for massless chiral Dirac fermions, $v_{F} \widehat{\sigma} \cdot
\nabla \Psi(\mathbf{r})=E\Psi(\mathbf{r})$, where $\widehat{\sigma}=(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y})$ are the Pauli matrices and $v_{F}=3/2$ is the Fermi velocity. This description in term of Dirac fermions is not exact away from half filling. Nevertheless, the linear dispersion can be a good approximation below the van Hove singularities at filling $n=1\pm1/4$. For this reason, we choose $n=0.88$ for our calculations using determinant quantum Monte Carlo(DQMC) [@Blankenbecler].
The DQMC [@Blankenbecler; @Loh] is a Hamiltonian based approach. The Hamiltonian $H$ in the partition function $Z=Tr\exp(-\beta H)$ is expressed in the real space via the Trotter decomposition and Hubbard-Stratonovich (HS) transformation. The only systematic error is from discretizing the imaginary-time $\beta$ into $M$ slices of $\Delta\tau=\beta/M$ in the Trotter decomposition. The HS transformation replaces the on-site interactions in the attractive Hubbard model by HS fields coupled to the charge. The summation over the HS fields is treated by Monte Carlo procedure. The calculations are proceeded on a $N=72$ sites honeycomb lattice, the actual lattice for the simulation is shown in the Fig. \[hex72\]. Since the attractive Hubbard coupling does not have minus-sign problem, a wide range of temperatures and couplings can be studied.
\[bth\] ![ Sketch of a $72$ sites honeycomb lattice. The red and green solid circles are the lattice points in the honeycomb lattice. The red solid circles also represent the underlying triangular lattice. $\vec{T}_{1}$ and $\vec{T}_{2}$ are the real space translational vectors.[]{data-label="hex72"}](Picture4.eps "fig:"){width="7.2cm" height="6.0cm"}
QMC RESULTS
===========
One of the clear signals indicating the formation of bound pairs at strong coupling is the formation of spin gap. At weak coupling, we expect fermion quasi-particle character to remain at high temperature, for which the spin susceptibility increases as the temperature is lowered. On the other hand, the strong coupling limit is manifested by the decrease of the spin susceptibility as the temperature is lowered, due to the formation of the gap which leads to the reduction in the spectral function at low frequency.
We first show the spin susceptibility $\chi(\textbf{q},\omega)$ at frequency $\omega=0$, and momentum $\textbf{q}=(0,0)$ in Fig. \[ChiP\], where we also show the spin susceptibility from RPA calculation for comparison. $\chi(0,0)$ is suppressed for all couplings, as can be inferred simply from the RPA formulation, where $\chi_{RPA}(0,0)=\chi_{0}(0,0)/(1+U\chi_{0}(0,0))$. At weak coupling $\chi(0,0)$ increases as the temperature is lowered as expected for a fermion quasi-particle description, however it bends downward before it goes upward again as the temperature is lowered further. This two peak structure of $\chi(0,0)$ associated with the formation of the pseudogap has been found in the dynamical mean field theory study[@DMFTspingap]. However, in the honeycomb lattice, the apparent pseudogap phenomena indicated by this structure of $\chi(0,0)$ already exist in the weak coupling regime, below the strong coupling regime where the “preformed pair” phenomena occur. Therefore, we believe that it is derived from the particular dispersion relation of honeycomb lattice, where the density of state is small around the doped Fermi surface.
On the other hand, in the strong coupling regime, $\chi(0,0)$ vanishes quickly as the bound pairs are formed and spin gap equals the binding energy needed to break the pair. In the weak coupling regime, the QMC results behave similarly as compared to the RPA results. When the interaction is increased to around $W/2$, the QMC results evolve in the opposite direction as compared to the RPA results and drop sharply at low temperature, whereas the RPA results at low temperature limit do not change qualitatively when $U$ increases. This signals that the system enters the phase in which electrons form bound pairs, and the spin excitations start to be gapped [@PairSpinGap]. The pairing phase cannot be reached by summing the ladder diagrams within the RPA. For strong coupling ($U \approx W$), the suppression of $\chi(0,0)$ becomes smooth and appears at high temperature. This effect reflects the fact that the bound pairs are already formed at high temperature [@BSSAtt]. The temperature where deviations appear between the QMC results and the RPA results is an indication of the formation of local singlet pair, which can be interpreted as the energy scale where the fermion quasi-particle description is not valid for any lower temperature.
\[bth\] ![Uniform spin susceptibility $\chi(0,0)$ (left), and pairing correlation function $ P_0-\bar{P}_0 $ (right) as a function of temperature for a range of interaction strength at $n=0.88$. []{data-label="ChiP"}](tuchi0osp.eps "fig:"){width="9.0cm" height="6.0cm"}
We then probe the pairing directly by considering the pairing correlation function for local pairing, $P_0 =\frac{1}{N^2}
\sum_{l,i} \langle
c^{\dagger}_{i+l,\uparrow}c^{\dagger}_{i+l,\downarrow}
c_{i,\downarrow}c_{i,\uparrow} +h.c. \rangle$. The only instability is pairing, in this incommensurate doped case (rules out CDW order). We expect $P_0$ to increase as temperature is lowered for all coupling strengths. One of the most representative characteristics of local pairs is that they are distributed uniformly in space and condense around zero momentum as bosons when temperature is lowered. This is manifested by the rapid increase of local pair correlation as shown in Fig. \[ChiP\], note that the single particle contribution $\bar{P}_0$ has been subtracted from $P_0$ to emphasize the vertex contribution of pairing [@White]. The condensation of the bosonic local pairs for the strong coupling case ($U=5,6$) can be observed from the rapid increase of $P_0-\bar{P_0}$ with the decrease of temperature. In contrast, the pairs formed around the quasi-particle Fermi surface in the weak coupling regime only bring a slight increase in $P_0-\bar{P_0}$.
\[bth\] ![The kinetic energy(left), and double occupancy(right) as a function of temperature for a range of interaction strength at $n =0.88$.[]{data-label="EkN"}](tueknn.eps "fig:"){width="9.0cm" height="6.0cm"}
We show the kinetic energy, $E_k=(-t/N)\sum_{\langle i, j\rangle,\sigma} \langle c^+_{i,\sigma}c_{j,\sigma} \rangle$ in Fig. \[EkN\]. In the weak coupling regime, its temperature dependence is similar to the free fermion case. When we increase the interaction to the crossover regime ($U\approx3-4$), qualitative change already happened in the high temperature, where the gain in the kinetic energy is much slower than the free fermion case. Moving into the strong coupling regime, fermions begin to form bound pairs at high temperature and only lose little kinetic energy. When temperature further decreases, the local pairs in the system condense and hence $E_k$ drops sharply. [@BSSAtt].
A good indicator to measure the local pair formation in the BEC state is the double occupancy $\langle n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow}
\rangle$, see Fig. \[EkN\]. We find that $\langle n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow} \rangle
$ increases as the temperatures decrease. However, it reaches a local maximum at certain temperature. This can be understood as the change of the kinetic energy which destabilizes the double occupancy. This behavior of $\langle n_{\uparrow}
n_{\downarrow} \rangle $ are in accord with the fact that the local maximum coincides with the temperature where the kinetic energy drops most sharply. At very low temperature, the bosonic on-site pairs begin to dominate, $\langle n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow}
\rangle $ increases again and should saturate at $n/2$ for strong couplings.
After elaborating the evidence of BCS-BEC crossover, we put those observables from DQMC together and identify the temperature scales for different $U$. In Fig. \[All\], we show the results represented for weak ($U=1$), intermediate ($U=3, 4$), and strong ($U=6$) couplings.
![\[3\] Double occupancy $\langle n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow}
\rangle$, uniform spin susceptibility $\chi(0,0)$, and pairing correlation $P_{0}-\overline{P_{0}}$ as a function of temperature for different coupling strength at $\langle n \rangle = 0.88$ filling. The magenta shadow regions are used to mark the energy scale. []{data-label="All"}](u1u3u4u6ob3-2.eps){width="9.0cm"}
At $U=1$, $\chi(0,0)$ QMC result does not deviate from the RPA result. The local pair correlation does not develop, and $\langle n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow} \rangle$ is small even at low temperature, which shows that the pairing correlation is weak. The critical temperature, $T_{c}$, for the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition into the pairing phase is below the lowest temperatures we studied.
At $U=3$, $\chi(0,0)$ local pair correlations begin to increase at $T_c\approx0.2$. At almost the same temperature the QMC result begins to deviate from the RPA result. These imply the developments in both spin and pairing correlations. The system shows BCS-like pairing effect from the instability of the fermi surface. However, there is no true phase coherence at any finite temperature as that in the BCS theory. Nevertheless, at this coupling strength, the pairing is still rather weak, due to the small density of state around the Fermi energy.
At $U=4$ the system displays two temperature scales. The first one is $T^{*}$ at high temperature around $T\approx0.8$, this could be associated with the pseudogap phase. At this temperature, $\chi(0,0)$ from QMC result reaches its maximum and begins to deviate from the RPA result. In addition $\langle n_{\uparrow} n_{\downarrow} \rangle $ also reaches the first plateau at high temperature. These signal that electrons bound pairs start to develop, spin gap is formed and the quasi-particle description is broken below this temperature. We estimate the critical temperature for the condensation of bound pairs, $T_c \approx 0.3$. Below this temperature, the local pair correlation $P_0-\bar{P}_0$ grows quickly and $\chi(0,0)$ drops sharply; $\langle n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow}\rangle $ reaches its low temperature maximum and saturates.
At $U=6$, the system is at the strong coupling limit, where $U$ reaches the band width $W$, there is only one temperature scale in the system, $T_c\approx0.5$, within the temperature range we studied. $\chi(0,0)$ reaches its maximum at very high temperature and decreases smoothly, which suggests that pair formation begins at a very high temperature, above the temperature range we studied. Below $T_c$, $P_0-\bar{P}_0$ increase quickly, and $\langle n_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow}\rangle$ tends to $n/2$ at zero temperature. These suggest that the bound pairs undergo a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, which manifests a BEC-like scenario.
From the above numerically exact DQMC data, we show clearly that there is a qualitative change from weak to strong coupling at finite temperature. This should correspond to the true BCS-BEC crossover at zero temperature. However, we find that the results for the honeycomb lattice have no drastic qualitative difference as compared to that of the square lattice [@BSSAtt]. Certainly, the band structure alters the quantitative values of the coupling for the crossover. However, the BCS-BEC crossover on a doped honeycomb lattice models exists at $U\approx3-4$ where the linear dispersion approximation for the free fermions is not valid.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
===========================
With the progress of the techniques of optical lattices and the fabrication of single layer graphene, the BCS-BEC crossover on a honeycomb lattice and Dirac fermions is not only an important problem itself, but also has broad experimental and theoretical interests with other topics under intensive studies.
The atom-atom interaction in ultracold fermionic atoms in a optical trap can be tuned by magnetic field Feshbach resonance. The honeycomb lattice can possibly be realized by optical trap [@hexOLRamaSpectroscopy]. This may provide a direct way to study experimentally the BCS-BEC crossover problem with linear dispersion. [@hexOLRamaSpectroscopy]. In addition, the superconducting phase of graphene via the attraction from phonons and plasmons has been discussed recently[@Uchoa1; @Uchoa2; @Kopnin; @Bergman; @Uchoa3]. Although it is unlikely to generate strong attraction from phonon coupling in graphene, our results suggest that even at weak coupling regime, non-trivial temperature dependence of spin susceptibility may occur in the superconducting phase from local Holstein phonon coupling.
In conclusion, we have presented extensive results from DQMC which confirm the BCS-BEC crossover for the doped (n=0.88) AHM on a honeycomb lattice. In contrast to the systems with extended fermi surface, there is an enhancement of pseudogap property revealed from the double peak structure in the spin susceptibility at weak coupling due to the peculiar density of state of honeycomb lattice. Apart from this, the BCS-BEC crossover does not show prominent difference between square lattice and honeycomb lattice for the parameters and system size we study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
================
The authors thank Z.-B. Huang, S.-J. Gu, P. McClarty, and Y.-Z. You for useful discussions; and thank F. Ng at the ITSC of CUHK, where the numerical work presented in this paper was accomplished. This work is supported by HKSAR RGC Project CUHK 401806. The research at the University of Waterloo was funded by the Canada Research Chair Program (M. Gingras, Tier 1) and the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network.
[99]{}
D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. **186**, 456, (1969).
A. J. Leggett, in Modern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter, edited by A. Pȩkalski and J. Przystawa (Springer, Berlin,1980).
P. Nozières and S. Schmitt-Rink, J. Low Temp. Phys. **59**, 195 (1985). S. Allen, H. Touchette, S. Moukouri, Y. M. Vilk, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 4128 (1999).
B. Kyung, S. Allen, A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 075116 (2001).
M. Keller, W. Metzner, and U. Schollwock, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 4612 (2001). V. M. Loktev, R. M. Quick, and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rep. **349**, 1 (2001). Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan and K. Levin, Phys. Rep. **412**, 1 (2005). A. Toschi, P. Barone, M. Capone, and C. Castellani, New Journal of Physics **7**, 7 (2005). A. Garg, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 024517 (2005).
E. Zhao and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 230404 (2006). N. Dupuis, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 134502 (2004).
M. Randeria, N. Trivedi, A. Moreo, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 2001 (1992). J. M. Singer, M. H. Pedersen, T. Schneider, H. Beck, and H.-G. Matuttis, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 1286 (1996).
B. Kyung, A. Georges, and A.-M. S. tremblay, Phys. Rev. B. **74**, 024501 (2006). R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D **24**, 2278 (1981). E. Y. Loh Jr and J. E. Gubernatis, in [*Electronic Phase Transitions*]{}, edited by W. Hanke and Y.V. Kopaev (Elsevier, New York, 1992).
S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, R. L. Sugar, N. E. Bickers, and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B **39**, 839 (1989).
G. Grynberg, B. Lounis, P. Verkerk, J.-Y. Courtois, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 2249 (1993).
B. Uchoa, A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 146801 (2007).
B. Uchoa, G. G. Cabrera, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 184509 (2005).
N. B. Kopnin and E. B. Sonin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 246808 (2008).
B. Uchoa, A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 109701 (2009).
D. L. Bergman, K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 184520 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Observations of X-ray flares from Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) imply strong constraints on possible physical models. We provide a general discussion of these. In particular, we show that in order to account for the relatively flat and weak optical flux during the X-ray flares, the size of the emitting region should be $\lesssim 3\times 10^{14}$cm. The bolometric luminosity of flares also strongly constrain the energy budget, and are inconsistent with late time activity of a central engine powered by the spin-down of a magnetar. We provide a simple toy model according to which flares are produced by an outflow of modest Lorentz factor (a few tens instead of hundreds) that is launched more or less simultaneously with the highly relativistic jet which produced the prompt gamma-ray emission. The “slower" moving outflow produces the flare as it reaches its photosphere. If the X-ray flare jets are structured, the existence of such a component may naturally resolve the observational challenges imposed by flares, outlined in this work.'
author:
- |
Paz Beniamini$^{1}$ [^1], Pawan Kumar$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Racah Institute for Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel\
$^{2}$University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
date: 'Accepted ... Received ...; in original form ...'
title: 'X-ray flares in GRBs: general considerations and photospheric origin'
---
\[firstpage\]
gamma-ray burst: general
Introduction {#Int}
============
Early X-ray light-curves of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) present complex temporal behaviour. Specifically, in many GRBs the initial light-curve falls very steeply (this is known as the “steep decay" phase) and then exhibits a very shallow declining phase (“the plateau") before settling at the “regular" ($F\sim t^{-1.5}$) decay expected from the external forward shock. One of the most interesting features in these light-curves is the occurrence of “X-ray flares" in approximately 1/3 of GRBs [@Burrows(2005b); @Falcone(2007); @Chincarini(2010); @Margutti(2011)]. These flares occur between $30-10^5$sec after the burst trigger, exhibit significant re-brightening (up to a factor of 500 in some cases) and are associated with the release of large isotropic equivalent energies (for the early time flares, on average 0.1 of the energy released during the prompt, and in some cases comparable). On average, these flares last $\sim 0.2t_f$ where $t_f$ is the time of the flare’s onset, after which the light-curve goes back to the same temporal and spectral fluxes exhibited right before the flares. The existence of an underlying continuum with the same slopes before and after the flaring activity as well as the flares’ highly variable nature, makes it highly unlikely that flares are produced by the same component as the continuum emission dominating before and after each flare, i.e. the forward external shock. Therefore, the flares are likely the result of the same mechanism producing the prompt emission.
All this has led previous authors to consider the possibility that flares are produced by prolonged activity of the GRB central engine [@Burrows(2005a); @FanWei(2005); @Zhang(2006)]. This activity, up to $10^5$sec after the trigger is non-trivial to understand in the context of black holes and provides some support for magnetar central engines for GRBs [@Kluzniak(1998); @Dai(2006)]. Nonetheless, there have also been several proposals to generate flares within the black hole central engine models,[see e.g. @King(2005); @Perna(2006); @Proga(2006); @Lee(2009); @Cao(2014)]. In the present work we are not limiting ourselves to a specific central engine model, although some of the “challenges" below, turn out to be more limiting for magnetars than for black holes.
Motivation
==========
We outline a number of challenges that must be resolved in any model that attempts to explain X-ray flares.
1. There is a broad range of typical flare time-scales. In addition, these times are generally much longer than the prompt variability time-scale. Any model attempting to explain flares, should be able to reproduce this range of time-scales. This is non-trivial; for instance, in the magnetar scenario the natural time-scale would be the magnetar spin down time. If this time is associated with either the prompt or the flares, it would not be able to account for the other.
2. While strong flares are regularly observed in X-rays, no strong flaring behaviour is observed in the optical band at the same time [e.g., @Swenson(2013)]. This implies that the spectral slope of the flare emission between these two bands must be very hard. Upper limits on the optical flux at a few tens up to a few hundreds of seconds, are typically between 0.1mJy and 5mJy (at $\sim 2eV$) [@Santana(2015); @Troja(2015)]. Specifically, [@Santana(2015)], study 8 flares selected for their brightness in X-rays, showing that in all these flares the spectral slopes between the optical and X-ray bands, should be harder than $F_{\nu}\sim \nu^{0.7}$ in order not to over produce optical radiation as compared with observations. This significantly limits possible emission models for the flares, and in particular implies that in order for synchrotron models (either in the slow or fast cooling regimes) to be viable, the spectrum has to become self absorbed somewhere between optical and X-rays, and the spectral slope below this frequency should become much harder. A similar situation occurs during the prompt phase and has been used to significantly limit the possible emission mechanism of the prompt GRB and the jet composition at the emission site [@Shen(2009); @Beniamini(2014); @Kumar(2014)].
For the case of slow cooling synchrotron, even a self absorption break at $\nu_0\sim 3 \nu_{opt}$ (where $\nu_{opt}$ is the frequency of the optical band) is typically sufficient to suppress the optical flux below the observed limits during the flares starting at $ t_f\approx 300$sec We note that in the fast cooling regime, the extrapolated flux below the X-ray band increases and therefore also the required $\nu_0$ to sufficiently suppress the optical flux, increases. However, by definition, the quantity: $F_0/\nu_0^{\alpha}$ (where $\alpha$ is the spectral slope below the self absorption frequency) will remain constant in this process, thus leaving the upper limits on the radius given by Eq. \[eq:radiuslim\] unchanged. For the synchrotron self absorption frequency, $\nu_{SA}$, to be larger than $\nu_0$, the maximum allowed radius where the radiation is produces is given by: $$\frac{2\nu_{SA}^2}{c^2}\gamma_e(\nu_{SA}) \Gamma m_e c^2 \frac{R^2}{4\Gamma^2 d_L^2}\leq F_{obs}(\nu_X)\bigg(\frac{\nu_{SA}}{\nu_X} \bigg)^{1/3}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the matter producing the flare, $F_{obs}(\nu_X)$ is the observed specific flux at $\nu_X=2keV$ during the flares starting at $300$sec [@Santana(2015)], $d_L$ is the luminosity distance and $\gamma_e(\nu_{SA})$ is the typical thermal Lorentz factors of the electrons radiating synchrotron at $\nu_{SA}$ and is given by: $$\label{gammae}
\gamma_e(\nu_{SA})=\bigg(\frac{2 \pi m_e c \nu_{SA}}{\Gamma q B'}\bigg)^{1/2}=\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{2} \pi m_e c^{3/2} \nu_{SA}\sqrt{1+\sigma}R}{q \sqrt{L}\sqrt{\sigma}}\bigg)^{1/2}$$ where $B'$ is the magnetic field in the jet frame and in the last transition it has been related to the jet luminosity, $L$, the radius, $R$ and the magnetization $\sigma$ (the relative energy density in magnetic fields compared to that in particles). This leads to: $$\label{eq:radiuslim}
R<3.4\times 10^{14} \bigg(\frac{F_{obs}(\nu_X)}{10 mJy}\bigg)^{0.4}\!\bigg(\frac{\Gamma}{100}\bigg)^{0.4}d_{L,28}^{0.8}L_{50}^{0.1}\bigg(\frac{\sigma}{1+\sigma}\bigg)^{0.1}cm$$ where $L_{50}=L/10^{50}\mbox{ergs/sec}$ and $d_{L,28}=d_L/10^{28}$cm. This consideration therefore significantly limits the allowed radius for producing the flares. This upper limit can become even smaller in case particles are accelerated in shocks (which is likely for Baryonic jets) to form a non-thermal spectrum above some minimum Lorentz factor $\gamma_m$. In this case $\gamma_e(\nu_{SA})$ in Eq. \[gammae\] is replaced by $max(\gamma_e(\nu_{SA}),\gamma_m)$ and the limit on $R$ could be decreased. In addition, PIC simulations suggest that locally the magnetic field may be significantly weaker than the equipartition value for shock acceleration of particles [@Sironi(2011)]. This would require slightly hotter electrons (since from Eq. \[gammae\], $\gamma_e(\nu_{SA}) \propto \sigma^{-1/4}$) and would imply smaller radii given the same observed flux. The limits on radius and Lorentz factor are shown in Fig. \[radiuslim\], in comparison with the radius determined by the variability time scale for a flare starting at $300$sec. In case the emission radius is set by the latter, the Lorentz factor of the flare producing material is also significantly constrained by this consideration, to be $\lesssim 20$.
3. In the magnetar model, the energy source for the flares would be the rotational energy of the magnetar. However, the magnetar is expected to spin down very fast, leading to a decrease in the available energy for flares (which would become more severe for flares emitted at later times). For a general spin-down mechanism with a braking index of $n$, the energy goes down as $E \sim t^{2 \over 1-n}$, which for dipole radiation implies $E\sim t^{-1}$. The energy in flares, indeed seems to be falling down in time (at least initially), although at a somewhat different rate: [@Margutti(2011)] show that $E \sim t^{-1.7}$ for flares that start up to $\sim 1000$sec and $E\sim const$ for flares between 1000sec and $10^5$sec. However, the real problem is that the breaking index ($n$) should be $\sim 1.7$ in order for the magnetar model to be able to explain the rapid decline phase of the X-ray light-curves [@Tagliaferri(2005)], seen between $\sim 10^2-10^3$sec. In other words, one needs $E \propto t^{-3}$ or faster to explain the X-ray steep decline up to $\sim 1000$sec after the trigger, but in that case the rotational energy in the magnetar is too little to explain the late time flares.
4. A related issue has to do with the energy required for the jet to carve out a cavity through the polar region of the GRB progenitor star. The energy required for this process is likely very large (e.g @Woosley(1993) [@MacFadyen(1999); @Ramirez-Ruiz(2002); @Matzner(2003); @Bromberg(2015)]). Therefore, if the central engine stops operating after producing the prompt gamma-rays and then restarts at $\sim 300$sec or later, the polar cavity opened by the prompt jet would have already closed and the flare material would have to re-open this cavity. It would therefore have to be initially significantly more energetic as compared with estimates based on the flux eventually emitted during the flares (which are already huge and highly constraining, as mentioned above).
{width="80.00000%"}
The Basic Model {#Basis}
===============
Motivated by the considerations discussed in §\[motivation\], in particular X-rays being produced close to the photosphere and the difficulty of reopening the polar cavity if the X-ray jet is launched after a period of central engine inactivity, we present a model for X-ray flares where the central engine activity is confined to a short time period of order less than $10^2$sec. We consider a scenario in which the prompt emission and flare(s) are emitted from the photospheric radius. In our model, both the material producing the prompt phase of the emission and that producing the flare(s) are ejected from the central engine at the same time, but with different velocities. The fast material produces the prompt phase of the emission as it reaches its photosphere, whereas the slower material eventually dissipates its energy and produces the flare(s) as it reaches its own (further out) photosphere. Due to the steep dependence of the photosphere (and the corresponding observed time-scale for the emission) on the Lorentz factor of the material, a variation in the Lorentz factor by less than an order of magnitude is likely to be sufficient to account for the large difference in the prompt vs. flare typical variability time-scales. This model may naturally resolve the challenges presented above associated with producing flares:
1. The different time-scales associated with the onset and duration of the prompt and flares, are naturally reproduced from a single time-scale at the source.
2. The small radius from which the flares are emitted enables the optical radiation to be sufficiently suppressed below detection level, consistent with observations.
3. Since the flare emitting material is ejected together with or just after the prompt emitting material, there is sufficient energy in the magnetar at the time of ejection to produce the flare.
4. The fact that the flare emitting material is ejected together with the prompt emitting material, implies also that the former can pass more easily through the surrounding environment, and does not have to invest large amounts of energy just to re-open the cavity in order to punch through the surface of the progenitor star, as is the case for models invoking late time activity for the central engine.
Emission radii, time-scales and spectra
=======================================
Consider a jet moving at a Lorentz factor of $\Gamma$. The jet luminosity is given by: $$\label{Ljet}
L=(1+\sigma)\Gamma\dot{M}c^2$$ where $\dot{M}$ is the mass loss rate. The optical depth to Compton scatterings is given by: $$\tau\approx n'\sigma_T \frac{R}{\Gamma}=\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi \Gamma R^2 c m_p}\frac{\sigma_T R}{\Gamma}=\frac{L \sigma_T}{(1+\sigma)4\pi R c^3 m_p \Gamma^3}$$ where $n'$ is the jet density in the co-moving frame and where we have made use of Eq. \[Ljet\]. The optical depth decreases with increasing radius until it reaches $\tau=1$ at the photosphere, which we assume as the radius of emission (see Fig. \[radiuslim\]). The emission radius in this model may be slightly below the photosphere, as in any case the radiation will be trapped up until the photospheric radius. However, dissipation cannot occur much below this radius, since in this case the jet could suffer significant adiabatic losses between the dissipation and emission radii, leading to greatly increased requirements on the energy source and resulting in a significant re-brightening of the afterglow, contrary to observations. Assuming that the shell contributing to the radiation is narrow ($\Delta R< R/\Gamma^2$), emission from this radius would last for: $$\label{tphoto}
\Delta t=\frac{R}{2c\Gamma^2}=\frac{L \sigma_T}{(1+\sigma)8\pi c^4 m_p \Gamma^5}.$$ Notice that this time depends very strongly on $\Gamma$, implying a large range of variability times, from the shortest flares to the longest ones, would be obtained from a relatively narrow distribution in $\Gamma$ (this would also imply the same underlying mechanism producing the prompt and flares’ variabilities). We note that it is very natural to expect a distribution of Lorentz factors in the flow, since it is unlikely that the flow would be very regular. Assuming that both the prompt phase and the flares are produced from their corresponding photospheres, Eq. \[tphoto\], implies that: $$\frac{\Delta t_{flare}}{\Delta t_{GRB}}=\bigg(\frac{L_{f}}{L_{GRB}}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{1+\sigma_{GRB}}{1+\sigma_{f}}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Gamma_{GRB}}{\Gamma_{f}}\bigg)^5,$$ where the sub-script “GRB" refers to the parameters for the material creating the prompt emission and the sub-script “f" to the same parameters for the flare emitting material. As an example, for a flare starting at $\sim 300$sec, with $\Delta t_{flare}\approx 60$sec, $L_f\approx 0.01 L_{GRB}$ a decrease in $\Gamma$ by a factor of $\sim 6$ (for the same magnetization) is sufficient to obtain a $\Delta t_{flare}\approx 60\Delta t_{GRB}\approx 60$sec. Due to the strong dependence on $\Gamma$, the qualitative result will hold even if the magnetization is quite different for the different materials. In addition, since the flare emitting material was emitted at early times, roughly together with the prompt emitting material, a magnetar source would still have sufficient rotational energy during the launching phase to power the observed flare energies (see §\[motivation\]).
Finally, consider the spectrum below the X-ray band. Since we are considering photospheric emission, the emitting region is compact and the spectrum in our model is likely to be self absorbed above the optical band. Keeping the emission mechanism general, $\nu_{SA}$, satisfies: $$\frac{2\nu_{SA}^2}{c^2}\gamma_e \Gamma m_e c^2 \frac{R^2}{4\Gamma^2 d_L^2}=F_{obs}(\nu_{SA})$$ where $\gamma_e$ is the typical thermal Lorentz factor of the emitting electrons and $F_{obs}(\nu_{SA})$ is the observed flux at $\nu_{SA}$. The largest possible radius where the emission can be produced and still become self-absorbed in the optical band is the photospheric radius. Plugging this into the equation above implies: $$\label{SelfAbs}
\nu_{SA}\!\geq\! 2\times 10^{15}\bigg(\frac{F_{obs}(\nu_{SA})}{mJy}\bigg)^{0.5}\!(1+\sigma_{f})^{0.3} L_{f,50}^{-0.3}\gamma_e^{-0.5}d_{L,28} Hz$$ where we have used $\Delta t_{flare}\approx 60$sec typical for a flare starting at 300sec to obtain a lower limit on $\Gamma_f$. Given the large expected value of $\sigma_f$, Eq. \[SelfAbs\] implies that the spectrum is very likely self absorbed above the optical band (as required by observations) even if the electrons producing the radiation have quite large $\gamma_e$. Specifically, we note that this holds for the case of synchrotron emission, as can be seen from Eq. \[eq:radiuslim\] and Fig. \[radiuslim\]. Note however, that though necessary, this consideration is not sufficient. It is possible that even if the radiation is produced at $\tau\geq 1$, the spectrum below $\nu_{SA}$ can be flat due to the effect of IC scatterings (@Thompson(1994) [@Ghisellini(1999); @Meszaros(2000)], etc.). This condition should therefore be self-consistently verified for any detailed model attempting to explain GRB flares.
Implications on the distribution of velocities in the jet
=========================================================
Given the distribution of flare luminosity with time, we can determine the required distribution of jet luminosity as a function of $\Gamma$, within the model proposed in this paper. The observed distribution is approximately [@Margutti(2011)]: $$L(t)\propto
\left\{ \!
\begin{array}{l}
t^{-2.7}\quad t\lesssim 1000\mbox{ sec}\\
\\
t^{-1} \quad t \gtrsim 1000 \mbox{ sec}\\
\end{array} \right.$$ In our model, we have $L(t) \propto t(1+\sigma)\Gamma^5$, leading to: $$L(\Gamma)\propto
\left\{ \!
\begin{array}{l}
(1+\sigma)^{0.73} \Gamma ^{3.65} \quad \Gamma \gtrsim \Gamma_{min}\\
\\
(1+\sigma)^{0.5} \Gamma ^{2.5} \quad \Gamma \lesssim \Gamma_{min}\\
\end{array} \right.$$
Conclusions
===========
Observations of GRB flares strongly constrain the possible models. Specifically, models should be able to explain the broad range of typical observed time-scales and the strong suppression of the optical compared to the X-ray flux. Although a synchrotron origin for the observed X-ray emission cannot be ruled out by the data, the relative lack of optical to X-ray flux implies a self absorbed source below $\sim 10eV$, leading to a small emission radius: $R\lesssim 3\times 10^{14}cm$ and also a relatively small Lorentz factor, in case the radius is set by the variability time-scale ($\Gamma\lesssim 20$ for a flare starting at $\sim 300$sec). In addition flare models should be able to account for the considerable amounts of energies to be released as late flares (which poses a difficulty for the late time central engine activity model that invokes a rapidly rotating magnetar) and have enough energy not only to power the observed flare but also to allow the flare emitting jet (or outflow) to punch through the progenitor star.
We have considered a model in which X-ray flares and prompt GRB radiation have a common central engine. We suggested that both the material producing the prompt GRB and that producing the flare(s) are ejected from the central engine at more or less the same time but at different speeds. The fast outflow produces the prompt GRB as it reaches its photosphere, whereas the slower material eventually produces the flare(s) as it reaches its own (further out) photosphere. Due to the steep dependence of the observed time-scale in this model on the Lorentz factor of the material, a small variation in the Lorentz factor can account for the large difference in the prompt vs. flare typical variability time-scales. The small emission radius in this model can allow for self absorbed spectra at the optical band. In addition, since the flare jet is produced at an early time, there is still a large energy reservoir available at that time. Finally the flare material follows on the tail end of the prompt jet, before the polar cavity of the star has closed, and so can break out through the surface of the GRB progenitor star with little expenditure of energy.
Another important test for any model attempting to explain late time flares regards their observed steep decays. In models in which the flare variability is associated with the angular time-scale, one can expect the decay to be dominated by high latitude emission ($F_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\beta} t^{-2-\beta}$ where $\beta$ is the spectral slope). However, observationally, the decays are much steeper, with decay slopes between -10 and -100 even after correcting for the most conservative value of the “zero time", $t_0$ [@Uhm(2015)]. One of the ways that a very fast decay (including, potentially, an exponential decay) of the X-ray light-curve may arise in the model proposed here, is if the angular size of the X-ray flare jet is $\lesssim 1/\Gamma$. This is natural to expect in our model since the flare jet Lorentz factor is of order $\sim 10$ (Fig. \[radiuslim\]) and its angular size is set by the size of the polar cavity in the progenitor star that the high Lorentz factor (and high luminosity) gamma-ray producing jet had carved out (which we know from observations to be of order $5\degree-10\degree$). Since in this case there is very little radiation produced at latitudes $>1/\Gamma$, the light-curve’s slope due to high-latitude emission is not limited to $2+\beta$, and in fact, the flux could fall off much more rapidly. The exact shape of the light-curve will depend on the angular spread of energies within the flare producing jet, $dE/d\Omega$, on the Lorentz factor at different directions, $\Gamma(\theta)$ and on the rate of jet energy dissipation below the Thomson photosphere at different radii and angles. A further test for the applicability of such models would be to perform a detailed calculation of the expected light-curves from these models and compare the results against the observed light-curves.
Finally, we remark that although they have different energetics and time-scales, flares share many similarities with prompt GRB pulses, such as “fast rise - exponential decay" time profiles [@Curran(2008)], a pulse width that decreases with the observed frequency as approximately $W \sim \nu^{-0.5}$ [@Chincarini(2010)] and a correlation between peak frequency and luminosity [@Margutti(2010)]. This suggests that either these effects are purely dynamical [see e.g. @BG(2015)] or else GRB pulses and flares share a common radiation mechanism. A better understanding of GRB flares could shed some light on the yet unknown prompt emission mechanism.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Raffaella Margutti, Rodolfo Barniol Duran and Patrick Crumley for helpful discussions. We are very grateful to the referee for his/her careful reading of the paper, and for extremely insightful comments and suggestions which substantially improved the paper.
[99]{} Beniamini, P., $\&$ Granot, J., 2015, arxiv:1509.02192. Beniamini, P., $\&$ Piran, T., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3892B. Bromberg, O., $\&$ Tchekhovskoy, A., 2015, MNRAS, arxiv:1508.02721. Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165. Burrows, D. N., Romano, P., Falcone, A., et al. 2005a, Science,309, 1833. Cao, X., Liang, E.-W., $\&$ Yuan, Y.-F. 2014, ApJ, 789, 129C. Chincarini, G., Mao, J., Margutti, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406,2113. Curran, P.A., Starling, R.L.C., O’Brien, P.T., Godet, O., Van Der Horst, A.J., Wijers, R.A.M.J. 2008, A$\&$A, 487, 533 Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y., Wu, X. F., Zhang, B., 2006, Science 311, 1127–1129. Falcone, A. D., Morris, D., Racusin, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1921. Fan, Y. Z., $\&$ Wei, D. M. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L42. Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., 1999, ApJ, 511, L93. King, A., O’Brien, P. T., Goad, M. R., et al. 2005, ApJL, 630, L113. Kumar, P. $\&$ Zhang, B. 2015, Physics Reports, 561, 1. Kluzniak, W., Ruderman, M., 1998, ApJ 505, L113–L117. Lee, W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., $\&$ L[ó]{}pez-C[á]{}mara, D. 2009, ApJL, 699, L93. MacFadyen A. I., Woosley S. E., 1999, ApJ, 524, 262. Matzner, C. D. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 575. Margutti, R., Guidorzi, C., Chincarini, G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2149. Margutti, R., Bernardini, G., Barniol Duran, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS 410, 1064–1075. M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. $\&$ Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292. Perna, R., Armitage, P. J., $\&$ Zhang, B. 2006, ApJL, 636, L29. Proga, D., $\&$ Zhang, B. 2006, MNRAS, 370, L61. Ramirez-Ruiz E., Celotti A., Rees M. J., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1349. Santana, R., Kumar, P., 2015, in prep. Shen R.-F. $\&$ Zhang B., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1936. Swenson C. A., Roming P. W. A. De Pasquale, M., et al., 2013, ApJ, 774, 2. Sironi, L., $\&$ Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75. Tagliaferri, G., Goad, M., Chincarini, G., et al. 2005, Nature, 436, 985. Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 480. Troja, E., Piro, L., Vasileiou, V., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 10T. Uhm, Z. L., $\&$ Zhang, B. 2015, arXiv:1509.03296. Woosley S. E., 1993, ApJ, 405, 273 Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We establish birational superrigidity for a large class of singular projective Fano hypersurfaces of index one. In the special case of isolated singularities, our result applies for instance to: (1) hypersurfaces with semi-homogeneous singularities of multiplicity roughly bounded by half of the dimension of the hypersurface, (2) hypersurfaces with isolated singularities whose Tyurina numbers satisfy a similar bound, and (3) hypersurfaces with isolated singularities whose dual variety is a hypersurface of degree close enough to the expected degree.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, 155 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, UT 48112-0090, USA'
author:
- Tommaso de Fernex
title: Birational geometry of singular Fano hypersurfaces
---
[^1] [^2]
[^3]
[^4]
Introduction
============
Completing a series of works which began with Iskovskikh and Manin’s theorem on smooth quartic threefolds [@IM71] and continued throughout the years in the papers [@Puk87; @Puk98; @Che00; @Puk02a; @dFEM03], it was recently proven in [@dF] that all smooth hypersurfaces $V$ of degree $N$ in $\P^N$, for $N \ge 4$, are birationally superrigid. This means that there are no birational modifications of $V$ into Mori fiber spaces other than isomorphisms, and implies that $V$ is not rational. Since no other smooth Fano hypersurface is birationally superrigid, one deduces from this result the complete list of smooth hypersurfaces with such property.
In the present paper we want address the problem for singular hypersurfaces, a setting that is still far from being well understood.
In low dimensions, there are results on quartic threefolds and sextic fivefolds with mild singularities (mostly ordinary double points) obtained in [@Puk88; @CM04; @Mel04; @Che07]. A contribution in higher dimensions was given by Pukhlikov in [@Puk02b; @Puk03], where hypersurfaces with *semi-homogeneous singularities*[^5] are studied under a certain “regularity” condition requiring that, at each point of the variety, the intermediate homogeneous terms of the local equation of the hypersurface form a regular sequence.
Our goal is to extend the methods introduced in [@dF] to study the problem without the use of special conditions on the local equations of $X$ and to allow for more general classes of singularities, including positive dimensional ones. The following defines the type of condition on singularities we consider.
\[def\] Let $P \in V$ be a germ of a normal variety. For any pair of integers $(\d,\n)$ with $\d \ge -1$ and $\n \ge 1$, we say that $P$ is a *singularity of type $(\d,\n)$* if the singular locus has dimension at most $\d$ and, given a general complete intersection $X \subset V$ of codimension $\d+2$ through $P$, the $(\n-1)$-th power of the maximal ideal $\fm_{X,P} \subset \O_X$ is contained in the integral closure of the Jacobian ideal $\operatorname{Jac}_X := \operatorname{Fitt}^{\dim X}(\Om_X^1) \subset \O_X$ of $X$.
For instance, regular points are singularities of type $(-1,1)$ and semi-homogeneous hypersurface singularities of multiplicity $\n$ are of type $(0,\n)$. More generally, every isolated hypersurface singularity of multiplicity $\n$ whose tangent cone is smooth away from a set of dimension two is a singularity of type $(0,\n)$. In general, singularities of type $(\d,\n)$ are also of type $(\d',\n')$ for every $\d' \ge \d$ and $\n' \ge \n$.
We can now state our main result.
\[t:main\] Let $V \subset \P^N$ be a hypersurface of degree $N$ with only singularities of type $(\d,\n)$, and assume that $$\d+\n \le \frac 12 N - 3.$$ Then $V$ is a birationally superrigid Fano variety with Picard number one and factorial terminal singularities. In particular, $V$ is not rational and $\operatorname{Bir}(V) = \operatorname{Aut}(V)$.
To illustrate this result, we present a few special cases where the singularities are isolated. We start with the case of semi-homogeneous singularities.
\[c:ordinary\] Every hypersurface $V \subset \P^N$ of degree $N$ with semi-homogeneous singularities of multiplicity at most $\frac 12 N - 3$ is birationally superrigid.
Comparing this with the results of Pukhlikov, one sees that while the bounds on multiplicity in the corollary are more restrictive than those in his papers, no “regularity” assumption is required in our result. Furthermore, the hypothesis on the singularities being semi-homogeneous can be relaxed by allowing, for instance, the tangent cones to have singularities in dimension one or two.
Another special case of the theorem can be formulated in terms of the Tyurina numbers of the singularities. For every integer $i$ and every point $P \in V$, denote by $\t^{(i)}_P(V)$ the Tyurina number (at $P$) of a general complete intersection of codimension $i$ in $V$ passing through $P$.
\[c:Tyurina\] Let $V \subset \P^N$ be a hypersurface of degree $N$ with isolated singularities, and assume that for every $P \in V$ $$\min\{\,\t_P(V),\, \t'_P(V),\, \t''_P(V)\,\} \le \frac 12 N - 4.$$ Then $V$ is birationally superrigid.
Since the Tyurina number is bounded above by the Milnor number, a similar corollary can be formulated in terms of the Milnor numbers of general restrictions of $V$, which are known as the *Teissier–Milnor numbers* of $V$. Using then a result of Teissier, we obtain the following interesting consequence.
\[c:dual\] Let $V \subset \P^N$ be a hypersurface of degree $N$ with isolated singularities, and assume that the dual variety $\check{V} \subset \check\P^N$ (defined as the closure in $\check\P^N$ of the set of points representing the tangent hyperplanes to $V$ at regular points) is a hypersurface of degree $$\deg\check V \ge N(N-1)^{N-1} - (N + 2s - 10)$$ where $s$ is the number of singular points. Then is $V$ birationally superrigid.
The interest in birationally rigidity originates from the realization that, differently from the surface case, higher dimensional Fano varieties and Mori fiber spaces present a wide spectrum of possible birational characteristics, with rational varieties at one end of the spectrum and birationally superrigid varieties at the other end. The problem of determining birational links between different Mori fiber spaces, or the lack thereof, finds its motivation in the Minimal Model Program and can be viewed as the counterpart of the question asking about the unicity of minimal models.
Birational rigidity has been extensively studied in dimension three, and several examples of birationally rigid Fano manifolds are also known in higher dimensions. This property is however sensitive to the singularities. For instance, smooth quartic threefolds are birationally superrigid, but those with a double point are only birationally rigid as the projection from the point induces a birational automorphism. Similarly, quartic threefolds that are singular (with multiplicity 3) along a line can be birationally modified into conic bundles.
Fano hypersurfaces provide a good setting where to explore the problem in the presence of singularities. The aforementioned works on quartic threefolds show that in low dimensions the problem becomes rather delicate already when dealing with mild singularities. The theorem we prove in this paper should be viewed as complementing those studies by showing that the problem stabilizes in the best possible way when the dimension is let grow and the “depth” of the singularities is maintained, in some sense, asymptotically bounded in terms of the dimension.
One advantage of our methods is that they involve, at a certain point of the proof, the projection of a linear section of the hypersurface onto a projective space. We use the projection to get rid of the singularities of the hypersurface, and the valuative contribution of the Jacobian ideal is the only piece of information we need to keep track of. It is thanks to this that we can allow such a large variety of singularities in the theorem.
Properties of singularities of type $(\d,\n)$ and the corollaries are discussed in Section \[s:sing\]. The proof of the theorem is then addressed in the remaining three sections. Each of these sections starts with a brief overview (written in italic) of the basic terminology and of some of the key results needed in the corresponding portion of the proof. For other properties used in the proof we provide the appropriate reference within the proof itself.
All varieties are assumed to be defined over the complex numbers.
Singularities of type $(\d,\n)$. {#s:sing}
================================
In this section we discuss some properties of singularities of type $(\d,\n)$ introduced in Definition \[def\] and give the proofs of the three corollaries stated in the introduction.
Given a germ of an isolated singularity $P \in X$, we define $$\n_P(X) := \min\big\{\, \n \in \N
\mid (\fm_{X,P})^{\n - 1} \subset \ov{\operatorname{Jac}_X} \,\big\},$$ where the bar in the right-hand side denotes integral closure. Note that a normal singularity $P \in V$ is of type $(\d,\n)$ if and only if the singular locus has dimension at most $\d$ and $\n_P(X) \le \n$ for a general complete intersection $X \subset V$ of codimension $\d+2$ through $P$.
\[p:restr\] Let $P \in X$ be an isolated singularity. Then for every general hyperplane section $H \subset X$ through $P$ we have $$\n_P(H) \le \n_P(X).$$
It follows by Teissier’s Idealistic Bertini Theorem [@Tei77 2.15. Corollary 3], which implies that $$\ov{\operatorname{Jac}_X} \.\O_H \subset \ov{\operatorname{Jac}_X\.\,\O_H} = \ov{\operatorname{Jac}_H},$$ and the fact that $\fm_{X,P} \. \O_H = \fm_{H,P}$.
\[c:restr\] A singularity of type $(\d,\n)$ is also of type $(\d',\n')$ for every $\d' \ge \d$ and $\n' \ge \n$.
Our focus in this paper is on hypersurface singularities. Let us thus assume that $P \in X$ is an isolated hypersurface singularity. For ease of notation, we consider the case where $X$ is a hypersurface in an affine space $\A^n$ with an isolated singularity at $P$. We fix affine coordinates $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ centered at $P$, and let $h(x_1,\dots,x_n) = 0$ be an equation defining $X$. Then the Jacobian ideal of $X$ is cut out, on $X$, by the partial derivatives of $h$: $$\operatorname{Jac}_X = \Big(\frac{\de h}{\de x_1},\dots,\frac{\de h}{\de x_n}\Big)\.\O_X.$$
A special case where $\n_P(X)$ is easy to compute is when $P \in X$ is a semi-homogeneous hypersurface singularity. Recall that the *multiplicity* $e_P(X)$ of $X$ at $P$ is the degree of the tangent cone $C_PX$.
\[p:ordinary\] If $P \in X$ is a semi-homogeneous hypersurface singularity, then $$\n_P(X) = e_P(X).$$
Let for short $m := e_P(X)$. Let $f \colon \~X \to X$ and $g\colon \~\A^n \to \A^n$ be the blow-ups of $P$, and let $F$ and $G$ be the respective exceptional divisors. Then $\~X \subset \~\A^n$ is the proper transform of $X$ and $g^*X = \~X + m G$. In particular, $\operatorname{mult}_P(h) = m$, and thus $\operatorname{mult}_P(\de h/ \de x_i) = m-1$. By hypothesis, $F = \~X \cap G$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $m$ in $G \cong \P^{n-1}$, defined by the vanishing of the degree $m$ homogeneous form $h_m$ of $h$. It follows that the homogeneous ideal $$\Big(\frac{\de h_m}{\de x_1},\dots,\frac{\de h_m}{\de x_n}\Big) \subset \C[x_1,\dots,x_n]$$ has no zeroes in $\P^{n-1}$. This implies that $\operatorname{Jac}_X \.\,\O_{\~X} = \O_{\~X}(-(m-1)F)$, and thus $\ov{\operatorname{Jac}_X} = f_*\O_{\~X}(-(m-1)F)$. The assertion follows then by the fact that $(\fm_{X,P})^k \.\, \O_{\~X} = \O_{\~X}(-kE)$.
By Proposition \[p:ordinary\], $P \in V$ is a singularity of type $(0,e_P(X))$ for a general complete intersection $X \subset V$ of codimension two passing through $P$. Since $e_P(X) = e_P(V)$, the corollary follows directly from Theorem \[t:main\].
The Jacobian ideal retains important information of a singularity. For instance, it is a theorem of Mather and Yau [@MY82] that, for an isolated hypersurface singularity $P \in X$, the Jacobian $\C$-algebra $\O_{X,P}/\operatorname{Jac}_X$ determines the analytic isomorphism class of the singularity. The dimension of this algebra is called the *Tyurina number* of the singularity. If, as above, $X$ is defined by $h(x_1,\dots,x_n) = 0$ in $\A^n$ and $P = (0,\dots,0)$, then the Tyurina number is given by $$\t_P(X) := \dim_\C \frac{\C[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]}
{\big(h , \frac{\de h}{\de x_1},\dots,\frac{\de h}{\de x_n}\big)}.$$ The Tyurina number is closely related to the *Milnor number* of the singularity, which is the number of spheres in the bouquet homotopically equivalent to the Milnor fiber and is computed by the dimension $$\m_P(X) := \dim_\C \frac{\C[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]}
{\big(\frac{\de h}{\de x_1},\dots,\frac{\de h}{\de x_n}\big)}.$$ For every $i$, we define the *$i$-th Tyurina number* $\t^{(i)}_P(X)$ and the *$i$-th Teissier–Milnor number* $\m^{(i)}_P(X)$ of $X$ at $P$ to be, respectively, the Tyurina number and the Milnor number of a general complete intersection of codimension $i$ passing through $P$ (there is a difference here with respect to the notation originally used by Teissier where the index $i$ refers to dimension rather than codimension).
\[p:Tyurina\] With the above notation, we have $$\n_P(X) \le \t_P(X) + 1$$
Let for short $\n := \n_P(X)$. By definition, we have $(\fm_{X,P})^{\n - 1} \not\subset \ov{\operatorname{Jac}_X}$. In view of the valuative interpretation of integral closure, this means that there is a valuation $v$ on the function field of $X$ (which one may assume to be divisorial) with center $P$ such that $$(\n - 1)\. v(\fm_{X,P}) < v(\operatorname{Jac}_X).$$ Consider the sequence of ideals $\fq_k := \fm^k + \operatorname{Jac}_X \subset \O_X$. Since $v(\fq_k) = k\.v(\fm_{X,P})$ for $1 \le k \le \n - 1$, we have a chain of strict inclusions of ideals $$\O_X \supsetneq \fq_1 \supsetneq \fq_2 \supsetneq \dots
\supsetneq \fq_{\n-1} \supsetneq \operatorname{Jac}_X.$$ This implies that $\t_P(X) \ge \n - 1$.
Let $P \in V$ be one of the singularities of $V$, and let $i \in \{0,1,2\}$ be such that $\t_P^{(i)}(V) \le \frac 12 N - 4$. If $V^{(i)} \subset V$ denotes a general complete intersection of codimension $i$ through $P$, then we have $\n_P(V^{(i)}) \le \frac 12 N - 3$ by Proposition \[p:Tyurina\]. Since $i \le 2$, this implies by Proposition \[p:restr\] that if $X = V'' \subset V$ is a general complete intersection of codimension two then $\n_P(X) \le \frac 12 N - 3$. Therefore the corollary follows from Theorem \[t:main\].
Let $P_1,\dots,P_s \in V$ be the singular points. It is proven in [@Tei80 Appendix 2] that the dual variety has degree $$\deg\check V = N(N-1)^{N-1} - \sum_{j=1}^s (\m_{P_j}(V) + \m'_{P_j}(V)).$$ Note that, for every $j$, both $\m_{P_j}(V)$ and $\m'_{P_j}(V)$ are positive integers. Then, for any given $j$ we have $$\m_{P_j}(V) + \m'_{P_j}(V) \le N(N-1)^{N-1} - 2(s-1) - \deg\check V \le N - 8,$$ and hence $$\min\{\,\m_{P_j}(V),\, \m'_{P_j}(V)\,\} \le \frac 12 N - 4.$$ Since $\t^{(i)}_{P_j}(V) \le \m^{(i)}_{P_j}(V)$, one can then apply Corollary \[c:Tyurina\].
Setting up the proof of Theorem \[t:main\]
==========================================
*Background: Singularities of pairs*
------------------------------------
*A standard reference is [@Kol97]. Let $X$ be a normal variety with $\Q$-Cartier canonical class, and let $E$ be a prime divisor on a resolution $f \colon \~X \to X$. We say that $E$ is a divisor *over* $X$. The image of $E$ in $X$ is the *center* of $E$; the divisor is *exceptional over $X$* if the center has codimension $\ge 2$. The divisor defines a valuation $\operatorname{val}_E$ over $X$; if $Z \subset X$ is a proper closed subscheme and $I_Z \subset \O_X$ is its ideal sheaf, then we set $\operatorname{val}_E(Z) := \operatorname{val}_E(I_Z)$. The *discrepancy* of $X$ along $E$ is the coefficient $k_E(X) := \operatorname{ord}_E(K_{\~X/X})$ of $E$ in the relative canonical divisor $K_{\~X/X}$. Given a finite, formal $\R$-linear combination $Z = \sum c_i Z_i$ of proper closed subschemes $Z_i \subset X$, the *log discrepancy* of the pair $(X,Z)$ along $E$ is defined to be $$a_E(X,Z) := k_E(X) + 1 - \sum c_i \operatorname{val}_E(Z_i).$$ The *minimal log discrepancy* of $X$ at a proper closed subset $T \subset X$ is the infimum of all log discrepancies along divisors with center in $T$, and is denoted by $\operatorname{mld}(T;X,Z)$.*
The pair $(X,Z)$ is *log canonical* (resp., *log terminal*) if $a_E(X,Z) \ge 0$ (resp., $a_E(X,Z) > 0$) for all $E$ over $X$. The pair is *canonical* (resp., *terminal*) if $a_E(X,Z) \ge 1$ (resp., $a_E(X,Z) > 1$) for all $E$ exceptional over $X$. Assuming that $X$ has canonical singularities and $c_i > 0$ for all $i$, we define the *canonical threshold* $\operatorname{can}(X,Z)$ of $(X,Z)$ to be the largest number $c$ such that $(X,cZ)$ is canonical.
Suppose that $X$ is a locally complete intersection variety, and let $Y \subset X$ be a normal effective Cartier divisor that is not contained in $\bigcup Z_i$. Assume that $c_i > 0$ for all $i$. Then for every proper closed subset $T \subset Y$ we have $$\operatorname{mld}(T;X,Z+Y) = \operatorname{mld}(T; Y, Z|_Y).$$
A *Mori fiber space* is a normal projective variety $X$ with $\Q$-factorial terminal singularities, equipped with an extermal Mori contraction of fiber type $X \to S$ (so that $\dim S < \dim X$, $\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}(S) = \operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}(X) - 1$, and $-K_X$ is relatively ample over $S$). A Mori fiber space is said to be *birationally superrigid* if there are no birational maps to other Mori fiber spaces other than isomorphisms.
Assume that $X$ is a Fano variety of Picard number one and terminal $\Q$-factorial singularities, and suppose that there is a birational map $\f \colon X \rat X'$ where $X'$ is a Mori fiber space. Fix an embedding $X' \subset \P^m$, let $\cH := \f_*^{-1}|\O_{X'}(1)|$ be the linear system on $X$ giving the map $X \rat X' \inj \P^m$, and let $B(\cH) \subset X$ be its base scheme. Let $r$ be the rational number such that $\cH \subset |-rK_X|$. Then $$\operatorname{can}(X,B(\cH)) < 1/r.$$
Step 1 of the proof: Cutting down the singular locus {#s:step1}
----------------------------------------------------
Let $V \subset \P^N$ be as in Theorem \[t:main\].
\[l:V\] $V$ is a normal, factorial Fano variety of index one and Picard number one.
First note that, by definition of singularity of type $(\d,\n)$, $V$ is normal. By the Lefschetz Hyperplane Theorem, $\operatorname{Pic}(V)$ is generated by the class of $\O_V(1)$, thus $V$ has Picard number one and, by adjunction, is a Fano variety of index one. Consider a general linear 4-space $\P^4 \subset \P^N$, and let $W \subset \P^4$ be the hypersurface cut out by $V$. Note that $W$ is smooth. Applying then the Lefschetz Hyperplane Theorem to $W \subset \P^4$ we see that $\operatorname{Pic}(W)$ is also generated by the hyperplane class, and hence the restriction map $\operatorname{Pic}(V) \to \operatorname{Pic}(W)$ is an isomorphism. Since $W$ is smooth, the class map $\operatorname{Pic}(W) \to \operatorname{Cl}(W)$ is an isomorphism. On the other hand, the restriction of Weil divisors (which is well-defined in our setting) induces an isomorphism $\operatorname{Cl}(V) \to \operatorname{Cl}(W)$ by an inductive application of [@RS06 Theorem 1]. It follows that $\operatorname{Pic}(V) \to \operatorname{Cl}(V)$ is an isomorphism.
We start by assuming that $V$ has terminal singularities. We will argue at the end of this section that essentially the same proof given under this condition also proves that $V$ must have terminal singularities in the first place.
Under the assumption that $V$ has terminal singularities, it follows by Lemma \[l:V\] that $V$ is a Mori fiber space (over a point), and we can thus inquire about whether it is birationally superrigid. We shall assume that this is not the case, and proceed by contradiction. Then there is a birational map $$\f \colon V \rat V'$$ from $V$ to a Mori fiber space $V'$ that is not an isomorphism. Fix a projective embedding $V' \subset \P^m$, and let $\cH = \f_*^{-1}|\O_{V'}(1)|$. Note that $\cH \subset |\O_V(r)|$ for some integer $r \ge 1$. Let $B(\cH)$ be the base scheme of $\cH$, and let $$D \in \cH { \ \ \text{ and } \ \ }B = D_1 \cap D_2 \subset V$$ be, respectively, a general member of $\cH$ and the complete intersection of two general members of $\cH$. Since the singular locus of $V$ has at most dimension $\d$, [@Puk02a Proposition 5] implies that for every close subvariety $T \subset V$ we have $e_T(D) \le r$ if $\dim T \le \d+1$, and $e_T(B) \le r^2$ if $\dim T \le \d+2$ ($e_T(S)$ denoting the *multiplicity* of a scheme $S$ along a subvariety $T$). The first of these inequalities implies that the pair $(V, \tfrac 1r B)$ has terminal singularities away from a set of dimension $\d$ (e.g., see [@dF Proposition 8.8]). On the other hand, the Noether–Fano Inequality implies that the pair $(V,B)$ has canonical threshold $$c := \operatorname{can}(V,B) < 1/r.$$ Moreover, if $E_1$ is a (prime) divisor over $X$ computing the canonical thresholds, that is, with log-discrepancy $$a_{E_1}(V,cB) = 1$$ over $(X,cB)$, then the center of $E_1$ in $V$ has dimension at most $\d+1$ because of the bound on the multiplicities of $D$.
Fix a point $P$ in the center of $E_1$ in $V$, let $$\P^{N-\d-1} \subset \P^N$$ be a general linear subspace of dimension $N-\d-1$ passing through $P$, and let $Y \subset \P^{N-\d-1}$ be the restriction of $V$ to this subspace. Then the pair $(Y,cB_Y)$ is terminal away from finitely many points, including $P$ where the pair is still not canonical by Inversion of Adjunction (or, equivalently, by the Connectedness Theorem). It follows that there is a divisor $E_2$ over $Y$, with center $P$, such that $$a_{E_2}(Y,cB|_Y) \le 1.$$ We then take one more hyperplane section: let $$\P^n = \P^{N-\d-2} \subset \P^{N-\d-1}$$ be a general hyperplane through $P$ (for simplicity, we have set $n:= N-\d-2$). Let $X \subset \P^n$ be the restriction of $Y$. Applying again Inversion of Adjunction (or by the Connectedness Theorem), we find now a divisor $E_3$ over $X$, with center $P$, such that $$a_{E_3}(X,cB|_X) \le 0.$$ Furthermore, $e_T(B|_X) \le r^2$ for all positive dimensional subvarieties $T \subset X$ (cf. [@dF Propositions 8.7 and 8.5(ii)]).
The above computations were done assuming that $V$ was terminal but not birationally superrigid. Suppose then, for a moment, that $V$ is not terminal. This means that there is a divisor $E_1$ over $V$ such that $a_{E_1}(V,\emptyset) \le 1$, whose center is contained in the singular locus of $V$. Then the same proof given assuming that $V$ is terminal but not birationally superrigid, simplified in fact by the fact that we can replace $B$ with the empty set, goes through to produce a contradiction, thus proving that $V$ must have terminal singularities. (Equivalently, one can follow verbatim the same proof by just taking $B$, in the non-terminal case, to be a codimension two subscheme of $V$ cut out by two general equations of the same degree $r$ vanishing on the center of $E_1$.) Thus, we can assume henceforth that $V$ has terminal singularities.
Core of the proof
=================
*Background: Arc spaces and maximal divisorial sets*
----------------------------------------------------
*Standard references are [@ELM04; @EM09]; the reader may also refer to [@dF Sections 3 and 4] for a short, comprehensive introduction (in the smooth case) to the basic tools needed here.*
Briefly, to each variety $X$ we associate its jet schemes $J_mX$ and arc space $J_\infty X$, which respectively parametrize $m$-jets $\operatorname{Spec}\C[t]/(t^{m+1}) \to X$ and formal arcs $\operatorname{Spec}\C[[t]] \to X$. For any set $W \subset J_\infty X$, we denote by $W_m$ the projection of $W$ via the truncation map $J_\infty X \to J_mX$. A set $W \subset J_\infty X$ is a *cylinder* if it is constructible and is equal to the inverse image of its image $W_m \subset J_mX$ for some $m$; the set is said to be a *quasi-cylinder* if equality holds away from the set of arcs fully contained in the singular locus of $X$.
Given a smooth prime divisor $E$ on a resolution $f \colon \~X \to X$ of $X$, and a positive integer $q$, we consider the *maximal divisorial set* $$W^q(E) := \ov{f_\infty(\operatorname{Cont}^q(E))} \subset J_\infty X.$$ Here $\operatorname{Cont}^q(E)$ is the locus of arcs on $\~X$ with contact order $q$ along $E$, $f_\infty \colon J_\infty \~X \to J_\infty X$ is the map induced on arc spaces by $f$, and the closure in the right-hand side is taken with respect to the Zariski topology of $J_\infty X$. The set $W^q(E)$ only depends on the valuation $q\operatorname{val}_E$, and is a quasi-cylinder in $J_\infty X$.
The valuation $q\operatorname{val}_E$ can be reproduced from the set $W^q(E)$ by considering the order of contact with the generic point of $W^q(E)$, which is a $K$-valued arc $\operatorname{Spec}K[[t]] \to X$ for some field extension $\C(X) \subset K$. More generally, to each closed quasi-cylinder $C \subset J_\infty X$ that is irreducible and is not contained in the arc space of the singular locus, one can associate a valuation $\operatorname{val}_C$ on $X$. This valuation is divisorial, which means that $\operatorname{val}_C = q\operatorname{val}_E$ for some divisor $E$ over $X$ and some positive integer $q$, and we have an inclusion $C \subset W^q(E)$ (which justifies the terminology of maximal divisorial set). For the complete correspondence between quasi-cylinders, maximal divisoral sets, and divisorial valuations, we refer to [@ELM04; @dFEI08]. If $X$ is smooth, then the discrepancy along $E$ is also encoded in its maximal divisorial sets, as we have $$\operatorname{codim}(W^q(E),J_\infty X) = q(k_E(X) + 1)$$ where the codimension is here intended topologically, and thus maximal divisorial sets carry enough information to recover the log discrepancy of a pair $(X,Z)$ along the corresponding exceptional divisor. A similar formula holds also for singular varieties.
The first jet space $J_1X$ is naturally identified with the tangent cone bundle over $X$, meaning that the the fiber of $J_1X$ over a point $P \in X$ is identified with the tangent cone $C_PX$ of $X$ at $P$. In general, for every $m \ge 1$, we define the *$m$-th tangent cone bundle* $C^{(m)}X$ of $X$ to be the inverse image in $J_mX$ of the trivial section of $J_{m-1}X \to X$, so that the fiber $C_P^{(m)}X$ of $C^{(m)}X$ over $P$ is the same as the fiber of $J_mX$ over the constant $(m-1)$-th jet of $X$ at $P$. It is immediate to check that $C^{(m)}X$ parametrizes maps $\operatorname{Spec}\C[t^m]/(t^{m+1}) \to X$, and that for every $m,q \ge 1$, the isomorphisms of rings $A[t^m]/(t^{m+1}) \to A[t^p]/(t^{p+1})$ sending $a + bt^m$ to $a + bt^p$ for every $\C$-algebra $A$ give rise to a fiber-wise linear isomorphism $$\ff_{m,p}^X \colon C^{(m)}X \to C^{(p)}X.$$ These definitions generalize those of $m$-th tangent bundle/space given in [@dF] when $X$ is smooth, where the notation $T^{(m)}X$ and $T_P^{(m)}X$ is used instead.
Suppose that $E$ is a prime divisor over $X$ with center equal to a point $P \in X$. Let $\G_E$ be the center of $E$ on the blow-up $\operatorname{Bl}_PX$. Since $\G_E$ is contained in the exceptional divisor, we can then take its cone $\^\G_E$ inside the tangent cone $C_PX$. Let $W := W^1(E)\subset J_\infty X$, and let $$\m := \min \{\, m \mid \dim W_m \ge 2 \,\}.$$ Note that $\m = \operatorname{val}_E(P)$ and $W_\m \subset C_P^{(\m)}X$. Extending the properties studied in [@dF Section 4] to the singular case, we see that the set $$\ff_{\m,1}^X(W_\m) \subset C_PX$$ is a dense, constructible subcone of $\^\G_E$. The non-zero elements in $\ff_{\m,1}^X(W_\m) \subset \^\G_E$ are said to be the *the principal tangent vectors of $E$ at $P$*. The elements in $\G_E$ given by homogeneous classes of non-zero elements in $\ff_{\m,1}^X(W_\m)$ are the *principal tangent directions of $E$ at $P$*. This generalizes [@dF Definition 3.7] to the singular case.
Step 2 of the proof: First projection and degeneration {#s:step2}
------------------------------------------------------
Back to the proof of Theorem \[t:main\], and to the setting of Section \[s:step1\], consider the maximal divisorial set $$W := W^1(E_3) \subset J_\infty X.$$ Since $P$ is an isolated singularity, every quasi-cylinder of $J_\infty X$ is a cylinder. In particular, we can fix a sufficiently large integer $m$ so that $W$ is a cylinder over $W_m \subset J_mX$.
Fix affine coordinates $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ on $\A^n \subset \P^n$ centered at $P$, and consider the $\C^*$-action $x_i \mapsto sx_i$, where $s \in \C^*$. The action lifts to $J_m\A^n$. Regarding $W_m$ as a close subset of $J_m\A^n$, let $(W_m)^0 \subset J_m \A^n$ be its (set-theoretic) limit obtained by taking a flat degeneration as $s \to 0$. Let $$\m := \min \{\, q \mid \dim ((W_m)^0)_q \ge 2 \,\}.$$ Note that $((W_m)^0))_\m \subset T_P^{(\m)}\A^n$. We pick a non-zero tangent vector $$\x \in \ff_{\m,1}^{\A^n}\big(((W_m)^0)_\m\big) \subset T_P\A^n.$$
We take a general linear projection $$\s \colon \A^n \to \A^{n-1},$$ which we regard as a rational map $\P^n \rat \P^{n-1}$, and consider the induced finite map $$g \colon X \to \P^{n-1}.$$ Let $P' := g(P) \in \P^{n-1}$. Via the inclusion of function fields $\C(\P^{n-1}) \subset \C(X)$, the valuation $\operatorname{val}_{E_3}$ restricts to a divisorial valuation on $\P^{n-1}$ which can be written as $q_4 \operatorname{val}_{E_4}$ for some divisor $E_4$ with center $P'$ and some positive integer $q_4$. We fix resolutions $\~X \to X$ and $\~\P^{n-1}$ fitting in a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\~X \ar[r]^f\ar[d]_{\~g} & X \ar[d]^g \\
\~\P^{n-1} \ar[r] & \P^{n-1}.
}$$ We can assume without loss of generality that $E_3$ and $E_4$ appear, respectively, as divisors on the models $\~X$ and $\~\P^{n-1}$.
Let $$W' := W^{q_4}(E_4) \subset J_\infty\P^{n-1}.$$ Note that $W'$ is contained in the fiber over $P'$, which is contained in $J_\infty\A^{n-1}$. After a linear change of coordinates, we can assume that $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ are chosen so that $(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})$ come from coordinates on $\A^n$, centered at $P'$. Let $(W')^0 \subset J_\infty\A^n$ be the (set-theoretic) *homogeneous limit* of $W'$ under the $\C^*$-action $x_i \mapsto sx_i$ when $s \to 0$, as defined in [@dF Section 5].
\[l:W’\^0\] $\s_\m\big(((W_m)^0)_\m\big) = ((W')^0)_\m$.
The fact that $\operatorname{val}_{E_3}$ restricts to $q_4\operatorname{val}_{E_4}$ means that $\~g$ has ramification order $q_4$ at the generic point of $E_3$. Then, after restricting over some open neighborhood $U \subset \~\P^{n-1}$ of the generic point of $E_4$, every arc on $\~g^{-1}(U)$ with contact one along $E_3$ is mapped to an arc on $U$ with contact $q_4$ along $E_4$, and conversely, any such arc on $U$ is realized in this way. This implies that $\~g_\infty(\operatorname{Cont}^1(E_3)) = \operatorname{Cont}^{q_4}(E_4)$, and therefore $g_\infty(W) = W'$. It also follows that $W'$ is a cylinder over $(W')_m$, and thus we have $((W')^0)_m = (W'_m)^0$ by [@dF Lemma 5.3].
Since $\s$ is a general projection, we can assume that the tangent cone $C_PX \subset T_P\A^n$ does not contain the kernel of the linear map $T_P\A^n \to T_{P'}\A^{n-1}$. This means that if $\ov{C_PX}$ is the projective closure of $C_PX$ in $\operatorname{Proj}\C[u,x_1',\dots,x_n']$ where $(x_1',\dots,x_n')$ are the coordinates induced by $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ on $T_P\A^n$, then the point of homogeneous coordinates $(0:\ldots :0:1)$ is not in $\ov{C_PX}$. Equivalently, using the coordinates $(x_1^{(q)},\dots,x_n^{(q)})$ induced on $T_P^{(q)}\A^n$, the point $(0:\ldots :0:1) \in \operatorname{Proj}\C[u,x_1^{(q)},\dots,x_n^{(q)}]$ is not contained in the projective closure $\ov{C_P^{(q)}X}$ of $C_P^{(q)}X$ for any $q\ge 1$. This point being settled, the proof follows the same arguments of the proof of [@dF Lemma 9.1] by simply replacing $\ov{T_P^{(q)}X}$ with $\ov{C_P^{(q)}X}$.
By construction, $((W')^0)_\m \subset T_{P'}^{(m)}\A^{n-1}$. By taking the projection generally, we can ensure that $\x$ maps to a non-zero vector $\x' \in T_{P'}\A^{n-1}$. Then, by Lemma \[l:W’\^0\], $$\x' \in \ff_{\m,1}^{\A^{n-1}}\big(((W')^0)_\m\big).$$ Let $C$ be an irreducible component of $(W')^0$ such that $\x' \in \ff_{\m,1}^{\A^{n-1}}(C_\m)$. Since $C$ is a cylinder in $J_\infty\P^{n-1}$, there is a divisor $E_5$ over $\P^{n-1}$ with center $P'$, and a positive integer $q_5$, such that $\operatorname{val}_C = q_5 \operatorname{val}_{E_5}$.
The projection $X \to \P^{n-1}$ is the step that allows us to get rid of the singularities of $X$. The (negative) contribution coming from the singularity, measure in terms of the Jacobian, is encoded in the following formula on log discrepancies.
\[l:jac\] $q_4(k_{E_4}(\P^{n-1}) +1) = k_{E_3}(X) + 1 + \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(\operatorname{Jac}_X)$.
By evaluating the identity $$K_{\~X/\~\P^{n-1}} + \~g^*K_{\~\P^{n-1}/\P^{n-1}} = K_{\~X/X} + f^*K_{X/\P^{n-1}}$$ at the generic point of $E$ we get $$q_4k_{E_4}(\P^{n-1}) + q_1 - 1 = k_{E_3}(X) + \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(K_{X/\P^{n-1}}).$$ The lemma then follows from the fact that if $X$ is defined in $\A^n$ by $h(x_1,\dots,x_n) = 0$, then the ramification divisor $K_{X/\P^{n-1}}$ is defined on $X \cap \A^n$ by the vanishing of $\de h/\de x_n$, which is a linear combination of a set of generators of the Jacobian ideal. Taking a general projection $\A^n \to \A^{n-1}$ correspond to this element being a general linear combination, and hence we have $$\operatorname{val}_{E_3}(K_{X/\P^{n-1}}) = \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(\operatorname{Jac}_X)$$ for a general projection $X \to \P^{n-1}$.
We are now ready to come back to our bounds on log discrepancies. For short, denote $Z := B|_X$. We established at the end of the previous section that $a_{E_3}(X,cZ) \le 0$ where $E_3$ is a divisor with center $P$. By our hypothesis on the singularities of $V$, there is an inclusion $$(\fm_{X,P})^{\n-1} \subset \ov{(\operatorname{Jac}_X\.\,\O_{X,P})}$$ This implies that $\operatorname{val}_{E_3}(\operatorname{Jac}_X) \le (\n-1) \operatorname{val}_E(\fm_{X,P})$, and hence, denoting by $J_X \subset X$ the scheme defined by $\operatorname{Jac}_X$, we have $$a_{E_3}(X,cZ + (\n-1)P - J_X) \le 0.$$ Consider the scheme-theoretic image $Z' := g(Z) \subset \P^{n-1}$. Then $q_4\operatorname{val}_{E_4}(Z') = \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(g^{-1}(Z')) \ge \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(Z)$. Similarly, we have $q_4\operatorname{val}_{E_4}(P') = \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(g^{-1}(P')) \ge \operatorname{val}_{E_3}(P)$. Combining these inequalities with the previous lemma, we then obtain $$a_{E_4}(\P^{n-1},cZ' + (\n-1)P') \le 0.$$ Finally, if $(Z')^0 \subset \P^{n-1}$ is the flat limit of $Z'$ obtained by taking a degeneration under the $\C^*$-action $x_i \mapsto sx_i$ as $s \to 0$, then [@dF Proposition 5.5] implies that $$a_{E_5}(\P^{n-1},c(Z')^0 + (\n-1)P') \le 0.$$
Conclusion of the proof
=======================
*Background: Multiplier ideals*
-------------------------------
*A standard reference is [@Laz04]. Given an effective pair $(X,D)$ where $X$ is a normal variety with $\Q$-Cartier canonical class, and $D$ is an effective $\R$-divisor, we define the *multiplier ideal* of the pair to be the ideal sheaf $$\J(X,D) := f_*\O_{\~X}({\lru{K_{\~X/X} - f^*D}\rru}).$$ Here $f \colon \~X \to X$ is a log resolution of the pair, so that the exceptional locus has pure codimension one and the union of the supports of $K_{\~X/X}$ and $f^*D$ has simple normal crossings, and the round-up in the right-hand side is taken component-wise (the definition is independent of the choice of resolution).*
A proof of the following vanishing theorem, generally attributed to Nadel, can be found for instance in [@Laz04].
With the above notation, suppose that $L$ is a Cartier divisor such that $L - D$ is nef and big. Then $$H^i(X,\O_X(L) \otimes \J(X,D)) = 0 { \ \ \text{ for all } \ \ }i > 0.$$
The next result gives a rare instance where Inversion of Adjunction holds for non-effective pairs.
\[t:special-inv-adj\] Let $X = \A^n$, with affine coordinates $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Let $E$ be a prime divisor over $X$ with center at the origin $O = (0,\dots,0)$, and assume that $\operatorname{val}_E$ is invariant under the homogeneous $\C^*$-action $x_i \mapsto sx_i$. Let $Y = \A^{n-e} \subset X$ be a linear subspace of codimension $e < n$ that is tangent to a principal tangent directions of $E$ at $O$, and let $D$ is an effective $\R$-divisor on $X$ not containing $Y$ in its support. Then there is a divisor $F$ over $Y$ with center $O$, and a positive integer $q$, such that $$qa_F(Y,D|_Y - eP) \le a_E(X,D).$$ In particular, if $a_E(X,D) \ge 0$, then $a_F(Y,D|_Y - eP) \le a_E(X,D)$.
This theorem can be interpreted as a special restriction property for multiplier ideals. Indeed, if we assume that, in the hypothesis of the theorem, $a_E(X,D) \le a$ for some $a \in \{0,1,\dots,e\}$, then the theorem implies that $(\fm_{Y,O})^{e-a} \not\subset \J(Y,D|_Y)$. See [@dF Section 6] for further discussion of this property.
Step 3 of the proof: Second projection and last restriction {#s:step3}
-----------------------------------------------------------
This part of the proof is essentially the same as the the last part of the proof of [@dF Theorem 7.4]. We outline it for the convenience of the reader.
Returning to where we left in Section \[s:step2\], take a general linear projection $$\t \colon \A^{n-1} \to \A^{n-2}$$ which, again, we regard as a rational map $\P^{n-1} \rat \P^{n-2}$. The push-forward $A^0 := \t_*[(Z')^0]$ is a divisor of degree $Nr^2$ on $\P^{n-2}$, and is a cone with vertex $Q := \t(P')$.
By [@dF Proposition 5.2], $(Z')^0$ is the image of the homogeneous limit $Z^0$ of $Z$ obtained under the action $x_i \mapsto sx_i$ as $s \to 0$. Since $Z^0$ is complete intersection in $\P^n$, [@dF Lemma 9.2] applies to our setting, and hence $(Z')^0$ is a Cohen–Macaulay scheme. We can then apply [@dFEM03 Theorem 1.1] (in the more precise form stated in [@dF Theorem 8.1]), which implies that the valuation $\operatorname{val}_{E_5}$ restrict to a $\C^*$-invariant divisorial valuation $q_6 \operatorname{val}_{E_6}$ on $\P^{n-2}$ and, bearing in mind that $q_6 \operatorname{val}_{E_6}(Q) = \operatorname{val}_{E_5}(\t^{-1}(Q)) \ge \operatorname{val}_{E_5}(P)$, we have $$a_{E_6}(\P^{n-2},\tfrac{c^2}2 A^0 + (\n-1)Q) \le 0.$$
Note that the tangent direction determined by the image $\x'' \in T_Q\P^{n-2}$ of $\x'$ is contained in the center of $E_6$ on the blow-up $\operatorname{Bl}_Q\P^{n-2}$. Let $L'' \subset \P^{n-2}$ be the line with tangent vector $\x''$ at $Q$. Arguing as in [@dF Lemma 8.3], we obtain $e_{L''}(A^0) \le r^2$. Recall that the set of principal tangent directions of $E_6$ is dense in the center of $E_6$ on the blow-up. We can therefore pick a principal tangent vector $\x^*$ of $E_6$ at $Q$ that is close enough to $\x''$ so that, if $L^* \subset \P^{n-2}$ is the line with tangent vector $\x^*$ at $Q$, then $e_{L^*}(A^0) \le r^2$. Let then $\P^2 \subset \P^{n-2}$ be a general plane containing $L^*$. By [@dF Proposition 8.5], we have $e_T(A^0|_{\P^2}) \le r^2$ for every irreducible curve $T \in \P^2$, and hence the multiplier ideal $$\J(\P^2,\tfrac{c^2}2 A^0|_{\P^2})$$ vanishes on a zero dimensional scheme.
By Theorem \[t:special-inv-adj\], there is a divisor $E_7$ over $\P^2$, with center $Q$, such that $$a_{E_7}(\P^2,\tfrac{c^2}2 A^0|_{\P^2} - (n-\n-3)Q) \le 0.$$ This implies that if $\fq$ is the primary component of $\J(\P^2,\tfrac{c^2}2 A^0|_{\P^2})$ that is co-supported at $Q$, then $$(\fm_{\P^2,Q})^{n-\n-3} \not\subset \fq.$$ Since $\fq$ is a homogeneous ideal in the affine coordinates centered at $Q$, this means that among the homogeneous generators of the $\C$-vector space $\O_{\P^2}/\fq$ there must be some elements of degree at least $n-\n-5$. On the other hand, the Nadel Vanishing Theorem implies that there is a surjection $$H^0(\P^2,\O_{\P^2}(k - 3)) \surj H^0(\P^2,\O_{\P^2}/\fq)$$ for every integer $k > Nr^2c^2/2$. Putting together, we get $Nr^2c^2/2 \ge n-\n-1$. Recalling that $c < 1/r$ and $n = N - \d - 2$, this gives $\d+\n > \frac 12 N - 3$. This however is in contradiction with our hypothesis on the singularities of $X$.
[^1]: 2010 [*Mathematics Subject Classification.*]{} Primary: 14J45; Secondary: 14B05, 14E05, 14E08, 14E18.
[^2]: [*Key words and phrases.*]{} Fano hypersurface, birational rigidity, log-discrepancy.
[^3]: The research was partially supported by NSF CAREER grant DMS-0847059 and a Simons Fellowship.
[^4]: Compiled on . Filename
[^5]: Also known as *ordinary multiple points*, these are isolated hypersurface singularities whose tangent cones are smooth away from the vertex.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Internal jet structure in dijet production in deep-inelastic scattering is measured with the H1 detector at HERA. Jets with transverse energies ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 5\,{\mbox{\rm GeV}}$ are selected in the Breit frame employing $k_\perp$ and cone jet algorithms. In the kinematic region of squared momentum transfers $10 < Q^2 \lesssim 120\, {\mbox{${\rm GeV}^2$}}$ and $x$-Bjorken values $2 \cdot 10^{-4} \lesssim x_{\rm Bj} \lesssim 8 \cdot 10^{-3}$, jet shapes and subjet multiplicities are measured as a function of a resolution parameter. Distributions of both observables are corrected for detector effects and presented as functions of the transverse jet energy and jet pseudo-rapidity. Dependences of the jet shape and the average number of subjets on the transverse energy and the pseudo-rapidity of the jet are observed. With increasing transverse jet energies and decreasing pseudo-rapidities, i.e. towards the photon hemisphere, the jets are more collimated. QCD models give a fair description of the data.'
bibliography:
- 'h1\_jetstructure.bib'
---
DESY 98–210 ISSN 0418–9833\
December 1998\
[**Measurement of Internal Jet Structure in\
Dijet Production in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA\
**]{} H1 Collaboration
*submitted to Nuclear Physics B*
H1 Collaboration
C. Adloff$^{34}$, V. Andreev$^{25}$, B. Andrieu$^{28}$, V. Arkadov$^{35}$, A. Astvatsatourov$^{35}$, I. Ayyaz$^{29}$, A. Babaev$^{24}$, J. Bähr$^{35}$, P. Baranov$^{25}$, E. Barrelet$^{29}$, W. Bartel$^{11}$, U. Bassler$^{29}$, P. Bate$^{22}$, A. Beglarian$^{11,40}$, O. Behnke$^{11}$, H.-J. Behrend$^{11}$, C. Beier$^{15}$, A. Belousov$^{25}$, Ch. Berger$^{1}$, G. Bernardi$^{29}$, T. Berndt$^{15}$, G. Bertrand-Coremans$^{4}$, P. Biddulph$^{22}$, J.C. Bizot$^{27}$, V. Boudry$^{28}$, W. Braunschweig$^{1}$, V. Brisson$^{27}$, D.P. Brown$^{22}$, W. Brückner$^{13}$, P. Bruel$^{28}$, D. Bruncko$^{17}$, J. Bürger$^{11}$, F.W. Büsser$^{12}$, A. Buniatian$^{32}$, S. Burke$^{18}$, G. Buschhorn$^{26}$, D. Calvet$^{23}$, A.J. Campbell$^{11}$, T. Carli$^{26}$, E. Chabert$^{23}$, M. Charlet$^{4}$, D. Clarke$^{5}$, B. Clerbaux$^{4}$, S. Cocks$^{19}$, J.G. Contreras$^{8,43}$, C. Cormack$^{19}$, J.A. Coughlan$^{5}$, M.-C. Cousinou$^{23}$, B.E. Cox$^{22}$, G. Cozzika$^{10}$, J. Cvach$^{30}$, J.B. Dainton$^{19}$, W.D. Dau$^{16}$, K. Daum$^{39}$, M. David$^{10}$, M. Davidsson$^{21}$, A. De Roeck$^{11}$, E.A. De Wolf$^{4}$, B. Delcourt$^{27}$, R. Demirchyan$^{11,40}$, C. Diaconu$^{23}$, M. Dirkmann$^{8}$, P. Dixon$^{20}$, W. Dlugosz$^{7}$, K.T. Donovan$^{20}$, J.D. Dowell$^{3}$, A. Droutskoi$^{24}$, J. Ebert$^{34}$, G. Eckerlin$^{11}$, D. Eckstein$^{35}$, V. Efremenko$^{24}$, S. Egli$^{37}$, R. Eichler$^{36}$, F. Eisele$^{14}$, E. Eisenhandler$^{20}$, E. Elsen$^{11}$, M. Enzenberger$^{26}$, M. Erdmann$^{14,42,f}$, A.B. Fahr$^{12}$, L. Favart$^{4}$, A. Fedotov$^{24}$, R. Felst$^{11}$, J. Feltesse$^{10}$, J. Ferencei$^{17}$, F. Ferrarotto$^{32}$, M. Fleischer$^{8}$, G. Flügge$^{2}$, A. Fomenko$^{25}$, J. Formánek$^{31}$, J.M. Foster$^{22}$, G. Franke$^{11}$, E. Gabathuler$^{19}$, K. Gabathuler$^{33}$, F. Gaede$^{26}$, J. Garvey$^{3}$, J. Gassner$^{33}$, J. Gayler$^{11}$, R. Gerhards$^{11}$, S. Ghazaryan$^{11,40}$, A. Glazov$^{35}$, L. Goerlich$^{6}$, N. Gogitidze$^{25}$, M. Goldberg$^{29}$, I. Gorelov$^{24}$, C. Grab$^{36}$, H. Grässler$^{2}$, T. Greenshaw$^{19}$, R.K. Griffiths$^{20}$, G. Grindhammer$^{26}$, T. Hadig$^{1}$, D. Haidt$^{11}$, L. Hajduk$^{6}$, M. Hampel$^{1}$, V. Haustein$^{34}$, W.J. Haynes$^{5}$, B. Heinemann$^{11}$, G. Heinzelmann$^{12}$, R.C.W. Henderson$^{18}$, S. Hengstmann$^{37}$, H. Henschel$^{35}$, R. Heremans$^{4}$, I. Herynek$^{30}$, K. Hewitt$^{3}$, K.H. Hiller$^{35}$, C.D. Hilton$^{22}$, J. Hladký$^{30}$, D. Hoffmann$^{11}$, T. Holtom$^{19}$, R. Horisberger$^{33}$, S. Hurling$^{11}$, M. Ibbotson$^{22}$, Ç. İşsever$^{8}$, M. Jacquet$^{27}$, M. Jaffre$^{27}$, D.M. Jansen$^{13}$, L. Jönsson$^{21}$, D.P. Johnson$^{4}$, H. Jung$^{21}$, H.K. Kästli$^{36}$, M. Kander$^{11}$, D. Kant$^{20}$, M. Kapichine$^{9}$, M. Karlsson$^{21}$, O. Karschnik$^{12}$, J. Katzy$^{11}$, O. Kaufmann$^{14}$, M. Kausch$^{11}$, N. Keller$^{14}$, I.R. Kenyon$^{3}$, S. Kermiche$^{23}$, C. Keuker$^{1}$, C. Kiesling$^{26}$, M. Klein$^{35}$, C. Kleinwort$^{11}$, G. Knies$^{11}$, J.H. Köhne$^{26}$, H. Kolanoski$^{38}$, S.D. Kolya$^{22}$, V. Korbel$^{11}$, P. Kostka$^{35}$, S.K. Kotelnikov$^{25}$, T. Krämerkämper$^{8}$, M.W. Krasny$^{29}$, H. Krehbiel$^{11}$, D. Krücker$^{26}$, K. Krüger$^{11}$, A. Küpper$^{34}$, H. Küster$^{2}$, M. Kuhlen$^{26}$, T. Kurča$^{35}$, W. Lachnit$^{11}$, R. Lahmann$^{11}$, D. Lamb$^{3}$, M.P.J. Landon$^{20}$, W. Lange$^{35}$, U. Langenegger$^{36}$, A. Lebedev$^{25}$, F. Lehner$^{11}$, V. Lemaitre$^{11}$, R. Lemrani$^{10}$, V. Lendermann$^{8}$, S. Levonian$^{11}$, M. Lindstroem$^{21}$, G. Lobo$^{27}$, E. Lobodzinska$^{6,41}$, V. Lubimov$^{24}$, S. Lüders$^{36}$, D. Lüke$^{8,11}$, L. Lytkin$^{13}$, N. Magnussen$^{34}$, H. Mahlke-Krüger$^{11}$, N. Malden$^{22}$, E. Malinovski$^{25}$, I. Malinovski$^{25}$, R. Maraček$^{26}$, P. Marage$^{4}$, J. Marks$^{14}$, R. Marshall$^{22}$, H.-U. Martyn$^{1}$, J. Martyniak$^{6}$, S.J. Maxfield$^{19}$, S.J. McMahon$^{19}$, T.R. McMahon$^{19}$, A. Mehta$^{5}$, K. Meier$^{15}$, P. Merkel$^{11}$, F. Metlica$^{13}$, A. Meyer$^{11}$, A. Meyer$^{11}$, H. Meyer$^{34}$, J. Meyer$^{11}$, P.-O. Meyer$^{2}$, S. Mikocki$^{6}$, D. Milstead$^{11}$, R. Mohr$^{26}$, S. Mohrdieck$^{12}$, M. Mondragon$^{8}$, F. Moreau$^{28}$, A. Morozov$^{9}$, J.V. Morris$^{5}$, D. Müller$^{37}$, K. Müller$^{11}$, P. Murín$^{17}$, V. Nagovizin$^{24}$, B. Naroska$^{12}$, J. Naumann$^{8}$, Th. Naumann$^{35}$, I. Négri$^{23}$, P.R. Newman$^{3}$, H.K. Nguyen$^{29}$, T.C. Nicholls$^{11}$, F. Niebergall$^{12}$, C. Niebuhr$^{11}$, Ch. Niedzballa$^{1}$, H. Niggli$^{36}$, O. Nix$^{15}$, G. Nowak$^{6}$, T. Nunnemann$^{13}$, H. Oberlack$^{26}$, J.E. Olsson$^{11}$, D. Ozerov$^{24}$, P. Palmen$^{2}$, V. Panassik$^{9}$, C. Pascaud$^{27}$, S. Passaggio$^{36}$, G.D. Patel$^{19}$, H. Pawletta$^{2}$, E. Perez$^{10}$, J.P. Phillips$^{19}$, A. Pieuchot$^{11}$, D. Pitzl$^{36}$, R. Pöschl$^{8}$, G. Pope$^{7}$, B. Povh$^{13}$, K. Rabbertz$^{1}$, J. Rauschenberger$^{12}$, P. Reimer$^{30}$, B. Reisert$^{26}$, D. Reyna$^{11}$, H. Rick$^{11}$, S. Riess$^{12}$, E. Rizvi$^{3}$, P. Robmann$^{37}$, R. Roosen$^{4}$, K. Rosenbauer$^{1}$, A. Rostovtsev$^{24,12}$, F. Rouse$^{7}$, C. Royon$^{10}$, S. Rusakov$^{25}$, K. Rybicki$^{6}$, D.P.C. Sankey$^{5}$, P. Schacht$^{26}$, J. Scheins$^{1}$, F.-P. Schilling$^{14}$, S. Schleif$^{15}$, P. Schleper$^{14}$, D. Schmidt$^{34}$, D. Schmidt$^{11}$, L. Schoeffel$^{10}$, V. Schröder$^{11}$, H.-C. Schultz-Coulon$^{11}$, F. Sefkow$^{37}$, A. Semenov$^{24}$, V. Shekelyan$^{26}$, I. Sheviakov$^{25}$, L.N. Shtarkov$^{25}$, G. Siegmon$^{16}$, Y. Sirois$^{28}$, T. Sloan$^{18}$, P. Smirnov$^{25}$, M. Smith$^{19}$, V. Solochenko$^{24}$, Y. Soloviev$^{25}$, L. Sonnenschein$^{2}$, V. Spaskov$^{9}$, A. Specka$^{28}$, H. Spitzer$^{12}$, F. Squinabol$^{27}$, R. Stamen$^{8}$, P. Steffen$^{11}$, R. Steinberg$^{2}$, J. Steinhart$^{12}$, B. Stella$^{32}$, A. Stellberger$^{15}$, J. Stiewe$^{15}$, U. Straumann$^{14}$, W. Struczinski$^{2}$, J.P. Sutton$^{3}$, M. Swart$^{15}$, S. Tapprogge$^{15}$, M. Taševský$^{30}$, V. Tchernyshov$^{24}$, S. Tchetchelnitski$^{24}$, J. Theissen$^{2}$, G. Thompson$^{20}$, P.D. Thompson$^{3}$, N. Tobien$^{11}$, R. Todenhagen$^{13}$, D. Traynor$^{20}$, P. Truöl$^{37}$, G. Tsipolitis$^{36}$, J. Turnau$^{6}$, E. Tzamariudaki$^{26}$, S. Udluft$^{26}$, A. Usik$^{25}$, S. Valkár$^{31}$, A. Valkárová$^{31}$, C. Vallée$^{23}$, P. Van Esch$^{4}$, A. Van Haecke$^{10}$, P. Van Mechelen$^{4}$, Y. Vazdik$^{25}$, G. Villet$^{10}$, K. Wacker$^{8}$, R. Wallny$^{14}$, T. Walter$^{37}$, B. Waugh$^{22}$, G. Weber$^{12}$, M. Weber$^{15}$, D. Wegener$^{8}$, A. Wegner$^{26}$, T. Wengler$^{14}$, M. Werner$^{14}$, L.R. West$^{3}$, S. Wiesand$^{34}$, T. Wilksen$^{11}$, S. Willard$^{7}$, M. Winde$^{35}$, G.-G. Winter$^{11}$, Ch. Wissing$^{8}$, C. Wittek$^{12}$, E. Wittmann$^{13}$, M. Wobisch$^{2}$, H. Wollatz$^{11}$, E. Wünsch$^{11}$, J. Žáček$^{31}$, J. Zálešák$^{31}$, Z. Zhang$^{27}$, A. Zhokin$^{24}$, P. Zini$^{29}$, F. Zomer$^{27}$, J. Zsembery$^{10}$ and M. zur Nedden$^{37}$ $ ^1$ I. Physikalisches Institut der RWTH, Aachen, Germany$^a$\
$ ^2$ III. Physikalisches Institut der RWTH, Aachen, Germany$^a$\
$ ^3$ School of Physics and Space Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK$^b$\
$ ^4$ Inter-University Institute for High Energies ULB-VUB, Brussels; Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen, Wilrijk; Belgium$^c$\
$ ^5$ Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, UK$^b$\
$ ^6$ Institute for Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland$^d$\
$ ^7$ Physics Department and IIRPA, University of California, Davis, California, USA$^e$\
$ ^8$ Institut für Physik, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany$^a$\
$ ^9$ Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia\
$ ^{10}$ DSM/DAPNIA, CEA/Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
$ ^{11}$ DESY, Hamburg, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{12}$ II. Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{13}$ Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{14}$ Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{15}$ Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{16}$ Institut für experimentelle und angewandte Physik, Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{17}$ Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic$^{f,j}$\
$ ^{18}$ School of Physics and Chemistry, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK$^b$\
$ ^{19}$ Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK$^b$\
$ ^{20}$ Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK$^b$\
$ ^{21}$ Physics Department, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden$^g$\
$ ^{22}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK$^b$\
$ ^{23}$ CPPM, Université d’Aix-Marseille II, IN2P3-CNRS, Marseille, France\
$ ^{24}$ Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia\
$ ^{25}$ Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia$^{f,k}$\
$ ^{26}$ Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{27}$ LAL, Université de Paris-Sud, IN2P3-CNRS, Orsay, France\
$ ^{28}$ LPNHE, École Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France\
$ ^{29}$ LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, IN2P3-CNRS, Paris, France\
$ ^{30}$ Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic$^{f,h}$\
$ ^{31}$ Nuclear Center, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic$^{f,h}$\
$ ^{32}$ INFN Roma 1 and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università Roma 3, Roma, Italy\
$ ^{33}$ Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland\
$ ^{34}$ Fachbereich Physik, Bergische Universität Gesamthochschule Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{35}$ DESY, Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Zeuthen, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{36}$ Institut für Teilchenphysik, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland$^i$\
$ ^{37}$ Physik-Institut der Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland$^i$\
$ ^{38}$ Institut für Physik, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{39}$ Rechenzentrum, Bergische Universität Gesamthochschule Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany$^a$\
$ ^{40}$ Vistor from Yerevan Physics Institute, Armenia\
$ ^{41}$ Foundation for Polish Science fellow\
$ ^{42}$ Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany\
$ ^{43}$ Dept. Fís. Ap. CINVESTAV, Mérida, Yucatán, México $ ^a$ Supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, FRG, under contract numbers 7AC17P, 7AC47P, 7DO55P, 7HH17I, 7HH27P, 7HD17P, 7HD27P, 7KI17I, 6MP17I and 7WT87P\
$ ^b$ Supported by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, and formerly by the UK Science and Engineering Research Council\
$ ^c$ Supported by FNRS-FWO, IISN-IIKW\
$ ^d$ Partially supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant no. 115/E-343/SPUB/P03/002/97 and grant no. 2P03B 055 13\
$ ^e$ Supported in part by US DOE grant DE F603 91ER40674\
$ ^f$ Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft\
$ ^g$ Supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council\
$ ^h$ Supported by GA ČR grant no. 202/96/0214, GA AV ČR grant no. A1010821 and GA UK grant no. 177\
$ ^i$ Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation\
$ ^j$ Supported by VEGA SR grant no. 2/5167/98\
$ ^k$ Supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant no. 96-02-00019
Introduction
============
A sizeable fraction of the final states produced in high energy collisions shows the characteristic feature of large amounts of hadronic energy in small angular regions. These collimated sprays of hadrons (called jets) are the observable signals of underlying short distance processes and are considered to be the footprints of the underlying partonic final states. Quantitative studies of jet production require a precise jet definition, which is given by a jet finding algorithm.
Jets so defined exhibit an internal structure which is sensitive to the mechanism by which a complex aggregate of observable hadrons evolves from a hard process. The understanding of this mechanism involves higher orders of the strong coupling constant in perturbation theory as well as non-perturbative contributions. This is a challenging task for theory. Recently, for some specific hadronic final state quantities, encouraging results have been obtained by exploiting the characteristic power behaviour of non-perturbative effects and by analytical, approximate calculations of perturbative QCD parton evolution down to the semi-soft regime [@evshape; @ochs]. Furthermore, since jet production rates are used to test the predictions of perturbative QCD, the understanding of their detailed properties and internal structure is an important prerequisite.
The internal structure of jets has been studied in $e^+ e^-$[@eejet] and in hadron-hadron collisions [@ppjet]. At the $e^\pm p$ collider HERA, these investigations can be performed in photoproduction ($Q^2 \approx 0 \; {\mbox{${\rm GeV}^2$}}$) and in deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) at large squared four momentum transfers $Q^2$. In a previous publication we have measured the $E_T$ dependence of the jet width [@h1gammap] in photoproduction. Recently, the ZEUS collaboration has investigated jet shapes in photoproduction [@zeusphoto] and in DIS at $Q^2 > 100$ [@zeusdis]. Both analyses are carried out in the laboratory frame. This means that for DIS at high $Q^2$ mostly events with only one jet enter the analysis.
The hadronization of the current jet in deep-inelastic scattering in the Breit frame has already been studied with event shape variables [@h1evtshape], charged particle multiplicities and fragmentation functions [@h1multiplicity]. In this paper we take the first steps towards a complete understanding of jet properties in DIS. We analyse the hadronization of jets in multijet production in the Breit frame. The Breit frame, where the virtual photon interacts head-on with the proton, has been chosen in this analysis because here the produced transverse[^1] energy, , directly reflects the hardness of the underlying QCD process. We present measurements of internal jet structure in a sample of inclusive dijet events with transverse jet energies of ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 5$ , $10 < Q^2 \lesssim 120\,{\mbox{${\rm GeV}^2$}}$ and $2 \cdot 10^{-4} \lesssim x_{\rm Bj} \lesssim 8 \cdot 10^{-3}$. This is the range where jet cross section measurements are currently performed at HERA and compared to perturbative QCD calculations (e.g. [@h1r2cone; @h1loqdijet]). The analysis is based on data taken in 1994 with the H1 detector at HERA when $27.5$ positrons collided with $820$ protons. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of ${\cal L}_{\rm int} \simeq 2\,\mbox{pb}^{-1}$.
Jets are defined in the Breit frame by $k_\perp$ and cone jet algorithms. Two observables, jet shapes and, for the first time, subjet multiplicities, are studied. The jet shape measures the radial distribution of the transverse jet energy around the jet axis. For the $k_\perp$ cluster algorithm we have also measured the multiplicity of subjets, resolved at a resolution scale which is a fraction of the jet’s transverse energy. Both observables are presented for different ranges of the transverse jet energy and the pseudo-rapidity[^2] of the jets in the Breit frame.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[detector\] gives a brief description of the H1 detector. In section \[jetdef\] we introduce the jet algorithms used in the analysis and give the definition of the measured observables in section \[observables\]. In section \[models\] we give a short description of the QCD models which are used for the correction of the data and to which the results are later compared (in section \[compare\]). The data selection and the correction procedure are described in sections \[dataselection\] and \[correction\] and the results are discussed in section \[results\].
The H1 Detector \[detector\]
============================
A detailed description of the H1 detector can be found elsewhere [@H1det]. Here we briefly introduce the detector components relevant for this analysis: the liquid argon (LAr) calorimeter [@larcalo], the backward lead-scintillator calorimeter (BEMC) [@bemc], and the tracking chamber system [@tracker].
The hadronic energy flow is mainly measured by the LAr calorimeter extending over the polar angular range $4.4^\circ < \theta < 154^\circ$ with full azimuthal coverage. The polar angle $\theta$ is defined with respect to the proton beam direction ($+z$ axis). The LAr calorimeter consists of an electromagnetic section ($20-30$ radiation lengths) with lead absorbers and a hadronic section with steel absorbers. The total depth of both calorimeters varies between $4.5$ and $8$ interaction lengths. Test beam measurements of the LAr calorimeter modules show an energy resolution of $\sigma_{E}/E\approx 0.50/\sqrt{E\;[{\mbox{\rm GeV}}]} \oplus 0.02$ for charged pions [@pions]. The absolute scale of the hadronic energy is known for the present data sample to $4\%$.
The scattered positron is detected by the BEMC with a depth of $22.5$ radiation lengths covering the backward region of the detector, $155^\circ < \theta < 176^\circ$. The electromagnetic energy scale is known to an accuracy of $1\%$.
The calorimeters are surrounded by a superconducting solenoid providing a uniform magnetic field of $1.15$ T parallel to the beam axis in the tracking region.
Charged particle tracks are measured in two concentric jet drift chamber modules (CJC), covering the polar angular range $ 15^\circ < \theta < 165^\circ$. The forward tracking detector covers $7^\circ < \theta < 25^\circ $ and consists of drift chambers with alternating planes of parallel wires and others with wires in the radial direction. A backward proportional chamber (BPC) with an angular acceptance of $151^\circ < \theta < 174.5^\circ$ improves the identification of the scattered positron. The spatial resolution for reconstructed BPC hits is about 1.5mm in the plane perpendicular to the beam axis.
Jet Definitions \[jetdef\]
==========================
The jet algorithms used in this analysis are applied to the particles boosted into the Breit frame. Particle refers here either to an energy deposit in the detector (see section \[dataselection\]), to a stable hadron or a parton in a QCD model calculation. In all cases the scattered positron is excluded. The Breit frame is defined by $\vec{q} + 2 x_{\rm Bj} \vec{P} = 0$, where $\vec{q}$ and $\vec{P}$ are the momenta of the exchanged boson and the incoming proton. The $z$-axis is defined as the direction of the incoming proton.
In the following analysis we use two different jet definitions: a cone algorithm and a $k_\perp$ cluster algorithm. Both jet definitions are invariant under boosts along the $z$-direction. The recombination of particles is carried out in the $E_T$ recombination scheme, which is based on transverse energies $E_T$, pseudo-rapidities $\eta$ and azimuthal angles $\phi$ of the particles. The transverse energy and the direction of a jet are defined by $$E_{T, {\rm jet}} = \sum_{i} E_{T, i} , \hskip8mm
\eta_{\rm jet} = \frac{\sum_i E_{T,i} \; \eta_i}{\sum_{i} E_{T,i}} , \hskip8mm
\phi_{\rm jet} = \frac{\sum_i E_{T,i} \; \phi_i}{\sum_{i} E_{T,i}} ,
\label{recomb}$$ where the sums run over all particles $i$ assigned to the jet[^3].
Cone Algorithm
--------------
Based on the original proposal of Sterman and Weinberg [@sterman] many different implementations of cone algorithms have been developed. While the basic idea of the cone algorithm is simple and very intuitive, an operational definition is non-trivial. The resulting jet cross sections depend on how the algorithm treats the choice of jet initiators and configurations of overlapping jet cones. It has repeatedly been pointed out that many definitions of cone algorithms are not infrared and/or collinear safe [@soper; @seymour].
In this analysis we use the definition implemented in the algorithm PXCONE [@pozo] which does not suffer from the problems discussed in [@soper; @seymour]. This definition, which corresponds closely to the Snowmass proposal [@snowmass] and to the algorithm used in the CDF experiment [@cdfcone], is also used by the OPAL collaboration [@opal].
Particles are assigned to jets based on their spatial distance $R$ in pseudo-rapidity and azimuth space ($R^2 =\Delta \eta^2 + \Delta \phi^2$). The algorithm operates as follows:
1. Each particle is considered as a seed of a jet, for which steps 2-4 are performed.
2. The jet momentum is calculated from all particles within a cone of radius around the seed direction using eq.(\[recomb\]).
3. If the jet direction differs from the seed direction, the jet direction is taken as the new seed direction and step 2 is repeated.
4. When the jet direction is stable the jet is stored in the list of “protojets" (if it is not identical with a protojet already found).
5. The steps 2 to 4 are repeated for all midpoints of pairs of protojets as seed directions[^4]. This leads to the infrared safety of the procedure [@seymour].
6. Protojets with transverse energies of $E_{T,{\rm jet}} < \epsilon$ are removed from the list. The cut-off parameter $\epsilon$ specifies below which transverse energies protojets are not considered in the overlap treatment (steps 7-8).
7. All remaining protojets that have more than a fraction $f$ of their transverse energy contained in a protojet of higher transverse energy are deleted.
8. All particles that are contained in more than one protojet are assigned to the protojet whose center is nearest in $(\eta,\phi)$.
9. The jet momenta are recalculated using eq. (\[recomb\]). All protojets with $E_{T, {\rm jet}} < \epsilon$ are deleted and the remaining ones are called jets.
The jets with the highest transverse energies are considered in the analysis. Due to the reassignment of particles to jets and the recalculation of the jet axis (steps 7, 8) it may happen that single particles within a jet have a distance larger than to the jet axis. This analysis is made with the parameter settings $\epsilon = 5\,{\mbox{\rm GeV}}$, $f = 0.75$ and a cone radius of $R_0 =1.0$.
Inclusive $k_\perp$ Algorithm
-----------------------------
The ambiguities that occur for cone jet definitions (choice of seeds, overlapping cones) are avoided in cluster algorithms which successively recombine particles to jets. One definition of such an algorithm (proposed in [@invkt] and implemented in the KTCLUS algorithm [@ktclus]) has properties very similar to cone algorithms. As in the cone algorithm the clustering procedure is based on the longitudinally boost-invariant quantities $E_T, \Delta \eta, \Delta \phi$. The minimum of all distances between particles is determined and either the corresponding pairs of particles are merged into pseudo-particles or single (pseudo-) particles are declared as jets. This process is iterated until no particles are left:
1. We start with a list of all particles and an empty list of jets.
2. For each particle $i$ as well as for each pair of particles ($i,j$) the distances $d_i$ and $d_{ij}$ are calculated $$d_i = E_{T,i}^2 \; R_0^2
\hskip5mm \mbox{and} \hskip5mm
d_{ij} = \min (E_{T,i}^2 , E_{T,j}^2) \; R^2_{ij}
\hskip5mm {\rm with } \hskip5mm
R^2_{ij} = \Delta \eta_{ij}^2 + \Delta \phi_{ij}^2 \, .$$
3. The smallest value of all the $d_i$ and $d_{ij}$ is labeled $d_{\rm min}.$
4. If $d_{\rm min}$ belongs to the set of $d_{ij}$, the particles $i$ and $j$ are merged into a new particle using the recombination prescription in eq. (\[recomb\]) and removed from the list of particles.
5. If $d_{\rm min}$ belongs to the set of $d_{i}$, the particle $i$ is removed from the list of particles and added to the list of jets.
6. When no particles are left (i.e. all particles are included in jets) the procedure is finished.
The last jets that entered the list are the ones with highest transverse energies. These jets are considered in the analysis. This jet definition implies that particles with $R_{ij} < R_0$ are subsequently merged, so that all final jets are separated by distances $R_{ij} > R_0$. It is still possible that particles inside a jet have a distance $R_{ij} > R_0$ to the jet axis and that particles with $R_{ij} < R_0$ are not part of the jet. The parameter ${\mbox{$R_0$}}$ is set to ${\mbox{$R_0$}}= 1.0$.
The Observables \[observables\]
===============================
Two observables of internal jet structure are investigated in this analysis. They are sensitive to different aspects of jet broadening.
The jet shapes are studied for the cone and the $k_\perp$ algorithm. This observable measures the radial distribution of the transverse jet energy only and is affected by hard and by soft processes over the whole radial range.
A natural choice for studying the internal structure of jets with the $k_\perp$ cluster algorithm is the multiplicity of subjets, resolved at a resolution scale which is a fraction of the jet’s transverse energy. These subjet multiplicities are sensitive to more local structures of relative transverse momentum within a jet. Here the perturbative and the non-perturbative contributions are better separated. While at larger values of the resolution parameter perturbative contributions dominate, at smaller values non-perturbative contributions become increasingly important.
The Jet Shape
-------------
The jet shape $\Psi(r)$ is defined as the fractional transverse jet energy contained in a subcone of radius $r$ concentric with the jet axis, averaged over all considered jets in the event sample $$\Psi(r) \equiv \frac{1}{N_{\rm jets}} \sum_{\rm jets} \;
\frac{E_{T}(r)}{E_{T, {\rm jet}}} \, ,
\label{eq:defpsi}$$ where $N_{\rm jets}$ is the total number of these jets. As proposed in [@seymour], only particles assigned by the jet algorithm to the jet are considered.
Usually the denominator in the definition of $\Psi$ is given by the summed $E_T$ of all particles within a radius to the jet axis. This means that $\Psi(r/{\mbox{$R_0$}}= 1) = 1$. In our definition (\[eq:defpsi\]) of $\Psi$ the denominator is given by the transverse energy of the jet. Since neither for the cone nor for the $k_\perp$ definition are all particles necessarily assigned to a jet within a radius of $r/{\mbox{$R_0$}}<1$ to the jet axis, $\Psi(r/{\mbox{$R_0$}}= 1)$ is not constrained to have the value of one. With this choice of our observable we are also sensitive to the amount of transverse jet energy outside the radius .
Subjet Multiplicities
---------------------
For each jet in the sample the clustering procedure is repeated for all particles assigned to the jet. The clustering is stopped when the distances $y_{ij}$ between all particles $i,j$ are above some cut-off $$y_{ij} \; = \;\frac{\min (E_{T,i}^2 , E_{T,j}^2)}{E_{T, {\rm jet}}^2} \; \;
\frac{\left( \Delta \eta_{ij}^2 + \Delta \phi_{ij}^2 \right)}{R_0^2}
\; > \; {\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}$}}$$ and the remaining (pseudo-)particles are called subjets. The parameter defines the minimal relative transverse energy between subjets inside the jet and thus determines the extent to which the internal jet structure is resolved. From this definition it follows that for ${\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}$}}> 0.25$ no subjet is resolved (therefore the number of subjets is one), while for ${\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}$}}\to 0$ every particle in the jet is a subjet. The observable that is studied in this analysis is the average number of subjets for a given value of the resolution parameter, for values ${\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}$}}\ge 10^{-3}$.
QCD Models \[models\]
=====================
A simulation of the detailed properties of the hadronic final state is available in the form of Monte Carlo event generators. They include the matrix element of the hard subprocess in first order of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$, approximations of higher order QCD radiation effects, and a model to describe the non-perturbative transition from partons to hadrons.
The LEPTO Monte Carlo [@lepto] incorporates the ${\cal O} (\alpha_s)$ QCD matrix element and takes higher order parton emissions to all orders in $\alpha_s$ approximately into account using the concept of parton showers [@shower] based on the leading logarithm DGLAP equations [@dglap]. QCD radiation can occur before and after the hard subprocess. The formation of hadrons is performed using the LUND string model [@lund] implemented in JETSET [@jetset].
The HERWIG Monte Carlo [@herwig] also includes the $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s)$ QCD matrix element, but uses another implementation of the parton shower cascade which takes coherence effects fully into account. The hadronization is simulated with the cluster fragmentation model [@cluster].
In ARIADNE [@ariadne] gluon emissions are treated by the colour dipole model [@cdm] assuming a chain of independently radiating dipoles spanned by colour connected partons. The first emission in the cascade is corrected to reproduce the matrix element to first order in $\alpha_s$ [@ariadneme].
DJANGO [@django] provides an interface between the event generators LEPTO or ARIADNE and HERACLES [@heracles] which makes it possible to include ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ QED corrections at the lepton line.
Data Selection \[dataselection\]
================================
The analysis is based on H1 data taken in $1994$ corresponding to an integrated luminosity of ${\cal L}_{int} \simeq 2\,\mbox{pb}^{-1}$. The event selection closely follows that described in a previous publication [@h1r2cone]. DIS events are selected where the scattered positron is measured in the acceptance region of the BEMC at energies where trigger efficiencies are approximately 100%. To ensure a good identification of the scattered positron and to suppress background from misidentified photoproduction events the following cuts are applied:
- The cluster of the positron candidate must have an energy-weighted mean transverse radius below $5\,\mbox{cm}$.
- A reconstructed BPC hit within $5\,\mbox{\rm cm}$ of the straight line connecting the shower center with the event vertex is required.
- The $z$ position of the reconstructed event vertex must be within $\pm 30\,\mbox{\rm cm}$ of the nominal position.
- A cut on $35\,{\mbox{\rm GeV}}< \sum (E - p_z) < 70\,{\mbox{\rm GeV}}$ is applied, where the sum runs over all energy deposits in the calorimeter. In neutral current DIS events without undetected photon radiation the quantity $\sum (E - p_z)$ is expected to be equal to twice the energy of the initial state positron. This cut reduces the contribution from photoproduction events as well as events where hard photons are radiated collinear to the incoming positron.
The event kinematics are calculated from the polar angle $\theta_{el}$ and the energy $E'_{el}$ of the scattered positron via $Q^2_{el} = 2\,E_0\,E'_{el}\,(1+\cos{\theta_{el}})$, $y_{el}=1- E'_{el}/(2\,E_0) (1-\cos{\theta_{el}})$ and $x_{\rm Bj} = Q^2 / (sy)$. $E_0$ denotes the energy of the incoming positron and $s$ the $ep$ centre-of-mass energy squared. Events are only accepted, if $E'_{el} > 11$ , $156^\circ < \theta_{el} < 173^\circ$, $Q^2 > 10\,{\mbox{${\rm GeV}^2$}}$ and $y > 0.15$. The resulting kinematic range is $10 < Q^2 \lesssim 120\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and $2 \cdot 10^{-4} \lesssim x_{\rm Bj} \lesssim 8 \cdot 10^{-3}$.
Jets are defined by the algorithms described in section \[jetdef\]. The input for the jet algorithms consists of a combination of energy clusters from the calorimeter and track momenta measured in the central and forward trackers (as described in [@h1r2cone]). While all energy clusters are considered, the four momentum of each single track is only allowed to contribute up to a momentum of $350\,\mbox{\rm MeV}$. This procedure partly compensates for energy losses in the calorimeter due to dead material and noise thresholds. It reduces the dependence of the jet finding efficiency on the pseudo-rapidity of the jet and improves the reconstruction of the transverse jet energy [@clim].
The objects from tracking and calorimeter information are boosted to the Breit frame where the jet algorithms are applied. We select events with at least two identified jets with transverse energies of ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 5\,{\mbox{\rm GeV}}$ in $-1 < \eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize jet,lab}} < 2$. The two jets with the highest are considered in the analysis. The event sample for the inclusive $k_\perp$ algorithm (the cone algorithm) consists of 2045 (2657) dijet events.
Correction of the Data \[correction\]
=====================================
The data are corrected for detector effects and QED radiation from the lepton. The detector response is determined using events from Monte Carlo event generators that were subjected to a detailed simulation of the H1 detector. The following event generators are used: ARIADNE interfaced in DJANGO (with and without the inclusion of QED corrections) and LEPTO. Both generators give a good description of the kinematic variables of the inclusive DIS data sample as well as of the angular and transverse energy distributions of the jets [@sonne]. We also observe a reasonable description of the observables introduced in section \[observables\] (see section \[compare\]).
The measured data points are corrected bin-by-bin for detector effects. Using the generated event samples, the correction factor for each bin is determined as the ratio of the generated value of the observable and the value that is reconstructed after detector simulation. These correction factors are independent of the inclusion of QED radiation effects as included in DJANGO. Their dependence on details of the modeling of the hadronic final state is taken into account by considering the difference between the correction factors from ARIADNE and LEPTO as systematic uncertainty.
For the $k_\perp$ (cone) algorithm the corrections for $\Psi(r)$ are below $10\,\%$ ($13\,\%$) for subcone radii $r>0.3$ and always below $27\,\%$ ($23\,\%$). The corrections for are always below $7\%$. The correction factors from both QCD models are in good agreement (they differ typically by not more than $2\,\%$) for the jet shapes as well as for the subjet multiplicities [@sonne]. The final correction factors are taken to be the mean values of the two models, taking the spread as the error. In addition we have varied the calibration of the hadronic energy scale in the data sample in the range of $\pm 4\%$ around the nominal value. The error is estimated as the maximal deviation from the results at the nominal value. For all observables it is at most $5\%$. The overall systematic error is calculated by adding the errors from the model dependence and from the uncertainty of the hadronic energy scale in quadrature. In all figures the statistical and systematic errors are added in quadrature. Since each jet enters in all bins of a distribution, all errors are correlated.
The background from misidentified photoproduction events is estimated with a sample of photoproduction events generated with PHOJET [@phojet] and is found to be negligible.
Results \[results\]
===================
The jet shape and the subjet multiplicity are presented as functions of quantities directly related to the single jets, namely the transverse jet energy () and the pseudo-rapidity () in the Breit frame. We also investigated whether the observables depend on the event kinematics. The jet shapes and subjet multiplicities were compared for two bins of $Q^2$ ($Q^2 < 20\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and $Q^2 > 20\,{\rm GeV}^2$) and $x_{\rm Bj}$ ($x_{\rm Bj} < 8 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and $x_{\rm Bj} > 8 \cdot 10^{-4}$) respectively. No dependence on $Q^2$ and $x_{\rm Bj}$ has been observed.
Jet Shapes
----------
The radial dependence of the jet shape $\Psi(r)$ for the $k_\perp$ algorithm is shown in Fig. \[fig:kt\_shape\_et\] in different ranges of the pseudo-rapidity in the Breit frame. The results for jets of transverse energies $5 < {\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}< 8\,{\rm GeV}$ and ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 8\,{\rm GeV}$ are superimposed. The jet shape $\Psi(r)$ increases faster with $r$ for jets at larger transverse energies, indicating that these jets are more collimated. The same tendency is seen for the jets defined by the cone algorithm which are compared to the jets found by the $k_\perp$ algorithm in Fig. \[fig:kt\_cone\_shape\]. For both jet definitions we also observe a dependence of the jet shape on the pseudo-rapidity of the jets. Jets towards the proton direction (at larger values of ) are broader than jets towards the photon direction (smaller ). In the region where the jets are most collimated (${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 8\,{\rm GeV}$ and ${\mbox{$\eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize Breit}}$}}< 2.2$), very similar jet shapes are observed for the $k_\perp$ and cone algorithms. The broadening of the jets for smaller and larger is more pronounced for the cone jet definition.
Recently jet shapes have been measured in dijet production in photon-photon collisions [@ggshape] for jets defined by a cone algorithm at transverse energies comparable to those presented here. The jet shapes in photon-photon collisions (where no $\eta$ dependence is observed) are very similar to those measured in DIS in the Breit frame at ${\mbox{$\eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize Breit}}$}}< 1.5$.
Subjet Multiplicities
---------------------
The subjet multiplicities for the $k_\perp$ algorithm are displayed in Fig. \[fig:kt\_subjet\_et\]. The average number of subjets as a function of the subjet resolution parameter at ${\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}$}}\ge 10^{-3}$ is plotted. Towards smaller values of , an increasing number of jet fragments with smaller relative transverse momenta is resolved. The number of subjets at a given value of $y_{\rm cut}$ reflects the amount of relative transverse momentum with respect to the jet axis. The subjet multiplicity is therefore a measure of the broadness of the jet.
At $y_{\rm cut} = 10^{-3}$ a jet is on average resolved into $4.1$ – $4.6$ subjets, depending on and of the jet[^5]. For almost all values of $y_{\rm cut}$ the subjet multiplicity is larger for jets at smaller and larger , indicating broader jets.
A summary of the results for both observables is given in Fig. \[fig:summary\]. Here the and the dependence of the jet shape and the average number of subjets are shown at an intermediate value of the resolution parameter (jet shape: $r=0.5$ and subjet multiplicity: $y_{\rm cut} = 10^{-2}$).
Although the subjet multiplicities are sensitive to the jet broadening in a different way than the jet shapes, consistent conclusions can be drawn for both measurements. The jet broadening depends on both the transverse jet energy as well as the pseudo-rapidity in the Breit frame. While the pseudo-rapidity dependence is most pronounced at smaller transverse jet energy, the transverse energy dependence is stronger in the forward region (at larger pseudo-rapidities).
Comparison with QCD Model Predictions \[compare\]
=================================================
The predictions of different QCD models are compared in Fig. \[fig:kt\_shape\_model\] to the jet shapes measured for the $k_\perp$ algorithm. The models LEPTO, ARIADNE and HERWIG all show and dependences similar to that seen in the data. LEPTO gives the best description of the measured shapes for ${\mbox{$\eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize Breit}}$}}< 2.2$ while at ${\mbox{$\eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize Breit}}$}}> 2.2$ the predicted jet shapes are too broad. A reasonable description is also obtained by the ARIADNE model except for jets at smaller pseudo-rapidities where the jet shapes have the tendency to be too narrow. For the HERWIG model the jet shapes are narrower than those in the data in all and regions. The same observations as above are made when comparing these QCD models with the subjet multiplicities and with the jet shapes for the cone algorithm (not shown here).
In QCD models the evolution of a jet is described by perturbative contributions (radiation of partons) and non-perturbative contributions (hadronization). Studies based on the LEPTO and HERWIG parton shower models show that all observables studied in this analysis are strongly influenced by hadronization. This process has the largest impact on the jet broadening in our kinematic region (Fig. \[fig:models\]). Basic characteristics of the perturbative contributions are however still visible after hadronization. The model prediction suggests that the large difference between quark and gluon-initiated jets before hadronization survives the hadronization process. This especially applies to jets with large transverse energies [@sonne].
Fig. \[fig:models\] shows the jet shapes and the subjet multiplicities as predicted by the LEPTO parton shower model for the $k_\perp$ algorithm, separately for quark and gluon jets at ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 8\,{\rm GeV}$ and ${\mbox{$\eta_{\mbox{\scriptsize Breit}}$}}< 1.5$. Gluon jets are broader than quark jets. The same prediction is obtained by the HERWIG parton shower model. Although the jets in HERWIG are slightly narrower, the differences between gluon and quark jets are equally large. In the phase space considered here, LEPTO and HERWIG (in agreement with next-to-leading order calculations) predict a fraction of approximately $80 \%$ photon-gluon fusion events with two quarks in the partonic final state. The jet samples of these models are therefore dominated by quark jets. Both model predictions for the jet shapes and the subjet multiplicities therefore mainly reflect the properties of the quark jets as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:models\]. These predictions give a reasonable description of the data. Thus, we conclude, that the jets we observe are consistent with being mainly initiated by quarks.
Summary
=======
Measurements of internal jet structure in dijet events in deep-inelastic scattering in the kinematic domain $10 < Q^2 \lesssim 120\, {\mbox{${\rm GeV}^2$}}$ and $2 \cdot 10^{-4} \lesssim x_{\rm Bj} \lesssim 8 \cdot 10^{-3}$ have been presented. Jet shapes and subjet multiplicities have been studied for jets of transverse energies ${\mbox{$E_{T, {\rm Breit}}$}}> 5\,{\rm GeV}$ defined by $k_\perp$ and cone jet algorithms in the Breit frame.
The radial dependence of the jet shape and the dependence of the average number of subjets on the subjet resolution parameter $y_{\rm cut}$ are both sensitive to different aspects of jet broadening. For both observables a dependence of the jet broadness on the transverse energy and on the pseudo-rapidity in the Breit frame is seen. With increasing jets are narrower. Jets of the same become broader towards the proton direction. This effect is more pronounced at lower .
At lower jets defined by the $k_\perp$ algorithm are more collimated than jets defined by the cone algorithm, while at higher both algorithms produce very similar jets.
The QCD models LEPTO, ARIADNE and HERWIG roughly reproduce the dependence of the jet shape and the subjet multiplicities on and as seen in the data. LEPTO has a tendency to produce broader jets in the proton direction than measured. HERWIG and ARIADNE produce jets which are too collimated especially at higher transverse energies. We have reported earlier that in the same kinematic domain the predicted jet rates from LEPTO and HERWIG are about a factor of two below the data [@h1r2cone]. Since these models are able to reproduce the internal jet structure, this failure must be largely connected to an inadequate modeling of the underlying hard partonic subprocess.
According to the parton shower models LEPTO and HERWIG, quark and gluon initiated jets differ both at the parton and at the hadron level. Both models predict that the jet sample is dominated by quark initiated jets. Since these models describe our data, we conclude that the observed jet structures are compatible with those of quark initiated jets.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding efforts have made and continue to make this experiment possible. We thank the engineers and technicians for their work in constructing and now maintaining the H1 detector, our funding agencies for financial support, the DESY technical stuff for continual assistance, and the DESY directorate for the hospitality which they extend to the non-DESY members of the collaboration.
[^1]: transverse with respect to the $z$-axis which is given by the axis of the virtual photon and the proton.
[^2]: The pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ is defined as $\eta \equiv - \ln ( \tan \theta / 2 )$ where $\theta$ is the polar angle with respect to the proton direction. This definition is chosen in both the laboratory frame and the Breit frame.
[^3]: All particles are considered massless by setting $E_i = |\vec{p_i}|$.
[^4]: In practice it is sufficient to do this only for pairs of protojets with a distance between and $2\,{\mbox{$R_0$}}$.
[^5]: On average the jets in the data (as in the simulated events) consist of eleven calorimetric energy clusters. For the LEPTO generator this is also approximately the average multiplicity of stable particles inside the jets.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We probe the relation between shear induced structural relaxation and rheology in experiments on sheared two-dimensional foams. The relaxation time $t_r$, which marks the crossover to diffusive bubble motion, is found to scale non-trivially with the local strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ as $t_r \sim t_0^{0.34} \dot{\gamma}^{-0.66}$. Here $t_0$ is the single-bubble relaxation time, which is four to seven orders of magnitude smaller than the inverse strain rate — nevertheless, the flow is not quasistatic. The non-trivial rheology of the foam is shown to be intimately linked to the scaling of $t_r$, thus connecting macroscopic flow and microscopic bubble motion.'
author:
- 'Matthias E. Möbius, Gijs Katgert and Martin van Hecke'
title: 'Relaxation and flow in linearly sheared two-dimensional foams'
---
Soft glassy materials, such as foams, emulsions, colloidal glasses and granular media, exhibit highly complex flows. On the local scale, rearrangements in these densely packed systems are erratic due to geometric frustration. Globally, the relation between strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ and stress $\tau$ is generally non-linear, often taking a Herschel-Bulkley form: $\tau=\tau_Y+c_1\dot{\gamma}^\beta$, where $\tau_Y$ denotes the yield stress, and where the viscous stress $\tau_V\equiv \tau-\tau_Y$ scales nontrivially with the strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ [@Larson; @Hohler; @bible].
What is the connection between the global rheology and the microscopic rearrangements of these materials? For non-Brownian systems, the strain rate controls the dynamics, therefore a fruitful strategy is to characterize and compare the dependence of both stress and local relaxation events on the strain rate. Recent experimental and simulation work on sheared foams has uncovered rich dynamics on the bubble scale [@Gopal1995; @Gopal1999; @Ono2003; @Wang2; @Katgert] that often shows a non-trivial dependence of relaxation time scales on the strain rate [@Gopal2003; @Gopal1999; @Ono2003]. However, except for ordered foams [@Denkov2008], a quantitative connection between these time scales and the bulk rheology is still lacking.
In this Letter we establish a direct and quantitative connection between the strain rate dependencies of both the microscopic relaxation time $t_r$, which embodies the decorrelation time of the bubble motion, and the macroscopic viscous stress $\tau_V$ in experiments on a sheared two-dimensional, disordered foam. This approach is similar in spirit to recent work on glassy systems where this connection has been probed [@Besseling; @Varnik2006]
We measure the relaxation dynamics directly by imaging the bubble motion, while the non-trivial rheology of this material is determined from rheometric measurements [@Katgert; @Denkov2005]. Figure \[fig1\] shows examples of the bubble trajectories in a top view of our experiment. The average flow profiles exhibit shear bands in our experiment [@Katgert; @Janiaud; @Wang; @Langlois2008] and we employ these to study the statistics of bubble displacements over a range of timescales and for local strain rates spanning three decades.
![\[fig1\] (color online) (a) Schematic top view of the setup, with region of interest highlighted and typical flow profile indicated by the red curve. (b) Zoom of the highlighted region showing short time bubble trajectories. The width of the black bar denotes the bin size $\Delta x=$ 1.6 mm. (c) Example of a non-affine bubble trajectory over a period $\Delta t =145$ s, for $\dot{\gamma}=0.03$ s$^{-1}$. The star and diamond symbol denote the starting and endpoint, respectively. ](fig1.eps){width="3.2in"}
First, we establish that, for a given local strain rate, the probability distributions of bubble displacements exhibit fat tails for short times, develop exponential tails for intermediate times and finally become Gaussian. The occurrence of purely exponential distributions at a sharply defined time allows us to extract the relaxation time $t_r$.
Second, $t_r$ is not proportional with the inverse of the strain rate, which would be the simplest relation consistent with dimensional arguments, but instead exhibits a non-linear relationship with the inverse strain rate: $t_r = (2.9 \pm 0.2)~
t_0^{1-\nu} \dot{\gamma}^{-\nu}$, where $\nu=0.66\pm 0.05$ and $t_0$, the single bubble relaxation time [@Durian1995], equals $1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$ s.
Third, we find that the non-trivial scaling of the viscous stress with strain rate [@Katgert; @Langlois2008] can be directly related to the scaling of the relaxation time: $\tau_V=(0.83 \pm
0.05)~ G_0 \gamma_r$, where $G_0$ is the static shear modulus and the relaxation strain is defined as $\gamma_r\equiv \dot{\gamma}t_r $. In addition we show that this connection is consistent with a non-equilibrium Stokes-Einstein relation.
Our results firmly link strain rate, relaxation time, and stresses in two-dimensional foams. We stress, however, that our scenario is not particular to foams, and suggest to probe similar connections in other sheared, non-Brownian systems, such as suspensions, granular media, emulsions and microscopic models of these.
{width="5.6in"}
[*Setup —*]{} The measurements are performed in a linear shear cell (Fig. 1a) [@Katgert], in which we create a bidisperse foam layer with bubble diameters of $1.7$ and $2.7$ mm in a soapy solution ($5\%$ volume fraction Dawn dishwashing liquid, $15\%$ glycerol and $80\%$ demineralized water, viscosity $\eta = 1.8~\cdot
10^{-3}$ Pa$\cdot$s, surface tension $\sigma = 28\cdot 10^{-3}$ N/m). The average bubble diameter $\langle d \rangle$ equals $2.0
\pm 0.1$ mm. The bubbles are trapped between the fluid layer and a glass plate placed $2.2$ mm above the solution. Bubble coarsening is negligible over experimental time scales and we do not observe rupturing, coalescence or size separation of the bubbles. Local shear rates encountered in this experiment range from $3\cdot
10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ to $0.3$ s$^{-1}$.
To induce shear, two rotating wheels of $39$ cm diameter are partially immersed in a soap solution and spaced $7$ cm = 35 $\langle d \rangle$ apart. The rotation speed of the wheels controls the driving velocity $v_0$ of the shearing wall which we vary between $0.073$ and $2.3$ mm/s. The presence of the top glass plate causes shear banding [@Wang; @Katgert; @Janiaud] and a locally varying shear rate $\dot{\gamma}(x)$. We record the bubble motion by imaging the monolayer from above at $10$ frames per second. Custom tracking software allows us to determine the bubble positions $s_i$ to about $0.005 \langle d \rangle$. We focus on a central region (Fig. 1a) where average flow transverse to the shear direction is absent: $\langle v_x(x) \rangle = 0$.
[*Mean Squared Displacements —*]{} In order to relate the rearrangement rate of the bubbles and the local strain rate, we divide the measurement area into bins of size $\Delta x \!=\! 1.6$ mm (Fig. 1b), and determine for each the local average flow $v(x)$ and shear rate $\dot{\gamma}\equiv
\partial v(x) / \partial x $. We then determine the [*non-affine*]{} bubble tracks $\Delta s_i(\Delta
t)$ by subtracting the affine mean flow from the bubble trajectories $s_i$: $\Delta s_i(\Delta t)\equiv s_i(t+\Delta
t)-s_i(t) - \langle v_i (x) \rangle \Delta t $. An example of an erratic bubble trajectory $\Delta s_i$ is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c). We only consider the mean square displacements on short time scales where $\sqrt{\langle \Delta s_i^2 \rangle} \lesssim \langle d \rangle$, so that Taylor dispersion is negligible.
In Fig. \[fig2\](a), the probability distribution functions (PDF’s) of both the $x$ and $y$ component of $\Delta s$ are shown for a given local strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ at three different times as indicated in the left inset of Fig. \[fig2\](a). The fluctuations of the bubble trajectories are isotropic, and we normalize the widths of all distributions by $\sqrt{\langle
\Delta s^2_i\rangle}$ to highlight the qualitative changes in these PDF’s with time. For short times, they exhibit “fat tails”, similar to the instantaneous velocity fluctuations observed in a bubble raft [@Wang2]. Then, the PDF’s develop exponential tails and eventually become Gaussian in the long time, diffusive regime. This behavior is also reflected in the evolution of the Kurtosis (inset Fig \[fig2\](a)). We note that the time at which the PDF’s have exponential tails is well defined. This behavior should be contrasted to sheared glasses, where the PDF’s were found to have exponential tails for a range of early times before crossing over to Gaussian behavior at late times [@Tanguy2006; @Lemaitre2007; @Chaudhuri2007].
In Fig. \[fig2\](b) we show the longitudinal mean square displacements for a range of local strain rates as function of time [@localfootnote]. We find that the purely exponential PDF’s occur when $\Delta s_y^2
\approx (0.14 \langle d \rangle)^2$. This also holds for the transverse fluctuations [@Mobius]. Interestingly, this corresponds to the Lindemann criterion for melting in atomic solids and cage breaking in colloidal suspensions [@Besseling]. Here the relaxation time $t_r$ marks the regime where the bubble motion crosses over from super-diffusive to diffusive (see Fig. \[fig2\](b)). Even though $t_r$ can thus, in principle, be defined from the PDF’s or from this crossover, for simplicity, we define $t_r$ as the time where $\Delta s_y^2 = (0.14 \langle d
\rangle)^2$. Note that the non-affine bubble displacements between rearrangements are of similar magnitude (Fig. \[fig1\](c)).
[*Relaxation time —*]{} We now extract $t_r$ for a range of local strain rates $\dot{\gamma}$ [@localfootnote]. Since Brownian fluctuations do not play a role, the rearrangements in the foam are entirely shear induced, and [*a priori*]{} $\dot{\gamma}^{-1}$ would be a prime candidate for setting the relaxation time. In contrast, we find that $t_r =
2.9 ~ t_0^{1-\nu} \dot{\gamma}^{-\nu}$, where $\nu \approx
0.66\pm0.05$, and $t_0$ is the characteristic relaxation time of single bubbles $\eta \langle d \rangle / \sigma =1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$s — see Fig. \[fig3\]. This non-trivial scaling is our central result, and it is far from obvious how it can be obtained, if at all, from the local interactions of the bubbles.
![\[fig3\] (color online) Relaxation time as a function of local shear rate for different driving velocities: ($\blacksquare$) $v_0=0.076$ mm/s; ($\bigcirc$) $v_0=0.25$ mm/s; ($\blacktriangle$) $v_0=0.62$ mm/s; ($\triangledown$) $v_0=1.5$ mm/s; ($\blacklozenge$) $v_0=2.3$ mm/s. $t_r$ is defined as $\langle \Delta s^2_y \rangle(\Delta t = t_r)=(0.14 \langle d
\rangle)^2$. The line is a fit to the data: $t_r=2.9 ~ t_0^{0.34}
\dot{\gamma}^{-0.66}$.](fig3.eps){width="3.1in"}
[*Data collapse for mean squared displacements —*]{} We now use our findings to collapse the mean squared displacement curves onto a single master curve. Fig. \[fig4\](a) illustrates that the system is not quasistatic, since the non-affine mean square displacements do not simply scale with strain. In fact, Fig. \[fig4\](a) shows that for a given local average strain, $\Delta s^2_y$ is larger in regions where the local strain rate is smaller — fluctuations thus increase for slower flows.
Fig. \[fig4\](b) shows that it is possible to obtain good data collapse by rescaling the time axis with the relaxation time. We then find a super-diffusive behavior with an initial slope $\approx
1.7$ for short times. Since large displacements due to bubble rearrangements are observed even on the $0.1$ s time scale with which we image the foam, we do not see a ballistic regime. At later times the bubbles become diffusive and the slope approaches $1$. From the collapse shown in Fig. \[fig4\](b) we deduce that the diffusion constant $D_y$ scales non-linearly with the shear rate $\dot{\gamma}$ as $D_y=(0.017\pm 0.002) \langle d
\rangle/ t_r\propto \dot{\gamma}^\nu$. Similar results are found for the transverse fluctuations [@Mobius].
![\[fig4\] (color online) (a) The non-affine mean square displacement $\langle \Delta s_y^2 \rangle$ versus local strain $\gamma=\dot{\gamma}\Delta t$ for different local shear rates (same data as Fig. \[fig2\](b)). (b) Same data as in (a), but plotted versus dimensionless time $\Delta t/ t_r(\dot{\gamma})
\propto (\Delta t/t_0)^{0.34} \gamma^{0.66} $. The dotted line indicates the diffusive limit: $\langle \Delta s_y^2 \rangle = 2
D_y \Delta t$, with $D_y=(0.017 \pm 0.002) \langle d \rangle^2
/t_r(\dot{\gamma})$.](fig4.eps){width="3.2in"}
[*Rheology —*]{} We will now establish a surprising relation between relaxation times and rheology. Fig. \[fig5\] illustrates that our 2D foams exhibit a non-trivial rheology, with the shear stress $\tau$ equal to the sum of a yield stress $\tau_Y$ and the rate dependent viscous stress $\tau_V=c_1 \dot{\gamma}^{\beta}$ [@Katgert]. Remarkably, the macroscopic rheological exponent $\beta$ and the microscopic relaxation time exponent $\nu$ are related as $\beta \approx \nu-1$.
This connection between the viscous stress $\tau_V$ and $t_r$ can be made intuitive by defining a relaxation strain $\gamma_r$ as the product of relaxation time and strain rate. The relaxation strain is thus increasing with shear rate, which is consistent with observations by Rouyer et al. [@Rouyer]. To convert this relaxation strain into a stress, we multiply it with the static shear modulus $G_0$ which we measured to be ${\cal O} (
\sigma/\langle d \rangle)$ (see inset Fig. \[fig5\]) consistent with Princen et al. [@Princen]. As Fig. \[fig5\] shows, $G_0
t_r \dot{\gamma}$ and the viscous stress $\tau_V$ are equal up to a numerical factor of order one: $\tau_V = 0.83 ~G_0 t_r
\dot{\gamma}$. Hence the non-trivial global rheology of our foams, and in particular the non-trivial power law scaling of the viscous stress [@Katgert], is deeply connected to the scaling of the relaxation time $t_r$ with local strain rate.
![\[fig5\] (color online) Foam rheology. The stress is plotted as a function of shear rate measured in a Couette cell with inner radius $5$ cm and outer radius $7$ cm. The disordered foam is floating on the soap solution without the top plate and the boundaries have grooves to prevent bubble slip. The shear rate at the inner rotating wheel has been determined by image velocimetry. ($\blacksquare$) total stress. The Herschel-Bulkley exponent is $\beta=0.36\pm0.05$. The curve through the data is $G_0\left
(\gamma_Y+0.83 ~ t_r \dot{\gamma}\right )$; ($\bigcirc$) viscous stress $\tau_V\equiv \tau-\tau_Y$ where $\tau_Y=0.22\pm 0.2$ Pa. The curve through the data is $0.83 ~t_r \dot{\gamma}$. Inset: Oscillatory strain sweep at $0.1$ Hz. $G'$ approaches the static shear modulus $G_0$ at low strain amplitude: $G_0\approx 7$ Pa and the static yield strain $\gamma_Y=0.031$.](fig5.eps){width="3.2in"}
[*Stokes-Einstein Relation —*]{} In previous numerical work on sheared foams, a non-equilibrium Stokes-Einstein relation was found to relate the product of diffusion constant, viscosity and bubble size to an energy scale obtained from fluctuations in the elastic energy [@Ono2002; @Ono2003]. We show now that our connection between relaxation time and viscous stress may also be viewed from this perspective. Both the diffusion constant $D_y$ and the plastic viscosity $\eta_p \equiv \tau_V / \dot{\gamma}$ are strain rate dependent. However, the product of these quantities yields an energy scale that is constant in the experimentally accessible range of strain rates: $E=D_y\eta_p\langle d \rangle \approx 7\cdot 10^{-3}
~\sigma \langle d \rangle^2$, consistent with the simulation results at low strain rates [@Ono2002]. Since the elastic response of a single bubble can be modelled by a spring with a spring constant $4\pi\sigma$, the energy scale $7\cdot
10^{-3} ~\sigma \langle d \rangle^2$ corresponds to compressing a single bubble by $ \approx 0.04 \langle d \rangle$, which appears reasonable [@Lacasse].
[*Discussion —*]{} Our central result is the scaling of the relaxation time scales with strain rate: $t_r \approx t_0^{1-\nu}
\dot{\gamma}^{-\nu}$. Defining quasistatic flows as those for which the precise bubble trajectories are independent of the flow rate, the nontrivial scaling of $t_r$ and Fig. \[fig4\]a and \[fig4\]b clearly show that our flows are inconsistent with a quasistatic picture, even though the global stresses approach rate independence for slow flows. The microscopic scenario which emerges is that for increasingly slow flows, the delicate balance between elastic and viscous forces [@Liu1996] causes the (relative) bubble motion to become increasingly concentrated in short bursts, such that the contribution of viscous forces to the averaged stress vanishes — leading to rate independence of the stress [@Katgert]. This scenario is consistent with the growth of $\Delta s_y^2$ at fixed strain for decreasing $\dot{\gamma}$ (Fig. \[fig4\]a), and also with the absence of a ballistic regime (Fig. \[fig4\]b): snapshots of the displacement fields over a finite time interval reveal strong spatially and temporally intermittent behavior, down to the shortest timescale that we have probed.
Finally, it may seem counter-intuitive that our system is not quasistatic, given that the single bubble relaxation time $t_0$ [@Durian1995] is several orders of magnitude smaller than the typical inverse strain rate in our system. However, the fluid flow is concentrated in the thin liquid films separating the bubbles. The shear rate in these films is therefore much closer to $1/t_0$, and the effective viscosity of the foam is much higher than the viscosity of the fluid phase [@Denkov2008; @tomprivate].
[*Acknowledgements —*]{} The authors wish to thank J. Mesman for technical assistance, and discussions with R. Besseling, T. Witten and W. van Saarloos are gratefully acknowledged. GK and MM acknowledge support from physics foundation FOM, and MvH acknowledges support from NWO/VIDI.
[99]{} R. G. Larson, [*The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999). R. Höhler and S. Cohen Addad, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**17**]{}, R1041 (2005). D. Weaire and S. Hutzler, [*The Physics of Foams*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999). A. D. Gopal and D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2610 (1995). A. D. Gopal and D. J. Durian,J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**213**]{}, 169 (1999). I. K. Ono, S. Tewari, S. A. Langer and A. J. Liu, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 061503 (2003). Y. Wang, K. Krishan and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 041405 (2006). G. Katgert, M. E. Möbius and M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 058301 (2008). A. D. Gopal and D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 188303 (2003). N.D. Denkov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 138301 (2008); S. Tcholakova et al., Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 011405 (2008). R. Besseling, E. R. Weeks, A. B. Schofield, and W. C. K. Poon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 028301 (2007). F. Varnik and O. Henrich, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 174209 (2006). N. D. Denkov et al., Colloids Surf. A [**263**]{}, 129 (2005). E. Janiaud, D. Weaire, and S. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 038302 (2006). Y. Wang, K. Krishan and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 031401 (2006). V. J. Langlois, S. Hutzler and D. Weaire, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 021401 (2008). D. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4780 (1995). A. Tanguy, F. Leonforte and J. L. Barrat, Eur. Phys. J. E [**20**]{}, 355 (2006). A. Lemaître and C. Caroli, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 036104 (2007). P. Chaudhuri, L. Berthier and W. Kob, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 060604 (2007). We have checked that our results only depend on the local strain rate by varying both the driving velocity $v_0$ and location of the bin. M. E. Möbius, G. Katgert and M. van Hecke (in preparation). F. Rouyer, S. Cohen-Addad, M. Vignes-Adler, and R. Höhler, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 021405 (2003). H. M. Princen and A. D. Kiss, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**112**]{}, 427 (1986). I. K. Ono et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 095703 (2002). M.-D. Lacasse et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3448 (1996). A. Liu at al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3017 (1996). T. Witten, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Eulerian perfect-fluid theory is reformulated from its action principle in a pure field-theoretic manner. Conservation of the convective current is no longer imposed by Lin’s constraints, but rather adopted as the central idea of the theory. Our formulation, for the first time, successfully reduces redundant degrees of freedom promoting one half of the Clebsch variables as the true dynamical fields. Interactions on these fields allow for the exchange of the convective current of quantities such as mass and charge, which are uniformly understood as the breaking of the underlying symmetry of the force-free fluid. The Clebsch fields play the essential role in the exchange of angular momentum with the force field producing vorticity.'
author:
- Taketo Ariki$^1$
- 'Pablo A. Morales$^2$'
title: Field Theory of the Eulerian Perfect Fluid
---
Introduction
============
The local nature of the laws governing fluid motion demand a field theoretical formulation. While the Lagrangian-coordinate framework focuses on fluid particle dynamics, its Eulerian approach describes the space-time behavior of fluid properties, representing a prototypical example of a classical field theory. Yet, in spite of its long history, fluid mechanics still lacks of a complete action principle acceptable as a field theory. Incompleteness arises in its description of the rotational flow; the action in the Eulerian description requires the *Clebsch parametrization* [@C59; @Bateman29; @Eckart38; @Danzig39; @Eckart60; @Lin; @SW67; @Sch70] of the fluid velocity $\mathbf{v}$, represented as a linear combination of scalar gradients $$\mathbf{v}=-\boldsymbol{\nabla} \phi -\frac{1}{\rho}s\boldsymbol{\nabla} \psi-\frac{1}{\rho}\beta\boldsymbol{\nabla}\alpha,
\label{Clebsch parametrization}$$ where $\phi$ is the velocity potential, $s$ is the entropy density, $\psi$ is the *thermasy* [@Danzig39] and $\rho$ is the mass density. The remaining $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are *the Clebsch potentials* which are essential for rotational flow [@alphabeta]. This parametrization closely relates to the *Lin constraints* at the Lagrangian density [@Lin]: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}
=\mathcal{L}_0+\rho\mathfrak{D}\phi+s\mathfrak{D}\psi+\beta\mathfrak{D}\alpha,
\end{split}
\label{SW L}$$ where the last three terms are the Lin constraints ($\mathfrak{D} (\equiv \partial_t+v^j\partial_j)$ is the convective derivative). The free part $\mathcal{L}_0\equiv \frac{1}{2}\rho v^jv_j-U(\rho,s)$ ($U$; internal energy) is constrained by conservation of $\rho$, $s$, and $\beta$ [@Eckart38; @Lin; @SW67; @Sch70; @Jackiw00; @Kambe08b; @FF10]. In other words, conventional action takes $\mathcal{L}_0$ as its core regarding the fluid as a particle assembly, while the convection of $\rho$, $s$ and $\beta$ are added as subsidiary constraints. In spite of its field-theoretic setup in coordinates, the conventional approach still relies on constructions built upon the particle substratum, and thus the Lin constraint unavoidable. Furthermore, the parametrization introduces several aspects around the potential variables themselves that are yet to be understood. For instance, ($I$) the Clebsh parametrization includes extra degrees of freedom of the Lagrange multipliers ($\phi,\ \psi$, and $\alpha$) of added constraints, which Schutz (1970) expresses as “too many" and pointed out the necessity of action principle with a minimum number of variables [@Sch70]. ($I\!I$) Physical interpretation of the Clebsch potentials themselves are still controversial; some identify them as the Lagrangian-coordinate variables [@Lin; @SW67; @FF10], some relate them with the Chern-Simons theory [@Jackiw00; @Kambe08b]. Yet, no conclusive agreement on the nature of the potentials has been reached. In any event, any candidate formulation of the action principle in fluid mechanics should naturally account for the points described above. Perhaps, implying that the very basic set of ideas defining what we understand as fluid should be reconsidered. Indeed, in revisiting the fundamental concepts of its field theoretical formulation, fluid dynamics has benefited from modern ideas developed in gauge theories. Within the Lagrangian coordinate approach, [@Nicolis] addresses the infrared dynamics of non-disipative fluid recasted in the language of effective field theory from symmetry considerations, allowing to explore viscous correction by means of its derivative expansion or anomalous hydrodynamics [@DTSon] among others. In a rather mixed framework, in [@Bis03; @Jackiw04; @Jackiw00; @Jackiw04b] the Clebsch parametrization is realized by the introduction of a $SU(n)$ group element $g$ as potential variables. These novel approaches allowed the study of phenomena such as fluid with non-Abelian charges or spin-orbit interaction [@Nair14], we refer the reader to [@Nair16] for a recent review. In particular, a through description of non-Abelian fluids can have far-reaching consequences in our understanding at the early stages of relativistic heavy ion collisions. An inclusive treatment dealing with interactions becomes crucial, and although appealing, their focus on single particle dynamics brings about some critical caveats; it still relies on a classical-particle substratum and an incomplete canonical formalism based on artificial symplectic structure. The fact that the dynamics governing fluid motion can be obtained from increasingly general principles is a reflection of the deeper and universal character of fluid theory.
In this paper, we go a step further and claim that a continuum’s convection property is the core concept behind the field-theoretic formulation of fluid dynamics; we depart from the usual particle-based formulation and choose the convection effect as the guiding principle of fluid field theory, now for the first time, free of the Lin constraints. Reduction of such constraints naturally removes the redundant degrees of freedom from action, successfully minimizing the number of potentials. The physical picture provided by our formulation promotes the Clebsch variables as dynamical fields instead of a mere clever parametrization for the vector velocity. We discuss interactions and in the context of gauge symmetry apply to the case of the non-Abelian charged fluid. Our findings reveal not only assumptions disscused above can be avoided but a minimal number of fields are enough to capture dynamics of the non-Abelian fluid. We will show that, in such field-theoretic framework, the Clebsch potentials plays essential role in coupling with the force field, which allows the exchange of angular momentum with the external system.
Formulation
===========
Action of convection {#Action of convection}
--------------------
Unlike the other physical fields, a fluid (or, generally speaking, continuum) is based on the velocity field by which various physical properties are transported; mass, electric charge, and other thermodynamic quantities are convected by this vector field with their current in the form of $\rho_{\mathrm{c}}\mathbf{v}$, where $\rho_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the density of some convective quantity; in general, convection is expressed in the form $$\partial_t\rho_\mathrm{c}+\partial_j(\rho_\mathrm{c}v^j)=\mathrm{source\ term},
\label{convection eq.}$$ whose conservation holds in the absence of the source. In this section we search for the most general Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}$ yielding Eq. (\[convection eq.\]) as the Euler-Lagrange equation from its internal symmetry. This means that $\rho_\mathrm{c}$ (a scalar) is obtained as a Noether charge, so $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}$ should have a symmetry under a 1-dimensional transformation group; the associated symmetry is the shift of a scalar field, i.e. $\phi_\mathrm{c}\mapsto\phi_\mathrm{c}+const.$ (cyclic variable), and thus, we may at least write $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}(\partial_t\phi_{\mathrm{c}},\partial_i\phi_\mathrm{c})$. Under a general-coordinate transformation in space $\{\mathbf{x}\}\mapsto\{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}\}$, $\partial_t\phi\mapsto\partial_t\phi+x^{\tilde{a}}{}_{,t}\partial_{\tilde{a}}\phi$, so $\partial_t\phi$ acquires 3D diffeomorphism invariance if accompanied by $+v^i\partial_i\phi$, where a vector $\mathbf{v}$ transforms as $v^{\tilde{a}}=x^{\tilde{a}}{}_{,i}v^i+x^{\tilde{a}}{}_{,t}$ which allows us to identify $\mathbf{v}$ as the velocity field [@A15]. Using the invariant $\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}\equiv(\partial_t +v^i\partial_i)\phi_\mathrm{c}$, we naturally obtain the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}(\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})$. Indeed, in this way
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{c}}{\delta \phi_\mathrm{c}}=-\partial_t \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}}{\partial(\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})}
-\partial_j\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}}{\partial(\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})} v^j\right)=0,
\label{phi eq.}\\
&\frac{\delta S_\mathrm{c}}{\delta v^j}
=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}}{\partial(\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})}\phi_{\mathrm{c},j}=0,
\label{v eq.}\end{aligned}$$
where $\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}/\partial (\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})$ serves as the convective quantity $\rho_\mathrm{c}$ in comparison with Eq. (\[convection eq.\]). The relation with the Lin’s constraint in Eq. (\[SW L\]) will be clarified in the Hamiltonian formalism. The canonical conjugate of $\phi_\mathrm{c}$ is $\pi_\mathrm{c}=\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}/\partial (\partial_t\phi_\mathrm{c})=\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}/\partial (\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c})(\equiv f_\mathrm{c}(\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}))=\rho_\mathrm{c}$, where we shall choose the functional form of $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}$ so that the inverse function $F_\mathrm{c}(\equiv f_\mathrm{c}^{-1}); \sigma\mapsto \tilde{\mathfrak{D}} \phi$ exists, namely, $\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}=F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$. Then the Hamiltonian density reads: $$\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{c}=\rho_\mathrm{c}\partial_t \phi_\mathrm{c}-\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}\circ F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})
=-\rho_\mathrm{c}v^j\phi_{,j}+\int^{\rho_\mathrm{c}} F_\mathrm{c}(\xi)\mathrm{d}\xi,$$ then $$\begin{split}
S_\mathrm{c}=\int\mathrm{d}t\int\mathrm{d}^3x
\left(\rho_\mathrm{c}\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}-\int^{\rho_\mathrm{c}} F_\mathrm{c}(\xi)\mathrm{d}\xi\right),
\end{split}
\label{H of convection}$$ which adds a non-trivial modification to the simple Lin constraint $S_\mathrm{Lin}=\int\mathrm{d}t\int\mathrm{d}^3x\rho_\mathrm{c}\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}$ (see Appendix \[derivation of Hc\] for its derivation). Here we soon recognize that the potential pair $(\phi_\mathrm{c},\rho_\mathrm{c})$ in the Lin constraint is reproduced as the canonical-conjugate pair. One should not, however, mistake $S_\mathrm{c}[\phi_\mathrm{c},\mathbf{v}]$ as the phase-space counterpart of $S_\mathrm{Lin}[\phi_\mathrm{c},\rho_\mathrm{c}\mathbf{v}]$; *the Lin constraint alone cannot be a complete canonical action of $(\phi_\mathrm{c},\rho_\mathrm{c})$*, precisely due to the presence of $\int^{\rho_\mathrm{c}} F_\mathrm{c}(\xi)\mathrm{d}\xi$ in Eq. (\[H of convection\]). Although both $S_\mathrm{c}$ and $S_\mathrm{Lin}$ result in the same convective equation ($\partial_t\rho_\mathrm{c}+(\rho_\mathrm{c}v^j)_{,j}=0$), the equation for $\phi_\mathrm{c}$ changes due to this modification; namely $S_\mathrm{c}$ yields $\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}=F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$ while $S_\mathrm{Lin}$ yields $\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}=0$. Thus, the proposed $S_\mathrm{c}[\phi_\mathrm{c},\mathbf{v}]$ successfully reduces one degree of freedom from $S_\mathrm{Lin}[\rho_\mathrm{c},\phi_\mathrm{c},\mathbf{v}]$ by modifying a non-observed $\phi_\mathrm{c}$ equation. Therefore, the phase space $\{\phi_\mathrm{c},\rho_\mathrm{c}\}$ of conventional Lin constraint based formulations cannot be reduced to $\{\phi_\mathrm{c}\}$.
Following the same strategy, the fluid model of Eq. (\[SW L\]) written by 6 scalars will be reformulated by only 3 potentials (see §\[Hamiltonian formalism\]). If one does not consider the entropy, the minimal model of rotational-barotropic fluid is written by only 2 potentials (see §\[Kernel formalism\]). Although some pioneers in [@SW67; @Sch70; @Jackiw00] have found that the potentials in the Clebsch parametrization form canonical pairs, they really could not reduce the phase space $\{\phi,\psi,\alpha;\rho,s,\beta\}$ down to the configuration space $\{\phi,\psi,\alpha\}$. In order to obtain the real action in the configuration space, we shall abandon the Lin constraint of the standard formalisms [@Eckart38; @Lin; @SW67; @Sch70; @Kambe08b; @FF10; @Jackiw00; @Jackiw04; @Jackiw04b].
Kernel formalism {#Kernel formalism}
----------------
In this section, following the logic behind the previously obtained action of convection $S_\mathrm{c}$, we establish the element and formalism that will lead us to the most general fluid Lagrangian density. We start with $\phi$ and $\mathbf{v}$ as dynamical variables. As seen in Eq. (\[v eq.\]), Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{D}\phi)$ alone does not contain the dynamics of $\mathbf{v}$. Thus, dependence on the kinetic term $\mathcal{V}=\frac{1}{2}v^av_a$ is imposed, $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{D}\phi,\mathcal{V})$. Eq. (\[v eq.\]) changes accordingly $$\frac{\delta S}{\delta v^j}
=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\mathfrak{D}\phi)}\phi_{,j}+\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial\mathcal{V}}v_j=0,
\label{v eq. +}$$ where $\phi$ serves as a potential function. This becomes exactly the potential relation $\mathbf{v}=-\boldsymbol{\nabla} \phi$ when the Langrangian density shares the same dependance in both $\mathcal{V}$ and $\mathfrak{D}\phi$, i.e. $\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial\mathcal{V}=\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial(\mathfrak{D}\phi)$. One could relax this condition so that they are proportional to each other, in this case by rescaling $\phi$ in the equations above we keep the potential relation intact. Alternatively, we introduce a new quantity $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$ as $$\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi=\mathfrak{D}\phi+\frac{1}{2}Mv^jv_j,
\label{kernel 1}$$ and rewrite the Lagrangian density as $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)$, with $M$ a constant. $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$, to be referred as the *kernel* hereafter, plays the central role in the later discussions. The corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations read
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi}=-\partial_t \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)}
-\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)} v^j\right){}_{,j}=0,\label{phi eq. 2}\\
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta v^j}
=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)}(\phi_{,j}+M v_j)=0,
\label{v eq. 2}\end{aligned}$$
where convection of $\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$ and the potential relation are obtained. Note that Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)$ with the kernel (\[kernel 1\]) provides a minimal model for the perfect fluid. The spatial gradient of $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)$ yields $$\begin{split}
\partial_i\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)
&=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)}(\phi_{,ti}+v^j{}_{,i}\phi_{,j}+v^j\phi_{,ji}+Mv^j{}_{,i}v_j)\\
&=-M\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)}
(v_{i,t}+v_{i,j}v^j)
\end{split}$$ $$\Leftrightarrow
M\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)}
(v_{i,t}+v_{i,j}v^j)=-{\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}_{,i},
\label{Euler eq.}$$ where we used Eq. (\[v eq. 2\]). Eq. (\[Euler eq.\]) is the Euler equation where $M\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}$ behave as the mass density and the pressure respectively. The pressure-mass relation is better appreciated once rewritten in terms of the canonical momentum of $\phi$, $\sigma$ defined as $$\sigma = \frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial \phi_{,t}}
=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} \phi)}
\left(\equiv f(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} \phi)\right).$$ Then, the constitutive relation between pressure $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}$ and mass $M\sigma$ is given by $(\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\circ F)(\sigma)$, where $F(\equiv f^{-1}); \sigma\mapsto\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$. Thus $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)$ with the kernel (\[kernel 1\]) describes an irrotational barotropic fluid whose pressure is determined only by mass density $M\sigma$.\
In describing rotational flow, a reasonable guess would be to impose the Clebsch potential $\alpha$ into the Lagrangian as $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi,\mathfrak{D}\alpha)$, then $\mathbf{v}=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\phi/M-\beta\boldsymbol{\nabla}\alpha/M\sigma$ ($\beta\equiv \partial \mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial\,\mathfrak{D}\alpha$). However, such approach fails as the resulting pressure $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}$ would depend on both $\sigma$ and $\beta$ which contradicts the nature of the Clebsch potentials. In other words $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$ and $\alpha$ are not independant variables of the Lagrangian density meaning it can be rewritten as a composite function $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\circ A(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi,\mathfrak{D}\alpha)$, being $A(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi,\mathfrak{D}\alpha)$ some real function. The canonical momentum $\sigma$ now reads, $$\sigma=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial A}(A)\frac{\partial A}{\partial \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi,\mathfrak{D}\alpha).$$ Only when $\partial A/\partial \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi$ becomes a constant, a function $F;\sigma\mapsto A$ exists so that the pressure $p=\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\circ A\circ F(\sigma)$ is free from $\beta$. This requires $A\propto\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi+C(\mathfrak{D}\alpha)$ with a real function $C(\mathfrak{D}\alpha)$. The demanded Lagrangian density is most simply written as $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi)$ with the modified kernel $$\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi=\mathfrak{D}\phi+\frac{1}{2}Mv^jv_j+C(\mathfrak{D}\alpha),
\label{kernel 2}$$ which gives the minimal model of rotational barotropic fluid, this time described only by 2 potentials.
The kernel of Eq. (\[kernel 2\]) may be the most fundamental ingredient in the description of a fluid, since any extension $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\,{}^{{}_1}\!\phi,\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\,{}^{{}_2}\!\phi,\cdots)$ containing arbitrary numbers of kernels will always yield the same fluid equations. This function constitutes the most general Lagrangian density for the perfect fluid, which may be rewritten in a more compact form $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$ by taking the kernel as a multiple-component object: $$\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi}=\mathfrak{D}\boldsymbol{\phi}+\frac{1}{2}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}v^jv_j+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}(\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}).
\label{kernel 3}$$ Here ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$ are $m$- and $n$-component real scalars respectively, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}$ is a $m$-component real function of $\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}$ is $m$-component constant ($m\neq n$ in general): $$\begin{split}
&{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}=({}^{{}_1}\!\phi,\,{}^{{}_2}\!\phi,\cdots,\,{}^{{}_m}\!\phi)^{{}_T},\ \ {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}=({}^{{}_1}\!\alpha,\ {}^{{}_2}\!\alpha,\cdots,\ {}^{{}_n}\!\alpha,)^{{}_T},\\
&{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}=({}^{{}_1}\!C,\,{}^{{}_2}\!C,\cdots,\,{}^{{}_m}\!C)^{{}_T},\ \
{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}=({}^{{}_1}\!M,\,{}^{{}_2}\!M,\cdots,\,{}^{{}_m}\!M)^{{}_T},
\end{split}$$ where $T$ attached on the right-top side means the transposition of matrix components. Hereafter, vectors such as ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$ (${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}^{{}_T}$) are regarded as column (row) vectors, while the derivative operations such as $\partial/\partial {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$ ($\partial/\partial {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}^{{}_T}$) as rows (columns). We have two canonical conjugates ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}$ given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{{}_T}=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{,t}}
=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi})}
={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{f}}}^{{}_T}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}),\\
&{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,t}}
=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi})}
\frac{\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}}{\partial(\mathfrak{D}\boldsymbol{\alpha})}
={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{h}}}(\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}), \end{aligned}$$
where ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{h}}}(\equiv\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}/\partial \mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}})$ is $m\times n$ matrix. The Euler-Lagrange equations are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}^{{}_T}}=-{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}_{,t}-\left({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}} v^{i}\right){}_{,i}=0,
\label{phi eq. 3}\\
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}^{{}_T}}=-{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}_{,t}-\left({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}} v^{i}\right){}_{,i}=0,\label{alpha eq. 3}\\
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta v^i}
={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,i}
+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,i}
+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}} v_i=0,
\label{v eq. 3}\end{aligned}$$
where Eq. (\[v eq. 3\]) is the generalization of Eq. (\[Clebsch parametrization\]). Taking the spatial derivative of $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$ and combined with Eq. (\[v eq. 3\]) yield $${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}\left(v_{i,t}+v_{i,j}v^j\right)=-\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}{}_{,i}.
\label{Euler eq. 2}$$ Now ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}$ behaves as the mass density. Indeed, (\[phi eq. 3\]) multiplied by ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}$ yields the conservation law as follows: $$\partial_t ({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}})
+({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}v^j)_{,j}=0.
\label{mass cons}$$ As evident from the Euler-Lagrange equations, the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi})$ has its foundation on the convection property, and not on momentum conservation. As a consequence, the Euler equation (\[Euler eq. 2\]) and mass conservation (\[mass cons\]) are automatically obeyed, in this sense they are *universal* features of the fluid rather than conditions to be imposed. In other words, in deriving Eqs. (\[Euler eq. 2\]) and (\[mass cons\]) alone, the known thermodynamic variables and their relations are not necessary. Then, the perfect fluid is not only an idealized model of known materials, but rather a universal feature lying behind the convection. Needless to say, both hold for arbitrary values of $m$ and $n$, which can be thought as a discrete symmetry of our Lagrangian.
Hamiltonian formalism {#Hamiltonian formalism}
---------------------
Let us turn to the Hamiltonian formalism, here we can already see some clear differences between the conventional and present theories. The canonical Hamiltonian density reads, $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}
&={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,t}
+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,t}
-\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\\
&=U({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}})+U_C({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}})-\frac{1}{2}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}v_a v^a\\
&\ \ \ \ \ -
v^j({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,j}+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,j}),
\end{split}
\label{H}$$ where $U(\boldsymbol{\sigma})=\int^{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{F}}}^{{}_T}({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}')\mathrm{d}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}'$ (${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{F}}};{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}\mapsto \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$ is the inverse of ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{f}}}$) is the internal energy, and $U_C(\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\sigma})=\int^{{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{H}}}^{{}_T}({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}',{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}})\,\mathrm{d}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}'$ (${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{H}}}; {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}} \mapsto \mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$ is obtained as the inverse of ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{h}}}$ for fixed ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}$), both of which correspond to $\int^{\rho_\mathrm{c}}F_\mathrm{c}(\xi)\mathrm{d}\xi$ in Eq. (\[H of convection\]). For a special case $(m,n)=(2,1)$ with ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}=(1,0)^{{}_T}$, Eq. (\[H\]) is reduced to $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}
&=U(\rho,s)+U_C(\rho,s,\beta)-\frac{1}{2}\rho v_a v^a\\
&\ \ \ \ \ -
v^j(\rho\phi_{,j}+s\psi_{,j}+\beta\alpha_{,j}),
\end{split}
\label{H2}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}=(\phi,\psi)^{{}_T}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}=(\rho,s)^{{}_T}$. Note that our derivation of the Hamiltonian (\[H2\]) does not trivially follow from fluid energy $\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 +U$ nor it relies on given Poisson brackets as [@Jackiw04; @Nair12; @Nair16] do. In particular, $U_C(\rho,s,\beta)$ does not appear in the conventional formulation. And, although it does not affect the conservation of $\rho$, $s$, and $\beta$ [@UC], modifies the dynamics of $\phi$, $\psi$, and $\alpha$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\phi&=\frac{\delta \mathscr{H}_\mathcal{F}}{\delta \rho}=\frac{\partial U(\rho,s)}{\partial \rho}+\frac{\partial U_C(\rho,s,\beta)}{\partial \rho}-\frac{1}{2}v^2-v^j\phi_{,j},\label{canonical phi}\\
\partial_t\psi&=\frac{\delta \mathscr{H}_\mathcal{F}}{\delta s}=T+\frac{\partial U_C(\rho,s,\beta)}{\partial s}-v^j\psi_{,j},\label{anomalous thermasy}\\
\partial_t\alpha&=\frac{\delta \mathscr{H}_\mathcal{F}}{\delta \beta}=\frac{\partial U_C(\rho,s,\beta)}{\partial \beta}-v^j\alpha_{,j},\label{anomalous alpha}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathscr{H}_\mathcal{F}(\equiv\int\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}\mathrm{d}^3x)$ is the total Hamiltonian, $T(\equiv\partial U/\partial s)$ is the temperature. Eqs. (\[anomalous thermasy\]) and (\[anomalous alpha\]) yield $\mathfrak{D}\psi-T=\partial U_C/\partial s$ and $\mathfrak{D}\alpha=\partial U_C/\partial \beta$, while the conventional approaches give $\mathfrak{D}\psi=T$ and $\mathfrak{D}\alpha=0$ (see Eq. (2.22) in [@Sch70], Eqs. (32)-(33) of [@SW67], and Eq. (7) of [@Bis03], where they denote it as $\beta$ for our $\alpha$). Then our $\psi$ is no more the conventional thermasy but rather its extension. Also note that the presence of $U_C$ leads to the extension of the known Bernoulli theorem to the non-barotropic, rotational, and unsteady flow; $\rho\times$(\[canonical phi\]) $+$ $s\times$ (\[anomalous thermasy\]) $+$ $\beta\times$ (\[anomalous alpha\]) yield $$\begin{split}
&\rho \phi_{,t}+s\psi_{,t}+\beta \alpha_{,t}-\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2\\
&=\left(\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\rho} +s\frac{\partial}{\partial s}+\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\right)(U+U_C)(\rho,s,\beta),
\end{split}
\label{generalized Bernoulli eq.}$$ which gives the first integral of the Euler equation by using $U_C$. Likewise, $U_C$ does not work as the usual potential energy, but as one sector of the total Hamiltonian generating the motions of $\phi$, $\psi$, and $\alpha$, which alters the physical interpretation of velocity potentials.
Presence of $U_C$ modifies the physical interpretation of $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}$ in a non-trivial manner. Using the canonical equations, we soon realize $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+U+U_C$, so, in the phase-space trajectory, the Hamiltonian takes the value of the fluid energy plus the Clebsch-potential energy $U_C$. Thus the fluid-energy conservation does not trivially hold from the conservation of the total Hamiltonian. Considering $\partial_t U_C=\{U_C, \mathscr{H}_\mathcal{F}\}_\mathrm{PB}=-\partial_j(U_C v^j)$, meaning $U_C$ also forms convective current conserving in the whole space, we reach the conservation of $\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+U$.
Finally, let us see the relation with Eq. (\[SW L\]). In the canonical formalism, the Lagrangian density reads $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}&=\rho\phi_{,t}+s\psi_{,t}+\beta\alpha_{,t}-\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^jv_j-U(\rho,s)-U_C(\rho,s,\beta)\\
&\ \ \ \ +\rho\mathfrak{D}\phi+s\mathfrak{D}\psi+\beta\mathfrak{D}\alpha.
\end{split}
\label{SW L 2}$$ Although (\[SW L 2\]) looks similar to Eq. (\[SW L\]), the presence of Clebsch-potential energy $U_C$ results in the different Euler-Lagrange equations. Also it is highly non-trivial that the last three terms at Eq. (\[SW L 2\]) are not added constraints as in Eq. (\[SW L\]) but naturally emerge through the Legendre transformation $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}[{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}]\rightarrow\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{F}[{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}};{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}]$ at Eq. (\[H\]); namely these three are no more constraints. These difference make a critical gap between the present and the conventional in terms of the dimensional reduction. On the basis of the Lagrangian density Eq. (\[SW L\]), due to $U_C$’s absence and different equations for potentials, the phase space $\{\phi,\psi,\alpha\ ;\ \rho,s,\beta\}$ cannot be reduced to the configuration space $\{\phi,\psi,\alpha\}$ like we just have. As pointed out in §\[Action of convection\], the Lin’s constraint and the conventional potential equations are to be discarded in order to obtain the true Lagrangian density formulated in the configuration space.
Relativistic fluid
==================
Relativistic kernel
-------------------
The relativistic-fluid theory follows from its relativistic kernel. For simplicity of discussions, we seek for the fluid action in flat-space $S=\int\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})\mathrm{d}^4x$ (we adopt metric signature: $g_{\mu\nu}=\textrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$). Replacing the non-relativistic velocity $\mathbf{v}$ with a four-dimensional time-like vector $\mathbf{w}$, the relativistic kernel is introduced as follows: $$\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}=\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}
-\frac{1}{2}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}w_{\alpha}w^{\alpha}+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}(\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}),
\label{kernel 4}$$ where $\mathfrak{D}\equiv w^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}$. In the later discussions we employ the Greek alphabets for the indices of space-time coordinates. The Euler-Lagrange equations are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}^{{}_T}}=-\left({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}} w^{\mu}\right){}_{,\mu}=0,\label{phi eq. 4}\\
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}^{{}_T}}=-\left({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}} w^{\mu}\right){}_{,\mu}=0,\label{alpha eq.4}\\
&\frac{\delta S}{\delta w^{\mu}}
={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,\mu}
+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,\mu}
-{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}} w_{\mu}=0,
\label{potential 4}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}\equiv\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}/\partial (\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{{}_T}\equiv{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}^{{}_T}\partial {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}/\partial (\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}})$0[@momentum]. Taking the four-gradient of $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$ and combined with Eq. (\[potential 4\]) yields $${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}w_{\mu,\nu}w^{\nu}={\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}_{,\mu},
\label{relativistic w eq.}$$ which describes the dynamics of $\mathbf{w}$. Using a normalized vector $\mathbf{u}(\equiv \mathbf{w}/|\mathbf{w}|)$ ($u^{\alpha}u_{\alpha}=1$), the energy-momentum tensor is given by $$\begin{split}
T^{\mu}{}_{\nu}
&=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,\mu}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}_{,\nu}
+\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}}{\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,\mu}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}_{,\nu}
-\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}\\
&={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}
|\mathbf{w}|^2u^{\mu}u_{\nu}-\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}.
\end{split}
\label{T}$$ From the shift symmetry in space-time, we have $T^{\mu\nu}{}_{,\nu}=0$ which is equivalent to Eq. (\[relativistic w eq.\]). Now ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}|\mathbf{w}|^2$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}$ act as the inertial mass density and the pressure respectively; namely the total mass density is to be defined by $\rho \equiv {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}|\mathbf{w}|^2-\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}$. Multiplying Eq. (\[phi eq. 4\]) by ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}$ yields $$({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}^{{}_T}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}w^{\mu})_{,\mu}=(\rho_0 u^{\mu})_{,\mu}=0,
\label{rest mass}$$ which may be interpreted as the conservation of the rest-mass density $\rho_0$. Eq. (\[relativistic w eq.\]) is rewritten as the equation for $\mathbf{u}$: $$\left\{(\rho+\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F})u_{\mu}u^{\nu}\right\}_{,\nu}
=\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}{}_{,\mu}.
\label{U eq.}$$
Symmetry breaking and interactions
----------------------------------
Like in any well established classical field theory, interactions are incorporated, in principle, at the action level. Here we follow the same principle, and discuss some possible interactions which are allowed in our framework. As previously mentioned, the free fluid $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi})$ possesses shift symmetries of $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ associated with its convective currents. Therefore, interactions may appear as the non-conservation of convective currents caused by the symmetry breaking.
A simple example of such interaction on $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ may be given by $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})+\mathcal{U}({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$, which breaks the shift symmetry of $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and breaks the rest-mass conservation as well. Yukawa-type interaction $\mathcal{U}\propto\bar{\psi}\psi \phi$ ($\phi$ is a single scalar for simplicity) is also possible that converts the rest-mass energy of the fluid to energy of the Dirac field $\psi$. Another interesting example may be the rest-mass exchange between fluids; in a 2-fluid system given by $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_a(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi_a)+\mathcal{L}_b(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi_b)+\mathcal{U}(\phi_a,\phi_b)$ (each fluid sector $\mathcal{L}_I$ ($I=a,b$) have a single-component kernel $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\phi_I$ containing $\mathbf{w}_I$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_I$, and $M_I$), one can observe the exchanging of their rest-mass density. Especially when $\mathcal{U}(\phi_a,\phi_b)=\mathcal{U}(\phi_a-\phi_b)$ with $M_a=M_b=M$, the total rest-mass current $\rho_{0a}\mathbf{u}_a+\rho_{0b}\mathbf{u}_b$ conserves.
Gauge interaction on $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is also naturally considered, where we see the exchange of non-Abelian charge via gauge interaction. Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$ be a $SU(n)$ multiplet, and impose invariance of the Lagrangian density under $SU(n)$ transformations of ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$, while ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}$ are just multiple-component real scalars. In order to incorporate gauge symmetry into the theory, the associated kernel (\[kernel 4\]) itself must be invariant under local-gauge transformations. This implies on the one hand, quadratic dependance on $\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$, i.e. ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}(\Upsilon)$ with $\Upsilon \equiv (\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}})^{\dagger}\,\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$ (The conjugate $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ becomes also a multiplet; $\boldsymbol{\beta}=\partial{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{{}_T}/\partial\Upsilon\ {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\sigma}}}\mathfrak{D}\boldsymbol{\alpha}$). And on the other, that derivatives at kernel are to be modified according to $\mathfrak{D}(=w^{\nu}\partial_{\nu} \rightarrow w^{\nu}\mathcal{D}_{\nu})$, where $\mathcal{D}_{\mu}\equiv\partial_{\mu}-ie{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_aA^a_{\mu}$ is the gauge-covariant derivative ($e$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a$, and $A^a_{\mu}$ are the coupling constant, generator, and gauge field, $a = 1,2,\cdots,n^2-1$) breaking the shift symmetry of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. The total fluid-gauge coupled system is given by $$S=\int\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi})\mathrm{d}^4x
+S_\mathrm{Y\!M}
\label{total action}$$ with $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}=\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}
-\frac{1}{2}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}w_{\alpha}w^{\alpha}+{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}(\Upsilon)$. The gauge coupling in the Clebsch term does not affect the conservation law (\[phi eq. 4\]), so that the rest-mass conservation (\[rest mass\]) again holds. $SU(n)$-charge current arises from the gauge symmetry: $$\begin{split}
J^{\mu}_a&=-ie\left({\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}^{\dagger}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}
-{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}^{\dagger}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\beta}}}\right)w^{\mu}\\
&=-ie|\mathbf{w}|\frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{\mathsf{C}}}^{{}_T}}{\partial \Upsilon}\boldsymbol{\sigma}\left((\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}})^\dagger\,{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}
-{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}^{\dagger}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a\mathfrak{D}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}\right)u^{\mu}.
\end{split}
\label{current}$$ Taking the four-gradient of $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$ yields $$\left\{\left(\rho+\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}\right)u_{\mu}u^{\nu}\right\}{}_{,\nu}
=\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}{}_{,\mu}-F^a_{\mu\nu}J^{\nu}_a,
\label{CFD eq.}$$ where $F^a_{\mu\nu}\equiv A^a_{\nu,\mu}-A^a_{\mu,\nu}+ef^a{}_{bc} A^b_{\mu}A^c_{\nu}$ is the field strength, $f^{abc}$ is the structure constants of the Lie algebra: $[{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_a,{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}_b]=if_{abc}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{t}}}^c$.
To appreciate the reach and consequences of our formalism, it is instructive to contrast our picture with pioneering, and current, works [@Bis03; @Jackiw04; @Nair12; @Nair14; @Nair16].
($i$) Our $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ ($m$ real scalars) and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ ($SU(n)$ complex-scalar multiplet) amount to $m+2n$ real scalars, which reduces to $1+2n$ ($m=1$) degrees of freedom when the fluid carries only mass and charge. In contrast, the previous works include the group element $g \in SU(n)$ and mass which amount to $n^2$ real scalars [@SU2]. Let us also note that the present formalism enables us to consider the entropy current when $m=2$, while it is not obvious how such extension could be implemented from these works. ($ii$) It is remarkable that (\[CFD eq.\]) is obtained solely based on convection and gauge symmetry, whereas previous works on the other hand must rely on further assumptions. One being, the dynamics of $SU(n)$ charge on the basis of Wong’s equation [@Wong70], which is an estimated model of $SU(n)$-charged classical particle. And another, the continuum limit of Wong’s particle by replacing particle label as the Lagrangian coordinate, guaranteeing the covariant conservation of charge current. The charge conservation relies on Wong’s model and continuum limit; the framework is not a selfconsistent one, as it has roots in a particular model of classical-particle mechanics.
($iii$) In the present formalism, the natural symplectic structure is derived via the co-tangent bundle of the configuration space $\{\boldsymbol{\phi},\boldsymbol{\alpha}\}$. This constitutes an issue for previous approaches, which starts from the particle-substratum Lagrangian density $\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2-U$ (or Hamiltonian density $\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+U$) *provided* Poisson brackets; the symplectic structure is *artificially* introduced so that the Hamiltonian density $\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+U$ yields the Euler equation and mass conservation [@Jackiw04; @Nair12; @Nair16].
($iv$) As a final remark, a similar treatment for the $U(1)$-charged fluid trivially follows by imposing $U(1)$ symmetry on a complex scalar $\alpha$. On the other hand, such a $U(1)$-gauge coupling model does not seem feasible in these formulations where $g=e^{i\theta}$ and $A_\mu$ give the only free variables which are not enough to describe electrically-charged fluid and the gauge field in its usual sense. Indeed the resultant Clebsch parametrization reads $u_\mu\propto\theta_\mu-eA_\mu$, where the vortical motion is completely constrained by $A_\mu$ due to the defect of the degrees of freedom [@irregular; @U1].
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have reformulated the theory of the perfect fluid based on the symmetry behind the convective current. Peculiarly, its Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_\mathcal{F}(\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}})$ is uniquely characterized by the quantity $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}{\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$, which we termed as kernel, composed by dynamical fields (${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\phi}}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{\alpha}}}$), velocity $\mathbf{v}$ and constants ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{M}}}$. A minimal model for rotational flow follows once provided the kernel (\[kernel 3\]) (or kernel (\[kernel 4\]) in the relativistic case) with $m=n=1$, so the action contains only $(m+n=)2$ fields $\phi$ and $\alpha$. By discarding the particle-substratum approach built upon $\mathcal{L}_0=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2-U$ and thereby Lin constraints of conventional formulations, we succeeded at obtaining an, impossible otherwise, Lagrangian density in configuration space, which is actually equivalent to abandon the conventional equations for non-observable potentials such as $\phi$, $\psi$, and $\alpha$ due to the presence of the Clebsch-potential energy $U_C$. Not only in such dimensional reduction, but the configuration-space formalism has also an advantage of much wider applicability. In case when the inverse functions ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{F}}};\boldsymbol{\sigma}\mapsto\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{H}}};\boldsymbol{\beta}\mapsto\mathfrak{D}\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ do not exist, the symplectic structure cannot be formulated, where the canonical phase-space formalism fails. The simplest example of this may be an incompressible fluid, where the canonical the Poisson brackets do not exist in the regular manner of [@Jackiw04; @Nair12; @Nair16]. Even in such case, the configuration-space formalism does hold, yielding the proper fluid equations consistently.
In our formulation, $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ are not just secondary quantities parametrizing velocity $\mathbf{u}$, but dynamical fields capable of interacting with itself as well as other fundamental fields, playing a more active role in describing observable physics. As an example of the latter, we mentioned a possible scenario with a Yukawa coupling on $\boldsymbol{\phi}$, causing the exchange of the energy contained in the rest-mass density $\rho_0$ with the Dirac field. Regarding models with self-interactions, we discussed scenarios where $\phi$’s actively trigger the direct exchange of the rest mass. The non-Abelian (Abelian) gauge symmetry on $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is also possible naturally resulting in a non-Abelian (Abelian) Lorentz force on fluid, which provides a *pure gauge theory of the perfect fluid* for the first time. Discarding the particle-substratum paradigm our construction does not require any further assumptions other than gauge symmetry as in the usual field theories. In an analogous way, the diffeomorphism covariance imposed on $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ leads to a pure diffeomorphism-gauge theory of the spin fluid, again, free from extra assumptions. Also $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ of the diffeomorphism covariance gives minimum degrees of freedom to describe the spin-gravity coupling in completely novel way. This will be reported in a follow-up publication [@MorAri].
The field theoretic picture enables us to reconsider an underlying relation between rotational flow and the Clebsch potentials. According to Helmholtz’s vortex theorem [@Lamb], the vortex can be neither created nor destroyed without an external force; namely the creation and annihilation of vortex is finally attributed to a force imposed on the fluid. As long as we take the action principle the starting point, the external force is introduced as an interaction term in the Lagrangian; among various interactions of this field theory, the electromagnetic field and its extension (such as Yang-Mills field) may be naturally considered as an external force on the fluid. These gauge fields have spin, so their emission and absorption is accompanied by the exchange of angular momentum, causing the vortex as the localized orbital angular momentum of fluid. Thus, the presence of the Clebsch potentials allows to couple with these gauge forces that produce vorticity. The Clebsch potentials serve as the *mediator* to the external field causing vorticity. Finally let us mention about field quantization. Some pioneers discussed about the quantum field theory of fluid, where excitation of Lagrangian position of fluid element is the target of quantization [@Endlich11; @GS15]. Note that the Lagrangian picture of the fluid implies the rest-mass conservation; each world line of a fluid element running from the past to future does not terminate at some points. The present formalism, on the contrary, is formulated without such picture, and is even able to describe the creation and annihilation of the rest mass. This suggests the possibility of another quantum field theory of very different type, where the fluid itself may be obtained as an excitation from the vacuum due to interactions with matter and gauge particles.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
T. A. currently belongs to Institute of Material and Systems for Sustainability, Nagoya University, Japan. The present work is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.\
Derivation of Eq. (\[H of convection\]) {#derivation of Hc}
=======================================
For the first step, we write the time derivative of the first term $\rho_\mathrm{c}\partial_t\phi$ in terms of convective derivative: $$\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{c}
=\rho_\mathrm{c}\mathfrak{D}\phi_\mathrm{c}-\rho_\mathrm{c}v^j\phi_{,j}-\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}\circ F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$$ where the first term may be rewritten as $\rho_\mathrm{c}F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$. Differentiation of $\rho_\mathrm{c}F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})-\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}\circ F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$ by $\rho_\mathrm{c}$ yields $$1\times F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})+\rho_\mathrm{c} F'_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})-\rho_\mathrm{c}F'_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})=F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$$ Thus $\rho_\mathrm{c}F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})-\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{c}\circ F_\mathrm{c}(\rho_\mathrm{c})$ can be expressed as $\int^{\rho_\mathrm{c}}F_\mathrm{c}(\xi)\mathrm{d}\xi$, where the constant is not written explicitly.
[99]{} A. Clebsch, J. Reine Angew. Math. **56**, 1 (1859).
H. Bateman, Proc. R. Soc. London A **125** 598 (1929).
C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. **54**, 920 (1938).
D. V. Dantzig, Physica **6**, 673 (1939).
C. Eckart, Phys. Fluids **3**, 421 (1960).
C. C. Lin, *International School of Physics E. Fermi (XXI)*, G. Careri, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1963) p. 93.
R. L. Seliger & G. B. Whitham, Proc. Roy. Soc. A. **305**, 1 (1968).
B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D **2**, 2762 (1970).
Different notations are employed for the Clebsch potentials so that $(\alpha,\beta)$ form canonical-conjugate pairs.
R. Jackiw, V. P. Nair and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. D **62**, 085018 (2000)
H. Fukagawa & Y. Fujitani, Prog. Theor. Phys. **124**, 517-531 (2010).
T. Kambe, Physica D **237** 2067-2071 (2008).
S. Dubovsky, L. Hui, A. Nicolis and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 085029 (2012).
D. T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 191601 (2009).
R. Jackiw, V. P. Nair, S.-Y. Pi, & A. Polychronokos, J. Phys. A **37**, 42, R327 (2004).
R. Jackiw, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. **127**, 53 (2004).
B. Bistrovic, R. Jackiw, H. Li, V. P. Nair, & S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 025013 (2003).
D. Karabali and V. P. Nair, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 105018 (2014).
V. P. Nair, arXiv:1606.06407 \[hep-th\].
T. Ariki Phys. Rev. E **91**, 053001 (2015).
Since $U_C$ contains only $\rho$, $s$, and $\beta$, it only changes the canonical equations of $\phi$, $\psi$ and $\alpha$ neither of which is observed.
V. P. Nair, R. Ray, & S. Roy Phys. Rev. D **86**, 025012 (2012).
S. K. Wong, Nuovo Cimento A **65**, 689 (1970).
In case of $SU(2)$ coupling, requires $n^2=4$ which is less than our $2n+1=5$. However, $n=2$ without gauge coupling requires 4 scalars, while our formalism needs only 2. Apart from the $SU(2)$-gauge coupling case, the present formalism requires less degrees of freedom.
In recent [@Nair14; @Nair16] direct application is avoided, adding rest-mass current ($\boldsymbol{J}_m$) and charge current ($\boldsymbol{J}_e$) with their constitutive model $\boldsymbol{J}_m=\boldsymbol{J}_e$, containing rest-mass density, $\theta$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $g\in U(1)$, equal to 4 real scalars if the gauge freedom is unified into $\theta$, while ours contain only a real $\phi$ and a complex $\alpha$, which amounts to 3 real scalars.
T. Ariki & P. A. Morales, in preparation.
H. Lamb, *Hydrodynamics* (Cambridge University, 1933), 202-207.
S. Endlich, A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, & J. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. **4**, 102 (2011).
B. Gripaios & D. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114** 071601 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an inductive method for constructing the basic spin representations of the double covers of the symmetric groups over fields of any characteristic.'
address: 'Institut für Experimentelle Mathematik, Universität Duisburg–Essen, Ellernstr. 29, 45326 Essen, Germany'
author:
- 'Lukas A. Maas'
title: On a Construction of the Basic Spin Representations of Symmetric Groups
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Basic spin representations are the smallest faithful representations of the double covers of the symmetric groups. The ordinary basic spin representation $X_n$ was given explicitly by I. Schur [@Schur1911], see [@HoffmanHumphreys1992]\*[Chapter 6]{} for a modern treatment. Let $p$ be a prime. By a result of D. B. Wales [@Wales1978], the $p$-modular reduction of $X_n$ is irreducible unless $n$ is odd and divisible by $p$, in which case there exist exactly two distinct composition factors. We call these $p$-modular representations also basic spin. In this paper we describe a construction of the basic spin representations over splitting fields of any characteristic, that is, at most quadratic extensions of the prime field. The method of construction is inductive with respect to $n$.\
Let ${\tilde{S}_n}$ be the group generated by elements $z, t_1, \ldots, t_{n-1}$ subject to the relations $$\begin{aligned}
z^2 = &\ 1, \\
t_i^2 = &\ z \quad (1\le i\le n-1), \\
(t_it_{i+1})^3 = &\ z \quad (1\le i\le n-2), \\
(t_it_j)^2 = &\ z\quad (1\le i, j\le n-1,\ |i-j| > 1).\end{aligned}$$ Provided $n\geq 4$, it is well-known that ${\tilde{S}_n}$ is a double cover of the symmetric group $S_n$, and the projection of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ onto $S_n$ may be defined by sending the generators $t_i$ to $(i,i+1)\in S_n$. There is another double cover $\hat{S}_n$ of $S_n$ which is non-isomorphic to ${\tilde{S}_n}$ for $n\neq 6$, and $\hat{S}_n$ can be described as generated by elements $z, s_1, \ldots, s_{n-1}$ subject to the relations $z^2=1=s_i^2=(zs_i)^2\ (1\le i\le n-1)$, $(s_is_{i+1})^3=1\ (1\le i\le n-2)$, and $s_is_j = zs_js_i\ (1\le i, j\le n-1,\ |i-j| > 1)$. If we consider representations over a splitting field of characteristic $p=2$, then every representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ or $\hat{S}_n$ contains the central element $z$ in its kernel, and essentially, we deal with $2$-modular representations of $S_n$. If $p\neq 2$, then there is a bijective correspondence between faithful irreducible representations of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ and faithful irreducible representations of $\hat{S}_n$. Let $\omega\in K$ be a primitive fourth root of unity; then this correspondence can be realized through $R\mapsto \omega R$ where $R$ is a representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ and $\omega R$ is a representation of $\hat{S}_n$ defined by $z\mapsto -id$ and $s_i\mapsto \omega\cdot t_i^R$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$. Hence we may concentrate below on representations of ${\tilde{S}_n}$.
Basic Spin Representations {#basic-spin-representations .unnumbered}
==========================
We adopt the following degree notation from [@KleshchevTiep2004]: for $n\geq 4$ and $p\geq 0$ let $$\begin{aligned}
\delta({\tilde{S}_n}) =& \begin{cases}
\ 2^{k-1} & \quad\mbox{if}\ n=2k,\cr
\ 2^{k-1} & \quad\mbox{if}\ n=2k+1\ \mbox{and}\ {p\mid}n,\cr
\ 2^{k} & \quad\mbox{if}\ n=2k+1\ \mbox{and}\ {p\nmid}n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Let $sgn$ be the representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ which is given by inflation of the sign representation of $S_n$. The *associate representation* of an ${\tilde{S}_n}$-representation $R$ is $sgn\otimes R$.
\[bsp\] For $n\geq 4$, let $X_n=X_n^+$ be the basic (spin) representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over $\mathbb{C}$ as defined in [@Schur1911]\*[§22]{} and let $X_n^-=sgn\otimes X_n^+$, its associate representation.
1. \[sch\] $X_n^\pm$ is an irreducible representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ of degree $\delta({\tilde{S}_n})$. The representations $X_n^+$ and $X_n^-$ are equivalent only for odd $n$.
2. \[wal\] For any prime number $p$, the modular reduction $\overline{X_n^\pm}=Y_n^\pm$ over a splitting field of characteristic $p$ is irreducible unless ${p\mid}n$ and $n$ is odd. In this case, $\overline{X_n}$ has two distinct composition factors $Y_n^+$ and $Y_n^-$ of degree $\delta({\tilde{S}_n})$.\
Moreover, the associate representations $Y_n^+$ and $Y_n^-$ are non-equivalent exactly if $n$ is even and ${p\nmid}n$, or $n$ is odd and ${p\mid}n$.
3. \[wal2\] Let $n\geq 4$. Assume that $T$ is an absolutely irreducible representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$, and let $t\in{\tilde{S}_n}$ be an element of order $3$ projecting to a $3$-cycle in $S_n$. If $t^T$ has a quadratic minimal polynomial, then $T$ is equivalent to a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$, or $T$ is an ordinary $2$-dimensional representation of $\tilde{S}_4$ which contains $z$ in its kernel.
For , see [@Schur1911]\*[§22 and §23.(VII)]{}, or [@HoffmanHumphreys1992]\*[Theorems 6.2 and 6.8]{}; for and see [@Wales1978]\*[Theorems 7.7 and 8.1]{}, respectively. The case $n=4$ in is handled by direct inspection.
For notational convenience, we identify a (matrix) representation $R$ of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ of degree $d$ over a field $K$ with the sequence $( t_1^R,\ldots, t_{n-1}^R )\in\left (\operatorname{GL}_d(K)\right )^{n-1}$. By $I$ we denote the identity matrix and by $0$ we denote the zero matrix, both of suitable degree over $K$; moreover, $Z=z^R=\pm I$. For a given matrix $M$ over $K$ and any integer $\mu$, we write $\mu M$ instead of $(\mu\cdot 1_K) M$.\
In the sense of Theorem \[bsp\] we refer to the absolutely irreducible representations $X_n^\pm$ or $Y_n^\pm$ as the *basic spin representations* of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ for $n\geq 4$. We call any composition factor of a given representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ which is equivalent to a basic spin representation simply a *basic spin composition factor*.
Let $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-1})$ be a representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over a field $K$. We say that $T$ satisfies $\Delta$ if $$\tag{$\Delta$}\label{HYP}
(ZT_iT_{i+1})^2 + ZT_iT_{i+1} + I = 0\quad\mbox{for}\ i\in\{1,\ldots, n-2\}.$$
Let $n\geq 4$ and $T$ be an ${\tilde{S}_n}$-representation over a field $K$. As $zt_it_{i+1}\in{\tilde{S}_n}$ has order $3$ and projects to $(i+2,i+1,i)$ in $S_n$, all elements $zt_it_{i+1}$ ($i=1,\ldots,n-2$) are conjugate in ${\tilde{S}_n}$. Hence, if \[HYP\]($T$) holds for some $i$, it already holds for all $i=1,\ldots,n-2$ and every representation equivalent to $T$ satisfies \[HYP\] as well; in particular, if $T$ is an ordinary representation and $p$ is a prime, then its $p$-modular reduction satisfies \[HYP\]. Let $t:=zt_it_{i+1}$ and assume that $t^T$ satisfies \[HYP\]. If $\operatorname{char}K\neq 3$, this means that $1$ is not an eigenvalue of $t^T$. Let $\omega$ be a primitive cube root of unity in some extension field of $K$; as $t$ is conjugate to $t^2$, we see that both, $\omega$ and $\omega^2$, are eigenvalues of $t^T$. In particular, its minimal polynomial is $x^2+x+1\in K[x]$. If $\operatorname{char}K=3$, then we shall suppose that $z\notin\ker T$; thus the kernel of $T$ is trivial and the minimal polynomial of $t^T$ is quadratic.
\[prop\] Let $n\geq 4$ and $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-1})$ be a representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over a splitting field $K$ of characteristic $p\geq 0$. For $n=4$ or $p=3$ we shall assume that $z\notin\ker T$. If $T$ satisfies \[HYP\], then all $T$-composition factors are basic spin.
If $T$ is reducible, then adapting a basis with respect to any bottom composition factor $T_\circ$ of $T$ forces \[HYP\] to be true for both, $T_\circ$ and the corresponding factor representation. By iteration and part of Theorem \[bsp\], every composition factor of $T$ is basic spin.
Doubled Degree {#doubled-degree .unnumbered}
==============
\[C0\] If $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ is a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ then define the sequence $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=(T^\uparrow_1,\ldots,T^\uparrow_{n-1})$ by $$T^\uparrow_i = \begin{bmatrix} T_i & \\ & -T_i\end{bmatrix}\
(1\leq i\leq n-3),\
T^\uparrow_{n-2} = \begin{bmatrix} T_{n-2} & -I \\ & -T_{n-2}\end{bmatrix},
\quad T^\uparrow_{n-1} = \begin{bmatrix} & I\\ -I& \end{bmatrix}.$$
Let $T$ be a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p\geq 0$. Then $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ is a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over $K$ if either $n$ is odd and ${p\nmid}n$, or $n$ is even and ${p\mid}(n-1)$. Otherwise, $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ has exactly two basic spin composition factors.
Straightforward calculations show that $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ satisfies the defining relations of ${\tilde{S}_n}$. Thus $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ is a representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ of degree $2\delta({\tilde{S}_{n-1}})$. As \[HYP\]($\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$) holds, the claim follows from Proposition \[prop\] and Theorem \[bsp\].
Stationary Degree {#stationary-degree .unnumbered}
=================
We are left to deal with the cases where $\delta({\tilde{S}_{n-1}})=\delta({\tilde{S}_n})$, that is, either $n$ is odd and divisible by $p$, or $n$ is even and $n-1$ is not divisible by $p$. Given a basic spin representation $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$, the basic approach is to find an element $T_{n-1}$ such that the defining relations of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ and the condition \[HYP\] for $i=n-2$ are satisfied by $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2},T_{n-1})$. This yields the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
T_{n-1}^2 & = -I. \label{cond1}\\
T_{n-1}T_i + T_iT_{n-1} & = 0\quad\mbox{for all}\ i=1,\ldots, n-3; \label{cond2} \\
T_{n-1}T_{n-2}+T_{n-2}T_{n-1} & = I.\label{cond3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $(T_{n-2}T_{n-1})^3=Z$ and $(T_{n-2}T_{n-1})^2+ZT_{n-2}T_{n-1}+I=0$ imply . Conversely, suppose that $T_{n-1}T_{n-2}+T_{n-2}T_{n-1} = I$ and $T_{n-1}^2=Z$. We deduce $(T_{n-2}T_{n-1})^2+ZT_{n-2}T_{n-1}+I=0$ and hence $(T_{n-2}T_{n-1})^3=Z$. Thus, if the equations – hold, then by Proposition \[prop\], $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2},T_{n-1})$ is a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$.\
Recall that for an integer $\mu$ and a matrix $M$ defined over the field $K$ we read $\mu M$ as $(\mu\cdot 1_K)M$.
\[complemma\] Let $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ be a representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ satisfying \[HYP\], and consider $J=\sum_{k=1}^{n-2}kT_k$. Then the following equations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
J^2 & =\left (-(n-2)^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k\right )I;\tag{1}\label{comp1}\\
JT_i+T_iJ & = 0\quad\mbox{for all}\ i=1,\ldots, n-3;\tag{2}\label{comp2}\\
JT_{n-2}+T_{n-2}J & = (1-n)I.\tag{3}\label{comp3}\end{aligned}$$
Using the relation $(T_iT_{i+1})^3=Z$ and \[HYP\] we get $T_{i+1}T_i+T_iT_{i+1}=I$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n-3$; moreover, we have $T_kT_i+T_iT_k=0$ for all $i,k$ with $|i-k|>1$. Now we compute $$\begin{split}
J^2 & = \sum_{k=1}^{n-2}k^2T_k^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k(k+1)(T_kT_{k+1}+T_{k+1}T_k)\\
& = \left (-\sum_{k=1}^{n-2}k^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k(k+1)\right )I
= \left (-(n-2)^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k\right )I,
\end{split}$$ and similarly, for $i=1,\ldots,n-3$, $$JT_i+T_iJ = 2i T_i^2+(i-1)(T_{i-1}T_i+T_iT_{i-1})+
(i+1)(T_{i+1}T_i+T_iT_{i+1})=0,$$ and $JT_{n-2}+T_{n-2}J= -2(n-2)I+(n-3)I = (1-n)I$.
Case I {#case-i .unnumbered}
------
If $n$ is divisible by $p$, then we may extend our given representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ to a representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ as follows:
\[C1\] Let $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ be a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p$. If ${p\mid}n$, then the equations , and are satisfied by $$T_{n-1} =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
J &\mbox{if } p> 2\\
J & \mbox{if } p=2,\ n\equiv 0\operatorname{\,mod}4\\
J+I & \mbox{if } p=2,\ n\equiv 2\operatorname{\,mod}4\\
\end{array}\right\}\mbox{ where }\ J=\sum_{k=1}^{n-2} k T_k.$$ In particular, $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2},T_{n-1})$ is a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over $K$.
By part of Lemma \[complemma\], $J^2=\left (-(n-2)^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k\right )I$. If $n$ is odd, or $n$ is even and $p\neq 2$, then from ${p\mid}n$ we deduce $p\geq 3$ and verify easily. If $p=2$ and $n\equiv 0\operatorname{\,mod}4$, then $\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k=1$; if $p=2$ and $n\equiv 2\operatorname{\,mod}4$, then $T_{n-1}^2=J^2+I$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}k=0$. Hence holds also for $p=2$. The conditions and follow directly from and of Lemma \[complemma\], respectively.
We denote the construction described in Lemma \[C1\] by $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$.
Let $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ be a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ for some odd $n\geq 7$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p$ such that ${p\mid}n$. Consider the $K{\tilde{S}_n}$-module $V$ corresponding to $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$, and let $$M=\begin{bmatrix} M_1&M_2\\M_3&M_4 \end{bmatrix}\in\operatorname{End}_{K{\tilde{S}_n}}(V)$$ where $M_1$, $M_2$, $M_3$ and $M_4$ are block matrices of equal size over $K$. From $MT^\uparrow_i=T^\uparrow_iM$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ we instantly get $M_1=M_4$ and $M_2=-M_3$, as well as $$\begin{aligned}
M_1T_i & = T_iM_1 \quad\mbox{for all}\ i=1,\ldots, n-3;\label{cond4}\\
M_1T_{n-2} & = T_{n-2}M_1+M_2.\label{cond5}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\delta({\tilde{S}_{n-1}})=\delta(\tilde{S}_{n-2})$, we see that $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-3})$ is already a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$. Hence, by and Schur’s Lemma, $M_1$ is scalar; thus yields $M_2=0$. This shows $\operatorname{End}_{K{\tilde{S}_n}}(V) \cong K$, so $V$ is indecomposable.
Case II {#case-ii .unnumbered}
-------
Now suppose that $n=2(k+1)$ and ${p\nmid}n(n-1)(n-2)$, so $\delta({\tilde{S}_n})=\delta({\tilde{S}_{n-1}})$. As our approach is inductive, we may assume that we are given a basic spin representation $T$ of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ which itself has been constructed from a basic spin representation $S$ of $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$, that is, $T=\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(S)$.
\[C2\] Provided $n\geq 6$ is even, let $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-3})$ be a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p\geq 0$ such that ${p\nmid}n(n-1)(n-2)$. Then $$T_{n-1} = \begin{bmatrix}
-\alpha J & (\beta-1)I\\
\beta I & \alpha J\end{bmatrix}$$ where $$J = \sum_{k=1}^{n-3} kT_k,\
\alpha = (n-1)^{-1}\left ( 1\pm\sqrt{-n(n-2)^{-1}}\right ) \mbox{ and }
\beta = (n-2)\alpha$$ extends $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ to a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over $K(\alpha)$.
We have to verify the relations , and . The calculations depend on Lemma \[complemma\]. From \[complemma\]. we get $J^2 = -1/2(n-3)(n-2)I$ and hence $T_{n-1}^2=-I$ as $\alpha^2J^2+(\beta^2-\beta+1)I = 0$. From \[complemma\]. and \[complemma\]. we have $JT_i+T_iJ=0$ for all $i=1,\ldots, n-4$ and $JT_{n-3}+T_{n-3}J=-(n-2)I$, respectively, thus we deduce $T_{n-1}T_i^\uparrow+T_i^\uparrow T_{n-1}=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-3$ and $T_{n-1}T_{n-2}^\uparrow+T_{n-2}^\uparrow T_{n-1}=I$.
Case III {#case-iii .unnumbered}
--------
Let $n=2k+2$ such that ${p\mid}(n-2)$ and ${p\nmid}n$, and suppose that we are given a basic spin representation $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-3})$ of $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p>2$. In this situation the approach of Lemma \[C2\] fails since the matrix $J$ squares to zero. But as in Case II where $T_{n-1}$ is subdivided into four blocks of equal size, we again divide the upper left corner into blocks. Since $\delta(\tilde{S}_{n-2})=\delta(\tilde{S}_{n-3})=2^{k-1}$ and ${p\nmid}(n-3)$, we may suppose that $T$ has been constructed by means of $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$, thus $T_{n-3}=\sum_{k=1}^{n-4}kT_k$. Furthermore, we may also assume that the representation $(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-4})$ of $\tilde{S}_{n-3}$ has been constructed by $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ from a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_{n-4}$.
\[C3\] Let $n\geq 8$ be even. If $T=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-5})$ is a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_{n-4}$ over a field $K$ of characteristic $p\geq 3$ such that ${p\mid}(n-2)$, define $$T_{n-1} = \begin{bmatrix}
J & -I\\
& -J\end{bmatrix}\quad\mbox{where}\quad
J=\pm\sqrt{-1}\begin{bmatrix} \sum_{k=1}^{n-5}kT_k & 2I\\
2I & -\sum_{k=1}^{n-5}kT_k\end{bmatrix}.$$ The matrix $T_{n-1}$ extends the basic spin representation $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$ of ${\tilde{S}_{n-1}}$ to ${\tilde{S}_n}$. The field of definition is $K(\sqrt{-1})$.
Let $J_\circ = \sum_{k=1}^{n-5}kT_k$; by \[complemma\]., $ J_\circ^2=( -(n-5)^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n-6}k )I=-3I$ as $n-2$ is divisible by $p$, and thus $T_{n-1}^2=-I$, so holds. For the sake of clarity, we summarize the representations at hand:
- $\tilde{S}_{n-3}$:$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=(T_1^\uparrow,\ldots,T_{n-4}^\uparrow)$,
- $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$:$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=(T_1^\uparrow,\ldots,T_{n-4}^\uparrow,T_{n-3})$ with $T_{n-3}=\sum_{k=1}^{n-4}kT_k^\uparrow$,
- $\tilde{S}_{n-1}$: $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=(T_1^{{\uparrow\uparrow}},\ldots,T_{n-4}^{{\uparrow\uparrow}},T_{n-3}^\uparrow, T_{n-2}^\uparrow)$.
For , we need to show that $$T_{n-1}T_i^{{\uparrow\uparrow}}+T_i^{{\uparrow\uparrow}}T_{n-1}=0\quad\mbox{for } i=1,\ldots,n-4\quad\mbox{and}\quad
T_{n-1}T_{n-3}^{\uparrow}+T_{n-3}^{\uparrow}T_{n-1}=0.$$ The left hand sides are $$\begin{bmatrix} J & -I \\ & -J\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}T_i^\uparrow& \\ & -T_i^\uparrow\end{bmatrix}
+\begin{bmatrix}T_i^\uparrow& \\ & -T_i^\uparrow\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} J & -I \\ & -J\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix} JT_i^\uparrow+T_i^\uparrow J & \\ & JT_i^\uparrow+T_i^\uparrow J\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\begin{bmatrix} J & -I \\ & -J\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}T_{n-3}&-I \\ & -T_{n-3}\end{bmatrix}
+\begin{bmatrix}T_{n-3}& -I\\ & -T_{n-3}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} J & -I \\ & -J\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix} X &\\ & X\end{bmatrix}$$ with $X=JT_{n-3}+T_{n-3} J$. By and of Lemma \[complemma\], $J_\circ T_i+T_iJ_\circ=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-6$, and $J_\circ T_{n-5}+T_{n-5}J_\circ =(4-n)=2I$, respectively. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&JT_i^\uparrow+T_i^\uparrow J\\
& =\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}T_i& \\ & -T_i\end{bmatrix}
+\begin{bmatrix}T_i& \\ & -T_i\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}
=0\ (1\leq i\leq n-6),\\
&JT_{n-5}^\uparrow+T_{n-5}^\uparrow J\\
& =\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}T_{n-5}& -I\\ & -T_{n-5}\end{bmatrix}
+\begin{bmatrix}T_{n-5}& -I\\ & -T_{n-5}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}
=0,\\
&JT_{n-4}^\uparrow+T_{n-4}^\uparrow J=\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}& I\\-I & \end{bmatrix}
+\begin{bmatrix}& I\\ -I& \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} J_\circ & 2I \\ 2I& -J_\circ\end{bmatrix}
=0,\quad{and}\\
&J T_{n-3}+T_{n-3} J = \sum_{k=1}^{n-4} k\left (T_k^\uparrow J+J T_k^\uparrow \right )=0.\end{aligned}$$ It remains to verify which is checked easily.
Let $n\geq 6$ be even and assume that $R$ is a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_{n-2}$. In Lemma \[C2\] we have given two different matrices $T_{n-1}^+$ and $T_{n-1}^-$ which extend $T=\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(R)=(T_1,\ldots,T_{n-2})$ to basic spin representations $T^+$ and $T^-$ of ${\tilde{S}_n}$, respectively. Then $T^+$ and $T^-$ are non-equivalent as any transformation matrix has to commute with $T_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-2$, and hence is scalar by Schur’s Lemma. Moreover, if $V$ denotes the module afforded by $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)$, then $\begin{bmatrix} I& -T_{n-1}^+\end{bmatrix}$ and $\begin{bmatrix} I& -T_{n-1}^-\end{bmatrix}$ are bases of the submodules of $V$ corresponding to $T^+$ and $T^-$, respectively; in particular, $V$ is decomposable. A similar remark applies to the construction of Lemma \[C3\].
Finally, it remains to give a basic spin representation for $\tilde{S}_4$. But we can simply start with a suitable representation $T$ of $\tilde{S}_2$ and then apply the construction. We refer to the constructions of Lemma \[C2\] and Lemma \[C3\] as $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{II}}$ and $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{III}}$, respectively. For example,
- over $\operatorname{GF}(2)$ we get $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=\left (\begin{bmatrix} 1&1\\&1\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} &1\\1&\end{bmatrix}\right )$ for $\tilde{S}_3$, so $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}(T)=\left (\begin{bmatrix} 1&1\\ &1\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} &1\\1&\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 1&1\\&1\end{bmatrix}\right )$$ is a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_4$.
- over $\operatorname{GF}(9)$ with primitive element $\zeta$, the construction $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$ yields $\left (\begin{bmatrix} \zeta^2\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} \zeta^2\end{bmatrix}\right )$ as a representation of $\tilde{S}_3$; hence $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}(T)=\left (\begin{bmatrix} \zeta^2 & \\ & \zeta^6 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} \zeta^2 & \zeta^4 \\ & \zeta^6\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} & 1\\ \zeta^4 & \end{bmatrix}\right )$$ is a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_4$.
- over $\operatorname{GF}(p^2)$ for $p>3$ with primitive element $\zeta$ and $\omega=\zeta^{(p^2-1)/4}$, $$\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{II}}(T)=\left (\begin{bmatrix} \omega&-1\\&-\omega \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} & 1 \\ -1 & \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} -\alpha\omega & 2\alpha-1 \\
2\alpha & \alpha\omega\end{bmatrix} \right )$$ with $\alpha=3^{-1}(1+\omega\sqrt{2})\in\operatorname{GF}(p^2)$, a basic spin representation of $\tilde{S}_4$.
Let $n\geq 4$. For $K=\mathbb{C}$, $\operatorname{GF}(2)$, or $\operatorname{GF}(p^2)$ with $p\geq 3$, iterative use of the constructions $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$, $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$, $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{II}}$, or $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{III}}$, as described in Table \[table\], provides a basic spin representation of ${\tilde{S}_n}$ over $K$.
[llll]{} $K$ & & $n$ odd & $n$ even\
$\mathbb{C}$ & & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{II}}$\
$\operatorname{GF}(2)$ & & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$\
$\operatorname{GF}(p^2)$ & ${p\nmid}n(n-1)(n-2)$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{II}}$\
$(p\geq 3$) & ${p\mid}n $ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_I}$\
& ${p\mid}(n-1)$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$\
& ${p\mid}(n-2)$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}}$ & $\operatorname{\mathfrak{S}_{III}}$\
The author is grateful to Wolfgang Lempken, Klaus Lux and Jürgen Müller for their suggestions and useful hints.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that order-invariance of two-variable first-logic is decidable in the finite. This is an immediate consequence of a decision procedure obtained for the finite satisfiability problem for existential second-order logic with two first-order variables (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$) on structures with two linear orders and one induced successor. We also show that finite satisfiability is decidable on structures with two successors and one induced linear order. In both cases, so far only decidability for monadic ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ has been known. In addition, the finite satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on structures with one linear order and its induced successor relation is shown to be decidable in non-deterministic exponential time.'
author:
- |
Thomas Zeume\
TU Dortmund University\
`[email protected]`
- |
Frederik Harwath\
Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Order-Invariance of Two-Variable Logic is Decidable'
---
Introduction {#section:introduction}
============
Order-invariance plays a crucial role in several areas of finite model theory. In descriptive complexity theory, for example, various well-known results establish that a logic captures a complexity class on structures that are equipped with a linear order. Usually, in such results, the particular order on a given structure is not important. That is, the formulas constructed in the proofs are *order-invariant*, i.e. they do not distinguish different linear orders on a given structure (see Section \[section:invariance\] for a precise definition).
First-order logic (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$) is a logic of great importance in model theory and, consequently, order-invariant ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc FO}}\xspace}}$-sentences have been studied in the literature before, see e.g. [@GroheSchwentick2000; @BenediktSegoufin2009; @EickmeyerElberfeldHarwath2014], and the survey [@Schweikardt13].
It is well-known that the question whether an ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc FO}}\xspace}}$-sentence is order-invariant is undecidable. Two possible remedies are to restrict either the class of structures or the logic. For the former case, it is known that order-invariance remains undecidable for colored directed paths [@BenediktSegoufin2009] and colored star graphs [@EickmeyerElberfeldHarwath2014].
In this article we study the decidability of invariance for the *two-variable fragment of first-order logic* (*two-variable logic* or ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ for short). This fragment is reasonably expressive and yet its satisfiability and finite satisfiability problems are decidable [@Scott1962; @MortimerOn75]. As a query language, it has a strong connection to the XML query language XPATH on trees [@Marx2005]. Furthermore, many modal logics can be translated to ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ and inherit its good algorithmic properties. Those applications as well as the inability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ to express transitivity of a relation has led to an exhaustive study of the complexity of the (finite) satisfiability problem of the logic where some relation symbols are interpreted by transitive relations, equivalence relations, linear orders, successor relations and preorders (see e.g. [@Otto01; @KieronskiT09; @Manuel10; @BojanczykDMSS11; @KieronskiO12; @SchwentickZ12; @ManuelZ13; @SzwastT13; @KieronskiMPT14]).
We establish the decidability of order-invariance for two-variable logic.
Order-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable.
The key to our main result is a simple observation which relates the problem to a satisfiability problem on ordered structures. A ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence $\varphi$ is *not* order-invariant if and only if there are a structure and two linear orders on its domain which are distinguished by $\varphi$. More precisely, $\varphi$ is *not* order-invariant if and only if there are two linear orders $<_{1}$ and $<_{2}$ on a finite set $D$ and a tuple of relations $\bar R$ on $D$ that interprets all relation symbols in $\varphi$ except for $<$ such that $(D,\bar R,<_{1}) \models \varphi$ and $(D,\bar R, <_{2}) \not\models \varphi$. The latter statement can be seen as a satisfiability question for a sentence of the *two-variable fragment of existential second-order logic* (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$) on finite ordered $(<_{1},<_{2})$-structures. Here, a -structure is *ordered* if $<_{1}, <_{2}$ are interpreted by linear orders. Thus, if the finite satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable on ordered $(<_{1},<_{2})$-structures, then so is order-invariance.
We take a slightly more comprehensive approach and study the finite satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on structures that are equipped with linear orders and successor relations; henceforth called *ordered structures*.
Some prior work on decidability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ and its monadic fragment ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ (where only quantification of unary relations is allowed) on ordered structures has been done under the guise of the finite satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$. An almost complete characterization of the classes of finite ordered structures for which ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable was obtained in a sequence of articles [@Manuel10; @SchwentickZ10; @Kieronski11; @SchwentickZ12; @ManuelZ13]. Only the case of finite ordered structures with at least three successor relations remains open. For ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ it is only known that it is decidable on the class of finite ordered $(<,{\ensuremath{{S}}})$-structures [@GradelR99; @Otto01; @CharatonikW15] and ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc NExpTime}}\xspace}}$-complete for $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2)$-structures [@CharatonikW13]. We note that the latter result combined with the observation from above establishes the decidability of successor-invariance. Here and in general, if both a symbol $<$ (or $<_i$) and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$ (or ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i$) occur in the signature of a structure, we assume that ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$ (or ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i$) is interpreted by the induced successor of $<$ (or $<_i$).
Our main technical contribution implies the decidability of order-invariance for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$.
The satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable on the class of finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1,<_{1},<_{2})$-structures and on the class of finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_{1},{\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2},<_{2})$-structures.
The first part in particular closes the gap between the decidability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on ordered $<$-structures [@Otto01] and the undecidability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ on ordered $(<_{1},<_{2},<_{3})$-structures [@Kieronski11]. More precisely we show that the decision problem can be solved in ${{{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc 2-NExpTime}}\xspace}}}$ on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_{1},<_{2})$-structures and as fast as the emptiness problem for multicounter automata on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_{1},{\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2},<_{2})$-structures. We conjecture that there is an ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc ExpSpace}}\xspace}}$-algorithm for the former problem. For proving our results we generalize techniques used in [@Manuel10], [@SchwentickZ10] and [@ManuelZ13]. In the course of this, a technique developed by Otto [@Otto01] for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on ordered $<$-structures turns out to be very valuable also for the more general structures considered here. We emphasize that while the basic techniques used for proving the results in this article are inspired by previous work, they are employed in a technically more demanding context.
As an introduction to the methods used for proving the technical main result, we show that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc NExpTime}}\xspace}}$-complete on finite $(<, {\ensuremath{{S}}})$-structures. This is also of some independent interest. Previously, only the satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ was known to be ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc NExpTime}}\xspace}}$-complete on this class of structures. The extension of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ with counting quantifiers was recently shown to be decidable on such structures, but only with very high complexity [@CharatonikW15].
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
----------
Our results on satisfiability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on finite ordered structures also help to make known results more robust, and therefore less vulnerable for confusion.
In work on two-variable first-logic originating from applications in verification and database theory often only unary relation symbols are allowed in formulas besides the linear orders and successors (see e.g. [@EtessamiVW02; @BojanczykDMSS11]). In most articles this restriction is stated clearly, or, at least the intended meaning is clear from the context. Yet abbreviations like ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}(<)$ do not reflect this restriction. The arising ambiguity can lead to confusions for non-experts and readers only skimming an article. We definitely have been confused a couple of times, and we seem not be alone.
The second-order perspective taken in this article resolves this confusion. Furthermore, our results obviate the necessity to distinguish the two variants in the context of decidability of the finite satisfiability problem to some extent.
Outline {#outline .unnumbered}
-------
We introduce our notation and basic tool set in Section \[section:preliminaries\]. In Section \[section:warm-up\] we present two different ideas for deciding ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on finite $(<,{\ensuremath{{S}}})$-structures. These ideas are generalized to finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_{1},<_{2})$-structures and finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2},<_{2})$-structures in Sections \[section:twoorders\] and \[section:twosuccessors\]. We discuss order-invariance in Section \[section:invariance\]. We conclude in Section \[section:conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#section:preliminaries}
=============
In this section we introduce ordered structures and two-variable logic.
Ordered Structures {#sec:ordered-structures}
------------------
In this article we consider logical formulas that are interpreted over *ordered* structures, i.e. relational structures where some relation symbols are interpreted by linear orders and their corresponding successor relations. We assume that all structures are *finite* structures with a *non-empty domain*.
A [*linear order*]{} $<$ is a transitive, total and antisymmetric relation, that is, $a < b$ and $b < c$ implies $a < c$ ; $a < b $ or $b < a$ holds; and not both $a < b$ and $b < a$ are satisfied at the same time for all elements $a, b$ and $c$. The *induced successor relation* ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$ of a linear order $ < $ contains a tuple $(a, b)$ if $a < b$ and there is no element $c$ such that $a < c < b$.
Let $O\subseteq \{<_1, <_2, \ldots, \} \cup \{{\ensuremath{{S}}}_1,{\ensuremath{{S}}}_2,\ldots, \}$ where the $<_{i}$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_{i}$ are binary relation symbols. An $O$-structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ is *ordered* if each relation $<_{i}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$ is a linear order and each relation ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_{i}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$ is the induced successor relation of a linear order. Furthermore, if ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i\in O$ and $<_{i} \in O$, then ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_{i}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$ is the induced successor relation of $<_{i}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$. For convenience we often identify relation symbols with their respective interpretations. We use the symbols ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$ and $<$ if an ordered structure only has one linear order.
We say that two distinct elements $a$ and $b$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ are *$<_i$-close* if ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i(a,b)$ or ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i(b,a)$. Otherwise, $a$ and $b$ are *$<_i$-remote*. We say that $a$ and $b$ are *close* if they are $<_i$-close for some ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i \in O$. Otherwise, $a$ and $b$ are *remote*. If the signature $O$ contains ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i$ but not $<_i$ we also say ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_i$-close and so on.
For an ordered structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ with two underlying linear orders $<_1$ and $<_2$ it will often be convenient to think of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ as a point set in the two-dimensional plane where $<_1$ orders points along the $x$-axis and $<_2$ orders points along the $y$-axis (see Figure \[figure:example:PointSetDataWord\]). Following this conception, we say that an element $a$ is to the *left* or *right* of an element $b$ if $a <_1 b$ or $b <_1 a$, respectively, and that it is *below* or *above* $b$ if $a <_2 b$ or $b <_2 a$. Accordingly, we will speak of *leftmost* and *rightmost* elements.
Two-Variable Logic
------------------
The *two-variable fragment of first-order logic* (short: ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$) is the restriction of first-order logic where only two variables can be used, though those two variables can be quantified multiple times. The *two-variable fragment of existential second-order logic* (short: ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$) consists of all formulas of the form $\exists \bar R \varphi$ where $\bar R$ is a tuple of relation variables and $\varphi$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence. Since each ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-atom can contain at most two variables we assume, in the entire article and without loss of generality, that all relation symbols are of arity at most two; see [@GradelKV97 page 5] for a justification.
Two ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentences $\psi$ and $\psi'$ are *${{\cal K}\xspace}$-equivalent* for a class of structures ${{\cal K}\xspace}$, if ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}\models \psi$ if and only if ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}\models \psi'$ for all structures ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}\in {{\cal K}\xspace}$. An ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence is *satisfiable on a class of structures ${{\cal K}\xspace}$* if it has a model ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}\in {{\cal K}\xspace}$. We will also say that a sentence is *${{\cal K}\xspace}$-satisfiable*.
Every ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-formula can be translated into a formula of a very simple shape which is ${{\cal K}\xspace}$-equivalent (see e.g. [@Scott1962] and [@GraedelO1999 page 17]). In this article ${{\cal K}\xspace}$ will always be a class of ordered $O$-structures.
\[lemma:scottnormalform\] For every ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-formula $\varphi = \exists \bar R\, \xi$ there is a ${{\cal K}\xspace}$-equivalent ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-formula $\varphi' = \exists \bar R'\, \xi'$ such that the formula $\xi'$ is of the form $$\forall x \forall y \psi(x,y) \wedge \bigwedge_i \forall x \exists y \psi_i(x, y)$$ where $\psi$ and all $\psi_i$ are quantifier-free formulas. Moreover, $\varphi'$ can be computed in polynomial time.
Note that this lemma is slightly stronger than the usual Scott normal form lemma because interpretations for some relation symbols are restricted by ${{\cal K}\xspace}$. The usual proof carries over since interpretations of symbols that occur in $\varphi$ are preserved while going from a model of $\varphi$ to a model of $\varphi'$ and vice versa.
In this work it will be convenient to use an even stronger normal form. Our plan is to rephrase the satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ into the satisfiability of a set of existential and universal constraints. This is a simple generalization of the approach taken in [@SchwentickZ12].
We need the following notions. Let $T$ be a signature. A *unary $T$-type* is a maximally consistent conjunction of unary $T$-literals using variable $x$ only. A *(strictly) binary $T$-type* is a maximally consistent conjunction of binary $T$-literals using variables $x$ and $y$, where the conjunction includes the conjunct $x \neq y$. Each element of a structure has a unique unary $T$-type and each pair of elements has a unique binary $T$-type. If $\gamma$ is the binary type of $(a,b)$, then we denote the type of $(b,a)$ by $\bar \gamma$. The set of unary and binary $T$-types are denoted by $\Sigma_T$ and $\Gamma_T$.
A *constraint problem over $T$* is a tuple $C = (C_\exists,
C_\forall)$ where $C_\exists$ is a set of existential constraints and $C_\forall$ is a set of universal constraints. An [ *existential constraint*]{} $c_\exists$ is a tuple $(\sigma, E)$ where $\sigma \in \Sigma_T$ and $E\subseteq \Gamma_T \times \Sigma_T$. A structure with domain $D$ satisfies $c_\exists$ if for every element $a \in D$ of unary type $\sigma$ there is a $(\gamma, \tau) \in E$ and an element $b\in D$ of unary type $\tau$ such that $(a,b)$ has binary type $\gamma$. A [*universal constraint*]{} $c_\forall$ is a tuple $(\sigma, \gamma, \tau)$ where $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma_T$ and $\gamma \in
\Gamma_T$. A structure with domain $D$ satisfies $c_\forall$ if no tuple $(a,b)\in D^2$ has binary type $\gamma$ if $a$ and $b$ have unary types $\sigma$ and $\tau$. A structure is a *solution* of $C$ if it satisfies all constraints in $C_\exists$ and $C_\forall$. The problem $C$ is solvable if it has a finite solution. The *size* $|C|$ of $C$ is . We emphasize that $C_\exists$ specifies required patterns whereas $C_\forall$ specifies forbidden patterns.
Let ${{\cal K}\xspace}$ be class of structures over a signature $T' \subseteq T$. The problem $C$ is *solvable on the class of structures ${{\cal K}\xspace}$* if it has a solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ such that the restriction of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ to $T'$ belongs to ${{\cal K}\xspace}$. Such a solution will also be called *${{\cal K}\xspace}$-solution*.
The following lemma shows that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentences can be translated into existential second-order constraint problems preserving satisfiability.
\[lemma:formulaToConstraint\] For every ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence $\varphi$ there is a constraint problem $C$ such that $\varphi$ is ${{\cal K}\xspace}$-satisfiable if and only if $C$ has a ${{\cal K}\xspace}$-solution. The constraint problem $C$ can be computed in exponential time in $|\varphi|$.
Let $\varphi$ be an ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence. Without loss of generality we can assume, by Lemma \[lemma:scottnormalform\], that $\varphi = \exists \bar R \, \xi$ where $\xi$ is of the form $\forall x \forall y \psi(x,y) \wedge \bigwedge_i \forall x \exists y \psi_i(x,y)$ with quantifier-free $\psi$ and $\psi_i$. Let $T$ be the signature of the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-formula $\xi$. Further let $\Sigma$ and $\Gamma$ be the sets of unary and binary $T$-types.
A ${{\cal K}\xspace}$-satisfiability equivalent constraint problem for $\varphi$ is now constructed by translating $\forall x \forall y \psi(x,y)$ and $\forall x \exists y \psi_i(x,y)$ into universal and existential constraints, respectively.
Observe that, for a quantifier-free formula in disjunctive normal form $\bigvee_i \psi_i$, an equivalent quantifier-free formula in disjunctive normal form can be constructed, where (1) each disjunct is of the form $\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \wedge \gamma(x,y)$ where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are unary types and $\gamma$ is a conjunction of binary literals that use variables $x$ and $y$, and (2) for all unary types $\sigma$ and $\tau$ there is such a disjunct.
Thus the first conjunct of $\xi$ is equivalent to a formula $$\chi = \forall x \forall y \bigvee_{\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma} \Big(\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)\Big)$$ The formula $\chi$ is equivalent to the following formula: $$\mu = \forall x \forall y \bigwedge_{\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma}\Big( \sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \rightarrow \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)\Big)$$ To see this, let us consider a model ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ of $\chi$. For all elements $a, b$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ of types $\sigma$, $\tau$, respectively, one of the disjuncts has to be satisfied. Since each element satisfies exactly one unary type, the disjunct $\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)$ is satisfied and therefore also $\mu$ is satisfied.
Now, consider a model ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ of $\mu$. Then for all elements $a, b$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ the conjunction is satisfied. In particular the conjunct $\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \rightarrow \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)$ is satisfied, where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are the types of $a$ and $b$, respectively. Therefore also $\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)$ and hence $\chi$ are satisfied.
The formula $\mu$ can be easily translated into a set of universal constraints $C_\forall$. For all unary types $\sigma$ and $\tau$, the set $C_\forall$ contains a constraint $(\sigma, \gamma, \tau)$ for each binary type $\gamma$ that is not consistent with $\gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)$. Next we show how to translate the second part of $\xi$ into existential constraints. As before, we translate $\psi_i$ into the disjunctive normal form $\bigvee_{\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma}\big(\sigma(x) \wedge \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)\big)$. Sorting by $\sigma$ and moving the existential quantifier inwards as far as possible yields that every conjunct of the second part of $\psi$ can be written as follows: $$\chi_i = \forall x \bigvee_{\sigma\in \Sigma} \Big(\sigma(x) \wedge \exists y \bigvee_{\tau\in \Sigma}\big( \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)\big)\Big)$$ Using a similar argument as above one can show that each $\chi_i$ is equivalent to a formula: $$\mu_i = \forall x \bigwedge_{\sigma\in \Sigma} \Big(\sigma(x) \rightarrow \exists y \bigvee_{\tau\in \Sigma}\big( \tau(y) \wedge \gamma_{\sigma, \tau}(x,y)\big)\Big)$$ The formulas $\mu_i$ can be easily translated into a set of existential constraints $C_\exists$. For all $i$ and all $\sigma$, the set $C_\exists$ contains an existential constraint $(\sigma, E)$ where $E$ contains all tuples $(\gamma, \tau)$ that are consistent with $\gamma_{\sigma, \tau}$ where $\tau$ is a unary type and $\gamma$ is a binary type.
Observe that the sets $C_\exists$ and $C_\forall$ can be computed in exponential time (where the exponential blow-up comes from using the types).
The following notion will be used frequently. If an element has a unary type $\sigma$ we also say that it is *$\sigma$-labeled*. Consider a constraint problem $C$ over $T$, a $T$-structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, a $\sigma$-labeled element $a$ and an existential constraint $(\sigma, E)$. An element $b$ is a *$(\sigma, E)$-witness* of $a$ if there is a $(\gamma,\tau) \in E$, the element $b$ has unary type $\tau$ and $(a,b)$ has $T$-type $\gamma$. A *witness* of $a$ is an element that is a $(\sigma, E)$-witness for some existential constraint.
The following notations will be convenient for studying finite satisfiability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on ordered structures. A constraint problem has a (finite) *$(<_{1},<_{2})$-solution* if it is solvable on the class of finite ordered $(<_{1},<_{2})$-structures. We use similar definitions for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2)$ and so on.
For a constraint problem over $O \cup T$ where $O$ is a subset of the symbols $<,<_1, <_2, \ldots$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, \ldots$ we will denote existential and universal constraints in a slightly different fashion. To this end observe that all unary $O$-types are trivial (e.g. $x < x \wedge \lnot {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,x)$) and can, without loss of generality, be omitted. Each binary $T \cup O$-type is a conjunction of a binary $O$-type and binary $T$-type. Therefore we can write existential constraints of constraint problems over $T \cup O$ as tuples $(\sigma, E)$ where $\sigma \in \Sigma_{T}$ and $E$ is a set of tuples $(d, \gamma, \tau)$ with $d \in \Gamma_O$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_{T}$ and $\tau \in \Sigma_{T}$. Similarly universal constraints are written as tuples $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ where $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma_{T}$, $\gamma \in \Gamma_{T}$ and $d \in \Gamma_O$.
Warm-Up: One Linear Order and One Successor {#section:warm-up}
===========================================
Before proving the main results we study the complexity of the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability problem on ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-structures. Decidability has been established in [@GradelR99]. Combining Lemma 2.4 in [@GradelR99] and a construction from [@EiterGG00 Corollary 9.2] yields at best a non-deterministic double-exponential upper bound. In this section we obtain an optimal non-deterministic exponential upper bound.
\[theorem:successorandorder\] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability on finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-structures is [[$\mbox{\sc NExpTime}$]{}]{}-complete.
This result should be compared with the known results that deciding on ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-structure and deciding ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on ordered $<$-structures are ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc NExpTime}}\xspace}}$-complete .
We present two different approaches for proving Theorem \[theorem:successorandorder\]; a small model property based approach and an automata-based approach. Only the former approach leads to a non-deterministic exponential time algorithm. Later both approaches will be generalized in different directions to obtain decidability for larger fragments. The small model approach, combined with a technique from [@SchwentickZ10; @SchwentickZ12], is used to obtain a decision algorithm for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, <_2)$-structures in Section \[section:twoorders\]. The automata-based approach is used to solve the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability problem on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures in Section \[section:twosuccessors\].
To decide whether an ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-sentence $\varphi$ has a model which is a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-structure, $\varphi$ is converted into a satisfiability equivalent constraint problem $C$ whose size is exponential in the size of $\varphi$ using Lemma \[lemma:formulaToConstraint\]. We show, in Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\], that if $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-solution then it has a $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-solution of size at most $N$ where $N$ is polynomial in the size of $C$. Hence, a non-deterministic exponential time algorithm can guess a structure of size at most $N$ and verify that it is indeed a solution of $C$. This proves Theorem \[theorem:successorandorder\]. In the automata-based approach the satisfiability of $C$ is checked by a finite state automaton, see Lemma \[lemma:succorder\].
The following notion will be useful in both approaches. Let $w$ be a word. A position $a$ of $w$ is called *$(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich* if there are at least $k$ $\sigma$-labeled positions (strictly) before $a$ and at least $k$ $\tau$-labeled positions (strictly) after $a$. A position $a$ of $w$ is *$(\sigma, \tau, k)$-poor* if there are at most $k$ $\sigma$-labeled positions (strictly) before $a$ and at most $k$ $\tau$ labeled positions (strictly) after $a$. We stress that if a position is not $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich than it is not necessarily $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-poor, and vice versa.
\[lemma:richpoor\] If a word has no $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position then it has a $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor position.
Let $w$ be a word with no $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position. Towards a contradiction assume that $w$ has no $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor position. Then, by definition, for each position $i$ of $w$ there are at least $k+1$ $\sigma$-labeled positions strictly left of $i$ or at least $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled positions strictly right of $i$.
In particular there are at least $(k+1)$ $\sigma$-labeled positions to the left of the last position of $w$. Let $i$ be the $(k+1)$th $\sigma$-labeled position of $w$. Since $i$ has only $k$ $\sigma$-labeled positions to its left, it must have at least $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled positions to is right. Hence, $i$ is $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich; a contradiction.
As outlined above, the proof of Theorem \[theorem:successorandorder\] follows immediately from the following small model property and Lemma \[lemma:formulaToConstraint\]. The proof of the small model property is in the same spirit as the proof of Lemma 2.3 in [@GradelR99].
\[lemma:succordfinitemodel\] If a constraint problem $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-solution then it has such a solution of size polynomial in $|C|$.
Assume that $C {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}(C_\exists, C_\forall)$ is a constraint problem over a signature $T \cup \{{\ensuremath{{S}}}, <\}$. Let $\Sigma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Sigma_T$ and $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Gamma_T$. Let $k {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}3 |\Gamma|$.
We show that if $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ with at least $N$ elements then it also has a $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ with $|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}| < N$. The number $N$ is polynomial in $|C|$ and will be specified later.
For each element $a$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ denote by $W(a)$ a set containing witnesses for $a$ for each existential constraint. An element $b \in W(a)$ is a *local witness* if ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(a,b)$, $a=b$, or ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(b,a)$. Otherwise it is a *non-local witness*.
We first construct, from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, a solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ of $C$ whose domain and unary types coincide with the domain and unary types of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ but whose set of non-local witnesses is small. Afterwards we argue that a smaller solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ can be obtained from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ by removing some elements.
Towards constructing ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ let $Z_1$ be the set that contains, for every $\sigma \in \Sigma$, the first $k+1$ $\sigma$-positions and the last $k+1$ $\sigma$-positions of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ (if these exist). Further let $Z_2$ be a set that contains a witness for each position in $Z_1$ and each existential constraint, and let $Z {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}Z_1 \cup Z_2$. Observe that $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are of size polynomial in $|\Sigma| |\Gamma|$.
We reassign some of the binary $T$-types of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ in order to obtain ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$. The goal is that every element $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ has a set $W'(a)$ of witnesses for $C_\exists$ such that (1) $W(a)$ and $W'(a)$ coincide with respect to local witnesses, and (2) all non-local witnesses in $W'(a)$ are from $Z$. To this end let $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma$ and $d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}x < y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y)$. Denote $\bar d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}y < x \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}(y,x)$.
If there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position $u$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then we reassign the binary types of all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-positions $a$ and $b$ satisfying $d$ by using a technique employed by Otto for constructing small models for satisfiable ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}(<)$-sentences [@Otto01]. For completeness we recall the construction. Let $A = A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$ with disjoint $A_i$ and $|A_i| = |\Gamma|$ contain the first $k$ $\sigma$-labeled elements. Similarly let $B = B_1 \cup B_2 \cup B_3$ with disjoint $B_i$ and $|B_i| = |\Gamma|$ contain the last $k$ $\tau$-labeled elements. Assume that $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\{\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_m\}$. Then:
1. Witnesses for elements in $A \cup B$ are assigned as follows:
1. If $a \in A_i$ is a $\sigma$-labeled element that has a $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness $b \in W(a)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then the binary $T$-type of $(a, b')$ is set to $\gamma_\ell$ where $b'$ is the $\ell$th element of $B_i$. The element $b'$ is the intended $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$.
2. If $b \in B_i$ is a $\tau$-labeled element that has a $(\bar d, \gamma_\ell, \sigma)$-witness $a \in W(b)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then the binary $T$-type of $(b, a')$ is set to $\gamma_\ell$ where $a'$ is the $\ell$th element of $A_{i+1}$ (where $i+1$ is calculated modulo 3). The element $a'$ is the intended $(\bar d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$.
2. Witnesses for all other tuples of $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled elements are assigned as follows:
1. If $a \notin A$ is a $\sigma$-labeled element that has a $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness $b \in W(a)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then the binary $T$-type of $(a, b')$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $b'$ is the $\ell$th element of $B_1$. The element $b'$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$.
2. If $b \notin B$ is a $\tau$-labeled element that has a $(\bar d, \gamma_\ell, \sigma)$-witness $a \in W(b)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then the binary $T$-type of $(b, a')$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $a'$ is the $\ell$th element of $A_{1}$. The element $a'$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$.
3. If a tuple $(a, b)$ with $\sigma$-labeled $a$, $\tau$-labeled $b$ and satisfying $d$ has not been assigned a binary $T$-type in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ so far, then it inherits its type from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$.
Observe that no conflicts arise from (A1) and (A2). Furthermore, for all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled elements $a$ there is a set $W'(a)$ satisfying (1) and (2). Moreover, no conflicts with universal constraints arise since no new types have been created. This concludes the case when there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$.
If there is no $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position $u$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then Conditions (1) and (2) are already satisfied for all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions $a$ and $b$ satisfying $d = x < y \wedge {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y)$. To see this we argue as follows. By Lemma \[lemma:richpoor\] there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor position $v$. Now let $a$ be a $\sigma$-labeled position. If $a \leq v$ then all $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witnesses $b \in W(a)$ are contained in $Z$ by construction (as $a$ is one of the $k+1$ leftmost $\sigma$-labeled positions). If $a > v$ then all $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witnesses of $a$ are among the last $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled positions which are also contained in $Z$. The argument for $\tau$-labeled positions is symmetric.
The structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ thus constructed satisfies (1) and (2).
It remains to construct ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. If $|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'| > N$ for $N \geq c (|\Sigma||\Gamma|)^4$ for an appropriate constant $c$ then there are positions with successors $b_1$ and $b_2$ such that (i) there is no position $z \in Z$ with $a_1 < z < a_2$, (ii) $a_1$ and $a_2$ have the same unary $T$-type, and (iii) $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ have the same binary $T$-type. The solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is obtained from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ by removing all elements between $a_1$ and $a_2$ (including $a_2$), and assigning to $(a_1, b_2)$ the binary type of $(a_1, b_1)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ satisfies all universal constraints of $C$ since no new types have been created. Further ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ satisfies all existential constraints of $C$ since elements inherit their local and non-local witnesses from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}'$ only uses elements from $Z$ as non-local witnesses.
Now we present the automata-based approach. As discussed above, this approach only yields an exponential space algorithm, yet it will later be used as the basis for a decision algorithm for a larger fragment.
\[lemma:succorder\] For every constraint problem $C$ there is a non-deterministic finite state automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ such that $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}},<)$-solution if and only if $L({{\cal A}\xspace})$ is non-empty.
Here $L({{\cal A}\xspace})$ denotes the language recognized by ${{\cal A}\xspace}$.
Assume that $C {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}(C_\exists, C_\forall)$ is a constraint problem over a signature $T \cup \{{\ensuremath{{S}}}, <\}$. Let $\Sigma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Sigma_T$ and $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Gamma_T$.
Without loss of generality we assume that the witnesses requested by the existential constraints of $C$ do not contradict universal constraints. More precisely, for an existential constraint $(\sigma, E)$ and every $(d, \gamma, \tau) \in E$ we assume that there is no universal constraint $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$.
We construct a finite state automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ such that ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ accepts a word over $\Sigma$ if and only if $C$ has a solution. Intuitively the automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ interprets words as $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-structures with no binary relations from $T$. In order to accept a word $w$, it has to verify that binary types can be assigned to all pairs of positions in a way consistent with $C$.
The main difficulty in verifying the existence of an assignment of binary types is to ensure that the types of tuples $(a,b)$ and $(b, a)$ are consistent. More precisely, if $(a,b)$ has to be typed $\gamma \in \Gamma$ due to some existential constraint and if $(b,a)$ has to be typed $\gamma' \in \Gamma$ due to some other existential constraint, then $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ have to be compatible, that is $\gamma' = \bar \gamma$.
In the following we describe the construction of ${{\cal A}\xspace}$, afterwards we argue that the construction is correct. For an easier exposition of the automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$, we often assume that positions are labeled with some extra information. It can be easily verified that those labels could also be guessed by the automaton (or, alternatively, they could be contained in an extended alphabet).
1. We assume that for every existential constraint $(\sigma, E)$, all $\sigma$-labeled positions $a$ are labeled with a fresh label $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ such that $(d, \gamma, \tau) \in E$. The intention is that the $(\sigma, E)$-witness of $a$ satisfies $(d, \gamma, \tau)$.
The automaton has to verify that binary $T$-types can be assigned such that the witnesses declared in (E) exist and all pairs of positions satisfy the universal constraints. To this end the automaton handles positions that are $<$-close to each other and positions that are $<$-remote from each other in a different way.
Dealing with positions that are close to each other is simple. Each position $a$ has at most two positions that are $<$-close to it: there might be a position $b_1$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(a, b_1)$ and a position $b_2$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(b_2, a)$. The positions $b_1$ and $b_2$ might not exist (if $a$ is the first or last position with respect to $<$). For all $a$ the automaton can guess and verify the binary types for $(a, b_1)$ and $(a, b_2)$.
1. (Local types) We assume that each position $a$ is labeled by up to two labels $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in \Gamma$. The intention is that $\gamma_1$ is the binary $T$-type of $(a,b_1)$ (if the position $b_1$ exists), and likewise for $\gamma_2$.
2. (Consistency of local types) The automaton verifies that the labels are consistent, that is, e.g., if $a$ and $b$ are positions with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(a,b)$ then the label $\gamma_1$ of $a$ (i.e. the type guessed for $(a, b)$) is compatible with the type $\gamma_2$ of $b$ (i.e. the type guessed for $(b, a)$).
3. (Local witnesses) For every $\sigma$-labeled position $a$ that is labeled by $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ due to (E), the automaton verifies that if then the label $\gamma_1$ of $a$ is $\gamma$ and that its successor is labeled with $\tau$. Likewise for $d = {\ensuremath{{S}}}(y,x)$.
4. (Local universal constraints) For all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions $a$ and $b$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(a,b)$ the automaton verifies that if $a$ is labeled $\gamma_1$ then there is no universal constraint $(\sigma, {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y), \gamma_1, \tau)$. Likewise for ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(b,a)$.
Verifying the existence of a type assignment for positions that are remote from each other is more intricate. The automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ has to check that there is at least one binary $T$-type consistent with the universal constraints that can be assigned to every pair of far-away positions and that witnesses for the existential constraints can be assigned consistently according to (E).
The former condition can be verified easily (and analogously to (L4)):
1. For all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions $a$ and $b$ satisfying $d = x < y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y)$ the automaton verifies that there is a $\gamma$ such that there is no universal constraint $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$. Similarly for $\bar d$.
Testing that existential witnesses can be assigned to remote positions is more involved. We discuss how ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ verifies that binary types for all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions $a$ and $b$ satisfying can be assigned; the other case is symmetric. Let $\bar d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}d(y,x)$. To verify that binary types can be assigned to such $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions, the automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ guesses whether there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position $u$ with .
If such a position $u$ exists then the automaton tests that every $\sigma$-labeled position has as many $\tau$-labeled positions to its right as is required by (E), and that every $\tau$-labeled position has sufficiently many $\sigma$-labeled positions to its left. If this is the case then binary types can be assigned using an assignment technique similar to Otto’s technique [@Otto01] for reducing the size of models for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}(<)$ sentences (see the correctness proof below).
If there is no $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position $u$ then, by Lemma \[lemma:richpoor\] there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor position $v$. The automaton exploits this structure to guess and verify the binary types in this case.
More precisely, for all $\sigma$ and $\tau$ the automaton does the following:
1. It guesses whether there is a $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position $u$. The correctness of the guess can be easily verified by ${{\cal A}\xspace}$.
2. If there is such a position $u$ then ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ verifies the following:
1. If a $\sigma$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\sigma, d, \gamma_1, \tau), \ldots,$ $(\sigma, d, \gamma_m, \tau)$ in (E) then there are $m$ $\tau$-labeled positions to the right of $a$.
2. Symmetrically, if a $\tau$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\tau, \bar d, \gamma_1, \sigma)$, $\ldots$, $(\tau, d, \gamma_m, \sigma)$ in (E) then there are $m$ $\sigma$-labeled positions to the right of $a$.
3. If there is no $(\sigma, \tau, k)$-rich position then ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ guesses a $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor position $v$. Then:
1. We assume that positions are labeled by the following extra information (using fresh labels depending on $\sigma$ and $\tau$):
- The $i$th $\sigma$-labeled position $a$ to the left of $v$ is labeled by $\sigma_i$. The $i$th $\tau$-labeled position $a$ to the right of $v$ is labeled by $\tau_i$. (As $v$ is $(\sigma, \tau, k+1)$-poor, there are at most $k+1$ such $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$.)
- The intended witnesses for $\sigma_i$- and $\tau_i$-labeled positions are labeled as follows:
- If the $\sigma_i$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau)$ in (E), then there is a $\tau$-labeled position $b$ which is also labeled with $(\sigma_i, \gamma, d, \tau)$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$.
- Likewise, if the $\tau_i$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ in (E), then there is a $\sigma$-labeled position $b$ which is also labeled with $(\tau_i, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $\bar d$.
- Positions with intended witnesses from $\sigma_i$- and $\tau_i$-labeled positions are labeled as follows:
- Each position $a$ to the left of $v$ that is labeled by $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ in (E) is also labeled with $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma_i)$ for some $i$ such that the tuple $(a, b)$ satisfies $\bar d$ where $b$ is the $\sigma_i$-labeled position $b$ .
- Likewise, each $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau)$-labeled position $a$ to the right of $v$ is labeled with $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau_i)$ for some $i$ such that the tuple $(a, b)$ satisfies $d$ where $b$ is the $\sigma_i$-labeled position $b$.
2. The automaton verifies that the labels are consistent, that is:
- No $\tau$-labeled position to the left of $v$ is labeled with $(\sigma_i, \gamma, d, \tau)$ and with $(\tau, \gamma', \bar d, \sigma_i)$ where $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are not reverse types.
- Likewise, no $\sigma$-labeled position to the right of $v$ is labeled with $(\tau_i, \bar \gamma', d, \sigma)$ and with $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau_i)$ where $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are not reverse types.
We emphasize again that all labels assigned in (E3) can also be guessed by ${{\cal A}\xspace}$.
We argue that the construction of ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ is correct. Clearly, if the set $C$ of constraints is satisfiable by a $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-structure then the corresponding word is accepted by ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ (the labels in (E), (L1), (E2) and (E3a) are assigned according to the solution of $C$).
Now, assume that ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ accepts a word $w$ and let $\rho$ be an accepting run. We argue that a $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ that satisfies $C$ can be obtained from $w$. The elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ are the positions of $w$ ordered as in $w$ and the unary type of an element $v$ is its label in $w$.
We describe how to assign binary types. To this end we first assign, for every position $a$, types witnessing the existential constraints. Afterwards all so far non-typed pairs are typed by some type admissible by the universal constraints.
For each pair $(a,b)$ of nodes with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(a,b)$, the edge $(a,b)$ in $T$ is typed with the type guessed in (L1). No binary type conflicts arise from this due to (L2).
For non-local pairs of nodes, binary types of witnesses are assigned simultaneously for all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled nodes. In the following assume that $a$ and $b$ are $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled nodes and that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}x < y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y)$,
If there is a position $u$ as in (E1) then the witnesses can be assigned as in [@Otto01]. For the sake of completeness we recall the assignment strategy. Let $A$ be the first $k$ $\sigma$-labeled nodes and assume that $A = A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$ with disjoint $A_i$ and $|A_i| = |\Gamma|$. Likewise let $B = B_1 \cup B_2 \cup B_3$ be the last $k$ $\tau$-labeled nodes with disjoint $B_i$ and $|B_i| = |\Gamma|$. Further assume that $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\{\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_m\}$.
Then the witness types are assigned as follows:
1. The witnesses for elements $A$ and $B$ are assigned as follows:
1. If a position $a \in A_i$ is labeled by $(\sigma, d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$ in $\rho$ then its $\gamma_\ell$-witness is the $\ell$th element $b$ of $B_i \setminus N(a)$ where $N(a)$ contains $a$ and all elements that are close to $a$.
2. If a position $b \in B_i$ is labeled by $(\tau, d, \gamma_{\ell}, \sigma)$ in $\rho$ then its $\gamma_{\ell}$-witness is the $\ell$th element of $A_{i+1} \setminus N(b)$ where $i+1$ is calculated modulo $3$.
2. The witnesses for elements not in $A$ and $B$ are assigned as follows:
1. If a $\sigma$-labeled element $a \notin A$ is also labeled with $(\sigma, d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$ then its $\gamma_\ell$-witness is the $\ell$-last element of $B \setminus N(a)$ (which is to the right of $a$ due to (E2)).
2. If a $\tau$-labeled element $a \notin B$ is also labeled with $(\tau, d, \gamma_\ell, \sigma)$ then its $\gamma_\ell$-witness is the $\ell$th element in $A \setminus N(a)$.
The type assignments from (A1) ensure that all elements in $A$ and $B$ have their witnesses. The type assignments from (A2) ensure that all other elements have their witnesses. Observe that for $a \neq b$ at most one of the pairs $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ is assigned a type in (A1) and (A2); this determines the type of the other pair.
If there is no position $u$ as in (E1) then the automaton guessed a position $v$ in run $\rho$. The witness types are assigned according to the labels assumed in (E3a), that is:
1. The witnesses for the at most $k+1$ $\sigma$-labeled elements to the left of $v$ and the at most $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled elements to the right of $v$ are assigned as follows:
- If $a$ is a $\sigma$-labeled position to the left of $v$ that is labeled with $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ and $\sigma_i$ in $\rho$ and if $b$ is the position labeled with $(\sigma_i, d, \gamma, \tau)$ in $\rho$ then $(a,b)$ is labeled $\gamma$.
- Likewise, if $a$ is a $\tau$-labeled position to the right of $v$ that is also labeled with $(\tau, \bar d, \gamma, \sigma)$ and $\tau_i$ in $\rho$ and if $b$ is the position labeled with $(\tau_i, d, \bar \gamma, \tau)$ in $\rho$ then $(a,b)$ is labeled $\bar \gamma$.
2. The witnesses for the other elements are assigned as follows:
- If $a$ is a $\tau$-labeled position to the left of $v$ that is labeled with $(\tau, \bar d, \gamma, \sigma_i)$ in $\rho$ then $(a,b)$ is labeled with $\gamma$ where $b$ is the position labeled with $\sigma_i$ in $\rho$.
- Likewise, if $a$ is a $\sigma$-labeled position to the right of $v$ that is labeled with $(\sigma, \bar d, \gamma, \tau_i)$ in $\rho$ then $(x,y)$ is labeled with $\bar \gamma$ where $b$ is the position labeled with $\tau_i$ in $\rho$.
Note that the assignments are consistent due to (E3c).
Thus, so far types have been assigned such that all elements have witnesses, ensuring that the existential constraints are satisfied. All remaining so far non-typed edges are typed by some type admissible by the universal constraints. Such types exist due to condition (U).
Two Linear Orders and One Successor {#section:twoorders}
===================================
In this section we will show that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability problem on finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_{1},<_{1},<_{2})$-structures is decidable. It is known that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable on $<$-structures [@Otto01] and that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable on finite $(<_{1},<_{2})$-structures. We combine the approaches used for those two results as well as the technique introduced in Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\] to obtain a nondeterministic double-exponential upper bound. We conjecture that this bound can be improved to exponential space by generalizing the methods from [@SchwentickZ12].
\[thm:twoorders-decidable\] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-Satisfiability on finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, <_2)$-structures is in ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc 2-NExpTime}}\xspace}}$.
The result immediately follows from the following small solution property and Lemma \[lemma:formulaToConstraint\].
\[lemma:twoordfinitemodel\] If a constraint problem $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, <_2)$-solution then it has such a solution of size exponential in $|C|$.
We follow the proof outline employed for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ in [@SchwentickZ10]; yet for dealing with binary relations the individual steps have to be generalized. For consistency with the proofs in [@SchwentickZ10] we prove the statement of the lemma for $(<_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2,<_2)$-constraint problems. For the description below, recall that structures with two linear orders can be viewed as point sets in the plane (cf. Section \[sec:ordered-structures\]).
In order to establish the exponential solution property for -constraint problems, we show that smaller solutions can be constructed from large solutions. To this end we assign a *profile* $Pro(c)$ to each element $c$ of a solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ in such a way that if the profiles $Pro(c_1)$ and $Pro(c_2)$ of two elements $c_1$ and $c_2$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ with $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_2$ coincide then a solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ with fewer elements can be constructed from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ by deleting all elements $a$ with $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_2$ and shifting the elements $b$ with $c_2 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 b$ along the $<_1^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$-dimension. Deleting elements might, of course, also eliminate some witnesses of remaining elements. The profiles of elements will be defined such that new witnesses can be assigned.
We make this more precise now. Assume that $C$ is a -constraint problem with signature $T \cup \{<_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2\}$ and let $\Sigma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Sigma_{T}$ and $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Gamma_{T}$. Let $k {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}3 |\Gamma|$. Further let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ be a solution of $C$ with domain $D$. For every element $a$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, we also fix a set $W(a)$ of elements witnessing that the existential constraints of $C$ are satisfied for $a$.
We extend the notion of profiles introduced in [@SchwentickZ10] to structures with arbitrary binary relations. The profile of an element $c$ shall capture all relevant information about elements below $c$ that have witnesses above $c$, and vice versa. Storing information for all such witnesses in the profiles is not possible, yet it turns out that less information is sufficient for being able to construct smaller solutions.
For defining the profile of $c$, we first specify a set $P(c)$ of elements that are important for $c$. Then, roughly speaking, the profile will be defined as the substructure of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ induced by $P(c)$. The set $P(c)$ contains $c$, its $<_2^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$-successor, a set of special elements $A(c)$ as well as some of the witnesses $A_W(c)$ of elements in $A(c)$. The last two sets will be defined next. The set $A(c)$ is the union of the sets $A_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c)$, $A_{\sigma, \max, \downarrow}(c)$, $A_{\sigma, \min, \uparrow}(c)$, and $A_{\sigma, \max, \uparrow}(c)$, for all $\sigma \in \Sigma$, defined as follows:
1. The set $A_{\sigma,\min, \downarrow}(c)$ contains the $k+1$ leftmost $\sigma$-labeled points that are below $c$ (if they exist).
2. The set $A_{\sigma,\min, \uparrow}(c)$ contains the $k+1$ leftmost $\sigma$-labeled points that are above $c$ (if they exist), but excluding the $<_2^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$-successor of $c$.
3. The set $A_{\sigma,\max, \downarrow}(c)$ contains the $k+1$ rightmost $\sigma$-labeled points that are below $c$ (if they exist).
4. The set $A_{\sigma,\max, \uparrow}(c)$ contains the $k+1$ rightmost $\sigma$-labeled points that are above $c$ (if they exist), but excluding the $<_2^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$-successor of $c$.
Intuitively $A_W(c)$ contains the relevant witnesses of elements in $A(c)$. It is the union of the sets $W^\tau_{\sigma,\min, \downarrow}(c)$, $W^\tau_{\sigma,\min, \uparrow}(c)$, $W^\tau_{\sigma,\max, \downarrow}(c)$, and $W^\tau_{\sigma,\max, \uparrow}(c)$, for all unary types $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma$, defined as follows:
1. The set $W^\tau_{\sigma,\min, \downarrow}(c)$ contains, for all $a \in A_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c)$, all witnesses $b \in W(a)$ that are to the right of $a$ and above $c$.
2. The set $W^\tau_{\sigma,\min, \uparrow}(c)$ contains, for all $a \in A_{\sigma, \min, \uparrow}(c)$, all witnesses $b \in W(a)$ that are to the right of $a$ and below $c$.
3. The set $W^\tau_{\sigma,\max, \downarrow}(c)$ contains, for all $a \in A_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c)$, all witnesses $b \in W(a)$ that are to the left of $a$ and above $c$.
4. The set $W^\tau_{\sigma,\max, \uparrow}(c)$ contains, for all $a \in A_{\sigma, \min, \uparrow}(c)$, all witnesses $b \in W(a)$ that are to the left of $a$ and below $c$.
The set of important points for $c$ is $P(c) {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\{c, s(c)\} \cup A(c) \cup A_W(c)$ where $s(c)$ is the unique element satisfying ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}(c, s(c))$. The profile $Pro(c)$ of $c$ is the structure $({{\cal P}\xspace}(c), c)$ where ${{\cal P}\xspace}(c)$ is the substructure of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ induced by $P(c)$. Observe that relation ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2^{{{\cal P}\xspace}(c)}$ is not necessarily a successor relation. Now we show that if two profiles $Pro(c_1)$ and $Pro(c_2)$ of elements $c_1\neq c_2$ are isomorphic then a solution ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ with fewer elements can be constructed from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. The domain of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is the set $D' \subseteq D$ which contains all elements $a$ with $a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$ or $c_2 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 a$ (assuming without loss of generality that $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_2$). We now describe how the relations $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_1$, $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ as well as the interpretations of symbols from $T$ are constructed for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
Towards defining $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_1$, $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$, we fix an embedding $\theta$ that maps every element $u$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ to a point $\theta(u) \in {\mathbb{Q}}\times {\mathbb{Q}}$ such that $\theta(u_1).\mathsf{x} < \theta(u_2).\mathsf{x}$ if and only if $u_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1 u_2$, and $\theta(u_1).\mathsf{y} < \theta(u_2).\mathsf{y}$ if and only if $u_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 u_2$. Here $<$ is the usual linear order on the rational numbers, and $p.\mathsf{x}$ and $p.\mathsf{y}$ denote the $\mathsf{x}$- and $\mathsf{y}$-component of a point $p \in {\mathbb{Q}}\times {\mathbb{Q}}$.
From $\theta$ we define an embedding $\theta'$ of the elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ into ${\mathbb{Q}}\times {\mathbb{Q}}$ which will be used to obtain the order relations on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. Intuitively $\theta'$ keeps the positions of elements below $c_1$ but shifts elements above $c_2$ along the $\mathsf{x}$-direction in order to make those points consistent with the profile of $c_1$. The embedding is defined as follows:
1. For all elements $u \in D'$ with $u \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$, define $\theta'(u) {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\theta(u)$.
2. For all elements $u\in D'$ with $c_2 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 u$ the embedding $\theta'(u)$ is defined as follows. Assume that $c_1^1, \ldots, c_1^n$ are the elements of $P(c_1)$ ordered by $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1$ and $c_2^1, \ldots, c_2^n$ are the elements of $P(c_2)$ ordered by $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1$. Observe that $c_2^1 \leq u \leq c_2^n$ by the definition of $P(c_2)$. Assume that $\theta(c_2^i).\mathsf{x} \leq \theta(u).\mathsf{x} \leq \theta(c_2^{i+1}).\mathsf{x}$. Then the position of $u$ in the new orders is obtained by shifting the element $u$ such that its $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate is between the $\mathsf{x}$-coordinates of the elements $c_1^i$ and $c_1^{i+1}$. More precisely $\theta'(u).\mathsf{y} {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\theta(u).\mathsf{y}$ and $\theta'(u).\mathsf{x}$ is defined as follows. If $u = c_2^i$ for some $i$ then $\theta'(u).\mathsf{x} = \theta(c_1^i).\mathsf{x}$. Otherwise, $$\theta(c_1^i).\mathsf{x} + \frac{\theta(u).\mathsf{x}-\theta(c_2^i).\mathsf{x}}{\theta(c_2^{i+1}).\mathsf{x}-\theta(c_2^{i}).\mathsf{x})} (\theta(c_1^{i+1}).\mathsf{x} - \theta(c_1^{i}).\mathsf{x})$$
It might happen, that the embedding $\theta'$ maps an element $u$ to a point in ${\mathbb{Q}}\times {\mathbb{Q}}$ whose $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate is already used by another element $v$. This can be dealt with in the same way as in . The $\mathsf{x}$-coordinates are assigned sequentially: first the ones for (P1), then the remaining elements of $c_2^1, \ldots, c_2^n$, and finally all remaining elements for (P2). No conflicts can arise for the first two cases. If the designated $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate of an element $u$ assigned in the third case is already used by an element $v$ then the $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate of $u$ is shifted by a very small distance. Namely, if $w$ is the element whose $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate is the largest with $\theta'(w).\mathsf{x} < \theta'(v).\mathsf{x}$ assigned so far then the new $\mathsf{x}$-coordinate of $u$ is shifted in between $\theta'(w).\mathsf{x}$ and $\theta'(v).\mathsf{x}$. Note that such a $w$ always exists due to the first two cases.
In ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$, the symbol $<_1$ is interpreted by the linear order $<^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}}_1$ such that $a <^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{1} b$ if and only if $\theta'(a).x < \theta'(b).\mathsf{x}$. The interpretation of ${\ensuremath{{S}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}}_{1}$ is induced by $<^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}}_1$. The interpretations of $<_2$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$ are defined accordingly, but with respect to the $\mathsf{y}$-coordinates. Observe that $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ is induced by $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2$ and that for all tuples $(a,b)$ with either $a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$ and $b \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$, or $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 a$ and $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 b$, the relative order of the elements in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is the same.
The unary type of an element $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is the same as in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. It remains to assign binary $T$-types for tuples of elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. The binary type of tuples $(a,b)$ with either $a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 c_1$ and $b \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 c_1$ or $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 a$ and $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 b$ is inherited from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. The tuple $(c_1, b)$ with $(c_1, b)\in{\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}}$ inherits the type of the tuple $(c_1,u)$ with $(c_{1},u) \in {\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$.
We now explain how the binary types of all tuples $(a, b)$ with $a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 b$ and $(a,b)\notin {\ensuremath{{S}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2$ are assigned. Our focus is on the case when $a <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_1 b$; the case $b <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_1 a$ is symmetric. In the following let $d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}x <_1 y \wedge x <_2 y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$. We simultaneously assign all binary $T$-types to all $\sigma$-labeled $a$ and $\tau$-labeled $b$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$.
Depending on the structure of the points in $A(c_1)$ we distinguish two cases. To this end let $a_1, \ldots, a_n$ be the elements of $A(c_1)$ ordered by $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1$. Denote by $w(c_1)$ the sequence $(\sigma_1, d_1), \ldots, (\sigma_n, d_n)$ where $\sigma_i$ is the unary type of $a_i$ and $d_i = \uparrow$ if $c_1 <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 a_i$, $d_i = {\ensuremath{{S}}}$ if ${\ensuremath{{S}}}(c_1, a_i)$, $d_i = \cdot$ if $c_1 = a_i$ and $d_i = \downarrow$ if $a_i <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$.
If there is a $((\sigma, \downarrow), (\tau, \uparrow), k)$-rich position $u$ in $w(c_1)$ then we assign the binary $T$-types of all tuples $(a,b)$ satisfying $d$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ using the technique employed by Otto and also used in Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\]. Let with disjoint $A_i$ and $|A_i| = |\Gamma|$ be the set that contains the first $k$ elements of $A_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c_1)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. Similarly let $B = B_1 \cup B_2 \cup B_3$ with disjoint $B_i$ and $|B_i| = |\Gamma|$ contain the last $k$ elements of $A_{\tau, \max, \uparrow}(c_2)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. Then the binary types are assigned as in Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\]:
1. Witnesses for elements in $A \cup B$ are assigned as follows:
1. If, in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, an element $a \in A_i$ is $\sigma$-labeled and has a $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness $b \in W(a)$ then the binary $T$-type of $(a, b)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $b$ is the $\ell$th element of $B_i$. The element $b$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
2. If, in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, an element $b \in B_i$ is $\tau$-labeled and has $(\bar d, \gamma_\ell, \sigma)$-witness $a \in W(b)$ then the binary $T$-type of $(b, a)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $a$ is the $\ell$th element of $A_{i+1}$ (where $i+1$ is calculated modulo 3). The element $a$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
2. Witnesses for all other tuples of $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled elements are assigned as follows:
1. If, in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, an element $b \notin B$ is $\sigma$-labeled and has a $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness $b \in W(a)$ then the binary $T$-type of $(a, b)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $b$ is the $\ell$th element of $B_1$. The element $b$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
2. If, in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, an element $b \notin B$ is a $\tau$-labeled and has a $(\bar d, \gamma_\ell, \sigma)$-witness $a \in W(b)$ then the binary type of $(b, a)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma_\ell$ where $a$ is the $\ell$th element of $A_{1}$. The element $a$ is the $(d, \gamma_\ell, \tau)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
3. If a tuple $(a,b)\in D' \times D'$ such that, in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, the element $a$ is $\sigma$-labeled, $b$ is $\tau$-labeled and $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$, and if $(a,b)$ has not been assigned a binary $T$-type so far, then a type is assigned as follows. Since $Pro(c_1) \cong Pro(c_2)$, there is a $\tau$-labeled element $b'\in D$ such that $(a,b')$ satisfies $d$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. The tuple $(a, b)$ inherits its binary type from $(a,b')$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$.
This concludes the binary type assignments in the case when there is a $((\sigma, \downarrow), (\tau, \uparrow), k)$-rich position $u$ in $w(c)$. Note that this case is settled without using the fact that the profiles contain the elements added by $A_W$.
If there is no $((\sigma, \downarrow), (\tau, \uparrow), k)$-rich position $u$ in $w(c_1)$ then we assign the binary $T$-types to $\sigma$-labeled $a$ and $\tau$-labeled $b$ satisfying $d$ as explained below.
We observe that in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ the $(d, \cdot, \tau)$-witnesses for all $\sigma$-labeled elements $a <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$ are in $W^\tau_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c_1) \cup A_{\tau, \max, \uparrow}(c_1)$. To see this we argue as in Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\]. By Lemma \[lemma:richpoor\] there is a -poor position in $w(c_1)$. Let $v$ be the minimal such position. Now let $a <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_1$ be a $\sigma$-labeled position. If $a \leq^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1 v$ then all $(d, \cdot, \tau)$-witnesses $b \in W(a)$ are contained in $W^\tau_{\sigma, \min, \downarrow}(c_1)$ by construction (as $a$ is one of the $k+1$ $<^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1$-smallest $\sigma$-labeled elements below $c_1$). If $a >^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_1 v$ then all $(d, \cdot, \tau)$-witnesses of $a$ are among the elements $A_{\tau, \max, \uparrow}(c_1)$ (as there are only at most $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled elements above $c_1$ and to the right of $a$). Similarly all $(\bar d, \cdot, \sigma)$-witnesses for all $\tau$-labeled elements $b >^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}_2 c_2$ are in .
Let $\pi$ be an isomorphism of $({{\cal P}\xspace}(c_1), c_1)$ and $({{\cal P}\xspace}(c_2), c_2)$. We use the above observation to assign binary $T$-types as follows:
1. Witnesses for $\sigma$-labeled $a$ with $a <^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 c_1$ are assigned as follows. If $b \in W(a)$ is a $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then $\pi(b)$ is the $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witness of $a$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. That is, the binary type of $(a, \pi(b))$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma$.
2. Witnesses for $\tau$-labeled $b$ with $b >^{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_2 c_2 $ are assigned as follows. If $a \in W(b)$ is a $(\bar d, \gamma, \sigma)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ then $\pi(a)$ is the $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witness of $b$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$. That is, the binary type of $(b, \pi(a))$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ is $\gamma$.
3. If $(a,b) \in D' \times D'$ has not been assigned a binary $T$-type so far, then a type is assigned as follows. Since $Pro(c_1) \cong Pro(c_2)$, there is a $\tau$-labeled element $b'\in D$ such that $(a,b')$ satisfies $d$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. The tuple $(a, b)$ inherits its binary type in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ from $(a,b)$.
This concludes the binary type assignments in the case when there is no $((\sigma, \downarrow), (\tau, \uparrow), k)$-rich position $u$ in $w(c)$.
We shortly argue why the construction is correct. The assignments in (A1) and (A2) as well as (B1) and (B2) ensure that no conflicting types are assigned to $(a, b)$ and $(b, a)$. No conflicts with universal constraints arise by the assignments from (A1)-(A3) and (B1)-(B3), as no new types are introduced due to the choice of $\theta'$. Finally, after the assignments (A1)-(A2) and (B1)-(B2), each element $a$ has a $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witness in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}$ if it has a $(d, \gamma, \tau)$-witness in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$. Similarly for $(\bar d, \gamma, \sigma)$-witnesses.
Two Successors and One Linear Order {#section:twosuccessors}
===================================
In this section we show that ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ is decidable on finite -structures. This has only been known for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ so far [@ManuelZ13].
\[theorem:twosuccessors:decidability\] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability on finite ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures is decidable.
More precisely it is decidable as fast as emptiness for multicounter automata.
The theorem is proved using the automata-based approach along the same lines as in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. To this end we first define *linearly ordered data automata* (short: LODA), a restriction of *ordered data automata* which were introduced in [@ManuelZ13]. Then we show that each constraint problem can be translated into a LODA such that the constraint problem has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-solution if and only if the automaton accepts some linearly ordered data word. Theorem \[theorem:twosuccessors:decidability\] then follows from Lemma \[lemma:formulaToConstraint\] and the decidability of the emptiness problem for LODA (see Theorem \[theorem:loda:emptiness\]).
Ordered data automata have been introduced for studying ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, \prec_2)$-structures where $\prec_2$ is a preorder relation. For convenience we simplify the automaton model in order to study ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on plain $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures.
A *linearly ordered data word* is a word $w = (\sigma_1, d_1) \ldots (\sigma_n, d_n)$ with $(\sigma_i, d_i)$ from $\Sigma \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that $\{d_1, \ldots, d_n\}$ is a contiguous interval in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ and $d_i \neq d_j$ for all $i \neq j$. Each linearly ordered data word represents a $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures extended by unary relations interpreting symbols from a signature $T$ in a canonical way. The linear order $<_1$ and its successor are represented by the positional order, while $<_2$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$ are encoded by the order of the data values $d_1, \ldots, d_n$. The unary symbols are encoded by the unary types $\Sigma$ over $T$. See Figure \[figure:example:PointSetDataWord\] for an illustration.
(0,0) – (8,0) node\[black, below\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1$]{}; (0,0) – (0,8) node\[black, left, sloped\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2$]{};
in [1,2,...,7]{} (,0) – (,8) ;
in [1,2,...,7]{} (0,) – (8,);
(tmp) at (1, 5)\[mnode, label=[below:$\tau$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (2, 6)\[mnode, label=[below:$\delta$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (3, 3)\[mnode, label=[below:$\sigma$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (4, 7)\[mnode, label=[below:$\delta$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (5, 1)\[mnode, label=[below:$\tau$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (6, 4)\[mnode, label=[below:$\tau$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (7, 2)\[mnode, label=[below:$\delta$]{}\] ;
The *resorting* of $w$ is the string $\sigma_{i_1} \ldots \sigma_{i_n}$ such that the data values $d_{i_1}, \ldots, d_{i_n}$ are sorted in ascending order. The *string projection* of $w$ is the string $\sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_n$. The *marked string projection* of $w$ is its string projection annotated by information about the relationship of data values of adjacent positions. We make this more precise. The *marking* $m_i = (m, m')$ of position $i$ is a tuple from $\Sigma_M = \{ -\infty, -1, +1, \infty, -\}^2$ and is defined as follows. If $i = 1$ (or $i = n$) then $m = -$ (or $m' = -$), otherwise:
$$m =
\begin{cases}
-\infty & \mbox{ if } d_{i-1} < d_i - 1 \\
-1 & \mbox{ if } d_{i-1} = d_i - 1 \\
+1 & \mbox{ if } d_{i-1} = d_i + 1 \\
\infty & \mbox{ if } d_{i-1} > d_i + 1
\end{cases}$$
Similarly $m'$ is defined using $d_{i+1}$ instead of $d_{i-1}$. The marked string projection of $w$ is the string $(\sigma_1, m_1)\ldots$ $(\sigma_n, m_n)$ over the alphabet .The string projection of the linearly ordered data word $(\tau, 5)$ $(\delta, 6)$ $(\sigma, 3)$ $(\delta, 7)$ $(\tau, 1)$ $(\tau, 4)$ $(\delta, 2)$ from Figure \[figure:example:PointSetDataWord\] is $\tau\delta\sigma\delta\tau\tau\delta$. Its marked string projection is $(\tau, (-, +1))$ $(\delta, (-1, -\infty))$ $(\sigma, (+\infty, +\infty))$ $(\delta, (-\infty, -\infty))$ $(\tau, (+\infty, +\infty))$ $(\tau, (-\infty, -\infty))$\
$(\delta, (+\infty, -))$, and its resorting is $\tau\delta\sigma\tau\tau\delta\delta$.
A *linearly ordered data automaton (short: LODA)* ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ over alphabet $\Sigma$ is a tuple $({{\cal B}\xspace}, {{\cal C}\xspace})$ where ${{\cal B}\xspace}$ is a (non-deterministic) finite state string transducer with input alphabet $\Sigma \times \Sigma_M$ (where $\Sigma_M$ is the set of markings) and some output alphabet $\Sigma'$; and ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ is a finite state automaton over $\Sigma'$.
A LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}= ({{\cal B}\xspace},{{\cal C}\xspace})$ works as follows. First, for a given linearly ordered data word $w$, the transducer ${{\cal B}\xspace}$ reads the marked string projection of $w$. A run $\rho_B$ of the transducer defines a unique new labeling of each position. Let $w'$ be the linearly ordered data word thus obtained from $w$. The finite state automaton ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ runs over the resorting of $w'$ yielding a run $\rho_C$. The run $\rho_{{\cal A}\xspace}= (\rho_B, \rho_C)$ of ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ is accepting, if both $\rho_B$ and $\rho_C$ are accepting. The automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ accepts $w$ if there is an accepting run of ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ on $w$. The set of linearly ordered data words accepted by ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ is denoted by ${{\cal L}\xspace}({{\cal A}\xspace})$. We refer to [@ManuelZ13] for more details.
\[example:LODA\] Consider the data language $L$ over $\Sigma = \{\sigma, \tau, \rho\}$ that contains all linearly ordered data words with a unique $\sigma$-position $x$ with a $\tau$-position $y$ to its right such that the data value of $y$ is the successor of the data value of $x$ (see Figure \[figure:example:PointSetDataWord\] for a linearly ordered data word in $L$). A LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}= ({{\cal B}\xspace}, {{\cal C}\xspace})$ can recognize $L$ as follows. For a linearly ordered data word, the automaton ${{\cal B}\xspace}$ checks that there is a unique $\sigma$-position $x$, guesses the $\tau$-position $y$ to the right of $x$ and colors this position $y$ with a fresh label $\tau'$ (using the transduction). The automaton ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ checks that the $\tau'$-position is the data successor of the $\sigma$-position.
The following theorem follows from Theorem 7 and Corollary 11 in [@ManuelZ13].
\[theorem:loda:emptiness\] Emptiness of LODA is decidable.
More precisely it is decidable as fast as emptiness for multicounter automata.
Next we show that the satisfiability problem for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures reduces to the non-emptiness problem for LODAs.
\[lemma:twosucc\] For every constraint problem $C$ there is a LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ such that $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-solution if and only if $L({{\cal A}\xspace})$ is non-empty.
Assume that $C {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}(C_\exists, C_\forall)$ is a constraint problem over a signature $T \cup \{{\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2\}$ and let $\Sigma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Sigma_{T}$ and $\Gamma {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\Gamma_{T}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:succordfinitemodel\] we assume that non of the possible witnesses requested by an existential constraint contradicts a universal constraint.
We construct a LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}= ({{\cal B}\xspace}, {{\cal C}\xspace})$ such that ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ accepts an ordered data word over $\Sigma$ if and only if $C$ has a finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-solution. Intuitively the automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ interprets linearly ordered data words as extensions of ordered $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures by unary relations but with no binary relations. In order to accept a word, it has to verify that binary $T$-types can be assigned to all pairs of positions in a way consistent with $C$.
The LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ is very similar to the finite state automaton constructed in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. Like the automaton in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\], the LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ assumes that every position is labeled with its required witnesses (E).
1. We assume that for every existential constraint $(\sigma, E)$, all $\sigma$-labeled positions $a$ are labeled with a fresh label $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ such that $(d, \gamma, \tau) \in E$. The intention is that the $(\sigma, E)$-witness of $a$ satisfies $(d, \gamma, \tau)$.
Dealing with positions that are close to each other can be done in a similar same way as in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\], except that now *close* means either close with respect to ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$ or close with respect to ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$ (or both). The existence of an assignment of binary $T$-types for positions that are close with respect to ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$ is verified by ${{\cal B}\xspace}$, and it is verified by ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ for positions close with respect to ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$.
More precisely, the automaton guesses the types of pairs of elements that are ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$- or ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$-close to each other. Each element $a$ has at most four elements that are close to it: there might be an element $b_1$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(a, b_1)$, an element $b_2$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(b_2, a)$ and similarly elements $b_3$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(a, b_3)$ and $b_4$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(b_4, a)$. Some of those elements might not exist (if $a$ is the first or last element with respect to $<_1$ or $<_2$) or might coincide (e.g. $b_1$ might coincide with either $b_3$ or $b_4$). For each of the elements $b_1, \ldots, b_4$ the automaton can guess and verify the binary $T$-type.
1. (Local types) We assume that each element $a$ is labeled by up to four labels $\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_4 \in \Gamma$. The intention is that $\gamma_i$ is the binary type of $(a,b_i)$ (if the element $b_i$ exists).
2. (Consistency of local types) The automaton verifies that the labels are consistent, that is, e.g., that if $a$ and $b$ are elements with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(a,b)$ then the label $\gamma_1$ of $a$ (i.e. the type guessed for $(a, b)$) is compatible with the label $\gamma_2$ of $b$ (i.e. the type guessed for $(b, a)$) and that if ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(a,b)$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(a,b)$ then $\gamma_1 = \gamma_3$.
3. (Local witnesses) For every $\sigma$-labeled element $a$ that is labeled by $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ due to (E), the automaton verifies that if $d = {\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(x,y)$ then the label $\gamma_1$ of $a$ is $\gamma$ and that its successor is labeled with $\tau$. Likewise for ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(y,x), {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$, and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(y,x)$).
4. (Local universal constraints) For all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled positions $a$ and $b$ with ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(a,b)$ the automaton verifies that if $a$ is labeled $\gamma_1$ then there is no universal constraint $(\sigma, {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x,y), \gamma_1, \tau)$. Likewise for ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(b,a)$, ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(a,b)$, and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(b,a)$.
For verifying the existence of an assignment of binary types for positions that are remote from each other, the LODA ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ has to do slightly more than the finite state automaton from Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. There is, essentially, only one $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-type of remote positions which we will denote by $d {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}\neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(x, y) \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_1(y, x) \wedge x <_2 y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$ (see Figure \[figure:theorem:binary\]).
(0,0) – (8,0) node\[black, below\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$]{}; (0,0) – (0,8) node\[black, left, sloped\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2$]{};
in [1,2,...,7]{} (,0) – (,8) ;
in [1,2,...,7]{} (0,) – (8,);
(tmp) at (4, 4)\[mnode, label=[below left:$a$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (6, 7)\[mnode, label=[above right:$b$]{}\] ;
[background]{} (0,5.7) rectangle (2.3,8); (5.7,5.7) rectangle (8,8);
(0,0) – (8,0) node\[black, below\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$]{}; (0,0) – (0,8) node\[black, left, sloped\] [${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2$]{};
in [1,2,...,7]{} (,0) – (,8) ;
in [1,2,...,7]{} (0,) – (8,);
(tmp) at (4, 4)\[mnode, label=[below left:$a$]{}\] ; (tmp) at (7, 1)\[mnode, label=[above right:$b$]{}\] ;
[background]{} (0,0) rectangle (2.3,2.3); (5.7,0) rectangle (8,2.3);
Checking that for all positions $a$ and $b$ at least one binary $T$-type is consistent with the universal constraints can be done as follows:
1. Assume that each position $a$ is labeled by a set $L_{<_2}(a)$ containing all $\tau \in \Sigma$ such that there is a $\tau$-labeled position $b_1$ such that $(a,b_1)$ satisfies $d$ and by a set $L_{>_2}(a)$ containing all $\tau \in \Sigma$ such that there is a $\tau$-labeled position $b_2$ such that $(b_2, a)$ satisfies $d$. Those labels can be easily verified by ${{\cal B}\xspace}$ and ${{\cal C}\xspace}$. (E.g. if $\tau \in L_{<_2}(a)$ for a position $a$ and there are $i \in \{0,1,2\}$ many $\tau$-labeled ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$-close elements $b$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $x <_2 y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$ then ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ verifies that there are $i+1$ $\tau$-labeled elements $b'$ such that $(a, b')$ satisfies $x <_2 y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$. Then $(a, b')$ satisfies $d$ for one of those $b'$. Similarly for $\tau \notin L_{<_2}(a)$ and $L_{>_2}(a)$.)
2. For all $\sigma$-labeled $a$ the automaton verifies that for every $\tau \in L_{<_2}(a)$ there is a $\gamma$ such that there is no universal constraint $(\sigma, d, \gamma, \tau)$ in $C$. Similarly for $L_{>_2}(a)$.
Testing that existential witnesses can be assigned to far-away positions is analogous to Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. The intuition is that pairs $(a,b)$ of elements satisfying $d$ behave like pairs $(a', b')$ satisfying $x < y \wedge \neg {\ensuremath{{S}}}(x, y)$ in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. A little care is needed for ensuring that elements are indeed remote from each other.
We shortly discuss some details of how ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ verifies that binary $T$-types for all $\sigma$- and $\tau$-labeled elements $a$ and $b$ satisfying $d$ can be assigned. To this end, the automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ guesses whether there is an element $u$ such that $\sigma$ occurs more than $k {\ensuremath{\mathrel{\smash{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle{
\text{def}}}{=}}}} \;}3(|\Gamma|+5)$ times above $u$ and $\tau$ occurs more than $k$ times below $u$. (Recall that a position $a$ is above $u$ if .)
If such a position $u$ exists then the automaton tests that every $\sigma$-labeled element $a$ has as many $\tau$-labeled elements $b$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$ as is required by (E), and that every $\tau$-labeled element $a'$ has sufficiently many $\sigma$-labeled positions $b'$ such that $(a', b')$ satisfies $\bar d$. If this is the case then binary types can be assigned as in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\] using Otto’s assignment technique.
For testing that there are, say $m$ many, $\tau$-labeled elements $b$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$ the automaton ${{\cal B}\xspace}$ labels $a$ with the number $i \in \{0,1,2\}$ of $\tau$-labeled positions that are ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$-close to $a$ and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$-remote from $a$. The automaton ${{\cal C}\xspace}$ then tests that there are at least $m+i$ many $\tau$-labeled elements $b$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $x <_2 y \wedge {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2(x,y)$.
If there is no such position $u$ then there is a position $v$ such that there are at most $k+1$ $\sigma$-labeled positions below $v$ and at most $k+1$ $\tau$-labeled positions above $v$ by Lemma \[lemma:richpoor\]. The automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ exploits this structure exactly as in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\] by labeling those up to $k+1$ many positions distinctly and guessing and verifying their witnesses.
For completeness we describe ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ in more detail, even though it is very similar to the automaton in Lemma \[lemma:succorder\]. The automaton ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ does the following:
1. It guesses whether there is such a position $u$. The correctness of the guess can be easily verified by ${{\cal C}\xspace}$.
2. If there is such a position $u$ then ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ verifies the following for all $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma$:
1. If a $\sigma$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\sigma, d, \gamma_1, \tau), \ldots, (\sigma, d, \gamma_m, \tau)$ then there are $m$ $\tau$-labeled positions above $a$ that are neither ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$- nor ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$-close to $a$.
2. Symmetrically, if a $\tau$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\tau, \bar d, \gamma_1, \sigma)$, $\ldots$, $(\tau, d, \gamma_m, \sigma)$ then there are $m$ $\sigma$-labeled positions below $a$ that are neither ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_1$- nor ${\ensuremath{{S}}}_2$-close to $a$.
3. If there is no such position $u$ then ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ guesses the position $v$. The correctness of the guess can be easily verified by ${{\cal C}\xspace}$. Then:
1. We assume that positions are labeled by the following extra information (using fresh labels depending on $\sigma$ and $\tau$):
- The $i$th $\sigma$-labeled position $a$ below $v$ is labeled by $\sigma_i$. The $i$th $\tau$-labeled position $a$ above $v$ is labeled by $\tau_i$. (By the choice of $v$ there are at most $k+1$ such $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$.)
- The intended witnesses for $\sigma_i$- and $\tau_i$-labeled positions are labeled as follows:
- If the $\sigma_i$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau)$ in (E), then there is a $\tau$-labeled position $b$ labeled with $(\sigma_i, \gamma, d, \tau)$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $d$.
- Likewise, if the $\tau_i$-labeled position $a$ is labeled by $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ in (E), then there is a $\sigma$-labeled position $b$ that is labeled with $(\tau_i, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ such that $(a, b)$ satisfies $\bar d$ .
- Positions with intended witnesses from $\sigma_i$- and $\tau_i$-labeled positions are labeled as follows:
- Each position $a$ below $v$ that is labeled by $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma)$ in (E) is also labeled with $(\tau, \gamma, \bar d, \sigma_i)$ for some $i$ such that $(a,b)$ satisfies $\bar d(x,y)$ where $b$ is the $\sigma_i$-labeled position.
- Likewise, each $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau)$-labeled position $a$ above $u$ is labeled with $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau_i)$ for some $i$ such that $(a, b)$ satisfies $d$ where $b$ is the $\sigma_i$-labeled position.
2. The automaton verifies that the labels are consistent, that is:
- No $\tau$-labeled position below $v$ is labeled with $(\sigma_i, \gamma, d, \tau)$ and with $(\tau, \gamma', \bar d, \sigma_i)$ where $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are not reverse types.
- Likewise, no $\sigma$-labeled position above $v$ is labeled with $(\tau_i, \bar \gamma', d, \sigma)$ and with $(\sigma, \gamma, d, \tau_i)$ where $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are not reverse types.
The correctness is proved completely analogous to Lemma \[lemma:succorder\].
Order- and Successor-invariance {#section:invariance}
===============================
In this Section we discuss order-invariance for two-variable formulas. A first-order sentence $\varphi$ over a signature $T \cup \{<\}$ is *order-invariant* (*$<$-invariant* for short) if for each $T$-structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and all linear orders $<_{1}$ and $<_{2}$ on the domain of ${{\cal A}\xspace}$, $$({{\cal A}\xspace},<_{1}) \models \varphi \ \iff \ ({{\cal A}\xspace}, <_{2}) \models \varphi.$$ A class of finite $T$-structures ${{\cal A}\xspace}$ is *$<$-invariantly first-order definable* if there is an $<$-invariant $T\cup\{<\}$-sentence $\varphi$ such that, for each finite $T$-structure ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$, $$\text{${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}\in {{\cal C}\xspace}$ if and only $({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}},<) \models \varphi$}$$ for each linear order $<$ on the domain of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{A}}}$.
It is not immediately obvious that allowing this restricted use of an order extends the expressive power of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$. A well-known example due to Gurevich (cf. eg. [@Libkin2004]) shows that there is indeed a $<$-invariantly definable class of structures which is not ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$-definable without an order. The example of Gurevich indicates that order-invariance is, at least potentially, useful in formulating queries. For using invariance in this context, it is essential to be able to verify that an ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$-sentence is indeed invariant. Unfortunately, a simple reduction of the finite satisfiability problem shows that $<$-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$-sentences is undecidable.
The results from the previous sections as well as the discussion in the introduction imply that $<$-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-sentences is decidable.
\[thm:inv-decidable\] Order-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ is in ${{{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc 2-NExpTime}}\xspace}}}$.
*Successor-invariance* (*${\ensuremath{{S}}}$-invariance*, for short) is defined analogously to order-invariance where instead of the linear order the formulas may use a successor relation (see e.g. [@Rossman2003]). By combining the approach discussed in the introduction with Theorem 2 of [@CharatonikW13], one obtains the following result.
Successor-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ is in ${{\ensuremath{\mbox{\sc NExpTime}}\xspace}}$.
Our approach for deciding $<$-invariance and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$-invariance does not immediately transfer to $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-invariance where both the order and its induced successor can be used in formulas, since even ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{EMSO}^2}\xspace}$ is undecidable on finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures [@Manuel10] However, in the proof of Theorem \[thm:inv-decidable\], it would suffice to prove decidability for formulas of the form $\varphi({\ensuremath{{S}}}_{1}, <_{1}) \wedge \lnot\varphi({\ensuremath{{S}}}_{2}, <_{2})$. This seems conceivable, but so far we were unable to obtain a proof using our techniques.
The following example shows that invariance is useful even for two-variable logic.
${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ is often extended by *counting quantifiers* of the shape $\exists^{\geq k}$, where $\exists^{\geq k} x\, \varphi$ states that there are at least $k$ satisfying assignments to $x$. We define *monadic counting quantifiers* which are defined in the same way but $\varphi$ is restricted to use at most one free variable $x$. We observe that these quantifiers are $<$-invariantly definable by two-variable formulas, since $$\begin{aligned}
\exists^{\geq 0} x\, \varphi(x) \ &\equiv \ x= x,\\
\exists^{\geq k+1} x\, \varphi(x) \ &\equiv \ \exists x\, \varphi(x) \wedge \exists^{\geq k} y \ y < x \wedge \varphi(y).\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see using a pebble game argument that the monadic counting quantifier $\exists^{\leq k}$ is not two-variable definable for each .
Conclusion and Future Work {#section:conclusion}
==========================
We have shown that $<$-invariance and ${\ensuremath{{S}}}$-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-sentences is decidable by establishing decidability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$-satisfiability on finite $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, <_1, <_2)$- and $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, <_2)$-structures. Several interesting questions remain open:
1. Is ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ decidable on $({\ensuremath{{S}}}_1, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_2, {\ensuremath{{S}}}_3)$-structures?
2. Where is the border of decidability of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{ESO}^2}\xspace}$ on general, not necessarily finite, ordered structures?
3. Is $({\ensuremath{{S}}}, <)$-invariance of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$ decidable?
4. Is every $<$-invariantly ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}^2}\xspace}$-definable property also ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{FO}}\xspace}$-definable without the use of a linear order?
For the second question preliminary results have been obtained for certain order types.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Thomas Schwentick for stimulating discussions and many very helpful suggestions for improving upon a draft of this article. The first author acknowledges the financial support by DFG grant .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The structure of a molecular liquid, in both the nematic liquid crystalline and isotropic phases, around a cylindrical macroparticle, is studied using density functional theory. In the nematic phase the structure of the fluid is highly anisotropic with respect to the director, in agreement with results from simulation and phenomenological theories. On going into the isotropic phase the structure becomes rotationally invariant around the macroparticle with an oriented layer at the surface.'
author:
- 'David L. Cheung'
- 'Michael P. Allen'
title: 'Structure of a Liquid Crystalline Fluid around a Macroparticle: Density Functional Theory Study'
---
Introduction
============
Solid particles, both spherical and non-spherical, dispersed in a liquid crystal (LC) host comprise an interesting class of novel materials [@poulin.p:1999.a; @stark.h:2001.a]. In orientationally ordered phases of the host, the introduction of solid particles deforms the director field, leading to long-range interactions between the particles and effects such as chaining or the formation of soft solids. Colloidal dispersions in liquid crystals have a wide range of applications [@russel.wb:1989.a] and have recently attracted a great deal of interest [@jpcm_lccolloid_specialissue].
Experimental techniques such as atomic force microscopy or confocal microscopy may be used to study LC-colloid dispersions; simulations and theory have also been applied. Simulations have been used to study the ordering of LC molecules around one [@billeter.jl:2000.a; @andrienko.d:2001.a] or two macroparticles [@albarwani.ms:2004.a], and LC dispersions in confined geometries [@kim.eb:2002.a]. Phenomenological theories such as Landau-de Gennes [@borstnik.a:1999.a; @patricio.p:2002.a; @tasinkevych.m:2002.a; @andrienko.d:2004.a] or Frank elastic [@stark.h:1999.a; @yamamoto.r:2004.a] theory have also been used. These approaches however have their limitations: simulation is computationally expensive, while the aforementioned phenomenological theories require, often poorly known, parameters, and are incapable of accounting for spatial variation in the density (and, in the case of elastic theory, variation in the order parameter).
One popular theoretical method that may be applied to this type of problem is density functional theory (DFT) [@harnau.l:to_appear]. Unlike Landau-de Gennes or elastic theory, this is capable of accounting for spatial variation in the density and order parameter and, in the form used here, requires knowledge only of the interaction potential between the molecules in the fluid. In this case DFT at the level of the Onsager second virial approximation [@onsager.l:1949.a] is applied to the case of a single, infinitely long, cylindrical macroparticle in a LC host. As the system is homogeneous along the length of the cylinder, two dimensions are sufficient to represent the spatial dependence of the density.
Theory
======
For a system of uniaxial molecules the grand potential can be written as [@hansen.jp:1986.a] $$\beta\Omega\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right] =
\beta F_\text{id}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right]+
\beta F_\text{ex}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right]
+ \beta\int\;{\text{d}}\bm{r} {\text{d}}\bm{u}\; \bigl( V_\text{ext}(\bm{r},\bm{u})-\mu \bigr) \rho(\bm{r},\bm{u}) \;,$$ where $\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})$ is the position- and orientation-dependent single particle density, $V_\text{ext}(\bm{r},\bm{u})$ is the external potential, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $\beta=1/k_BT$. $F_\text{id}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right]$ and $F_\text{ex}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right]$ are the ideal and excess free energies, respectively. $\bm{r}$ is the position vector and $\bm{u}$ is the orientation vector. The ideal free energy is given by $$\beta F_\text{id}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right]=
\int\;{\text{d}}\bm{r} {\text{d}}\bm{u}\; \rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\bigl\{
\log\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})-1\bigr\} \;.$$ The exact form of the excess free energy is generally unknown. Here we employ the Onsager approximation [@onsager.l:1949.a] $$\label{eqn:onsager}
\beta F_\text{ex}\left[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})\right] =
-\frac{1}{2}\int\;{\text{d}}\bm{r}_1{\text{d}}\bm{r}_2{\text{d}}\bm{u}_1{\text{d}}\bm{u}_2\;
f(\bm{r}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2)\rho(\bm{r}_1,\bm{u}_1)\rho(\bm{r}_2,\bm{u}_2) \;,$$ where $f(\bm{r}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2)=\exp\bigl\{-\beta
V(\bm{r}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2)\bigr\}-1$, the Mayer function, $\bm{r}_{12}=\bm{r}_1-\bm{r}_2$ and $V(\bm{r}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2)$ is the molecular pair interaction potential. The liquid crystal here is modelled as a fluid of prolate hard ellipsoids of elongation $e=a/b=5$; $a$ is the length of the symmetry, or major, axis and we will use the minor axis $b=1$ as a unit of length. When two molecules overlap, $V=\infty$ and $f=-1$; for a non-overlapping pair, $V=0$ and $f=0$. The approximation of eqn corresponds to truncating the virial expansion after the pair term. While Onsager theory is exact only in the limit of infinite elongation, it has been used to study the anchoring of ellipsoids of this elongation near solid substrates [@chrzanowska.a:2001.a; @teixeira.pic:2004.a] and has been found to give results in qualitative agreement with simulation.
The external potential, representing a single cylindrical macroparticle of radius $R$ oriented along the $y$ axis, is given by $$V_\text{ext}(\bm{r},\bm{u})=
V_\text{ext}(\bm{s},\bm{u})=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}V_0\bigl[\textrm{tanh}(b/w)-\textrm{tanh}(-b/w)\bigr] & s-R<-b \\
\frac{1}{2}V_0\left[\textrm{tanh}\Bigl(\dfrac{R-s}{w}\Bigr)-\textrm{tanh}(-b/w)
\right]
& |s-R| < b \\
0 & s-R>b
\end{cases}$$ where $\bm{s}=(x,z)$, $s$ = $|\bm{s}|$, $V_0=50k_BT$ and $w=b/5$. This represents a sharply varying repulsive potential acting on the ellipsoid centres of mass. It excludes the molecules from the cylinder and gives rise to homeotropic (normal) anchoring at the surface.
As before [@allen.mp:1999.a; @allen.mp:2000.c; @andrienko.d:2002.a; @cheung.dl:2004.a] the angularly dependent functions are expanded in a set of spherical harmonics, and the assumption of translational invariance along $y$ allows us to write the coefficients as functions of $\bm{s}$:
\[eqn:expansions\] $$\begin{aligned}
\log\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})&=\sum_{\ell,m}{\tilde{\rho}}_{\ell m}(\bm{s})Y_{\ell m}(\bm{u}) \\
\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})&=\sum_{\ell,m}\rho_{\ell m}(\bm{s})Y_{\ell m}^*(\bm{u}) \\
V_\text{ext}(\bm{r},\bm{u})&=\sum_{\ell,m}V_{\ell m}(\bm{s})Y_{\ell m}(\bm{u}) \;.\end{aligned}$$
Note the complex conjugate in the density expansion. The Mayer function is expanded as [@andrienko.d:2002.a] $$f(\bm{r}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2)=\sum_{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell}f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell}(r_{12})
\Phi_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell}(\hat{\bm{r}}_{12},\bm{u}_1,\bm{u}_2) \;,$$ where $r_{12}=|\bm{r}_{12}|$, $\hat{\bm{r}}_{12}=\bm{r}_{12}/r_{12}$, and $\Phi_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell}$ is a rotational invariant [@gray.cg:1984.a]. Inserting these expressions into the grand potential and integrating over angles and the $y$ direction gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta\Omega[\rho(\bm{r},\bm{u})]}{L} &=
\int\;{\text{d}}\bm{s}\;\sum_{\ell,m}\rho_{\ell m}(\bm{s})\left(
{\tilde{\rho}}_{\ell m}(\bm{s})-\sqrt{4\pi}(1+\beta\mu)\delta_{l0}+\beta V_{\ell m}(\bm{s}) \right)
\nonumber\\
&+\int\;{\text{d}}\bm{s}_1 {\text{d}}\bm{s}_2 \sum_{\substack{\ell_1m_1\\ \ell_2m_2}}
\mathcal{L}_{\ell_1m_1\ell_2m_2}(\bm{s}_{12})
\rho_{\ell_1m_1}(\bm{s}_1)\rho_{\ell_2m_2}(\bm{s}_2) \;.
\label{eqn:grand}\end{aligned}$$ Here $L$ is the box length in the $y$ direction (we assume periodicity). The quantities $\mathcal{L}_{\ell_1m_1\ell_2m_2}(\bm{s}_{12})$ come from integrating the Mayer function and are the spherical harmonic coefficients of the excluded length (in the $y$ direction) of two molecules with a separation vector $\bm{s}_{12}=\bm{s}_1-\bm{s}_2$ in the $xz$-plane, treated as a function of the molecular orientations. As the last term in eqn is a convolution, it is most conveniently evaluated in reciprocal space. If $\rho_{lm}(\bm{k})$ is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of $\rho_{lm}(\bm{s})$ then this term may be written $$\sum_{\bm{k}}\sum_{\substack{\ell_1m_1\\ \ell_2m_2}}
\mathcal{L}_{\ell_1m_1\ell_2m_2}(\bm{k})\rho_{\ell_1m_1}(\bm{k})
\rho_{\ell_2m_2}(\bm{k})$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{\ell_1m_1\ell_2m_2}(\bm{k})$ is the Fourier transform of $\mathcal{L}_{\ell_1m_1\ell_2m_2}(\bm{s}_{12})$.
In order to find the equilibrium density the functions are tabulated on a regular grid in the $xz$ plane; the grid spacing is $\delta x = \delta
z=0.2b$, the molecular length corresponding to 25 grid points. The grand potential is then minimised with respect to the ${\tilde{\rho}}_{lm}(\bm{s})$ coefficients at each grid point using the conjugate gradient method [@press.wh:1986.a]. When required, the coefficients $\rho_{\ell
m}(\bm{s})$ are calculated through eqns , with angular integrations performed using Lebedev quadrature [@lebedev.vi:1976.a; @lebedev.vi:1977.a]. The systems in studied in this work were all square boxes ($L_x=L_z$) with $L_x$ ranging from 40$b$ (200 grid points) to 100$b$ (500 grid points). Table \[tab:details\] summarises the parameters of the systems discussed in detail in the next section.
$R/b$ $L_x/b$ $n_x$ $\delta k_x/b^{-1}$
------- --------- ------- ---------------------
5 40 200 $\pi/20$
7.5 60 300 $\pi/30$
10 60 300 $\pi/30$
15 80 400 $\pi/40$
20 100 500 $\pi/50$
: \[tab:details\] Details of systems studied. $R$ is the macroparticle radius, $L_x$ is the box length in the $x$ direction (with $L_z=L_x$), $n_x$ is the number of grid points in the $x$ direction and $\delta k_x$ is the grid spacing in $k$ space.
Once the equilibrium density coefficients $\rho_{\ell m}(\bm{s})$ have been determined, the number density $\rho(\bm{s})$ around the macroparticle may be found from $$\rho(\bm{s})=\int {\text{d}}\bm{u}\;\rho(\bm{s},\bm{u})=\sqrt{4\pi}\rho_{00}(\bm{s}).$$ The orientational ordering is described by the order tensor $Q_{\alpha\beta}(\bm{s})$ that is found from $\rho(\bm{s},\bm{u})$ by $$Q_{\alpha\beta}(\bm{s})=
\tfrac{3}{2}\int
{\text{d}}\bm{u}\;\rho(\bm{s},\bm{u})u_\alpha(\bm{s})u_\beta(\bm{s})-
\tfrac{1}{2}\delta_{\alpha\beta},\qquad\alpha,\beta=x,y,z \;.$$ The spatially varying order parameter $S(\bm{s})$ is given by the largest eigenvalue of $Q_{\alpha\beta}(\bm{s})$ and the director $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ by the eigenvector associated with $S(\bm{s})$.
Results
=======
Structure in the nematic phase
------------------------------
First we examine the fluid structure around the cylindrical particle in a nematic fluid, at chemical potential $\mu=8.0$. The density distributions around cylinders of radius $5\leq R/b \leq 20$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:den\_map\].
![\[fig:den\_map\] Density maps around a cylindrical macroparticle at $\mu=8.0$ (nematic phase). Cylinder radius $R/b$: (a) $5.0$, (b) $7.5$, (c) $10.0$, (d) $15.0$, and (e) $20.0$. Dark colours show areas of low $\rho(\bm{s})$, light colours high $\rho(\bm{s})$.](fig1_new.eps){width="80.00000%"}
For all $R$ the density is largest at the surface but then decays away with almost periodic variation, similar to that seen for a nematic-planar wall interface. Further from the cylinder this distortion in the density becomes highly anisotropic. Parallel to the director the modulations in the density are stronger than in the perpendicular direction. This weakening perpendicular to the director is due to the partial melting of the nematic in the defect regions [@andrienko.d:2002.b] and is most noticeable for the smallest radius $R/b=5$ (Fig. \[fig:den\_map\]a). In this case, there is almost no density modulation perpendicular to the director causing the density map to show chevron-like structures, with the chevron tips pointing along the director away from the axis of the cylinder. For larger radii, the density variation perpendicular to the director is stronger, but shorter-ranged, than in the direction parallel to the director. In comparison to simulation of a system with $e=3$ [@andrienko.d:2002.b], the density variation seems to be shorter ranged. While this may be due to differences in the models, studies of the nematic-wall interface using Onsager and related theories [@cheung.dl:2004.a; @chrzanowska.a:2001.a] also gave density profiles that have generally weaker structure than comparable simulations.
Maps of the orientational order parameter around the cylindrical particles are shown in Fig. \[fig:order\_map\].
![\[fig:order\_map\] Order parameter maps around a cylindrical macroparticle at $\mu=8.0$ (nematic phase). Cylinder radius $R/b$: (a) $5.0$, (b) $7.5$, (c) $10.0$, (d) $15.0$, and (e) $20.0$. Dark colours show areas of low $S(\bm{s})$, light colours high $S(\bm{s})$. Solid lines show the orientation of the local director $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$.](fig2_new.eps){width="80.00000%"}
As for the density maps, the variation in the order parameter is highly anisotropic. For $R/b=5$, along the director, there are lobes of high order along the top and bottom of the cylinder. In the direction perpendicular to the director there are two regions of drastically reduced order, corresponding to defects in the liquid. As $R$ increases the lobes of increased order tend to wrap around the cylinder, and the defects move away from the surface, in agreement with simulation [@andrienko.d:2002.b] and phenomenological theory [@burylov.sv:1994.a; @fukuda.j:2001.a; @tasinkevych.m:2002.a]. While the positions of the defects are in qualitative agreement with previous results, in the present case the defects are significantly smaller than those seen previously, suggesting that for molecules of this elongation more sophisticated methods such as weighted density approximations [@somoza.am:1989.a] or fundamental measure theory [@cinacchi.g:2002.a] are necessary to examine the structure within the topological defect. Detailed comparisons with simulation will appear in a later publication.
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:order\_map\] is the director orientation $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ around the macroparticle. At large distances from the cylinder the $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ lies along the $z$ axis. Close to the particle the director becomes highly distorted. Along the $z$ axis and at the defects $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ is normal to the particle surface. At other points on the particle surface, $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ points away from the surface normal appearing to graze the surface of the macroparticle. This behaviour is different from that seen in simulation [@andrienko.d:2002.b] and from elastic theory in the case of strong anchoring [@burylov.sv:1994.a], suggesting that the anchoring around the macroparticle is weaker than in previous studies. Apart from in the vicinity of the defects $\bm{n}(\bm{s})$ is a smoothly varying function of $\bm{s}$.
In order to gain more insight, the density and order parameter profiles parallel ($\rho_\parallel(s)$ and $S_\parallel(s)$) and perpendicular ($\rho_\perp(s)$ and $S_\perp(s)$) to the director (through the defects) are shown in Fig. \[fig:profiles\].
![\[fig:profiles\]](rho.eps "fig:"){height="65.00000%"} ![\[fig:profiles\]](s2.eps "fig:"){height="65.00000%"}
\(a) Density profiles, $\rho(s)b^3$, and (b) order parameter profiles $S(s)$, around a cylindrical macroparticle at $\mu=8.0$ (nematic phase). Full lines: in the direction parallel to the director. Dashed lines: in the direction perpendicular to the director. Results are shown for cylinder radius $R/b=5.0$ and, displaced successively upwards by 0.1 units for clarity, $R/b=7.5, 10.0,
15.0, 20.0$.
The $\rho_\parallel(s)$ curves show similar structure as $R$ increases, with a peak at the cylinder surface $s=R$, a second peak about $5b$ (one molecular length) from the surface, and some decaying oscillations into the bulk. This is similar to the behaviour seen for a nematic fluid near a wall with homeotropic alignment [@allen.mp:1999.a; @cheung.dl:2004.a]. The size of the peak at contact increases with $R$ at small $R$. $\rho_\perp(s)$ also has a peak at contact. For smaller cylinders $\rho_\perp(R)\ll \rho_\parallel(R)$. As $R$ increases the difference between the two heights decreases. Further from contact $\rho_\perp(s)$ has a secondary peak. For the $R/b=5$ cylinder this peak is approximately $2.5b$ from the surface with $\rho_\perp(s)$ tending towards the bulk value further out. For larger $R$, the secondary peak moves out. Beyond this peak $\rho_\perp(s)$ behaves almost identically for all $R$.
As with $\rho_\parallel(s)$, the $S_\parallel(s)$ profile is similar to the order parameter profile for a nematic-homeotropic wall interface, with a maximum at contact and decaying oscillations. $S_\perp(r)$ shows a minimum near contact. This corresponds to the defect seen in the order parameter maps (Fig. \[fig:order\_map\]). In agreement with the order parameter maps, the distance between the minimum and the surface increases with $R$. Shown in Fig. \[fig:defect\_pos\] is the position of the minimum $s_\text{min}$ as a function of radius $R$.
![\[fig:defect\_pos\]Defect position ($s_\text{min}-R$) near cylindrical macroparticle at $\mu=8.0$ (nematic phase) as a function of radius $R$. Dashed line shows the line of best fit. ](defect_position.eps){width="80.00000%"}
For spherical macroparticles with both Saturn ring and satellite defects, the distance between the surface and the defect varies linearly with particle size [@andrienko.d:2001.a]. In the present case $s_{min}$ increases with $R$.
Structure in the isotropic phase and around the nematic-isotropic transition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shown in Figs. \[fig:den\_map\]d, \[fig:order\_map\]d, \[fig:den\_ni\_map\] and \[fig:order\_ni\_map\] are the density and order parameter maps for a cylindrical macroparticle with $R/b=15$ in both the nematic and isotropic phases.
![\[fig:den\_ni\_map\] Density maps for fluid around cylindrical macroparticle of radius $R/b=15$ with (a) $\mu=7.3675$ (nematic phase, at NI transition), (b) $\mu=7.3675$ (isotropic phase, at NI transition), and (c) $\mu=5.0$ (isotropic phase). Dark colours show low $\rho(\bm{s})$, light colours high $\rho(\bm{s})$. ](fig5_new.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![\[fig:order\_ni\_map\] Order parameter maps for fluid around cylindrical macroparticle of radius $R/b=15$ with (a) $\mu=7.3675$ (nematic phase, at NI transition), (b) $\mu=7.3675$ (isotropic phase, at NI transition), and (c) $\mu=5.0$ (isotropic phase). Dark colours show areas of low $S(\bm{s})$, light colours high $S(\bm{s})$.](fig6_new.eps){width="80.00000%"}
The bulk isotropic-nematic transition occurs at $\mu_{NI}=7.3675$. In the nematic phase, at this value of $\mu$, the density and order parameter maps are similar to those seen for $\mu=8$, though the variation in the density and order parameter are less pronounced. Also the defects either side of the cylinder with $\mu=7.3675$ are both larger and significantly further from the surface ($s_\text{min}-R\approx2.5b$) than for the higher chemical potential. In the isotropic phase, both the density and order parameter variation become almost completely symmetrical, reflecting the loss of a preferred direction. In this phase, far from the cylinder, the order parameter $S\rightarrow0$, while both $\rho$ and $S$ have maxima at the surface. This suggests that the surface is wet by the nematic and this gives rise to short range interactions between particles dispersed in a liquid crystal host even in the isotropic phase [@borstnik.a:1999.a; @kocevar.k:2001.a]. However, a detailed investigation of surface phase behaviour and interparticle interactions in this model await further study.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper the structure of a liquid of hard ellipsoids of elongation $e=5$, around a cylindrical macroparticle, in both the nematic and isotropic phases, was studied using density functional theory within the Onsager approximation. The resulting density and order parameter maps were consistent with previous theoretical and simulation work. On going from the nematic to isotropic phase, the structure of the surrounding fluid becomes rotationally invariant about the cylinder, with what appears to be a nematic wetting layer at the particle surface.
The present study is preliminary: investigation of the sensitivity of the results to the resolution of the real-space and reciprocal-space grids must still be carried out. Nonetheless, the results are very promising. Despite its simplicity, this method provides results that are generally in agreement with simulation and phenomenological theory. The only major deficiency is that the defects are smaller than would be expected from simulations of a similar system with $e=3$. Using more sophisticated density functionals or ellipsoids with longer elongations (where Onsager theory is more accurate) would hopefully give a better description of the defect. Detailed comparisons with simulation will be described elsewhere.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research was supported by EPSRC grant GR/S77240. The calculations were performed on the computing facilities of the Centre for Scientific Computing, University of Warwick. The authors of Ref. [@harnau.l:to_appear] are thanked for providing a preprint.
[33]{} 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. , .
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ), ed.
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , , ** (, , ).
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present and analyze a new $M^\prime$ detection of the young exoplanet $\beta$ Pictoris b from 2008 VLT/NaCo data at a separation of $\approx$ 4 AU and a high signal-to-noise rereduction of $L^\prime$ data taken in December 2009. Based on our orbital analysis, the planet’s orbit is viewed almost perfectly edge-on ($i$ $\sim$ 89 degrees) and has a Saturn-like semimajor axis of 9.50AU$^{+3.93\,\mathrm{AU}}_{-1.7\,\mathrm{AU}}$. Intriguingly, the planet’s orbit is aligned with the major axis of the outer disk ($\Omega$ $\sim$ 31 degrees) but probably misaligned with the warp/inclined disk at 80 AU often cited as a signpost for the planet’s existence. Our results motivate new studies to clarify how $\beta$ Pic b sculpts debris disk structures and whether a second planet is required to explain the warp/inclined disk.'
author:
- 'Thayne Currie, Christian Thalmann, Soko Matsumura, Nikku Madhusudhan, Adam Burrows, Marc Kuchner'
title: 'A 5 Micron Image of $\beta$ Pictoris b at a Sub-Jupiter Projected Separation: Evidence for a Misalignment Between the Planet and the Inner, Warped Disk '
---
Introduction
============
Two decades of studies have argued that the nearby, 12 Myr-old A-type star $\beta$ Pictoris likely harbors a young planetary system [e.g. @SmithTerrile1984; @KalasJewitt1995; @Mouillet1997]; recently, @Lagrange2009 [@Lagrange2010] detected a $\approx$ 9 $\pm$ 3 M$_{J}$ planet around this star ($\beta$ Pic b). Imaged at projected separations of $\sim$ 6 AU and $\sim$ 8 AU (November 2003 and October–December 2009, respectively), $\beta$ Pic b – along with HR 8799e [@Marois2011; @Currie2011] – may also provide a more direct comparison to the solar system’s gas giants than other directly imaged planets which are at wider separations [e.g. Fomalhaut b and HR 8799bcd @Kalas2008; @Marois2008]. Current studies have yet to detect the planet at projected separations $\lesssim$ 0.3$\arcsec{}$ [@Lagrange2009b; @Fitzgerald2009]. Data at these smaller separations could provide crucial constraints on the planet’s orbit.
Imaging planets at small, $<$ 0.3$\arcsec{}$ separations requires significantly reducing quasi-static speckle noise and wavefront errors induced by imperfect AO corrections. Advanced observing/image processing techniques like *angular differential imaging* (ADI) coupled with PSF subtraction from a *locally optimized combination of images* (LOCI) algorithm [@Marois2006; @Lafreniere2007a] significantly attenuate speckles and increase sensitivity. New instrumentation, such as the *Gemini Planet Imager* [GPI @MacIntosh2008], will achieve far superior wavefront control. Generally, these efforts focus on planet imaging in the near-IR. However, mid-IR imaging naturally overcomes some of these challenges as the achievable Strehl ratio is better and the planet-to-star contrast is most favorable. High-contrast imaging with Strehl ratios $\ge$ 0.9 can yield at least some planet detections close to the telescope diffraction limit [e.g. 2 $\lambda$/D for HR 8799d; @Serabyn2010]. Because $M$ band imaging often achieves these high Strehl ratios [@Minowa2010; @Hinz2006], it may be a promising route for detecting very young and self luminous planets at small $\lambda$/D separations, despite a much higher sky background.
In this Letter, we report a detection of $\beta$ Pic b at a separation of $\sim$ 0.21$\arcsec{}$ extracted from archival $M^\prime$ band VLT/NaCo data taken in November 2008. We also present a high signal-to-noise $L^\prime$ detection of $\beta$ Pic b from December 2009 data first published in @Lagrange2010. We combine these data with recent data from @Bonnefoy2011 and @Quanz2010 to better constrain the orbit and atmosphere of $\beta$ Pic b.
Observations and Data
=====================
Our study originates from the need to test the ADI/LOCI reduction pipeline first presented in @Currie2010a and updated in @Currie2011 at separations smaller than those where the pipeline had previously extracted planet signals (r $<$ 0.375$\arcsec{}$). Because $\beta$ Pic b’s reported projected separation in 2009 was $\approx$ 0.3$\arcsec{}$ [@Lagrange2010], we chose the now publicly available @Lagrange2010 $L^\prime$ band data from December 29, 2009 to test our code performance. @Lagrange2010 discusses the details of the $L^\prime$ band observations. The total field rotation in units of the image FWHM was $\sim$ 3 $\lambda$/D, sufficient for using our reduction pipeline. Figure \[bpicimage\] (top-left panel) shows our processed $L^\prime$ band image using the LOCI algorithm in annular regions of 250$\times$FWHM ($N_{A}$ = 250) with reference images selected from frames with at least 0.5$\times$FWHM field rotation ($\delta$ = 0.5). The planet is easily detected and is well separated from residual speckle noise. The planet signal-to-noise, determined from the dispersion in pixel intensity values in concentric annuli, is SNR $\sim$ 21: about a factor of 4–5 greater than from @Lagrange2010.
Motivated by this success, we searched for additional $\beta$ Pic data in the VLT/NaCo archive taken in ADI mode between 2003 and 2009, finding a set taken on November 11, 2008 with the L27 camera. Most of these data were taken in sparse aperture masking mode in $K_{s}$, $L^\prime$, and $M^\prime$ bands over a span of $\sim$ 4 hours: these data were mentioned in @Lagrange2009b as not providing good constraints on the companion. However, we found $\sim$ 13 minutes of the $M^\prime$ data taken in ADI mode without aperture masking at various times in between the masking data. Over the course of the entire observing sequence, the parallactic angle changed by $\sim$ 100 degrees, or $\sim$ 2.4–3 $\lambda$/D at 0.2$\arcsec{}$–0.25$\arcsec{}$: sufficient for image processing with our pipeline.
Basic image processing of the $M^\prime$ band data followed steps outlined in @Currie2011. After registering each image and subtracting off the smooth seeing halo, we Fourier filtered the data to remove residual low spatial frequency noise and masked any hitherto unidentified bad pixels previously lost in the seeing halo. We explored a range of LOCI parameter space, varying $\delta$, $N_{A}$, and the ratio of the radial to azimuthal lengths of the subtraction annulus ($g$). Because $\beta$ Pic b is very luminous in the mid-IR [e.g. $\Delta$$L^\prime$ $\approx$ 7.7; @Lagrange2010 and Section 3 of this work], we focused on “aggressive" LOCI settings of $\delta$ = 0.25–0.5, $N_{A}$ = 200-300, and $g$ = 0.3–1, which better remove residual speckle noise.
Figure \[bpicimage\] (top-right panel) shows our best reduced $M^\prime$ image. $\beta$ Pic b is clearly detected in the southwest quadrant $\approx$ 0.2–0.25$\arcsec{}$ from the star (SNR $\sim$ 6). Manually inspecting each image between the radial profile subtraction and final image combination steps and examining a signal-to-noise map of the median-combined image also shows that the peak does not result from latent image artifacts. Slightly different settings for $\delta$, $N_{A}$, and $g$ also yield significant detections (bottom panels).
Analysis
========
Our new $M^\prime$ band detection and high signal-to-noise $L^\prime$ band detection allow new constraints on the planet’s orbit. To derive precise astrometry needed to investigate the planet’s orbit, we adopt the NaCo plate scale and orientation for the L27 camera from @Bergfors2011: 27.1 mas/pixel and a north position angle of -0.6 degrees. These values are nearly identical to those for the L27 camera quoted by @Lagrange2009 for 2003 NaCo data and for the S27 camera from @Ehrenreich2010 calibrated from Trapezium data acquired closest in time to the $\beta$ Pic data: our astrometric results does not leverage on which calibration we use.
To fine tune our measurements, we correct for the photometric and astrometric bias induced by LOCI processing by comparing the imputed fluxes and positions of fake point sources added to registered images with computed fluxes and centroid positions obtained after LOCI processing [e.g. @Lafreniere2007a; @Thalmann2009; @Currie2011]. While we lack unsaturated data from this run to directly confirm the PSF shape, unsaturated $M^\prime$ data taken in prior runs such as that for HD 158882 (March 2007) show that the AO-assisted NaCo $M^\prime$ PSF core is axisymmetric and well reproduced by a simple Gaussian intensity distribution. For the $L^\prime$ band data, the astrometric bias is minimal, whereas $\beta$ Pic b’s measured radial separation in $M^\prime$ band is biased by about +0.5 pixels (0.013"). The position angle offsets for both data were minimal.
We determine the $M^\prime$ band position to be at a separation of r = 0.210 $\pm$ 0.027$\arcsec{}$ and position angle of 211.49 $\pm$ 1.9 degrees. The $L^\prime$ band position is at 0.326 $\pm$ 0.013$\arcsec{}$ and 210.64 $\pm$ 1.2 degrees (Table 1). Here we conservatively assume an uncertainty in radial separation of one pixel for $M^\prime$ band and 0.5 pixels for the (higher signal-to-noise) $L^\prime$ band data. The position angle uncertainty – determined from the dispersion in values using different centroiding estimates (e.g. vs. ) is 0.25 pixels (0.7 mas$\times$r), or 1.2 and 1.9 degrees for $L^\prime$ and $M^\prime$, comparable to uncertainties for $\beta$ Pic b by @Lagrange2009 [@Lagrange2010] and @Bonnefoy2011. Assuming that $\beta$ Pic is 19.3 pc distant [@Crifo1997], the planet was at a projected separation of 4.05 $\pm$ 0.50 AU on November 11, 2008 and 6.29 $\pm$ 0.25 AU on December 29, 2009. To determine the range of allowable orbits for $\beta$ Pic b, we follow the method described in @Janson2011 used to model the orbit of the low-mass brown dwarf companion GJ 758 B [@Thalmann2009; @Currie2010a], somewhat similar to earlier analyses for $\beta$ Pic b [@Lagrange2009b; @Fitzgerald2009]. In this approach, we perform a Monte Carlo simulation comparing the astrometry to predictions from randomly selected orbits, where we allow all orbital parameters to vary. The minimum $\chi^{2}$ value in our simulation is $\chi^{2}$ $\sim$ 1.23. Given our data’s weak constraints on the orbital acceleration and the degeneracies due to the unknown line-of-sight components of planet position and velocity, no single ’best’ orbital solution emerges. Rather, the best-fitting solutions describe an extended, well- defined family of solutions that all match the data equally well. We choose a cut of $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 2.23 ($\chi^{2}$ $\lesssim$ $\chi^{2}$$_\mathrm{min}$ + 1) to represent the family of best-fitting orbits. We also consider the results for a cut of $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 8 ($\chi^{2}$ for a 1-$\sigma$ deviation in each of the data’s degrees of freedom): a family of ’average- fitting’ solutions. From the set of models satisifying this criterion, we determine the median value of each parameter, weighted by the ratio of the mean to current orbital velocity for the corresponding orbit, and identify the weighted 68% confidence interval about the median. We include astrometry from the highest signal-to-noise data separated in time by more than $\sim$ 3 months (Table 1).
Figures \[orbitfit\] and \[orbitfit2\] displays our Monte Carlo simulation results. For a $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 2.23 cutoff (Figure \[orbitfit\]), the range of best-fit orbital parameters (weighted median, \[weighted 68% confidence interval\]) include $a_{p}$ = 10.99 \[8.18, 15.88\] AU, $i$ = 89.47 \[89.19, 89.69\] degrees, $e$ = 0.12 \[0.03,0.31\], and $\Omega$ = 30.89 \[30.57, 31.17\] degrees. For nearly circular orbits ($e$ $<$ 0.1), the range in semimajor axes is much narrower ($a_{p}$ $\sim$ 8–12 AU). If we relax our fitting criteria to accept models with $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 8 (Figure \[orbitfit2\]), we find $a_{p}$ = 9.50 \[7.80, 13.43 \] AU and $e$ = 0.10 \[0.02,0.23\]. More importantly, the inclination and longitude of ascending node are still nearly single valued: $i$ = 88.93 \[88.06, 89.40\] and $\Omega$ = 31.32 \[30.56, 32.12\]. Thus, $\beta$ Pic b’s orbit must be viewed almost perfectly edge on, consistent with that for $\beta$ Pic’s debris disks, with a north position angle of $\sim$ 30.8 degrees for the outer debris disk [@KalasJewitt1995 see also Boccaletti et al. 2009] but inconsistent with the inner disk position angle, which is offset by $\sim$ 5 degrees [@Heap2000; @Golimowski2006].
Unfortunately, the $M^\prime$ band observations of $\beta$ Pic were taken with the star saturated within $\sim$ 3 pixels ($\sim$ 0.6 FWHM) of the centroid and there were likewise no unsaturated standard star observations. We derive a very crude magnitude estimate by scaling the $M^\prime$ PSF of HD 158882 to the unsaturated portion of the $\beta$ Pic PSF and use HD 158882’s known brightness ($K_{s}$ = 5.09; $K_{s}$-$M^\prime$ $\sim$ 0) to calibrate $\beta$ Pic b’s brightness. We estimate $\Delta M^\prime$ $\approx$ 8.02 $\pm$ 0.50 (M$_{M^\prime}$ $\approx$ 9.99), where we consider the uncertainties in our PSF fitting scaling, the dispersion in individual planet magnitude estimates drawn from separate reductions, and the intrinsic signal-to-noise of our detection. We determine an $L^\prime$ contrast of $\Delta$$L^\prime$ = 7.71 $\pm$ 0.06. Combining the $L^\prime$ measurement with the $K_{s}$ band and \[4.05\] data from @Bonnefoy2011 and @Quanz2010, we have three good quality photometric points to investigate the family of possible solutions for $\beta$ Pic b’s atmospheric properties.
Figure \[atmosfit\] compares the $\beta$ Pic b photometry to best-fit spectra for models with log($g$) = 3.5/4–4.5 and $T_{eff}$ = 1000–1800 K for a range of cloud prescriptions: the Model A and AE thick cloud prescriptions respectively from @Currie2011 and @Madhusudhan2011 that best fit the HR 8799 planet SEDs, the Model E cloud deck prescription appropriate for brown dwarfs [@Burrows2006], and a cloudless atmosphere. The $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ values for these models are, respectively, $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ = 24.8, 12.3, 20.4, and 43.2 for Models A, AE, E, and the cloudless case. The AE thick cloud model provides the best fit. Thick cloud models also produce redder $L^\prime$-$M^\prime$ colors at high temperatures, similar to that estimated here ($\approx$ -0.22 $\pm$ 0.50), though our lack of a reliable $M^\prime$ photometric calibration precludes strong conclusions. Good photometry is available in only three filters, so we cannot yet say that $\beta$ Pic b has thick clouds like the HR 8799 planets [@Currie2011; @Madhusudhan2011].
The range of gravities and effective temperatures are log(g) = 3.5–4.5 and $T_{eff}$ = 1400–1800 K. The implied masses for these models range between 4.1 M$_{J}$ and 19.2 $M_{J}$ and ages range between 1 and 27 Myr, broadly consistent with the planet mass [9 $\pm$ 3 M$_{J}$; @Lagrange2010], stellar age [12 Myr; @Zuckerman2001], and likely formation timescale [$\le$ 3–5 Myr; @Currie2009]. Planet fluxes in the near-IR (1–1.65 $\mu$m) and the 3–3.5 $\mu m$ methane absorption trough are highly sensitive to cloud structure [e.g. @Currie2011; @Madhusudhan2011]. Thus, $J$ or $H$ broadband data and/or narrowband 3–3.5 $\mu m$ data will be critical in breaking model fitting degeneracies.
Discussion
==========
We present a new detection of $\beta$ Pic b in $M^\prime$ band at a separation of $\sim$ 0.21$\arcsec{}$ (a$_\mathrm{projected}$ = 4.05 AU) from archival VLT/NaCo data taken in November 2008 and a high SNR rereduction of $L^\prime$ data first reported by @Lagrange2010, using these data to constrain the planet’s orbit and atmospheric properties. For orbits whose fit to the data yield $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 2.23, we find that the $\beta$ Pic planet has a semimajor axis of $a_{p}$ = 10.99 AU$^{+4.69 \mathrm{AU}}_{-2.81 \mathrm{AU}}$ and a moderate/low eccentricity ($e$ $\lesssim$ 0.31). Admitting orbital solutions with $\chi^{2}$ $\le$ 8, the parameter ranges are $a_{p}$ = 9.50 AU$^{+3.93 \mathrm{AU}}_{-1.7 \mathrm{AU}}$ and e $\lesssim$ 0.23. In both cases, values for the planet’s inclination (i $\sim$ 88.06–89.69 degrees) and longitude of ascending node ($\Omega$ $\sim$ 30.56–32.12 degrees) are tightly constrained and imply that the planet’s orbit is almost perfectly aligned with the outer debris disk, but not the inclined inner disk ($\Omega$ $\sim$ 35–36 degrees). We cannot extract reliable photometry from our $M^\prime$ band data; new data at 1–1.65 $\mu m$ and $\sim$ 3–3.5 $\mu m$ is needed to constrain $\beta$ Pic b’s atmosphere.
Numerous studies of the $\beta$ Pic debris disk(s) have identified the star as harboring a young planetary system [e.g. @SmithTerrile1984; @KalasJewitt1995; @Mouillet1997; @Weinberger2003]. More recently, the presence of a warp in the disk at $\sim$ 80 AU – due to the combined effects of the main disk with PA $\sim$ 30.8 and a second, inclined disk offset by 5 degrees – was identified as a clear signpost of a perturbing planet [e.g. @Mouillet1997; @Heap2000; @Golimowski2006], motivating high-contrast imaging studies to image the planet. @Lagrange2009 identified $\beta$ Pic b as a likely source of the inclined disk and used the disk morphology to derive mass estimates [see also @Lagrange2010].
Our results suggest that $\beta$ Pic b is probably *not* aligned with the inner disk/warp but rather the main disk, as the allowed range in $\Omega$ is offset from the main disk as measured by @KalasJewitt1995 by no more than $\sim$ 1 degree. Furthermore, the planet may be misaligned with the submm disk emission [@Wilner2011], which is sensitive to dynamical sculpting by planets [@Kuchner2010]. However, models accounting for the inclined inner disk presume that the planet’s orbit is also inclined relative to the main disk [e.g. @Mouillet1997; @Augereau2001]. New beta Pic b astrometry, a more precise astrometric calibration of existing beta Pic NaCo data by determining and correcting for image distortion, and a detailed relative calibration between NaCo data and data revealing the disk will further clarify how beta Pic b’s orbital plane compares to that for the main disk and the inner disk/warp. Furthermore, our new orbital constraints for $\beta$ Pic b strongly motivate new studies of the dynamical sculpting of $\beta$ Pic’s debris disk by planets. If $\beta$ Pic b or non-planet related mechanisms [e.g. @Armitage1997] fail to explain the inclined debris disk/warp, the existence of additional planets in the system may be required.
Our $M^\prime$ band detection demonstrates that it is possible to directly image planets at separations approaching the telescope diffraction limit without sparse aperture masking interferometry [SAM; @Ireland2008]. The high Strehl ratio, large amount of field rotation, large mid-IR planet brightness, and LOCI processing pipeline are the keys to closing this gap. While SAM can detect planets interior to the telescope diffraction limit, it is overall less sensitive. However, the techniques can be complementary, yielding detections or robust limits on infant gas giant planets around the youngest stars on $\sim$ 5–100 AU scales.
Upcoming facilities like GPI, SPHERE, SCExAO, and Project 1640 achieve higher contrast at small inner working angles in the near-IR primarily through more sophisticated wavefront control [@MacIntosh2008; @Beuzit2008; @Martinache2009; @Hinkley2011]. Our results, coupled with previous $L^\prime$ band detections of $\beta$ Pic from @Lagrange2009 [@Lagrange2010] and the high signal-to-noise $L^\prime$ band detection of HR 8799e [@Marois2011] suggest that the mid-IR may also be fertile ground for new exoplanet detections at small separations for very young systems. Young, nearby 1.5–2 $M_{\odot}$ stars like $\beta$ Pic are particularly promising targets for direct imaging surveys [e.g. @Crepp2011] and many have resolved debris disks [e.g. HD 181327, @Schneider2006; @Chen2008]. Imaging massive planets in such systems can yield additional studies of planet-disk interactions, such as those motivated by this work.
We thank David Ehrenreich, Karl Stapelfeldt, Scott Kenyon, Justin Crepp, and the anonymous referee for suggested improvements to the manuscript and Michael McElwain, Sally Heap, Sarah Maddison, and Aki Roberge for other useful discussions. TC is supported by a NASA Postdoctoral Fellowship. AB is supported in part under NASA ATP grant NNX07AG80G, HST grant HST-GO-12181.04-A, and JPL/Spitzer Agreements 1417122, 1348668, and 1371432. SM is supported by an Astronomy Center for Theory and Computation Prize Fellowship.
Armitage, P., Pringle, J., 1997, , 488, 47L Augereau, J. C., 2001, A&A, 370, 440 Bergfors, C., et al., 2011, A&A, 528, 134 Beuzit, J.-L., et al., 2008, SPIE, 7014, 41 Boccaletti, A., et al., 2009, A&A, 495, 523 Bonnefoy, M., et al., 2011, A&A, 528, 15L Burrows, A., et al., 2006, , 640, 1063 Chen, C., Fitzgerald, M., Smith, P., 2008, , 689, 539 Crepp, J., Johnson, J., 2011, , 733, 126 Crifo, F., et al., 1997, A&A, 320, 29L Currie, T., Lada, C. J, et al., 2009, , 698, 1 Currie, T., et al., , 721, 177L Currie, T., Burrows, A., et al., 2011, , 729, 128 Ehrenrieich, D., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, 73 Fitzgerald, M., et al., 2009, , 706, 41L Golimowski, D., et al., 2006, , 131, 3109 Heap, S., et al., 2000, , 539, 435 Hinkley, S., et al., 2011, , 123, 74 Hinz, P., et al., 2006, , 653, 1486 Ireland, M., Kraus, A., 2008, , 678, 59L Janson, M., et al., 2011, , 728, 85 Kalas, P., Jewitt, D., 1995, , 110, 794 Kalas, P., et al., 2008, Science, 322, 1345 Kuchner, M., Stark, C., 2010, , 140, 1007 Lafreniere, D., et al., 2007, , 660, 770 Lagrange, A.-M., et al., 2009a, A&A, 493, 21L Lagrange, A.-M., et al., 2009b, A&A, 506, 927 Lagrange, A.-M., et al., 2010, Science, 329, 57 MacIntosh, B., et al., 2008, SPIE, 7015, 31 Madhusudhan, N., Burrows, A., Currie, T., 2011, in press, arXiv:1102.5089 Marois, C., et al., 2006, , 641, 556 Marois, C., et al., 2008, Science, 322, 1348 Marois, C., et al., 2010, Nature, 468, 1080 Martinache, F., Guyon, O., 2009, SPIE, 7440, 20 Minowa, Y., et al., 2010, SPIE, 7736, 122 Mouillet, D., et al., 1997, , 292, 896 Quanz, S., et al., 2010, , 722, 49L Schneider, G., et al., 2006, , 650, 414 Serabyn, E., et al., 2010, Nature, 464, 1018 Smith, B., Terrile, R. J., 1984, Science, 226, 1421 Thalmann, C., et al., 2009, , 707, 123L Weinberger, A., Becklin, E. E., Zuckerman, B., 2003, , 584, 33L Wilner, D., Andrews, S., Hughes, A. M., 2011, , 727, 42L Zuckerman, B., et al., 2001, , 562, 87L
[llllllllllllll]{} **Astrometry**\
Date&Filter &Separation ($\arcsec{}$),Position Angle ($^{\circ}$)&Reference\
11-10-2003& $L^\prime$&0.411 $\pm$ 0.008, 31.7 $\pm$ 1.3 & @Lagrange2009\
11-11-2008& $M^\prime$&0.210 $\pm$ 0.027, 211.49 $\pm$ 1.9 & this work\
12-29-2009& $L^\prime$&0.326 $\pm$ 0.013, 210.64 $\pm$ 1.2 & this work\
03-20-2010& $K_{s}$&0.345 $\pm$ 0.012, 209.8 $\pm$ 0.8 & @Bonnefoy2011\
**Photometry**\
Date&Filter &Absolute Magnitude&Reference\
03-20-2010&$K_{s}$& 11.20 $\pm$ 0.12 & @Bonnefoy2011\
12-29-2009&$L^\prime$ & 9.73 $\pm$ 0.06 & this work\
04-03-2010&$[4.05]$&9.77 $\pm$ 0.23 & @Quanz2010\
11-11-2008&$M^\prime$&$\approx$ 9.99 $\pm$ 0.50 & this work
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[\#1 |]{} \#1[| \#1 ]{} \#1\#2[\#1 | \#2 ]{} 6.1in -0.2in -0.5in 9.1in
**Charmless final states and S–D-wave mixing**
**in the $\ppp$ [^1]**
Jonathan L. Rosner [^2]
*Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics*
*University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637*
(Received June 2001)
> The $\ppp = \psi(3770)$ resonance is expected to be mainly $c \bar c(1^3D_1)$, but tensor forces and coupling to charmed particle pairs can mix it with $\pp(2^3S_1)$ and other states. Implications of this mixing for decays of $\ppp$ to non-charmed final states are discussed. (i) The ratio $\Gamma(\ppp
> \to \gamma + \chi_{c2})/ \Gamma(\ppp \to \gamma + \chi_{c0})$ is expected to be highly suppressed if $\ppp$ is a pure D-wave state, and is enchanced by mixing. (ii) The expected decay $\pp \to \rho \pi$ and other “missing” modes can appear as corresponding $\ppp$ partial widths, enhanced by a factor depending on the mixing angle. General arguments then suggest a branching ratio of about 1%, give or take a factor of 2, for charmless hadronic decays of $\ppp$. (iii) Enhancements can appear in penguin amplitudes in $B$ decays, $B \to K \eta'$ branching ratios, and direct CP-violating asymmetries in $B \to K \pi$ decays.
PACS numbers: 13.25.Gv, 13.20.Gd, 14.40.Gx, 12.39.Jh
Introduction
============
The lowest resonance in electron-positron collisions above charmed particle pair production threshold is the $\ppp = \psi(3770)$, discovered somewhat after the $J/\psi(3097)$ and the $\pp = \psi(3686)$ [@Rap].[^3] It provides a rich source of $D^0 \od$ and $D^+ D^-$ pairs, as anticipated theoretically [@Eetal]. The largest data sample of $\ppp$ decays studied so far, by the Mark III Collaboration at the Stanford electron-positron collider SPEAR [@MkIII], has been $9.56 \pm
0.48$ pb$^{-1}$. Plans are under way to accumulate as much as 3 fb$^{-1}$ at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), which will permit much more incisive tests of a number of open questions [@Wkshp]. In the present note we discuss several of these which involve observation of [*non-charmed final states*]{} of the $\ppp$. These have been studied in two previous Ph. D. theses [@Zhu; @Walid] based on the Mark III data.
The $\ppp$ is the only present candidate for a D-wave $(l = 2)$ quarkonium level. (Strategies for finding the corresponding $b \bar b$ levels have been noted in Refs. [@KR; @GRD].) Although it is primarily $c \bar
c(1^3D_1)$, [^4] its leptonic width (quoted in Table I [@MkIII; @PDG]) indicates a contribution from mixing with S-wave states, such as the nearby $\pp(2^3S_1)$ and to a lesser extent with $J/\psi(1^3S_1)$ [@Rich] and $n \ge 3$ S-wave states above 4 GeV/$c^2$. Early calculations of this mixing based on contributions from intermediate real and virtual states of charmed particle pairs [@Eetal] predicted a $\ppp$ contribution to the $e^+ e^- \to D \bar D$ cross section which indicated the utility of this state as a “charm factory” and predicted its leptonic width quite well.[^5] It was later found that mixing due to a tensor force based on perturbative QCD also was adequate to explain the observed leptonic width [@MR]. Probably both perturbative and non-perturbative (e.g., coupled-channel) effects are present.
Mass (MeV/$c^2$) $\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ (MeV) $\Gamma_{ee}$ (keV) ${\cal B}(D^0 \od)$ ${\cal B}(D^+ D^-)$
------------------ -------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
$3769.9 \pm 2.5$ $23.6 \pm 2.7$ $0.26 \pm 0.04$ 58% 42%
: Properties of the $\ppp = \psi(3770)$
The mixing of the $\ppp$ with other states can affect both its decays and those of the other states. In Section II we discuss a simplified model for $\pp$–$\ppp$ mixing and its implications for leptonic and radiative partial decay rates of these states. The ratio $\Gamma(\ppp \to \gamma +
\chi_{c2})/ \Gamma(\ppp \to \gamma + \chi_{c0})$ is expected to be highly suppressed if $\ppp$ is a pure D-wave state, but could be enhanced by mixing [@Zhu; @KR; @YNY; @KL; @B88].
The “missing decay modes” of the $\pp$ [@psip], such as $\rho \pi$ and $K^* \bar K + {\rm~c.c.}$, are a long-standing puzzle [@rhopi; @Suz; @fsi; @GW; @FK]. Recently Suzuki [@Suz01] showed that if a $\pp$ decay amplitude due to coupling to virtual (but nearly on-shell) charmed particle pairs interferes destructively with the standard three-gluon amplitude, the suppression of these (and other) modes in $\pp$ final states can be understood. We pursue this suggestion further in Section III using the $\pp$–$\ppp$ mixing model described earlier. We propose that as a result of coupled-channel effects the expected decay width $\Gamma(\pp \to \rho \pi) \simeq 0.5$ keV and other “missing” modes could show up as corresponding partial widths in $\ppp$ decays, possibly enhanced by a considerable factor depending on the mixing angle. Since the latter state has a total width nearly 100 times that of the $\pp$, each of these partial widths still corresponds to a small branching ratio.
If coupling to charmed particle pairs is responsible for mixing the $\pp$ and the $\ppp$, and for significant effects on non-charmed final states in decays of both particles, it is likely that virtual or real $D^{(*)}
\bar D^{(*)}$ pairs produced in low partial waves in other contexts may undergo significant rescattering into non-charmed final states. Foremost among these cases are the decays of $B$ mesons, which can involve such pairs via the subprocesses $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar s$ or $\bar b \to \bar c c
\bar d$. The re-annihilation of the final $c \bar c$ pair can lead to an effective $\bar b \to \bar s$ or $\bar b \to \bar d$ penguin amplitude [@fsi; @Dun; @Ciu; @KLS], which appears to be needed in understanding large branching ratios for $B \to K \eta'$ [@eta] and $B \to K \pi$. Moreover, Suzuki [@Suz01] has proposed that this reannihilation, at least in $\pp$ decays, is associated with a large final-state phase. We discuss implications of this suggestion for CP violation in $B$ decays in Section IV, while Section V concludes.
Radiative $\ppp$ decays
=======================
The relative branching ratios for radiative decays to $\chi_c$ ($1^3P_1$) states are very different for $2S$ and $1D$ states. The observation of radiative decays $\ppp \to \gamma + \chi_c$ can determine the degree to which the $\ppp$ is mixed with an S-wave state [@Zhu; @KR; @YNY; @KL; @B88].
The rates for electric dipole ($E1$) transitions in quarkonium can be written \[eqn:rate\] = e\_Q\^2 \^3 C r \^2 , where $e_Q$ is the quark charge (in units of $|e|$), $\alpha = 1/137.036$ is the fine-structure constant, $\omega$ is the photon energy, and $\langle r
\rangle$ is the matrix element of $r$ between initial and final radial wave functions. The coefficients $C$ are summarized in Table II, where we compare relative rates for $E1$ transitions from $\ppp$ to $\chi_c$ states under the two extreme assumptions of a pure S-wave or a pure D-wave. The distinctive pattern associated with the pure $^3D_1$ configuration is a ratio ${\cal B}(\gamma + \chi_{c1})/{\cal B}(\gamma + \chi_{c0}) = 0.3$ and an almost complete suppression of the ratio ${\cal B}(\gamma + \chi_{c2})
/{\cal B}(\gamma + \chi_{c0})$.
--------- ---------- ----- ------------------------------- -- ------ -------------------------------
Final $\omega$
state (MeV) $C$ $\Gamma(^3P_J)/\Gamma(^3P_0)$ $C$ $\Gamma(^3P_J)/\Gamma(^3P_0)$
$^3P_0$ 338 1/9 1 2/9 1
$^3P_1$ 250 1/3 1.22 1/6 0.30
$^3P_2$ 208 5/9 1.16 1/90 0.012
--------- ---------- ----- ------------------------------- -- ------ -------------------------------
: Comparison of transitions $\ppp \to \gamma \chi_c$ under the assumptions of a pure S-wave or D-wave initial state. Coefficients $C$ are those in the expression (\[eqn:rate\]) for electric dipole transitions.
A more detailed model can be constructed by assuming that the $\ppp$ is a mixture of a $1^3D_1$ and a $2^3S_1$ state [@B88]: \[eqn:mix\] = + , = - + . The leptonic widths of $\ppp$ and $\pp$ are then [@Nov] (e\^+ e\^-) = | R\_[2S]{}(0) + \_[1D]{}(0) |\^2 , (e\^+ e\^-) = | R\_[2S]{}(0) - \_[1D]{}(0) |\^2 , where $e_c = 2/3$, $R_{2S}(0) = (4 \pi)^{1/2} \Psi_{2S}(0)$ is the radial $2S$ wave function at $r=0$, and ${R''}_{1D}(0)$ is the second derivative of the radial $2D$ wave function at the origin. The values $R_{2S}(0) =
0.734$ GeV$^{3/2}$ and $5R_{1D}''(0)/(2 \sqrt{2}m_c^2) = 0.095$ GeV$^{3/2}$ were taken in Ref. [@B88]. Assuming a common QCD correction to $\pp$ and $\ppp$ leptonic widths, we then fit the ratio = | |\^2 = 0.128 0.023 , with solutions $\phi = (12 \pm 2)^{\circ}$ or $\phi = -(27 \pm 2)^{\circ}$. These values agree with those of Kuang and Yan [@KY90], whose $\theta$ is the same as our $- \phi$. As they note, the smaller-$|\phi|$ solution is consistent with coupled-channel estimates [@EGKLY; @CC] and with the ratio of $\pp$ and $\ppp$ partial widths to $J/\psi \pi \pi$.
A nonrelativistic calculation along the lines of Ref. [@YNY] then yields the following predictions [@B88]: (\_[c0]{}) = 145 [keV]{} \^2 (1.73 + )\^2 , (\_[c1]{}) = 176 [keV]{} \^2 (-0.87 + )\^2 , (\_[c2]{}) = 167 [keV]{} \^2 (0.17 + )\^2 , (\_[c0]{}) = 67 [keV]{} \^2 (1 - 1.73 )\^2 , (\_[c1]{}) = 56 [keV]{} \^2 (1 + 0.87 )\^2 , (\_[c2]{}) = 39 [keV]{} \^2 (1 - 0.17 )\^2 . Other predictions are given, for example, in Ref. cite[GZS]{}. Zhu has apparently neglected to take account of relative signs of S-wave and D-wave contributions in the first three of the above equations when presenting his results for mixed states (Fig. 1.6.2, Ref. [@Zhu]). For small $\phi$, as suggested by the $\pp$ and $\ppp$ leptonic widths, the experimental rates for the $\pp$ radiative decays are about a factor of three below these predictions [@PDG], probably as a result of relativistic corrections [@MR; @MB]. The $\pp$ decays are expected to be particularly sensitive to such corrections as a result of the node in the $2S$ wave function; it is possible that the $\ppp$ predictions could be more reliable, since neither the $1D$ nor $1P$ radial wave functions has a node.
Results for $\ppp$ radiative decays [@Zhu], for $\sigma(e^+ e^-
\to \ppp) \equiv \sigma(\ppp) = 5.0 \pm 0.5$ nb, are: (\_[c0]{}) = 510 190 [keV]{} , (\_[c1]{}) = 440 160 [keV]{} , (\_[c2]{}) 520 [keV]{} (90% [ c.l.]{}) . These partial widths scale as $1/\sigma(\ppp)$. So far it does not seem possible to reconcile the central values of these results with the values of $\phi$ suggested earlier.[^6] The model for mixing between $\pp$ and $\ppp$ may be oversimplified, and relativistic corrections undoubtedly play a role. Nevertheless, the above results bear revisiting with improved statistics. The search for a 338 MeV monochromatic photon in the decays of the $\ppp$ would represent a worthwhile first step in the determination of this interesting resonance’s mixing parameters.
Missing modes of the $\pp$
==========================
F. A. Harris [@FH] has summarized a wide class of hadronic decay modes of the $\pp$ which appear to be suppressed relative to expectations. Of these the foremost is the $\rho \pi$ final state, with $K^+ K^{*-}(892)
+ {\rm c.c.}$ in second place. Let us review the expectations and the data for these two modes. (The decay $\pp \to K^0 \overline{K}^{*0}(892) + {\rm c.c.}$ has been observed with a branching ratio of $(8.1 \pm 2.4 \pm 1.6) \times
10^{-5}$ which indicates the contribution of a significant one-virtual-photon contribution [@Suz; @fsi; @Suz01], and we shall not discuss it further.)
We summarize in Table III the total widths, branching ratios, and derived partial widths for $J/\psi$ and $\pp$ decays into $\rho \pi$ and $K^+
\overline{K}^*(892)^-$, as well as the partial widths predicted for the $\pp$ decays to these final states. Both hadronic and leptonic decay rates are proportional to the square of the wave function at the origin $|\Psi(0)|^2$. Although one might expect an additional factor of $1/M_V^2$, where $M_V$ is the mass of the decaying vector meson, entering into the leptonic width, we shall ignore this effect, since it is probably offset by a (form) factor suppressing the hadronic decay of the higher-mass $\pp$ into low-multiplicity final states such as $\rho \pi$. Then we expect for any hadronic final state $f$ [@rhopi; @Suz01; @FH] (f) = (J/f) . This relation has been used to predict the quantities ${\Gamma_{\rm pred}}$ in Table III. One sees that $\pp \to \rho \pi$ is suppressed by a factor of at least $\sim 50$ with respect to naïve expectations, while the corresponding factor for $K^+ K^{*0}(892) + {\rm c.c.}$ is at least $\sim 20$.
----------------------- --------------------- ----------------- -- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------------------------
Decay mode
${\cal B}$ $\Gamma$ (keV) ${\cal B}$ $\Gamma$ (eV) ${\Gamma_{\rm pred}}^{~a}$ (eV)
$\rho \pi$ $(1.27 \pm 0.09)\%$ $1.10 \pm 0.10$ $< 2.8 \times 10^{-5}$ $ < 8.6$ $443 \pm 63$
${K^+ K^{*-}(892)}^b$ $(0.50 \pm 0.04)\%$ $0.44 \pm 0.04$ $< 3.0 \times 10^{-5}$ $ < 9.2$ $177 \pm 24$
----------------------- --------------------- ----------------- -- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------------------------
: Total widths, branching ratios, and derived partial widths for $J/\psi$ and $\pp$ decays.
Suzuki [@Suz01] has proposed that the coupling of $\pp$ to virtual pairs of charmed particles could provide an amplitude which interferes destructively with the perturbative QCD process $\pp \to 3g$ in the specific cases of $\rho \pi$ and $K \overline{K}^*(892) + {\rm c.c.}$ hadronic decays. If this is the case, and if virtual charmed particle pairs also play a role in mixing $\pp$ and $\ppp$, we would expect a similar amplitude to contribute to $\ppp \to D^{(*)} \overline{D}^{(*)} \to \rho \pi$ or $K
\overline{K}^*(892) + {\rm c.c.}$
In the absence of a detailed coupled-channel analysis, let us assume that the main effect on $\pp$ and $\ppp$ of their mutual coupling to charmed particle pairs is precisely the mixing discussed in the previous section. Let us assume that this mixing and the couplings of $\pp$ and $\ppp$ to $\rho \pi$ and $K \overline{K}^*(892) + {\rm c.c.}$ are such as to cancel the $\pp$ hadronic widths to these final states \[which are related to one another by flavor SU(3)\]. In this case we have $$\mat{\rho \pi}{\pp} =
\mat{\rho \pi}{2^3S_1} \cos \phi - \mat{\rho \pi}{1^3D_1} \sin \phi = 0~~,$$ = + = / , so that [*the missing $\rho \pi$ (and related) decay modes of $\pp$ show up instead as decay modes of $\ppp$, enhanced by the factor of $1/\sin^2 \phi$*]{}. The possible effects of this enhancement are shown in Table IV for the two solutions for $\phi$. One expects ${\cal B}(\ppp \to \rho \pi) \simeq 10^{-4}$ for $\phi \simeq -27^\circ$ and $\simeq 4 \times 10^{-4}$ for the favored value $\phi \simeq 12^\circ$. Either branching ratio is compatible with the current upper bound ${\cal B}(\ppp \to \rho \pi) < 1.3 \times
10^{-3} \times[5~{\rm nb}/\sigma(\ppp)]$ [@Zhu].
----------------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\phi$ ($^\circ$) $- 27 \pm 2$ $12 \pm 2$
$1/\sin^2 \phi$ $4.8 \pm 0.6$ $22 \pm 6$
$\Gamma(\ppp \to \rho \pi)$ (keV) $2.1 \pm 0.4$ $9.8 \pm 3.0$
${\cal B}(\ppp \to \rho \pi)~(10^{-4})$ $0.9 \pm 0.2$ $4.1 \pm 1.4$
----------------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Predicted $\ppp \to \rho \pi$ partial widths and branching ratios for two solutions of mixing angle $\phi$.
An alternative mechanism discussed by Suzuki [@Suz01] for introducing an additional non-perturbative $\pp$ decay amplitude is mixing with a vector glueball state (first discussed in the context of $J/\psi$ decays [@glu]). In this case the $\ppp$ is permitted, but not required, to mix with the vector glueball, so there is no particular reason for the missing partial widths for $\pp$ decays to show up as corresponding $\ppp$ partial decay rates.
Gérard and Weyers [@GW] have proposed that the three-gluon decay of the $\pp$ is absent or suppressed, and that the $\pp$ decays to hadrons instead mainly via a two-step process involving an intermediate $c \bar c(^1P_1)$ state. Feldmann and Kroll [@FK] have proposed that the $J/\psi \to \rho \pi$ decay is [*enhanced*]{} (rather than $\pp \to
\rho \pi$ being suppressed) by mixing of the $J/\psi$ with light-quark states, notably $\omega$ and $\phi$. Both mechanisms do not imply any special role for $\ppp$ charmless decays. Arguments against them raised in the last of Refs.[@rhopi] and in Ref. [@FH] include the appearance of certain unsuppressed light-quark decay modes of the $\pp$ and the lack of evidence for helicity suppression in $J/\psi$ decays involving a single virtual photon.
As Suzuki has noted, the cases of suppressed hadronic final states of the $\pp$ cannot extend to all its decays; indeed, the total hadronic width of $\pp$ exceeds estimates based on extrapolating from the $J/\psi$ using perturbative QCD by some 60–70% [@Suz01; @GL]. The non-perturbative effect of coupling to virtual charmed particle pairs, followed by the re-annihilation of these pairs into non-charmed final states, must thus be responsible for some tens of keV of the total width of the $\pp$ in Suzuki’s scheme.
A corresponding effect in the decays of the $\ppp$, which is about 85 times as wide as the $\pp$, would contribute at most a percent to its total width. Present searches for non-charmed decays of the $\ppp$ [@Zhu; @Walid] are not sensitive enough to exclude this possibility since they did not compare on-resonance data with data taken off-resonance at a sufficiently close energy [@JTpc].
A related method allows one to estimate the partial decay rate of $\ppp$ to non-charmed final states. The branching ratio ${\cal B}(J/\psi \to \rho \pi)$ is $(1.27 \pm 0.09)\%$. Since about 1/3 of $J/\psi$ decays can be ascribed to non-$3 g$ mechanisms, we expect $\rho \pi$ to account for about 2% of all [*hadronic*]{} $J/\psi$ decays, and thus no more than this percentage of $\ppp$ hadronic charmless decays. (The availability of more final states undoubtedly reduces the $\rho \pi$ fraction in comparison with $J/\psi$ hadronic decays.) We thus estimate for hadronic charmless decays ${\cal B}(\ppp) \gsim 2 \times
10^{-4} /2\% \simeq 1\%$, again give or take a factor of 2 depending on the sign of $\phi$. This is consistent with our previous estimate.
It is even possible that we have seriously underestimated the role of non-charmed final states in hadronic $\ppp$ decays. If so, there is a chance of reconciling the smaller cross section for $e^+ e^- \to \ppp$ measured by the Mark III Collaboration using a comparison of single-charm and double-charm production, $\sigma(\ppp) = 5.0 \pm 0.5$ nb [@MkIII], with higher values obtained by other groups using direct measurement [@LGW; @XB; @MkII; @BES], whose average I find to be $8.0 \pm 0.7$ nb.[^7] This possible discrepancy was a factor motivating the studies in Refs. [@Zhu; @Walid]. Those and related searches need to be performed with greater sensitivity and with off-resonance running in order to determine backgrounds from such processes as $e^+ e^- \to \gamma^* \to {\rm charmless~hadrons}$. In any event, the search for the “missing final states” of the $\pp$ among the decay products of the $\ppp$ is a reasonable goal of foreseen studies [@Wkshp].
Implications for $B$ decays
===========================
A key observation in Ref. [@Suz01] with regard to the additional contribution to $\pp$ hadronic decays is that it is likely to have a large final-state phase, in order to interfere destructively with the pertubative $3g$ contribution in the $\rho \pi$ and $K \bar K^*(892) + {\rm
c.c.}$ channels. If this new contribution is due to rescattering into non-charmed final states through charmed particle pairs, it is exactly the type of contribution proposed in Refs. [@fsi; @Dun; @Ciu; @KLS] in which the decay $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar s$ or $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar d$ contributes to a penguin amplitude with a large strong phase. Several implications of this possibility were reviewed in [@fsi], and others have been pointed out in [@Ciu]. These include the following:
1. The semileptonic branching ratio ${\cal B}(B \to X \ell \nu)$ can be diminished with respect to the theoretical prediction if the penguin amplitude leads to a net enhancement of $\bar b \to \bar s$ and $\bar b \to \bar d$ transitions. The enhancement need not be large enough to conflict with any experimental upper limits on such transitions, which are in the range of a few percent of all $B$ decays [@slims].
2. The number $n_c$ of charmed particles per average $B$ decay can be reduced by the reannihilation of $c \bar c$ to light quarks. The degree to which this improves agreement with experiment is a matter of some debate [@Lenz], since a recent SLD measurement [@SLD] finds $n_c = 1.238
\pm 0.027 \pm 0.048 \pm 0.006$, closer to theoretical expectations than earlier values [@Barker].
3. The enhancement of the inclusive branching ratio ${\cal B}(B \to \eta'
X)$ [@CLEOeta] in comparison with theoretical expectations [@incl] can be explained.
4. The required additional contribution [@eta] to the exclusive branching ratios ${\cal B}(B \to K \eta')$ [@CLEOeta], in comparison with the penguin contribution leading to $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ or $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, can be generated.
5. In any $B \to K \pi$ process in which the dominant penguin amplitude interferes with tree-amplitude contributions, notably in $B^+ \to \pi^0
K^+$ and $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$, a CP-violating asymmetry can occur up to the maximum allowed by the ratio of the tree to penguin amplitudes’ magnitudes. This asymmetry, estimated to be about 1/3 in Ref. [@fsi], is not yet excluded by experiment [@CLEOasy]. The enhancement of the penguin amplitude by the intrinsically non-perturbative charm rescattering mechanism seems to fall outside the purview of the essentially perturbative approach of Ref. [@BBNS], so we would not expect to encounter it in that treatment.
The charm rescattering model for suppression of $\pp \to \rho \pi$ and related decays has no [*a priori necessity*]{} for the final state phase to be large [@Suz01]. Additional evidence for such a large final-state phase in closely related processes would be the presence of large direct CP-violating symmetries in $B^+ \to \pi^0 K^+$ and $B^0 \to K^+
\pi^-$, with similar expected asymmetries for the two processes [@Ciu; @KLS; @comb; @MN]. Since the process $B^+ \to \pi^+ K^0$ is not expected to have a tree contribution, we expect it to have a much smaller CP-violating asymmetry. Present data [@CLEOasy] are consistent at the level of 10–20% with vanishing asymmetry for all three processes: (K\^+ \^-) = -0.04 0.16, [A]{}(K\^+ \^0) = -0.29 0.23, [A]{}(K\_S \^+) = 0.18 0.24.
Conclusions
===========
The coupling of $\pp$ and $\ppp$ to charmed particle pairs can lead to S–D-wave mixing, the distortion of the relative branching ratios of the $\ppp$ to $\gamma + \chi_c$ final states, and the suppression of some decay modes of $\pp$ and their appearance instead in products of the $\ppp$. If $\ppp$ to $\gamma + \chi_{c2}$ is observed at a branching ratio level exceeding a couple of parts in $10^4$, this will be evidence for S–D-wave mixing, while the branching ratio for $\ppp$ to $\gamma + \chi_{c0}$ is expected to be a percent, give or take a factor of 2. A similar branching ratio is expected for [*hadronic*]{} charmless decays of $\ppp$. This picture provides a rationale for large observed $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin amplitudes in $B$ meson decays, and would be further supported by the observation of large direct CP-violating asymmetries in the decays $B^+ \to \pi^0 K^+$ and $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank San Fu Tuan for asking questions which led to this investigation and for useful comments, and Thorsten Feldmann, David Hitlin, Kenneth Lane, and Jon J. Thaler for discussions. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560.
\#1\#2\#3[Am. J. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Acta Phys. Polonica [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 97[[*Beauty ’97*]{}, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on $B$-Physics at Hadron Machines, Los Angeles, October 13–17, 1997, edited by P. Schlein]{} \#1\#2\#3[Comments on Nucl. Part. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 89[[*CP Violation,*]{} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Commun. Theor. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Eur. Phys. J. C [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 79[[*Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies,*]{} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, 1979]{} 87[[*Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies,*]{} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel and R. Rückl (Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 72[[*Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 – 13, 1972, edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia, IL, 1972)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[JHEP [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[J. Phys. B [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 87[[*Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions*]{} (Proceedings of the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 – 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Kong. Danske Vid. Selsk., Matt-fys. Medd.]{} [**\#1**]{}, No. \#2 (\#3)]{} 85[[*Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energy,*]{} Kyoto, Aug. 19-24, 1985, edited by M. Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nature [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nuovo Cim. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3) \[JETP Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#4 (\#3)\]]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. A [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. B [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. C [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. D [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Prog. Theor. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Rev. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1[ ……[rp ]{}[\#1]{} ]{} \#1\#2\#3[Rep. Prog. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} 87[[*Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting*]{} (Division of Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987), ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)]{} 89[[*Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions,*]{} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M. Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)]{} 82[[*Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary Particle Physics and Future Facilities*]{}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R. Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)]{} 90[[*Research Directions for the Decade*]{} (Proceedings of the 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25–July 13, Snowmass, Colorado), edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[Yad. Fiz. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3) \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., \#4 (\#3)\]]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4\#5\#6[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3) \[Sov.Phys. - JETP [**\#4**]{}, \#5 (\#6)\]]{} \#1\#2\#3[Zeit. Phys. C [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[Zeit. Phys. D [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{}
[99]{}
P. A. Rapidis , .
E. Eichten , ; ; K. Lane and E. Eichten, .
Mark III , J. Adler , , .
See http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLEO/CLEO-C/ for a description of plans for running of CLEO/CESR at the $\ppp$ and other energies.
Yanong Zhu, Ph. D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1988, Caltech report CALT-68-1513 (unpublished), based on Mark III data [@MkIII].
Walid Abdul Majid, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1993 (unpublished), based on Mark III data [@MkIII].
W. Kwong and J. L. Rosner, .
S. Godfrey and J. L. Rosner, 01-14, hep-ph/0105273, submitted to Phys. Rev. D.
.
J.-M. Richard, .
E. Eichten, .
P. Moxhay and J. L. Rosner, .
H. Yamamoto, A. Nishimura, and Y. Yamaguchi, ; H. Yamamoto and A. Nishimura, .
K. D. Lane, Harvard University preprint HUTP-86/A045 (unpublished).
J. L. Rosner, in [*Particles and Fields 3*]{}, Proceedings of the Banff Summer Institute (CAP) 1988, Banff, Alberta, 14–26 August 1988, edited by A. N. Kamal and F. C. Khanna (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), p. 395.
M. E. B. Franklin, Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1982, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center report SLAC-0254 (unpublished); Mark II , M. E. B. Franklin , ; BES , J. Z. Bai , ; ; ; F. A. Harris, hep-ex/9903036, presented at APS Division of Particles and Fields Meeting, UCLA, January, 1999, and hep-ex/9910027, in [*Proceedings of the International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics*]{} (EPS-HEP 99), Tampere, Finland, 15–21 July 1999, edited by K. Huitu, H. Kurki-Suonio, and J. Maalampi (IOP, 2000), p. 859.
S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage, and S. F. Tuan, ; Y.-Q. Chen and E. Braaten, , ; S. F. Tuan, ; Y. F. Gu and S. F. Tuan, invited talk by S. F. Tuan at 8th International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy (Hadron 99), Beijing, 24–28 August, 1999, edited by W. G. Li, Y. Z. Huang, and B. S. Zou (North-Holland, 2000), .
M. Suzuki, .
J. L. Rosner, .
J.-M. Gérard and J. Weyers, .
T. Feldmann and P. Kroll, .
M. Suzuki, .
I. Dunietz, J. Incandela, F. D. Snider, and H. Yamamoto, ; I. Dunietz, in 97, , .
M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Silvestrini, ; M. Ciuchini, R. Contino, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Silvestrini, .
Y.-Y. Keum, H.-N. Li, and A. I. Sanda, ; ; Y.-Y. Keum and H.-N. Li, .
M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, ; A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, ; .
V. A. Novikov , .
Y.-P. Kuang and T.-M. Yan, .
E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, ; ; .
K. Heikkilä, N. A. Törnqvist, and S. Ono, .
H. Grotch, X. Zhang, and K. J. Sebastian, .
R. McClary and N. Byers, .
F. A. Harris, hep-ex/9903036 [@psip].
P. G. O. Freund and Y. Nambu, ; W.-S. Hou and A. Soni, .
Y. F. Gu and X. H. Li, .
J. Thaler, private communication.
Lead-glass Wall , I. Peruzzi , ; D. L. Scharre , : $\sigma(\ppp) = 10.3 \pm 1.6$ nb.
R. Partridge, Ph. D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, report CALT-68-1150, 1974 (unpublished), based on Crystal Ball data: $\sigma(\ppp) = 6.7 \pm 0.9$ nb.
Mark II , R. H. Schindler , : $\sigma(\ppp) = 9.3 \pm 1.4$ nb.
BES , J. Z. Bai , report hep-ex/0102003, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.: $\sigma(\ppp) = 8.7 \pm 2.5$ nb (my estimate).
CLEO , T. E. Coan , .
A. Lenz, talk given at UK Phenomenology Workshop on Heavy Flavor and CP Violation, Durham, England, 17-22 Sept. 2000, preprint hep-ph/0011258.
SLD , presented by A. S. Chou at Division of Particles and Fields Meeting, American Physical Society, Columbus, Ohio, August 2000, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-8686; presented by C. S. Lin at 36th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 10–17 March 2001, hep-ex/0105025.
G. J. Barker, Talk No. 07-e-04 at International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan, August 2000 (unpublished).
CLEO , B. H. Behrens , .
I. Halperin and A. Zhitnitsky, ; ; F. Yuan and K.-T. Chao, ; D. Atwood and A. Soni, ; ; H. Fritzsch, ; H.-Y. Cheng and B. Tseng, ; A. L. Kagan and A. A. Petrov, UCHEP-27/UMHEP-443, hep-ph/9707354 (unpublished); A. Ali and C. Greub, ; W.-S. Hou and B. Tseng, ; A. Datta, X.-G. He, and S. Pakvasa, .
CLEO , S. Chen , .
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, ; ; CERN report CERN-TH-2001-107, hep-ph/0104110 (unpublished).
M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, .
M. Neubert, .
[^1]: Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 01-21, hep-ph/0105327. Submitted to Physical Review D.
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: The numbers in parentheses indicate the masses of the particles, in MeV/$c^2$.
[^4]: We shall use spectroscopic notation $n^{2S+1}L_J$, where $n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$ is the radial quantum number; $S = 0$ or 1 is the $Q \bar Q$ spin; $L = S,~P,~D, \ldots$ ($l = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$) is the orbital angular momentum; and $J = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$ is the total spin.
[^5]: For later discussions of mixing due to coupled-channel effects see [@ECC].
[^6]: The solution with $\phi = 12^{\circ}$, favored by coupled-channel calculations [@EGKLY; @CC], predicts $\Gamma(\ppp \to \gamma \chi_{c(0,1,2)}) = (524,~73,~61)$ keV, implying that the $\chi_{c1}$ signal of Ref. [@Zhu] should not be confirmed.
[^7]: The same average was found in [@Zhu] without the data of [@BES].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the bosonic sector of a ${\cal N} = 2$ supersymmetric Chern-Simons-Higgs theory in 2 + 1 dimensions. The gauge group is $U(1)\times SU(N)$ and has $N_f$ flavors of fundamental matter fields. The model supports non-Abelian (axially symmetric) vortices when $N_f \geq N$, which have internal (orientational) moduli. When $N_f > N$, the solutions acquire additional collective coordinates parameterizing their transverse size. We solve the BPS equations numerically and obtain local ($N_f = N$) and semi-local ($N_f > N$) string solutions.'
author:
- |
G.S. Lozano$^a$[^1], D. Marqués$^{b,c \, *}$ E.F. Moreno$^{c,d \, *}$ and F.A. Schaposnik$^{b,c}$[^2]\
[*$^a$Departamento de Física, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires*]{}\
[*Pab. I, Ciudad Universitaria, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina*]{}\
[*$^b$Departamento de Física, Universidad Nacional de La Plata*]{}\
[*C.C. 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina*]{}\
[*$^c$CEFIMAS-SCA, Av. Santa Fe 1145*]{}\
[*C1059ABF, Buenos Aires, Argentina*]{}\
[*$^d$Department of Physics, West Virginia University*]{}\
[*Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6315, USA*]{}
title: '**Non-Abelian Chern-Simons Vortices**'
---
Introduction
============
Chern-Simons (CS) theories are relevant in a quantum field theory context since they provide an alternative gauge-invariant procedure of mass generation [@DJT]. Moreover, the high-temperature limit of quantum field theories in $d=4$ dimensions are effectively three dimensional and CS terms are precisely induced by fermions in $d=3$ dimensions through the parity anomaly [@Redlich]. CS actions play also a role in the analysis of interesting condensed matter phenomena [@Poly]-[@mur], the computation of topological invariants of 3-manifolds [@witt] and they are connected with $d=2$ conformal field theories [@Elitzur].
CS-Higgs models differ drastically from theories in which solely a Maxwell or Yang-Mills term governs the dynamics of the gauge fields. In particular, at the classical level, axially symmetric (vortex or string) solutions to the equations of motion necessarily carry electric charge [@Paul]-[@Cugliandolo] which, in the non-Abelian case, is quantized (for a complete review on CS theories and planar physics see [@Dunne]).
Bogomolny equations for the non-Abelian CS-Higgs system were first obtained in [@Cugliandolo], where it was shown that, as in the Abelian case [@HKP]-[@JW], a sixth order potential has to be considered. Explicit vortex solutions were exhibited in [@Cugliandolo], with the flux directed in the Cartan subalgebra of the non-Abelian group. It is the purpose of the present work to find genuine non-Abelian vortex configurations by proposing a more general ansatz as the one already considered for Yang-Mills-matter theories [@Auzzi]-[@GSY] with gauge group $U(1)\times SU(N)$ and $N_f \geq
N$ flavors of fundamental matter multiplets. The resulting vortex configurations can be characterized by non-Abelian collective coordinates related to orientational degrees of freedom and, when $N_f > N$, to infinitesimal variations of the transverse size.
Model and Notation
==================
We consider the truncated bosonic sector of the ${\cal N} = 2$ SUSY $U(1) \times SU(N)$ Chern-Simons-Higgs action in $2+1$ dimensions (the complete SUSY Lagrangian can be found in [@GN]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S} = \int d^3 x \ &\left\{ \frac{\kappa_1}{2}
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} F_{\mu\nu}^0 A_\rho^0 + \frac{\kappa_2}{2}
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} \left( F_{\mu\nu}^I A_\rho^I - \frac{1}{3}
f^{IJK} A_\mu^I A_\nu^J A_\rho^K \right) \right.+ \nonumber\\
&\left. \left( D_\mu \phi^f
\right)^\dag \left( D^\mu \phi^f \right) - V\left[\phi,
\phi^\dag\right] \right\}, \label{uno}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon^{012} = 1$, $g^{00} = 1$, $f^{IJK}$ are the structure constants of the non-abelian group, and the quantization condition implies $\kappa_2 = m / 8 \pi$. Our theory has a sixth-order potential which, forced by ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetry, allows Bogomolny completion of the energy functional with all coupling constants at the Bogomolny point (see ref.[@FAS] and references therein for details on this point) $$\begin{aligned}
V\left[\phi, \phi^\dag\right] &= \frac{1}{16 \kappa_1^2 N^2} \phi^\dag_f
\phi^f \left(\phi^\dag_g\phi^g - N\xi\right)^2 +
\frac{1}{4\kappa_2^2}\phi^\dag_f\tau^I\tau^J\phi^f
\left(\phi^\dag_g\tau^I\phi^g\right)
\left(\phi^\dag_h\tau^J\phi^h\right)\nonumber\\
&- \frac{1}{4\kappa_1\kappa_2
N}\left(\phi^\dag_f\tau^I\phi^f\right)^2\left(\phi^\dag_g\phi^g -
N\xi\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mu, \nu, \rho = 0, 1, 2$ are Lorentz indices, $I, J, K = 1,
\dots, N^2 - 1$ are the $SU(N)$ “color” group indices and $\tau_I$ are the anti-hermitian generators of $SU(N)$. The complex scalar multiplets $\phi^f_i$, besides the color index $i, j, k = 1, \dots, N$, possess additional flavor index $f, g, h = 1, \dots, N_f$ with $N_f \geq N$, thus can be written as $N \times N_f$ matrices. The covariant derivatives and field strengths are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&D_\mu\phi^f_i = \partial_\mu \phi^f_i + (A_\mu^{SU(N)})^j_i \, \phi^f_j
+ (A_\mu^{U(1)})^j_i \, \phi^f_j \; ,\nonumber \\
&A_\mu^{SU(N)} = A_\mu^I \ \tau_I\ ,&
& \hspace{-4cm} A_\mu^{U(1)} = A_\mu^0 \ \tau_0
\nonumber \\
&F_{\mu\nu}^0 = \partial_{[\mu} A_{\nu ]}^0\ , & & \hspace{-4cm}
F_{\mu\nu}^I = \partial_{[\mu} A_{\nu ]}^I + f^{IJK} A_{\mu}^J A_{\nu}^K
\; .\end{aligned}$$ Up to gauge transformations, minima of the potential are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{\sl symmetric phase} & &\phi^f = 0\\
& \text{\sl asymmetric phase} & &\phi^f\phi^\dag_f = \xi \ {\text{diag}}\{1,
\ldots, 1\}\ .
\label{Nontrivialvacuum}\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we set, without loss of generality, $\xi = 1$. The energy density is $${\cal H} = \left( D^0 \phi^f \right)^\dag \left( D^0 \phi^f \right)
+ \left( D^i \phi^f \right)^\dag \left( D^i \phi^f \right) + V
\left[\phi, \phi^\dag\right]$$ and the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion of the theory are $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 \, \epsilon_\mu^{\,\alpha\beta}\
F^0_{\alpha\beta}&=J_\mu^0 \equiv \phi^\dag_f \tau^0 D_\mu
\phi^f - \left(D_\mu
\phi^f\right)^\dag \tau^0 \phi^f \nonumber\\
\kappa_2 \, \epsilon_\mu^{\, \alpha\beta}\
F^I_{\alpha\beta}&=J_\mu^I \equiv \phi^\dag_f \tau^I D_\mu
\phi^f - \left(D_\mu \phi^f\right)^\dag
\tau^I \phi^f \label{Gauss} \\
D_\mu D^\mu \phi^f&=\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi_f^\dag}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Defining $D_\epsilon \equiv D_1 + i \epsilon D_2$ with $\epsilon \equiv
\pm$, and using Gauss’ law, we can write the energy as a sum of squares $$\begin{aligned}
H &= \int d^2 x \; \left\{ \left[ D_0 \phi^f - i\epsilon \left(
\frac{1}{4\kappa_1 N}\left(\phi^\dag_g\phi^g - N \right) \phi^f -
\frac{1}{2\kappa_2} \phi^\dag_g\tau^I\phi^g\tau^I\phi^f
\right)\right]^\dag \right. \nonumber\\
& \times \left[ D_0 \phi^f - i\epsilon \left( \frac{1}{4\kappa_1
N}\left[\phi^\dag_g\phi^g - N \right] \phi^f -\frac{1}{2\kappa_2}
\phi^\dag_g\tau^I\phi^g\tau^I\phi^f
\right)\right] \nonumber \\
& + \left. \vphantom{\frac{1}{4\kappa_1}}
\left(D_{-\epsilon}\phi^f\right)^\dag \left(D_{-\epsilon} \phi^f\right) +
\epsilon\sqrt{2N} F^0_{12} \right\}\end{aligned}$$ leading to the Bogomolny equations.
Non-abelian local strings
=========================
In this section we investigate the so-called “local $Z_N$ string-type solutions” as discussed for the Yang-Mills case in [@Auzzi]-[@GSY] (see also [@aldro]).
We set $N_f = N$ so the matter fields can be arranged as a square matrix $\Phi$. The Lagrangian (\[uno\]) is then invariant under $SU(N)_{color}\times SU(N)_{flavor}$ rotations, $$\Phi \to U \Phi V \; ,
\;\;\; \;\;\; A_\mu \to U A_\mu U^{-1} -( \partial_\mu U )U^{-1}$$ with $\,U \in U(N)_{local}\,$ and $V\in SU(N)_{global}$. We start from the trivial vacuum in the asymmetric phase $$A^{vac}_\mu = 0\ , \ \ \ \ \ \Phi^{vac} = {\text{diag}}\{1, \dots, 1\}\ .
\label{vacios}$$ After a $U(1)\times SU(N)$ gauge transformation we obtain a singular vortex configuration which, for the scalar field, takes the form $$\Phi^{vac} \longrightarrow \Phi = \exp\left(\alpha \tau^0 + \beta
\tau^{N^2-1}\right) \Phi^{vac} = \, {\text{diag}}\{1, \dots, 1, e^{-i\varphi n
\epsilon}\}
\label{15}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&\tau^0 = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N}} \; {\text{diag}}\{1,\dots,1\}\;, &
&\tau^{N^2-1}= \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N(N-1)}}
\; {\text{diag}}\{1,\dots,1,1-N\} \label{matrices} \\
&\alpha = -\sqrt{2/N}\; \epsilon n \varphi\;, & &\beta =
\sqrt{2(N-1)/{N}} \; \epsilon n \varphi \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Concerning the gauge fields we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& A_i^{vac\, 0} \to A_i^0 =
-\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\varepsilon_{ij}\frac{x_j}{r^2}n\epsilon \; ,
\;\;\;\;\;\; \;\;\;\;\;\; A_i^{vac\,N^2\!\!-1 } \to A^{N^2\!\!-1}_i
= \sqrt{\frac{2(N-1)}{N}}\varepsilon_{ij}
\frac{x_j}{r^2}n\epsilon \ , \nonumber\\
&& A_i^{vac\, I} \to A_i^{I} = 0 \; , \;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;A_0^{vac\, I} \to A_0^{I} = 0 \; ,
\;\;\; I=1,2, \ldots,N^2-2\label{20}\end{aligned}$$ In such configuration, the $Z_N$ center of the gauge group $SU(N)$ has been combined with $U(1)$ elements to get a topologically stable string solution possessing both windings, in $SU(N)$ and in $U(1)$ (since $\pi_1
\left({SU(N)\times U(1)}/{Z_N}\right) \neq 0$, the topology is nontrivial). These kind of topological objects are also called “$Z_N$ strings". In the present case the configurations (\[15\]),(\[20\]) represent a $(0,\ldots,0,n)$ singular string. A general $(n_1,\ldots,
n_N)$ vortex configuration can be obtained following the same method. This suggests the following ansatz for the regular vortex configuration $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi = {\text{diag}}\{\phi(r),\dots,\phi(r),e^{-i\varphi
n\epsilon}\phi_N(r)\} \;, & &\label{fi}\\
&A_0^{N^2-1} = \sqrt{\frac{N-1}{2N}}f_0^{N^2-1}(r) \; ,
&& \hspace{-1cm}A^{N^2-1}_i = \sqrt{\frac{2(N-1)}{N}}\varepsilon_{ij}
\frac{x_j}{r^2}(n\epsilon + f^{N^2-1}(r))\nonumber\\
&A^0_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}f_0(r)\; ,
& & \hspace{-1cm} A_i^0 = -
\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\varepsilon_{ij}\frac{x_j}{r^2}(n\epsilon + f(r)) \ .
\label{superansatz}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that, contrary to the Yang-Mills-Higgs case [@GSY], the $A_0$ fields are nontrivial. The boundary conditions for the fields are $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi_N (0) = 0, \ \ \ \ f(0) = f^{N^2-1}(0) = -\epsilon\ n\, ,
\nonumber\\
&\phi(\infty) = \phi_N(\infty) = 1, \ \ \ \ f_0(\infty) =
f_0^{N^2-1}(\infty) = f(\infty) = f^{N^2-1}(\infty) = 0\ ,
\label{boundcond}\end{aligned}$$ where we required the solution to be singled-valued at the origin, and to be a pure gauge at infinity. With this ansatz both the flux and the energy of these solutions are quantized $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi \equiv \int d^2x F^0_{12} = \frac{4\pi}{\sqrt{2N}} \,\epsilon
n \; , \;\;\;\;\;
E= 2\pi\, n . \label{flux-energy}\end{aligned}$$ Note that with our conventions $n$ is always a positive integer, and $\epsilon$ determines whether the flux is positive ($\epsilon
= +$), or negative ($\epsilon = -$).
Ansatz (\[fi\]) corresponds, for the $n=1$ case, to what is called an “elementary string”. Composite strings can be constructed by introducing windings in several diagonal elements in the scalar field and can be seen as the superposition of elementary ones.
Substituting ansatz (\[fi\])-(\[superansatz\]) into the Bogomolny and Gauss equations, we obtain the following system of non-linear first-order differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
&r\partial_r \phi = -\frac{\epsilon}{N}\left(f - f^{N^2-1}\right)\phi \; ,
\;\;\;\; r\partial_r \phi_N = -\frac{\epsilon}{N} \left(f + (N - 1)
f^{N^2-1}\right) \phi_N \label{non1}\\
&\frac{1}{r}\partial_r f = - \frac{1}{4 N \kappa_1} \left[f_0 \left((N -
1) \phi^2 + \phi_N^2\right) + f_0^{N^2-1} (N - 1)\left(\phi^2 -
\phi_N^2\right)\right] \label{non3}\\
&\frac{1}{r}\partial_r f^{N^2-1} = \frac{1}{4 N \kappa_2} \left[f_0
\left(\phi^2 - \phi^2_N\right) + f_0^{N^2-1} \left(\phi^2 + (N - 1)
\phi^2_N\right)\right]\label{non4}\\
&f_0 = \frac{\epsilon}{2\kappa_1}\left((N-1)\phi^2 + \phi_N^2 -
N\right) \; ,
\;\;\;\;\; f_0^{N^2-1} = \frac{\epsilon}{2\kappa_2} \left(\phi^2 -
\phi_N^2\right). \label{non6}\end{aligned}$$ Note that equations (\[non6\]) can be used to eliminate $f_0$ and $f_0^{N^2-1}$ in (\[non3\]) and (\[non4\]). Equations (\[non1\])-(\[non4\]) then correspond to the Bogomolny equations written in the standard form. In terms of the profile functions, the energy takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
E &= 2\pi \int r\ dr \left\{\frac{1}{8
N^2\kappa_1^2}\left((N-1)\phi^2 + \phi_N^2 -
N\right)^2 \right. \left((N-1)\phi^2
+ \phi_N^2\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{(N-1)}{8 N^2\kappa_2^2}\left(\phi^2 -
\phi_N^2\right)^2\left(\phi^2 + (N-1) \phi_N^2\right) +
\frac{(N-1)}{4N^2\kappa_1\kappa_2}\left(\phi^2 -
\phi_N^2\right)^2 \times \nonumber \\
& \left((N-1)\phi^2 + \phi_N^2 -
N\right)+ (N-1) (\partial_r\phi)^2 + (\partial_r\phi_N)^2 \nonumber \\
& \left. + \frac{(N-1)}{r^2N^2}\phi^2\left(f-f^{N^2-1}\right)^2 +
\frac{1}{N^2r^2}\phi_N^2\left(f + (N-1)f^{N^2-1}\right)^2 \right\}
\label{energy2}$$ The magnetic field (which is a pseudoscalar in 2+1 dimensions) and the electric field (with component only in the radial direction) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
B^0 \equiv F^0_{12} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\frac{1}{r}\partial_r
f \, , \;\;\;\;\;\;
E^0 \equiv \sqrt{(F^0_{01})^2 + (F^0_{02})^2} =
\frac{1}{2N}\partial_r f_0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Let us study the solutions of equations (\[non1\])-(\[non6\]). We can distinguish two cases: first, when the $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ coupling constants are equal and then the effective symmetry group is $U(N)$, and second, when the $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ coupling constants are different.
$U(N)_{gauge}\times SU(N)_{global}$ solutions
---------------------------------------------
If the $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ coupling constants are equal $\kappa_1 =
\kappa_2 \equiv \kappa$, the system of equations (\[non1\])-(\[non6\]) decouples into $$\begin{aligned}
r\partial_r\phi &= -\epsilon g \phi &
\frac{1}{r}\partial_r g &= -\frac{\epsilon}{8\kappa^2}
\phi^2(\phi^2-1)\ , \label{Trivial}\\
r\partial_r\phi_N &= -\epsilon g^{N^2-1} \phi_N &
\frac{1}{r}\partial_r g^{N^2-1} &= -\frac{\epsilon}{8\kappa^2}
\phi_N^2 (\phi_N^2 - 1) \ , \label{Nontrivial}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
g = \frac{1}{N}\left(f - f^{N^2-1}\right) \, , \;\;\;
g^{N^2-1} = \frac{1}{N}\left(f + (N-1) f^{N^2-1}\right) .
\label{Nontrivial2}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the new functions, the boundary conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
&g(0) = 0\,, & &g(\infty) = 0\,, & &g^{N^2-1}(0) = -\epsilon n\,,
& &g^{N^2-1}(\infty) = 0\label{g1}\\
&\phi(0) = C\,, & &\phi(\infty) = 1\,, & &\phi_N(0)=0\,,
& &\phi_N(\infty) = 1 \ .\label{phi2}\end{aligned}$$ Since the field $\phi$ has no winding, it does not necessarily vanish at the origin so $C$ is an arbitrary parameter. Systems (\[Trivial\]) and (\[Nontrivial\]) are formally the same but the functions $(\phi, g)$ and $(\phi_N, g^{N^2 - 1})$ obey different boundary conditions. Remarkably, both systems coincide with those arising in the abelian case discussed in [@JLW]. For the pair $(\phi, g)$, boundary conditions imply that $$\phi \equiv 1 \;, \quad g \equiv 0 \ .$$ The system (\[Nontrivial\]) for the functions $(\phi_N, g^{N^2 - 1})$ was solved numerically in [@JW]. We remark that these equations do not depend on $N$. At the origin, $\phi_N$ approaches to zero as $r^{n}$ (this fact will be important for the semi-local vortex).
![Plot of the magnetic field $B^0$ (solid line), electric field $E^0$ (dashed line), and energy density ${\cal H}$ (dotted line) for local vortices with $\kappa_1/\kappa_2 = 1$. The distance between the energy density maximum and the origin increases with the winding number $n$.[]{data-label="Bkk1"}](fig1.eps){width="16cm"}
We show in figure \[Bkk1\] profiles of $B^0$, $E^0$ and the energy density ${\cal H}(r)$. As usually happens in CS theories, the sixth order potential makes the maximum of the magnetic field to be away from the origin.
$ U(1)_{gauge} \times SU(N)_{gauge} \times SU(N)_{global}$ solutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------
When $\kappa_1 \neq \kappa_2$, the complete set of equations (\[non1\])-(\[non6\]) has to be solved numerically. We used a relaxation method to find explicit numerical solutions. The ratio of coupling constants $k = \kappa_1/\kappa_2$ is in fact the only independent parameter of the theory, since $\kappa_1$ or $\kappa_2$ can be absorbed by a rescaling. In fact the energy can be expressed in terms of $k$ only. We observe that as $k$ departs from $1$, $f$ and $f^{N^2 -
1}$ tend to separate from each other as well, forcing $\phi$ to be non-constant. As $k$ goes from $k<1$ to $k>1$, the difference $f-f^{N^2-1}$ changes sign, forcing the derivative of $\phi$ to change sign. Qualitatively, the behavior resembles the $U(N)$ case (in which both coupling constant coincide). When varying the winding number $n$ of the vortex, the profile functions change in a similar way as they do in the $U(N)$ case. For equal $n$ and different $N$, solutions do not change considerably. We present in figure \[kk05\] some solutions for the case $k =1/2$.
![Profile functions for local vortices, for negative magnetic flux and $\kappa_1/\kappa_2 = 1/2$.[]{data-label="kk05"}](fig2.eps){width="16cm"}
Non-abelian semi-local strings
==============================
We have discussed non-Abelian vortex solutions in a $U(1)_{gauge}\times
SU(N)_{gauge}\times SU(N)_{flavor}$ theory which are usually called [*local*]{} vortex solutions. In order to have [*semilocal*]{} vortex solutions, those for which $N_f >N$, one has to extend the matter content of the theory by adding $N_e$ extra flavors so that $N_f = N + N_e$ [@AchV]-[@shifmansemi]. For definiteness we take $N_e$ equal to $N$ (but a general case can be equally treated). Then, the symmetry of the model is $U(1)_{gauge}\times SU(N)_{gauge}\times SU(2N)_{flavor}$. We call ${\cal X}$ the extra matter fields.
In this case the trivial vacuum state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \Phi^{vac} = {\text{diag}}\{1, \ldots, 1\}\; , \;\;\;\; {{\cal X}}^{vac} =
{\text{diag}}\{0, \ldots, 0\}\; , \;\;\;\; A_\mu^{vac} = 0\, ,\label{vacios2}\end{aligned}$$ and it is invariant under the following transformation $$\Phi^{vac} \to V^{-1} \Phi^{vac} V \; ,
\;\;\; \;\;\; {\cal X}^{vac} \to V^{-1} {\cal X}^{vac}
\tilde V = 0 \; ,
\;\;\; \;\;\; A^{vac}_\mu \to V^{-1} A^{vac}_\mu V = 0\ ,$$ where we have chosen, as in the local case, a gauge element $U = V^{-1}$ with $V$ a $N\times N$ flavor block and we have called $\tilde V$ the $N\times N$ flavor block acting on the extra ${\cal X}$ mater fields.
We follow now the same steps as in the local case: first we perform a rotation of the vacuum to find a singular vortex configuration and then propose an ansatz for a regular configuration which we write explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi &= {\text{diag}}\{\phi(r),\dots,\phi(r),e^{-i\varphi
n\epsilon}\phi_N(r)\} \; , \;\;\;\; \mathcal{X} =
{\text{diag}}\{\chi(r), \dots, \chi(r), \chi_N(r)\}\; ,
\nonumber\\
A_i &= \frac{i}{N}\, \varepsilon_{ij}
\frac{x_j}{r^2}(n\epsilon + f^{N^2-1}(r))
\, {\text{diag}}\{1,1,\dots,1-N\} - \frac{i}{N}\,
\varepsilon_{ij}\frac{x_j}{r^2}(n\epsilon + f(r)) \,{\text{Id}}\; ,
\nonumber\\
A_0 &= \frac{i}{2N}\,
f_0^{N^2-1}(r)\, {\text{diag}}\{1,1,\dots,1-N\}
+ \frac{i}{2N}\, f_0 (r)\, {\text{Id}}\label{AnsatzChi}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\text{Id}}$ is the $N\times N$ identity matrix. It should be stressed that more general ansatz could lead to solutions which exhaust the number $N_\rho$ of collective coordinates related to the transverse moduli space [@shifmansemi]. Our ansatz corresponds to just two collective coordinates.
Substituting (\[AnsatzChi\]) into the Bogomolny equations, we arrive to a system of six differential equations for the fields $\phi$, $\phi_N$, $\chi$, $\chi_N$, $f$ and $f^{N^2-1}$, and two constraints for the fields $f_0$ and $f_0^{N^2-1}$. The solutions to these equations will have the same energy and flux than the local ones (\[flux-energy\]), provided they satisfy the same boundary conditions (\[boundcond\]). At infinity the solutions should reach the vacuum state, so we impose $$\phi(\infty) = \phi_N(\infty) = 1, \ \ \ \ \chi(\infty) = \chi_N(\infty) = 0
\ ,$$ $$f_0(\infty) =
f_0^{N^2-1}(\infty) = f(\infty) = f^{N^2-1}(\infty) = 0
\ .$$ Again we distinguish the case in which the $U(1)$ and $SU(N)$ gauge coupling constants are equal from the one in which they are different.
$ U(N)_{gauge}\times SU(2N)_{flavor}$ semilocal solutions
---------------------------------------------------------
As it happens for local vortex, when $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 \equiv
\kappa$ the equations of motion decouple into two sets of independent equations. One corresponds to a system with no winding $$\begin{aligned}
&r\partial_r \phi = -\epsilon g \phi\; , \;\;\;\;\;
r\partial_r \chi = -\epsilon g \chi
\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{r}\partial_r g = - \frac{\epsilon
}{8\kappa^2}\left(\phi^2 + \chi^2\right)\left(\phi^2 + \chi^2 -
1\right) \ , \label{semitrivial}\end{aligned}$$ and the other corresponds to a system with winding $n$ $$\begin{aligned}
&r\partial_r \phi_N = -\epsilon g^{N^2 - 1} \phi_N\; , \;\;\;\;\;
r\partial_r \chi_N = -\epsilon\left(g^{N^2 - 1} + \epsilon n
\right)\chi_N
\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{r}\partial_r g^{N^2 - 1} = - \frac{\epsilon
}{8\kappa^2}\left(\phi_N^2 + \chi_N^2\right)\left(\phi_N^2 +
\chi_N^2 - 1\right) \label{seminontrivial}\end{aligned}$$ (we have defined $g$ and $g^{N^2 - 1}$ as in (\[Nontrivial2\])). As in the case of local strings, these equations coincide with those that arise in the abelian case [@Khare]. The system (\[semitrivial\]) admits a trivial solution $$\begin{aligned}
g = \chi= 0 \; ,\;\;\;\;\;\phi =1 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ while (\[seminontrivial\]) can be solved numerically. Combining the equations for $\chi_N$ and $\phi_N$, we get $$\chi_N = \rho\ \frac{\phi_N}{r^n} \ ,\label{chiN}$$ where $\rho$ is a (complex) integration constant. So, we finally have $$\begin{aligned}
r\partial_r \phi_N &= -\epsilon g^{N^2 - 1} \phi_N
\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{r}\partial_r g^{N^2 - 1} &= - \frac{\epsilon
}{8\kappa^2}\left(\left(1 + \frac{\rho^2}{r^{2n}}\right) \phi_N^2
- 1\right)\left(1 + \frac{\rho^2}{r^{2n}}\right)\phi_N^2 \ .
\label{seminontrivial-2}\end{aligned}$$ The same argument applied to $\chi$ and $\phi$ determines that $\chi =
\alpha \phi$, but since $\phi(\infty) = 1$ and $\chi(\infty) = 0$, $\alpha$ must vanish, and so $\chi = 0$ everywhere. The solutions we obtain are then the most general ones. The energy is independent of the complex parameter $\rho$, which is then associated with the “size moduli”. One has has in general, $n_i$ complex parameters $\rho_i$ for arbitrary flavor $N_f >N$ . For elementary strings one can see that $n_i
= N_f-N$ (Since we are considering $N_f = N +1$, we have in this case just one complex parameter).
From figure \[semikk1-2\] we see that the solutions spread when the parameter $|\rho|$ is incremented. As $\rho$ increases, since the flux is conserved, the extremum of the magnetic field must approach to the origin to compensate the spread towards spatial infinity. A similar phenomenon occurs with the energy.
![The magnetic field for semi-local vortices with $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2$ for different $\rho$ values .[]{data-label="semikk1-2"}](fig3.eps){width="10cm"}
$U(1)_{gauge} \times SU(N)_{gauge}\times SU(N+1)_{flavor}$ semilocal solutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider now the case in which $\kappa_1 \ne \kappa_2$. The same arguments as above lead to $\chi(r)= 0$, so that the flavor group is in fact reduced from $SU(2N)$ to $SU(N+1)$. Similarly, the relation holds, and the differential equations do not decouple. The system is very analogous to the system (\[non1\])-(\[non6\]) obtained for the local case, with the only difference that, in the equations for the $f$’s, the field $\phi_N$ gets locally scaled $$\phi_N^2 \rightarrow \phi_N^2 \left(1 + \frac{\rho^2}{r^{2n}}\right)
\ .$$ Then, semi-local solutions arising from these equations are similar to those shown in figure \[kk05\] for the local case, with the only difference that they are smoother since they decay as powers of $r$ at spatial infinity.
In summary, our main task in this work was to solve the BPS equations for a non-Abelian Chern-Simons-Higgs theory. By proposing an axially symmetric ansatz we obtained non-Abelian vortex solutions and discussed their properties. A class of vortex solutions in non-Abelian CS theories were already known [@VegaSch]-[@VegaSch2],[@Lozano], [@Cugliandolo]. The solutions discussed here correspond to more fundamental vortices in the sense that they are genuinely non-Abelian while the former correspond to $Z_N$ vortices with the gauge flux in the Cartan algebra of $SU(N)$).
The model discussed here is indeed related to the one analyzed by [@Auzzi]-[@GSY] except that in our case the dynamics of the gauge fields is governed by a CS action instead of a Yang-Mills one. This drastically changes the vortex properties, in particular forcing them to carry electric charge.
In the case of local vortices, our solutions generalize those discussed in [@aldro] to the case in which the gauge group is $U(1)\times SU(N)$, with the Abelian and non-Abelian sectors having different gauge coupling constants. When both couplings are equal, the equations decouple into two sets of equations that coincide with those arising in the Abelian case. This is not the case when the couplings are different and the BPS equations do not decouple. Nevertheless we were able to construct explicit solutions and discuss their properties.
Further, we have also considered semi-local vortices, by allowing the flavor number $N_f$ to be larger than the color number $N_c$. As already noted for the Yang-Mills-Higgs system, the main feature in this case is that the solutions develop an additional moduli $\rho$ related to the vortex transverse size, thus modifying the asymptotic behavior of the fields, from exponential decay for the case of local vortices, to a decay as negative power of the radial coordinate for the semi-local ones. Interestingly enough, one can see from our explicit solutions how the size of the vortex grows with $\rho$.
We would like to thank the Sociedad Cientifica Argentina for hospitality. We are grateful to acknowledge León Aldrovandi for interesting discussions and comments. This work is partially supported by CONICET (PIP6160), ANPCyT (PICT 20204), UNLP, UBA and CICBA grants.
[99]{} S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, Phys. Rev. Lett. (1982) 975; Ann. Phys. [**140**]{} (1982) 372; Ann. Phys. [**185**]{} (1988) 406, Erratum; Ann. Phys. [**281**]{} (2000) 409. A. N. Redlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{} (1984) 18; Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{} (1984) 2366. A. Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A3**]{} (1988) 325. See F. Wilczek, "Fractional statistics and anyon superconductivity,” [*Singapore, Singapore: World Scientific (1990)*]{} and references therein. See O. Heinonen, “Composite fermions: A unified view of the quantum Hall regime,” [*Singapore, Singapore: World Scientific (1998)*]{} and references therein. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. [**121**]{} (1989) 351; Nucl.Phys. [**B311**]{} (1989) 46. S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B [**326**]{} (1989) 108. S. K. Paul and A. Khare, Phys. Lett. B [**174**]{} (1986) 420 \[Erratum-ibid. [**177B**]{} (1986) 453\]. H. J. de Vega and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{} (1986) 2564; H. J. de Vega and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{} (1986) 3206. G. Lozano, M. V. Manias and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 601 (1988). J. Hong, Y. Kim and P. Y. Pac, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2230 (1990). R. Jackiw and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2234 (1990). R. Jackiw, K. M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 3488 (1990). L. F. Cugliandolo, G. Lozano, M. V. Manias and F. A. Schaposnik, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**6**]{}, 479 (1991). G. V. Dunne, arXiv:hep-th/9902115. R. Auzzi, S. Bolognesi, J. Evslin, K. Konishi and A. Yung, Nucl. Phys. B [**673**]{} (2003) 187. A. Hanany and D. Tong, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 037 (2003); JHEP [**0404**]{}, 066 (2004). A. Gorsky, M. Shifman and A. Yung, Phys. Rev. D[**71**]{} (2005) 045010 L. G. Aldrovandi and F. A. Schaposnik, arXiv:hep-th/0702209. S. J. J. Gates and H. Nishino, Phys. Lett. B [**281**]{} (1992) 72; H. Nishino and S. J. J. Gates, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A8**]{}, 3371 (1993). F. A. Schaposnik, arXiv:hep-th/0611028. A. Achucarro and T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rept. [**327**]{} (2000) 347. M. Shifman and A. Yung, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 125012. A. Khare, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{} (1992) R2287.
[^1]: Associated with CONICET
[^2]: Associated with CICBA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We formulate the second quantization of a charged scalar field in homogeneous, time-dependent electromagnetic fields, in which the Hamiltonian is an infinite system of decoupled, time-dependent oscillators for electric fields, but it is another infinite system of coupled, time-dependent oscillators for magnetic fields. We then employ the quantum invariant method to find various quantum states for the charged field. For time-dependent electric fields, a pair of quantum invariant operators for each oscillator with the given momentum plays the role of the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators, constructs the exact quantum states, and gives the vacuum persistence amplitude as well as the pair-production rate. We also find the quantum invariants for the coupled oscillators for the charged field in time-dependent magnetic fields and advance a perturbation method when the magnetic fields change adiabatically. Finally, the quantum state and the pair production are discussed when a time-dependent electric field is present in parallel to the magnetic field.'
author:
- Sang Pyo Kim
title: 'Second Quantized Scalar QED in Homogeneous Time-Dependent Electromagnetic Fields'
---
YITP-13-63
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Recent development of intense laser sources has brought intensive study of quantum motions of charged particles in electromagnetic fields [@DMHK12]. In astrophysics, magnetars, strongly magnetized neutron stars, have magnetic fields over the critical strength [@harding-lai06]. The quantum states of charged particles in such strong electromagnetic fields provide an essential ingredient to understand the vacuum structure and the pair production. The interaction of virtual pairs of the Dirac sea with a strong external electromagnetic field polarizes the vacuum and thus leads to a nonlinear effective action beyond the Maxwell theory. In particular, the complex effective action in an electric field implies the vacuum instability due to the pair production of charged particles. Hence, intense lasers have been proposed as a feasible tool to probe the vacuum structure via the pair production and the vacuum polarization (for review and references, see Refs. [@dunne09; @gies09]).
In this paper, we formulate the second quantized scalar field in homogeneous, time-dependent electromagnetic fields and employ the invariant operator method to find the quantum states of charged scalars. The Hamiltonian from the field action in a homogeneous, time-dependent electric field is a system of infinite number of decoupled, time-dependent oscillators, while it is equivalent to another system of infinite number of coupled oscillators in a time-dependent magnetic field with or without a parallel electric field. At the level of the first quantization, the Klein-Gordon (KG) equation in the vector potential separates into each Fourier mode for the time-dependent electric field [@KLY08], while the KG equation in the time-dependent magnetic field does not separate into each harmonic wave function, which corresponds to an instantaneous Landau state as shown in Ref. [@kim14a]. In fact, the KG equation in a time-dependent magnetic field in the two-component first-order formalism [@kim14a] is equivalent to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe minimally coupled to a massive scalar field [@kim92; @kim13]. Interestingly, the third quantized universe coupled to a massless scalar is equivalent to a system of infinite number of decoupled oscillators with a time-dependent mass and time-dependent frequencies [@kim14b], which is analogous to the charged field in a time-dependent electric field.
The functional Schrödinger picture provides a second quantized field theory, which extends the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for quantum mechanical systems to quantum fields [@FHM85; @guth-pi85]. Thus, in the second quantized scalar field, the quantum theory is the functional Schrödinger equation with time-dependent Hamiltonians for a charged scalar field in external electromagnetic fields. In the first case of time-dependent electric fields, the Gaussian wave functional can be directly found in terms of the covariance [@kiefer92]. In the Fourier decomposition, the functional Schrödinger equation becomes the Schrödinger equation for decoupled, time-dependent oscillators, and the quantum state of the field is the product of the time-dependent wave function for each oscillator. It has long been known that an oscillator with time-dependent frequency and/or mass has a quantum invariant, known as the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant, whose eigenstate provides an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation up to a time-dependent phase factor [@lewis-riesenfeld69]. Hence, in the former case of electric fields, we may employ the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators, also quantum invariants, and construct not only excited states for each time-dependent oscillator [@MMT70; @kim-kim99; @kim-page01] but also a thermal state [@kim-lee00; @kim-page13]. In the second case of magnetic fields, however, the Hamiltonian for the functional Schrödinger equation is equivalent to coupled, time-dependent oscillators, and hence, we should employ the invariants for coupled, time-dependent oscillators [@leach77; @ji-hong98; @dodonov00; @lee01].
The quantum invariant method for time-dependent oscillators is very useful in constructing various quantum states from the vacuum state, ranging from excited states to coherent states and even to thermal states (for review and references, see Refs. [@dodonov-manko89; @lohe09]). By analogy with time-independent oscillators, the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators for time-dependent oscillators, quantum invariants linear in momentum and position operators, may be used to find the Fock space of all the number states, which are the exact solutions for the time-dependent Schrödinger equation [@MMT70; @kim-lee00]. Furthermore, it can be readily used in constructing thermal states and coherent thermal states, which are also the exact quantum states [@kim-lee00; @kim-page13]. In scalar quantum electrodynamics (QED) in time-dependent electric fields, the time-dependent vacuum state leads to the pair-production rate [@kim-schubert11; @KLR12] and also to the in-out scattering matrix between the remote past and the remote future, which yields the renormalized one-loop effective action [@KLY08]. The quantum invariant method can also be used to describe the quantum motion of charged particles in strong electromagnetic fields. In the case of the adiabatically changing magnetic fields, the invariants may be found for coupled, time-dependent oscillators by treating the off-diagonal Hamiltonian as a perturbation for the diagonal Hamiltonian, decoupled time-dependent oscillators. We advance a time-dependent perturbation theory to find the improved states. The method is valid for the time-dependent magnetic fields parallel to electric fields.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\], in scalar QED we formulate the second quantized scalar field in homogeneous, time-dependent electric fields or magnetic fields prescribed by vector potentials. The Hamiltonian from the field action in time-dependent electric fields is decomposed by the Fourier modes and is expressed as a sum of decoupled, time-dependent oscillators. In time-dependent magnetic fields, the Hamiltonian is decomposed both by the Fourier modes along the longitudinal direction and by the Landau states in the transverse plane that diagonalize the transverse part of the Hamiltonian. In Sec. \[sec3\], we study the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the quadratic Hamiltonian in the extended phase space of positions and momenta and search for the quantum invariants for the field. In Sec. \[sec4\], we find the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators, construct the Fock space for the charged scalar field in time-dependent electric fields, and discuss the pair production and the vacuum persistence amplitude. In Sec. \[sec5\], we extend the quantum invariant method to find the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators for the charged field in time-dependent magnetic fields. We advance a perturbation method to find the improved quantum states beyond the Landau states when the magnetic fields change adiabatically. We show that the Hamiltonian has the same algebraic structure even when an electric field is added in parallel to the magnetic field and, thus, the same form of invariants. In Sec. \[sec6\], we discuss the physical implications of the result of this paper.
Second Quantized Scalar Field {#sec2}
=============================
In scalar QED, we formulate the second quantization of a spinless, charged scalar field in homogeneous, time-dependent electromagnetic fields, first by expressing the Hamiltonian from the field action through a spectral method, and then by finding quantum states via the functional Schröinger equation. For that purpose, we consider the action for a spinless scalar with charge $q$ and mass $m$ \[in units of $\hbar = c =1$ and the spacetime signature $\eta^{\mu \nu} = (+, -, -, -)$\] $$\begin{aligned}
S = \int dt d^3 {\bf x} \bigl[ \eta^{\mu \nu} (\partial_{\mu} + iqA_{\mu} ) \phi^{*} (\partial_{\mu} - iqA_{\mu} ) \phi - m^2 \phi^{*} \phi \bigr]\end{aligned}$$ in an electromagnetic field, which is given by the four-vector as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf E} = \nabla A_0 - \frac{\partial {\bf A}}{\partial t}, \quad {\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the conjugate momenta for each $\phi$ and $\phi^*$ $$\begin{aligned}
\pi = \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}} = \dot{\phi}^{*} + iqA^{0} \phi^{*}, \quad
\pi^{*} = \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}^{*}} = \dot{\phi} - iqA^{0}\phi,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the Hamiltonian for the field $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \int d^3 {\bf x} \Bigl[ \pi^{*} \pi + i qA^{0} (\pi \phi - \pi^{*} \phi) + (\partial_{k} + i qA^{*}_{k}) \phi^{*} (\partial_{k} - i qA_{k}) \phi
+ m^2 \phi^{*} \phi \Bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Then, the quantum dynamics is governed by the functional Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi (t, \phi, \phi^{*}) = \hat{H} (t) \Psi (t, \phi, \phi^{*}). \label{sch eq}\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we consider only the vector potential for a homogeneous, time-dependent electric and magnetic field along a fixed direction of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf A}_{\parallel} (t) = - \int^t_{- \infty} dt' {\bf E}_{\parallel} (t'), \quad {\bf A}_{\perp} (t, {\bf x}_{\perp}) = \frac{1}{2} {\bf B} (t) \times {\bf x}. \label{vec pot}\end{aligned}$$ We further assume that ${\bf E}_{\parallel} (-\infty) = 0$ and ${\bf B} (- \infty) = {\bf B}_0$ so that the initial state is either the Minkowski vacuum or the Landau state, respectively.
Firstly, in the case of homogeneous, time-dependent electric fields, we decompose the fields by the Fourier modes as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi (t, {\bf x}) = \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \phi_{\bf k} (t) e^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}, \quad \phi^* (t, {\bf x}) = \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \phi^*_{\bf k} (t) e^{-i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}}, \label{fourier}\end{aligned}$$ and obtain the time-dependent Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \Bigl[ \pi_{\bf k}^{*} \pi_{\bf k} + \omega_{\bf k}^2 (t) \phi_{\bf k}^{*} \phi_{\bf k} \Bigr], \label{E-ham}\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_{\bf k} = \dot{\phi}^*_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}^* = \dot{\phi}_{\bf k}$ are canonical momenta, and the time-dependent frequencies are $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\bf k}^2 (t) = (k_{\parallel} - q A_{\parallel} (t))^2 + {\bf k}_{\perp}^2 + m^2.\end{aligned}$$ The classical Heisenberg equation $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\phi}_{\bf k} (t) + \omega_{\bf k}^2 (t) \phi_{\bf k} (t) =0, \label{E-eq}\end{aligned}$$ is the corresponding Fourier mode of the KG equation, which explains the equivalence between the quantum invariant method in this paper and the conventional canonical quantum field theory. As mentioned in Introduction, the quantum invariant method has the merit of diversity of quantum states.
Secondly, in the case of homogeneous, time-dependent magnetic fields along the $z$-direction, after Fourier-decomposing the fields along the longitudinal direction, we find the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L(t) = \int d^2 {\bf x}_{\perp} \Bigl[ \dot{\phi}^{*}_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}) \dot{\phi}_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}) - \phi^{*}_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}) \Bigl(H_{\perp} (t)+ k_z^2 + m^2 \Bigr) \phi_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}) \Bigr], \label{B-lag}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\perp} (t) = {\bf p}_{\perp}^2 + \Bigl(\frac{qB(t)}{2} \Bigr)^2 {\bf x}_{\perp}^2 - qB(t) L_z \label{tr-ham}\end{aligned}$$ is the Hamiltonian transverse to the magnetic field, and $L_z$ is the angular momentum from the orbital motion of the charge. Following Ref. [@kim14a], we diagonalize the Hamiltonian (\[tr-ham\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{\perp} (t) = q B(t) \bigl[2 \hat{c}_{-}^{\dagger} (t) \hat{c}_{-} (t) +1 \bigr], \label{lan ham}\end{aligned}$$ where the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{c}_{-} (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl( \hat{a}_{x} (t) - i \hat{a}_{y} (t)\bigr), \quad \hat{c}_{-}^{\dagger} (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{x} (t) + i \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{y} (t)\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ are constructed by the annihilation operators $\hat{a}_{x} (t)$ and $\hat{a}_{y} (t)$ for the $x$-component and the $y$-component of the oscillator $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\perp 0} (t) = {\bf p}_{\perp}^2 + \Bigl(\frac{qB(t)}{2} \Bigr)^2 {\bf x}_{\perp}^2.\end{aligned}$$ The number states $\vert n, t \rangle$ in the oscillator representation (\[lan ham\]), which are the instantaneous Landau states, constitute a basis. Thus, the rate of the change of each number state can be expressed by themselves, which has been first derived in Ref. [@kim92], and then Eqs. (12) and (13) of Ref. [@kim14a] and Eq. (13) of Ref. [@kim13], which reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m, t \vert (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vert n, t \rangle) := \Omega_{mn} (t) = \frac{\dot{B}}{4 B} \Bigl[ \sqrt{n (n-1)} \delta_{m, n-2}
- \sqrt{(n+1) (n+2)} \delta_{m, n+2} \Bigr]. \label{ll tr}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the coupling matrix is antisymmetric, $\Omega^T = - \Omega$.
Thus, omitting the longitudinal momentum for simplicity, we have the expansions $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t) &=& \sum_{n} \phi_{n} (t) \Phi_n ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t), \nonumber\\
\dot{\phi}_{k_z} ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t) &=& \sum_{n} \dot{\phi}_{n} (t) \Phi_n ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t) + \sum_{n l} \phi_{n} (t) \Omega_{nl} (t) \Phi_l ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t), \label{lan exp}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \Phi_n ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t) = \langle {\bf x}_{\perp} \vert n, t \rangle$ is the wave function for the $n$-th Landau level. Finally, we obtain the Hamiltonian of the form $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \int \frac{dk_{z}}{2\pi} \Bigl[ \sum_{n} \bigl( \pi_{n}^* \pi_{n} + \omega_n^2 \phi_n^* \phi_n \bigr) + \sum_{m n} \bigl( \pi_{m}^* \Omega_{mn} \phi_{n}^* + \pi_{m} \Omega_{mn} \phi_{n} \bigr) \Bigr], \label{B-ham}\end{aligned}$$ where the canonical momenta are $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_n &=& \dot{\phi}_n^* + \sum_{m} \phi_{m}^* \Omega_{mn} = \dot{\phi}_n^* - \sum_{m} \Omega_{nm} \phi_{m}^*, \nonumber\\
\pi_n^* &=& \dot{\phi}_n + \sum_{m} \phi_{m} \Omega_{mn} = \dot{\phi}_n - \sum_{m} \Omega_{nm} \phi_{m},\end{aligned}$$ and the time-dependent Landau energies are $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_n^2 (t) = |qB(t)| (2n+1) + m^2 + k_z^2. \label{lan en}\end{aligned}$$ Note that other choice of the basis, for instance, the initial Landau states at $t = - \infty$ with $\Omega = 0$, may be used, but the transverse Hamiltonian still has off-diagonal terms, $\langle m, t_0 \vert \hat{H}_{\perp} (t) \vert n, t_0 \rangle \neq 0$ for $m = n \pm 2$. Further note that in the second quantization, we quantize not the Landau states (\[lan ham\]) but the field modes $\phi_{n} (t)$ and $\pi_{n} (t)$ and their complex conjugates. In fact, the Landau states (\[lan ham\]) are used as a mathematical tool to expand the field (\[lan exp\]). The Heisenberg equation $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\phi}_n - 2 \Omega_{nm} \dot{\phi}_m + \Bigl( \omega_n^2 (t) \delta_{nm} + (\Omega^2)_{nm} - \dot{\Omega}_{nm} \Bigr) \phi_m = 0, \label{B-eq}\end{aligned}$$ is the vector component of the KG equation [@kim14a].
Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation {#sec3}
===================================
The Hamiltonian (\[E-ham\]) or (\[B-ham\]) is an infinite sum of time-dependent oscillators. Using a compact notation, in which $\alpha, \beta$ stand for ${\bf k}, {\bf k}'$ for electric fields or $(m, k_z), (n, k'_z)$ for magnetic fields such that $\sum_{\alpha} = \int d^3 {\bf k}/(2\pi)^{3}$ or $ \sum_{\alpha} = \sum_{n} \int d k_z/(2 \pi)$, and introducing the extended phase space variables $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\alpha} = \begin{pmatrix} \pi_{\alpha}\\ \phi^*_{\alpha} \end{pmatrix}, \quad Z^*_{\alpha} = \begin{pmatrix} \pi^*_{\alpha}\\ \phi_{\alpha} \end{pmatrix}, \label{phase}\end{aligned}$$ the Hamiltonian can be rewritten in the quadratic form $$\begin{aligned}
H (t) = \sum_{\alpha \beta} Z^{\dagger}_{\alpha} {\bf H}_{\alpha \beta} (t) Z_{\beta}, \label{q-ham}\end{aligned}$$ where the Hamiltonian matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf H}_{\alpha \beta} (t) = \begin{pmatrix} \delta_{\alpha \beta} & 0\\ 0 & \omega_{\alpha}^2 \delta_{\alpha \beta} \end{pmatrix} \label{E-hmat}\end{aligned}$$ for the electric field, and it is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf H}_{\alpha \beta} (t) = \begin{pmatrix} \delta_{\alpha \beta} & \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \\ -\Omega_{\alpha \beta} & \omega_{\alpha}^2 \delta_{\alpha \beta}\end{pmatrix} \label{B-hmat}\end{aligned}$$ for the magnetic field. Both matrices (\[E-hmat\]) and (\[B-hmat\]) are Hermitian, ${\bf H}^{\dagger} = {\bf H}$, and also make the Hamiltonian (\[q-ham\]) Hermitian.
The quantization of the Hamiltonian (\[q-ham\]) follows from the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{\phi}_{\alpha}, \hat{\pi}_{\beta} ] = i \delta_{\alpha \beta}, \quad [\hat{\phi}^*_{\alpha}, \hat{\pi}^*_{\beta} ] = i \delta_{\alpha \beta},\end{aligned}$$ and all other commutators vanish. In other words, the commutation relations hold in the extended phase space such that $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{Z}_{\alpha}, \hat{Z}^*_{\beta} ] = \begin{pmatrix} 0& -i \delta_{\alpha \beta} \\ i \delta_{\alpha \beta} & 0 \end{pmatrix} , \quad [\hat{Z}_{\alpha}, \hat{Z}_{\beta} ] = [\hat{Z}^*_{\alpha}, \hat{Z}^*_{\beta} ] = \begin{pmatrix} 0& 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the quantum evolution is governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vert \Psi (t) \rangle = \sum_{\alpha \beta} \hat{Z}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} {\bf H}_{\alpha \beta} (t) \hat{Z}_{\beta} \vert \Psi (t) \rangle. \label{osc eq}\end{aligned}$$ In order to find the quantum states for Eq. (\[osc eq\]), we employ the quantum invariant method, which satisfies the Liouville-von Neumann equation $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial \hat{I} (t)}{\partial t} + [\hat{I}(t), \hat{H} (t) ] = 0. \label{ln eq}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the exact solution to Eq. (\[osc eq\]) is given by an eigenstate of the quantum invariant up to a time-dependent phase factor [@lewis-riesenfeld69] $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \Psi (t) \rangle = \sum_{\lambda} C_{\lambda} e^{- i \int^t dt' \langle \lambda, t' \vert \hat{H} (t')
- i \partial/ \partial t' \vert \lambda, t' \rangle} \vert \lambda, t \rangle, \label{lr sol}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{\lambda}$ is a constant, and $\lambda$ is a constant eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvalue problem of the invariant operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{I} (t) \vert \lambda, t \rangle = \lambda \vert \lambda, t \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Considering the symmetric form of the Hamiltonian (\[q-ham\]) from two fields $\phi$ and $\phi^*$ and their conjugate momenta, we may search for the quantum invariants in the extended phase space (\[phase\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{I} (t) = (U(t), V(t)) \frac{\hat{Z}+ \hat{Z}^*}{\sqrt{2}}, \label{q-inv}\end{aligned}$$ where $U (t)$ and $V (t)$ are matrix-valued functions, carrying indices of $\alpha, \beta$, and are determined by Eq. (\[ln eq\]).
Invariant Operators in Time-Dependent Electric Fields {#sec4}
=====================================================
In the case of time-dependent electric fields, the Hamiltonian (\[E-ham\]) is a system of decoupled, time-dependent oscillators, for which we may use a pair of invariants for each oscillator as the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators, and construct the Fock space of number states [@MMT70; @kim-kim99; @kim-lee00; @kim-page01; @kim-page13]. From Eq. (\[q-inv\]), we introduce the first class invariant for each $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t) = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl[ \varphi^*_{\alpha} (\hat{\pi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}) - \dot{\varphi}^*_{\alpha} (\hat{\phi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}) \Bigr], \label{E-in1}\end{aligned}$$ and the second class invariant $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) = - \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl[ \varphi_{\alpha} (\hat{\pi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}) - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (\hat{\phi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}) \Bigr]. \label{E-in2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\varphi_{\alpha} (t)$ is a complex solution to the mode equation (\[E-eq\]) and satisfies the Wronskian condition from the quantization rule $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\alpha} (t) \dot{\varphi}^*_{\alpha} (t) - \varphi^*_{\alpha} (t) \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t) = i. \label{wr con}\end{aligned}$$ Each complex solution $\varphi_{\alpha} (t)$ determines a pair of the invariants (\[E-in1\]) and (\[E-in2\]), which is analogous to a Fock basis in the standard Bogoliubov transformation. However, under the assumption of ${\bf E}_{\parallel} (-\infty) = 0$ and ${\bf B} (- \infty) = {\bf B}_0$, the complex solution can be uniquely chosen such that in the electric field it coincides with the Minkowski positive frequency solution, while in the magnetic field it coincides with the standard Landau states at $t = - \infty$. In the generic, time-dependent electromagnetic field without any asymptotic limit, the quantum invariants cannot be uniquely selected, but one may employ other principle, such as the minimum uncertainty, to choose the complex solution [@kim-kim99].
Note that the quantum invariants (\[E-in1\]) and (\[E-in2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl( \hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) + \hat{b}_{\alpha} (t) \bigr), \nonumber\\
\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl(\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) + \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) \bigr), \label{E-inv}\end{aligned}$$ can be expressed in terms of the annihilation and the creation operators for particles $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) &=& i \bigl( \varphi_{\alpha}^{*} (t) \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}^{*} - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha}^{*} (t) \hat{\phi}_{\alpha} \bigr), \nonumber\\
\hat{a}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) &=& -i \bigl( \varphi_{\alpha} (t) \hat{\pi}_{\alpha} - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t) \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}^{*} \bigr), \label{pa op}\end{aligned}$$ and those for antiparticles $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{b}_{\alpha} (t) &=& i \bigl( \varphi_{\alpha}^{*}(t) \hat{\pi}_{\alpha} - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha}^{*} (t) \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}^{*} \bigr),
\nonumber\\
\hat{b}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) &=& - i \bigl( \varphi_{\alpha} (t) \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}^{*} - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t) \hat{\phi}_{\alpha} \bigr). \label{an op}\end{aligned}$$ The commutators hold $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t), \hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\beta} (t) ] = [\hat{a}_{\alpha} (t), \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\beta} (t) ] = [\hat{b}_{\alpha} (t), \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\beta} (t)]= \delta_{\alpha \beta}, \label{com}\end{aligned}$$ while other commutators vanish. Thus, $\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t)$ annihilates one particle-antiparticle pair, while $\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t)$ creates the pair with the same quantum $\alpha$, and the field has the canonical representation $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\phi} (t, {\bf x}) = \sum_{\alpha} \Bigl[ \varphi_{\alpha} (t) \hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) + \varphi_{\alpha}^{*} (t) \hat{b}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) \Bigr].\end{aligned}$$
Using the commutation relations (\[com\]), we may construct the time-dependent particle-antiparticle states $$\begin{aligned}
\vert k_{\alpha}, \bar{l}_{\beta}, t \rangle = \frac{(\hat{a}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t))^{k_{\alpha}}}{\sqrt{k_{\alpha}!}} \frac{(\hat{b}_{\beta}^{\dagger}(t))^{l_{\beta}}}{\sqrt{l_{\beta}!}} \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\beta}, t \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where bars denote antiparticles, and the vacuum state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\beta}, t \rangle = \hat{b}_{\beta} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\beta}, t \rangle = 0.\end{aligned}$$ These states are orthonormal among themselves at the equal time $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m_{\alpha}, \bar{n}_{\beta}, t \vert k_{\gamma}, \bar{l}_{\delta}, t \rangle = \delta_{mk} \delta_{\alpha \gamma} \delta_{nl} \delta_{\beta \delta}.\end{aligned}$$ However, each multiple particle-antiparticle state is not a solution to Eq. (\[osc eq\]), because $\hat{a}_{\alpha} (t)$ and $\hat{b}_{\alpha} (t)$ cannot separately become quantum invariants for Eq. (\[ln eq\]). Instead, the particle-antiparticle pair constitutes the quantum invariants $\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t)$ and $\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t)$. Hence, the vacuum state for a given $\alpha$ should be annihilated by the zero particle-antiparticle operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle = 0, \label{zer st}\end{aligned}$$ and at the same time have the zero particle and antiparticle number, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0_{\alpha}, t \vert \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) \hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle = \langle 0_{\alpha}, t \vert \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) \hat{b}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle = 0. \label{zer pa}\end{aligned}$$ The zero particle and antiparticle content (\[zer pa\]) excludes another null state (\[zer st\]) with one particle or antiparticle $$\begin{aligned}
\vert 1_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{\rm spurious}
= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} \Bigl(\vert 1_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\alpha}, t \rangle - \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{1}_{\alpha}, t \rangle\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, $\vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle := \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\alpha},t \rangle$ is the unique state satisfying Eqs. (\[zer st\]) and (\[zer pa\]) and constructs the time-dependent vacuum state for the field $$\begin{aligned}
\vert 0, t \rangle = \prod_{\alpha} \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle. \label{vac st}\end{aligned}$$ The first excited state is obtained by acting $\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t)$ on the vacuum $$\begin{aligned}
\vert 1_{\alpha}, t \rangle := \hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0, t \rangle
= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} \Bigl(\vert 1_{\alpha}, \bar{0}_{\alpha}, t \rangle + \vert 0_{\alpha}, \bar{1}_{\alpha}, t \rangle\Bigr). \label{1-p-a}\end{aligned}$$ The one particle-antiparticle state (\[1-p-a\]) is the superposition of a particle with ${\bf k}$ and an antiparticle with $- {\bf k}$ from Eq. (\[fourier\]) but is not $\vert 1_{\alpha}, \bar{1}_{\alpha}, t \rangle$, as expected naively. Similarly, acting $n$-times $\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t)$ excites $n$ particle-antiparticle state for the quantum $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\vert n_{\alpha}, t \rangle = \frac{(\hat{A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t))^{n_{\alpha}} }{\sqrt{n_{\alpha}!}} \vert 0, t \rangle
= \sum_{k_{\alpha}=0}^{n_{\alpha}} \sqrt{\frac{n_{\alpha}!}{2^{\alpha} (n_{\alpha} - k_{\alpha})! k_{\alpha}!}}
\vert n_{\alpha} - k_{\alpha}, \bar{k}_{\alpha}, t \rangle, \label{n-p-a}\end{aligned}$$ in which the statistical weight comes from the number of ways for arranging indistinguishable $n_{\alpha}$ particle-antiparticles. Any general particle-antiparticle state is a linear combination of (\[n-p-a\]).
It is one of the merits of the invariant operators that the exact quantum state can also be given by the eigenstates of another invariant $\hat{N}_{\alpha} (t) = \hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) \hat{A}_{\alpha} (t)$ [@kim-page01]. Hence, the total number of initial particle-antiparticle with the quantum $\alpha$ contained in the vacuum state at $t$ is the same as that of particle-antiparticle at $t$ contained in the initial vacuum state at $t_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_{\alpha} (t) = \langle 0, t \vert \hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t_0) \hat{A}_{\alpha} (t_0) \vert 0, t \rangle = \langle 0, t_0 \vert \hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) \hat{A}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0, t_0 \rangle = |\dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t)|^2 |\varphi_{\alpha} (t_0)|^2 + |\varphi_{\alpha} (t)|^2|\dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t_0)|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t_0)$ and $\hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t_0)$ are the operators (\[pa op\]) and (\[an op\]) evaluated at $t_0$. Note that $\hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t) \hat{A}_{\alpha} (t)$, $(\hat{A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (t))^2$ and $(\hat{A}_{\alpha} (t))^2$ form an S(1,1) algebra, which leads to the quantum master equation [@kim-schubert11], and to the evolution operator and therefrom the pair-production rate [@KLR12]. Furthermore, the one-loop effective action is obtained from the scattering matrix between the out-vacuum and the in-vacuum under the action of the electric field modulo the scattering matrix in the absence of the field [@KLY08]: $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i \int d^4x {\cal L}_{\rm eff} (E)} = \prod_{\alpha, T = \infty} \frac{\langle 0_{\alpha}, T/2 \vert 0_{\alpha}, -T/2 \rangle (E) }{\langle 0_{\alpha}, T/2 \vert 0_{\alpha}, -T/2 \rangle (E=0)}.\end{aligned}$$
Invariant Operators in Time-Dependent Magnetic Fields {#sec5}
=====================================================
The charged scalar field in a time-dependent magnetic field along the fixed direction has the Hamiltonian (\[B-ham\]) or (\[q-ham\]), which may be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\epsilon} (t) = H_{\rm D} (t) + \epsilon H_{\rm O} (t). \label{B-tham}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\epsilon$ is an expansion parameter for the perturbation theory and will be set $\epsilon =1$ in the end of calculations, and $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm D} = \sum_{\alpha} \pi^*_{\alpha} \pi_{\alpha} + \omega^2_{\alpha} (t) \phi^*_{\alpha} \phi_{\alpha} \label{diag}\end{aligned}$$ is the diagonal Hamiltonian, while $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm O} = \sum_{\alpha \beta} \pi^*_{\alpha} \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \phi^*_{\beta} + \pi_{\alpha} \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \phi_{\beta} \label{off}\end{aligned}$$ is the off-diagonal Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian (\[B-tham\]) is an infinite system of coupled oscillators due to the off-diagonal Hamiltonian (\[off\]), which induces continuous transitions among Landau levels as shown in Eq. (\[ll tr\]). In the non-relativistic theory, a charged particle in time-dependent magnetic fields similarly has a finite number of coupled oscillators, to which the quantum invariant method has been applied [@lewis-riesenfeld69; @fiore-gouba11] (for coupled, time-dependent oscillators, see also Refs. [@leach77; @ji-hong98; @dodonov00; @lee01]). The infinite degrees of freedom for the charged field necessarily involve renormalizing physical quantities such as the vacuum energy and the charge, in strong contrast to finite degrees of the freedom for the particle.
The quantum motion of the charged field may be classified according to the relative ratio $||H_{\rm O}|| / ||H_{\rm D}||$ for some appropriate measure. For instance, a measure has been introduced that the integrated rate of the change of Landau levels to the dynamical phase for any time interval [@kim14a] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_{\alpha} = \frac{\int_{t_a}^{t_b} dt' |\Omega_{\alpha \beta} (t')|}{ \int_{t_a}^{t_b} dt' \omega_{\alpha} (t')},\end{aligned}$$ classifies the quantum motions (states) into the adiabatic change, the sudden change, and the nonadiabatic change. Now, these motions are classified by the relative ratio: (i) the adiabatic change when $||H_{\rm D}|| \gg ||H_{\rm O}||$, static fields being an extreme limit of $||H_{\rm O}|| =0$, (ii) the sudden change when $||H_{\rm D}|| \ll ||H_{\rm O}||$, in which Landau levels change more rapidly than Landau energies, and (iii) the nonadiabatic change when $||H_{\rm D}|| \approx ||H_{\rm O}||$, in which the change of Landau states is comparable to the dynamical phase of Landau energies. The exact quantum motion may not be found for general time-dependent magnetic fields, except for some limiting cases such as a constant magnetic field and a suddenly changing field from one constant value to another. Hence, we propose another scheme which applies a perturbation theory to the Hamiltonian (\[B-tham\]), by treating $H_{\rm D}$ as the unperturbed Hamiltonian and $H_{\rm O}$ as the perturbed one when $||H_{\rm D}|| \gg ||H_{\rm O}||$ or vice versa.
From Eq. (\[ln eq\]), the pair of quantum invariants (\[q-inv\]) in the extended phase space (\[phase\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{I}_{(\pm)} (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl[ U_{_{(\pm)} \alpha \beta} (\hat{\pi}^*_{\beta} + \hat{\pi}_{\beta}) + V_{(\pm) \alpha \beta} (\hat{\phi}^*_{\beta} + \hat{\phi}_{\beta}) \Bigr], \label{q-inv2}\end{aligned}$$ may be found by solving the matrix-valued differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{U}_{(\pm)} + U_{(\pm)} \Omega + V_{(\pm)} = 0, \quad \dot{V}_{(\pm)} - U_{(\pm)} {\bf \omega}^2 + V_{(\pm)} \Omega = 0. \label{uv eq}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the positive (negative) sign denotes the positive (negative) frequency solution. The two equations (\[uv eq\]) are equal to the transpose of the mode equation in the vector form (\[B-eq\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{U}_{(\pm)} + 2 \dot{U}_{(\pm)} \Omega + U_{(\pm)} \bigl({\bf \omega}^2 + \Omega^2 + \dot{\Omega} \bigr) = 0. \label{B-teq}\end{aligned}$$ However, the merit of the quantum invariant method does not lie in solving the classical field equation, but lies in constructing diverse quantum states. In the two-component first-order formalism, the Cauchy problem has been reduced to solving Eq. (\[B-eq\]), whose solutions may not be known for generic magnetic fields, and requires a perturbation method. In a similar manner, finding the exact invariants (\[q-inv2\]) is equivalent to solving Eq. (\[B-teq\]) or (\[B-eq\]). Therefore, we need a systematic method, such as perturbation theory, in order to find the invariants or directly to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.
Adiabatic Change {#sec5-1}
----------------
The field $\phi$ is complex due to the longitudinal motion along the magnetic field in the four-dimensional spacetime, so we may quantize the time-dependent oscillators (\[diag\]) as for electric fields in Sec. \[sec4\]. Hence, the invariant operators are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal A}_{\alpha} (t) &=& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl[ \varphi^*_{\alpha} (\hat{\pi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}) - \dot{\varphi^*}_{\alpha} (\hat{\phi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}) \Bigr]
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl( \hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) + \hat{b}_{\alpha} (t) \bigr), \nonumber\\
\hat{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) &=& - \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl[ \varphi_{\alpha} (\hat{\pi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\pi}_{\alpha}) - \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (\hat{\phi}^*_{\alpha} + \hat{\phi}_{\alpha}) \Bigr] = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigl( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) + \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} (t) \bigr). \label{B-in}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the auxiliary field $\varphi_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = (n, k_z)$ is a complex solution to the mode equation $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\varphi}_{\alpha} (t) + \omega^2_{\alpha} (t) \varphi_{\alpha} (t) = 0 \label{aux sol2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega^2_{\alpha} = |qB| (2n+1) + m^2 + k^2_z$ and ${\rm Wr} [\varphi_{\alpha}, \varphi^*_{\alpha} ] = i$. Then, the diagonal Hamiltonian becomes $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm D} = \sum_{\alpha} \Bigl[ \bigl( \dot{\varphi}^*_{\alpha} \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} + \omega^2_{\alpha} \varphi^*_{\alpha} \varphi_{\alpha} \bigr) \bigl(\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \hat{a}_{\alpha} + \hat{b}_{\alpha}\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \bigr) + \bigl( \dot{\varphi}^{*2}_{\alpha} + \omega^2_{\alpha} \varphi^{*2}_{\alpha} \bigr) \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} + \bigl( \dot{\varphi}^{2}_{\alpha} + \omega^2_{\alpha} \varphi^{2}_{\alpha} \bigr) \hat{a}_{\alpha} \hat{b}_{\alpha} \Bigr], \label{diag2}\end{aligned}$$ and the off-diagonal Hamiltonian takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm O} = \sum_{\alpha \beta} \Bigl[ \bigl( \dot{\varphi}^*_{\alpha} \varphi_{\beta} - \varphi^*_{\alpha} \dot{\varphi}_{\beta} \bigr) \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \bigl( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \hat{a}_{\alpha} + \hat{b}_{\alpha}\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \bigr)
+ \bigl( \dot{\varphi}^*_{\alpha} \varphi^*_{\beta} - \varphi^*_{\alpha} \dot{\varphi}^*_{\beta} \bigr) \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha} \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\beta}
+ \bigl( \dot{\varphi}_{\alpha} \varphi_{\beta} - \varphi_{\alpha} \dot{\varphi}_{\beta} \bigr) \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \hat{a}_{\alpha} \hat{b}_{\beta} \Bigr]. \label{off2}\end{aligned}$$ The invariant operators (\[B-in\]) satisfy Eq. (\[ln eq\]) for the diagonal Hamiltonian (\[diag2\]) when $\varphi_{\alpha}$ is the solution to Eq. (\[aux sol2\]).
In the adiabatic change, we find the quantum states for the unperturbed Hamiltonian (\[diag2\]) with the aid of the quantum invariant method and then improve the unperturbed states by the Hamiltonian (\[off2\]). The unperturbed states consist of the time-dependent vacuum state $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{(0)} = \hat{b}_{\alpha} (t) \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{(0)} =0, \label{lan qst}\end{aligned}$$ and the excited states $$\begin{aligned}
\vert n_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{(0)} = \frac{(\hat{\cal A}_{\alpha} (t))^{n_{\alpha}}}{\sqrt{n_{\alpha}!}} \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{(0)}.\end{aligned}$$ For each $\alpha$ the time-dependent vacuum state (\[lan qst\]) leads to the Landau state and thereby the time-dependent vacuum state for the field $$\begin{aligned}
\vert 0, t \rangle_{(0)} = \prod_{\alpha} \vert 0_{\alpha}, t \rangle_{(0)}. \label{B-vac}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the general excited states are [@kim-khanna00] $$\begin{aligned}
\vert {\cal N}, t \rangle_{(0)} = \prod_{{\cal N}} \frac{\hat{\cal A}^{\dagger {\cal N}} (t)}{\sqrt{ \{ {\cal N} \}!}} \vert 0, t \rangle_{(0)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{ {\cal N} \} = (n_0, \cdots, n_{\alpha}, \cdots)$, $\hat{\cal A}^{\dagger {\cal N}} = \hat{\cal A}_{0}^{\dagger n_0} \cdots \hat{\cal A}_{\alpha}^{\dagger n_{\alpha}} \cdots$, and $ \{{\cal N} \}! = \prod_{\alpha} n_{\alpha}!$.
The quantum state of the field in a constant magnetic field $B_0$, though looks trivial because of $\Omega_{\alpha \beta} = 0$, requires a careful understanding in contrast to that of a charged particle in the non-relativistic theory. Each Landau level has the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\alpha} (t) = \frac{ e^{- i \omega_{\alpha} t}}{\sqrt{2 \omega_{\alpha}}}\end{aligned}$$ with the Landau energy (\[lan en\]). Then, the exact vacuum state (\[lr sol\]) for the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vert 0, t \rangle = \prod_{\alpha} e^{- i \omega_{\alpha} t} \vert 0_{\alpha} \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\prod_{\alpha} \vert 0_{\alpha} \rangle$ is the vacuum state associated with $\Phi_{n} ({\bf x}_{\perp}, t)$ in Eq. (\[lan exp\]), in which each Landau state is equally occupied. The scattering matrix between the out-vacuum and the in-vacuum gives the one-loop effective action $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0, \frac{T}{2} \vert 0, - \frac{T}{2} \rangle = e^{i T V_{\perp} \sum_{\alpha} \omega_{\alpha} (B_0) } = e^{i T V {\cal L}_{\rm eff} (B_0)},\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ and $V_{\perp}$ are the three- and two-dimensional volumes of the problem. In fact, the summation of all the Landau energies equals to the one-loop effective action after the renormalization of the vacuum energy and the charge [@greiner-reinhardt].
For adiabatically changing magnetic fields, the scattering matrix between the out-vacuum and the in-vacuum provides the vacuum persistence amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
{}_{(0)}\langle 0, \infty \vert 0, - \infty \rangle_{(0)} = e^{i \int d^4 x {\cal L}_{\rm eff}}. \label{vacum per}\end{aligned}$$ The non-unimodular amplitude $|{}_{(0)}\langle 0, \infty \vert 0, - \infty \rangle_{(0)} |^2 < 1$ implies that the initial vacuum state is not stable against the pair production and that the effective action obtains an imaginary part. The instability can be expected from the induced electric field ${\bf E} = - \partial {\bf A}/ \partial t$. However, the adiabatic vacuum state (\[B-vac\]) is no longer a good approximation for rapidly changing magnetic fields because $||H_{\rm D}|| \ll ||H_{\rm O}||$.
Perturbation beyond Adiabatic Change {#sec5-2}
------------------------------------
In the time-dependent perturbation theory [@messiah], the time-dependent vacuum state (\[B-vac\]) does not lead to any quantum correction because $$\begin{aligned}
{}_{(0)}\langle 0, t \vert \hat{H}_{\rm O} \vert 0, t \rangle_{(0)} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ It would be interesting to compare the Hamiltonian (\[B-tham\]) with the Fourier-decomposed Hamiltonian for an interacting scalar field, for instance, the $\Phi^4$-theory [@kim-khanna00]. We may look for the improved state $$\begin{aligned}
\vert {\cal N}, t \rangle = \hat{U} (\hat{\cal A}^{\dagger} (t), \hat{\cal A} (t), t) \vert {\cal N}, t \rangle_{(0)},\end{aligned}$$ and solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \hat{U} (t) = \hat{H}_{\rm O} (t) \hat{U} (t). \label{ev op}\end{aligned}$$ It is the property of the invariant operators that the perturbation $\hat{H}_{\rm O} (t)$ is invariant in the interaction-like picture [@kim-khanna00]. Thus, the evolution operator for Eq. (\[ev op\]) has the formal solution given by the time-ordered integral $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U} (t) = {\rm T} \exp \Bigl[ -i \int_{t_0}^t dt' \hat{H}_{\rm O} (t') \Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ and the leading approximation is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}_{(1)} (t) = e^{-i \int_{t_0}^t dt' \hat{H}_{\rm O} (t')}. \label{imp st}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the vacuum persistence amplitude between the in-vacuum and the out-vacuum, which is improved by Eq. (\[imp st\]) when the magnetic field changes slowly during a large period $T$ from one value at $- T/2$ to another at $T/2$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{ i V \int dt' {\cal L}_{\rm eff}} = {}_{(0)}\langle 0, \frac{T}{2} \vert e^{i \int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt' \hat{H}_{\rm O} (t')} \vert 0, - \frac{T}{2} \rangle_{(0)}.\end{aligned}$$
Electric Field Parallel to Magnetic Field {#sec5-3}
-----------------------------------------
When a time-dependent electric field parallel to the magnetic field is present, the vector potential (\[vec pot\]) may be used. Then, the Hamiltonian after the spectral decomposition (\[lan exp\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \sum_{\alpha} \bigl( \pi_{\alpha}^* \pi_{\alpha} + \omega_{\alpha}^2 \phi_{\alpha}^* \phi_{\alpha} \bigr) + \sum_{\alpha \beta} \bigl( \pi_{\alpha} \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \phi_{\beta} + \pi_{\alpha}^* \Omega_{\alpha \beta} \phi_{\beta}^* \bigr), \label{EB-ham}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = (n, k_z)$ and the time-dependent Landau energies are $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\alpha}^2 (t) = |qB(t)| (2n+1) + m^2 + (k_z - qA_z (t))^2.\end{aligned}$$ The nonstationary nature of quantum states does not essentially change as far as the magnetic field is time-dependent or an electric field is present. Note that the quantum motion becomes nonstationary even for a constant magnetic field due to the electric field, which is the reasoning behind the pair production due to the electric field. In the case of the adiabatic change of the magnetic field, we may use the quantum states in Sec. \[sec5-1\] and the improved states in Sec. \[sec5-2\], which will not be repeated here.
Conclusion {#sec6}
==========
In scalar QED, we have formulated the second quantized scalar field in a homogeneous, time-dependent electromagnetic field, in which the quantum law is the functional Schrödinger equation with a time-dependent Hamiltonian from the field action. The Hamiltonian obtained from the spectral method is quadratic in position and momentum operators, which is an infinite sum of decoupled, time-dependent oscillators in the time-dependent electric field, but is another infinite sum of coupled, time-dependent oscillators in the time-dependent magnetic field due to continuous transitions of Landau levels. The quantum law is thus the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for an infinite system of time-dependent oscillators.
We have then employed the quantum invariant method to find the quantum states for the charged scalar field, which makes use of quantum invariants that satisfy the Liouville-von Neumann equation with respect to the time-dependent Hamiltonian [@lewis-riesenfeld69]. We have further used the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators, quantum invariants, and constructed the Fock space of all the excited states [@MMT70; @kim-kim99; @kim-lee00; @kim-page01]. In the case of time-dependent electric fields, the quantum law reduces to finding the wave functions for each time-dependent oscillator, while in the case of time-dependent magnetic fields, the task is equivalent to solving the Schrödinger equation for coupled oscillators with time-dependent frequencies and couplings among different oscillators. We have sought for the quantum invariants for the scalar field in the time-dependent magnetic fields.
The quantum invariants directly lead to the exact quantum states for decoupled or coupled, time-dependent oscillators up to time-dependent phase factors. In particular, the time-dependent annihilation and the creation operators construct not only the Fock of all the excited states but also generalized correlated states and thermal states. The two-dimensional Landau states have been studied in time-dependent magnetic fields in the non-relativistic theory [@lewis-riesenfeld69; @fiore-gouba11]. The second quantized scalar field is a relativistic theory and is equivalent to an infinite number of time-dependent oscillators as explored in this paper. We have advanced a perturbation method based on the quantum invariants for the time-dependent magnetic fields because the solutions for the classical mode equations are not known in general. In particular, when the magnetic fields change adiabatically in the sense that the rate of the change of the Landau levels is smaller than the corresponding dynamical phases, the off-diagonal Hamiltonian responsible for the transitions among the time-dependent Landau levels could be treated as perturbation to the adiabatic, diagonal Hamiltonian from the Landau levels. The perturbation improves the time-dependent vacuum state of Landau levels.
The quantum state or wave functional for the field in QED always involves some infinite quantity which should be regulated away through the renormalization of physical quantities, such as the vacuum energy and the charge of the particle. For instance, the one-loop effective action via the scattering matrix between the out-vacuum at the remote future and the in-vacuum in the remote past is given by the sum over all the quantum numbers, the three-momenta or the Landau levels and the longitudinal momenta. The renormalized action follows from an appropriate regularization scheme; for instance, in a time-dependent Sauter-type electric field, the complex mode solution (\[E-eq\]) is known, the time-dependent vacuum state can be constructed from the invariants, and the renormalization of the action is essentially the same as Ref. [@KLY08]. The renormalization problem also occurs for a scalar field in an expanding universe [@ringwald87]. The renormalization problem in the second quantized scalar field may be studied on a case-by-case basis, which goes beyond the scope of this paper.
There are some interesting issues not handled in this paper but requiring a further study. The external electromagnetic fields that have both temporal and spatial distribution require a more advanced spectral method, which goes beyond the scope of this paper. Another interesting problem is a time-dependent magnetic field whose direction rotates around a fixed direction [@dipiazza-calucci02], which may be used as a model for highly magnetized neutron stars. It would be also interesting to compare the second quantized scalar field in a rotating electric field with the recent Wigner function formalism [@blinne-gies13]. Still another problem is the second quantized formulation of charged spin-1/2 fermions in the time-dependent magnetic fields, which will be addressed in a future publication.
The author thanks Hyun Kyu Lee and Yongsung Yoon for helpful discussions on Landau states and the adiabatic theorem in magnetic fields, and thanks Lee Lindblom for useful discussions on the spectral method during the AP School on Gravitation and Cosmology at Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 2014. He also would like to thank Misao Sasaki and Takahiro Tanaka for the warm hospitality at Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Don N. Page for the warm hospitality at University of Alberta, Jeremy S. Heyl for the warm hospitality at Pacific Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of British Columbia, and Toshiki Tajima for the warm hospitality at University of California, Irvine, where parts of this paper were done, respectively. The revision of this paper was done at University of Alberta. The visits to Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Alberta, Pacific Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Academia Sinica were supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2012R1A1B3002852). This work was supported by the Research Center Program of IBS (Institute for Basic Science) in Korea.
[99]{}
A. Di Piazza, C. Müller†, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan and C. H. Keitel, “Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1177 (2012).
A. K. Harding and D. Lai, “Physics of strongly magnetized neutron stars,” Rep. Prog. Phys. [**69**]{}, 2631 (2006).
G. V. Dunne, “New strong-field QED effects at extreme light infrastructure,” Eur. Phys. J. D [**55**]{}, 327 (2009).
H. Gies, “Strong laser fields as a probe for fundamental physics,” Eur. Phys. J. D [**55**]{}, 311 (2009).
S. P. Kim, H. K. Lee and Y. Yoon, “Effective action of QED in electric field backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 105013 (2008).
S. P. Kim, “Landau Levels of Scalar QED in Time-Dependent Magnetic Fields,” Ann. Phy. [**344**]{}, 1 (2014).
S. P. Kim, “Quantum mechanics of conformally and minimally coupled Friedmann-Roberston-Walker cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 3403 (1992).
S. P. Kim, “Massive Scalar Field Quantum Cosmology,” The Universe, Vol. [**1**]{}, 11 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.7439\].
S. P. Kim, “Third Quantization and Quantum Universes,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**246-247**]{}, 68-75 (2014) \[arXiv:1212.5355\].
K. Freese, C. T. Hill, and M. Mueller, “Covariant functional Schrödinger formalism and application to the Hawking effect,” Nucl. Phys. [**B255**]{}, 693 (1985).
A. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, “Quantum mechanics of the scalar field in the new inflationary universe,” Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 1899 (1985).
C. Kiefer, “Functional Schrödinger equation for scalar QED,” Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 2044 (1992).
H. R. Lewis and W. B. Riesenfeld, “An Exact Quantum Theory of the Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator and of a Charged Particle in a Time-Dependent Electromagnetic Field,” J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1458 (1969).
I. A. Malkin, V. I. Man’ko and D. A. Trifonov, “Coherent States and Transition Probabilities in a Time-Dependent Electromagnetic Field,” Phys. Rev. D [**2**]{}, 1371 (1970).
J. K. Kim and S. P. Kim, “One-parameter squeezed Gaussian states of a time-dependent harmonic oscillator and the selection rule for vacuum states,” J. Phys. A [**32**]{}, 2711 (1999).
S. P. Kim and D. N. Page, “Classical and quantum action-phase variables for time-dependent oscillators,” Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 012104 (2001).
S. P. Kim and C. H. Lee, “Nonequilibrium quantum dynamics of second order phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 125020 (2000).
S. P. Kim and D. N. Page, “Exact quantum-statistical dynamics of time-dependent generalized oscillators,” Phys. Lett. B [**723**]{}, 393 (2013).
P. G. Leach, “On the theory of time-dependent linear canonical transformations as applied to Hamiltonians of the harmonic oscillator type,” J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{}, 1608 (1977).
J-Y. Ji and J. Hong, “Heisenberg picture approach to the invariants and the exact quantum motions for coupled parametric oscillators,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**31**]{}, L689 (1998).
V. V. Dodonov, “Universal integrals of motion and universal invariants of quantum systems,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**33**]{}, 7721 (2000).
M-H. Lee, “Eaxct Schrödinger wavefunctions of $N$-coupled time-dependent harmonic oscillators,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**34**]{}, 9475 (2001).
V. V. Dodonov and V. I. Man’ko, “Invariants and the evolution of nonstationary quantum systems,” Proc. Lebedev Physics Institute, Vol [**183**]{} (Commack: Nova Science, 1989)
M. A. Lohe, “Exact time dependence of solutions to the time-dependent Schröodinger equation,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**42**]{}, 035307 (2009).
S. P. Kim and C. Schubert, “Nonadiabatic quantum Vlasov equation for Schwinger pair production,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 125028 (2011).
S. P. Kim, H. W. Lee, and R. Ruffini, “Schwinger Pair Production in Pulsed Electric Fields,” arXiv:1207.5213 \[hep-th\].
G. Fiore and L. Gouba, “Class of invariants for the two-dimensional time-dependent Landau problem and harmonic oscillator in a magnetic field,” J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{}, 103509 (2011).
W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, [*Quantum electrodynamics*]{}, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1994), pp. 376-378.
A. Messiah, [*Quatum Mechanics*]{} (North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, 1970).
S. P. Kim and F. C. Khanna, “Non-Gaussian Effects on Domain Growth,” arXiv:hep-ph/0011115 (unpublished).
A. Ringwald, “Evolution Equation for the Expectation Values of a Scalar Field in Spatially Flat RW Universes,” Ann. Phys. [**177**]{}, 129 (1987).
A. Di Piazza and G. Calucci, “Pair production in a rotating strong magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 125019 (2002).
A. Blinne and H. Gies “Production in Rotating Electric Fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 085001 (2014) \[arXiv:1311.1678 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A sophisticated approach to condensate opacity is required to properly model the atmospheres of L and T dwarfs. Here we review different models for the treatment of condensates in brown dwarf atmospheres. We conclude that models which include both particle sedimentation and upwards transport of condensate (both gas and particles) provide the best fit for the L dwarf colors. While a globally uniform cloud model fits the L dwarf data, it turns to the blue in $J-K$ too slowly to fit the T dwarfs. Models which include local clearings in the global cloud deck, similar to Jupiter’s prominent five-micron hot spots, better reproduce the available photometric data and also account for the observed resurgence of FeH absorption in early type T dwarfs.'
author:
- 'M.S. Marley'
- 'A. Ackerman'
- 'A.J. Burgasser'
- 'D. Saumon'
- 'K. Lodders'
- 'R. Freedman'
title: Clouds and Clearings in the Atmospheres of the L and T Dwarfs
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Long before the first discoveries of brown dwarfs, it was recognized that condensates would play a critical role in controlling their atmospheric opacity, at least in certain effective temperature ranges (Stevenson 1986; Lunine et al. 1989). It was also evident that the correct choice for the vertical distribution of the condensates was not obvious (Lunine et al. 1989). Condensates might be well mixed in the atmosphere above their condensation level, or might coalesce into large particles, fall below their condensation level and be removed from the atmosphere. Of course many intermediate cases are possible as well.
After the discovery of what came to be known as the L and T dwarfs, modelers initially focused on simple end cases. Condensates were either assumed to have either completely settled from the atmosphere or else were mixed uniformly throughout the observable atmosphere. The prior approach works reasonably well for objects like Gl 229 B (Allard et al. 1996; Marley et al. 1996; Saumon et al. 2000; Tsuji et al. 1996), while the latter works for very late M and early L dwarfs like Kelu 1 (Ruiz, Leggett & Allard 1997). Neither approach, however, could adequately reproduce the colors, let alone the spectra of the latest Ls or the ‘transition’ late L/early T objects, like SDSS 1254 (Fig. 1).
Models (Fig. 1) in which the condensates are absent from the atmosphere produce $J-K$ colors that are much bluer than the observed L dwarfs. The blue color arises from water, pressure-induced $\rm H_2$, and for lower effective temperatures ($T_{\rm eff} < 1400\,\rm K$) $\rm CH_4$ absorption in $K$ band. Models with condensates distributed uniformly through the atmosphere match the early Ls in which the condensate column optical depth is small, but are much redder than the colors of the later L dwarfs. The reason is that as the cloud deck falls progressively deeper in the atmosphere the column abundance of dust gets progressively larger. Since the cloud is forming at higher air densities the abundance of condensates to be mixed upwards from cloud base is larger with falling effective temperature. Thus an outside observer sees an ever increasing dust optical depth until the observer is effectively looking at a dirt-filled atmosphere. Like blackbodies, such objects becomes progressively redder in $J-K$ as they cool. These models cannot reproduce the observed transition from red to blue in $J-K$ between the L and T dwarfs.
An obvious shortcoming of the first generation models is that none of them employed cloud decks like those seen throughout the solar system. Condensates in planetary atmospheres are generally neither completely settled out of the atmosphere nor distributed uniformly to the top of the atmosphere. Rather they tend to exist in horizontally-extended cloud decks. The $\rm H_2SO_4$ clouds of Venus, stratiform water clouds on Earth, the ammonia cloud decks on Jupiter, and the methane clouds in Uranus and Neptune are all examples of this.
To demonstrate that a vertically constrained cloud deck would qualitatively be more in line with the available data, Marley (2000) constructed a simple model in which all clouds were 1 scale height thick. He showed that such a model produced less red $J-K$ colors than well mixed models and also naturally explained the turnover in $J-K$ color from the red L dwarfs to the blue T dwarfs. As the cloud forms progressively lower in the atmosphere as the object cools, the cloud disappears while the clear atmosphere above takes on the appearance of the cloud-free models. Tsuji (2001) also used a simple model with a finite-thickness cloud to make the same point.
Given the apparent importance of correctly modeling cloud behavior, Ackerman & Marley (2001) developed a more rigorous cloud model for use in substellar atmosphere models. The model attempts to capture the key ‘zeroth order’ physics which influence the vertical condensate abundance and size profiles in a realistic (but 1-D) atmosphere. This model was used by Marley et al. (2002) and Burgasser et al. (2002) to model the atmospheres of L and T dwarfs. Other workers have recently turned to the work of Rossow (1978), originally developed to study the microphysics of clouds in planetary atmospheres, to model cloud behavior in substellar atmospheres. Finally Tsuji (2002) has further developed his model in which the cloud top temperature is an adjustable parameter. In Section 2 we review and compare these cloud models. In Section 3 we summarize the results of Burgasser et al. in applying the Ackerman & Marley cloud model to L and T dwarfs and consider the role of dynamically-induced holes in the global cloud coverage.
A Comparison of Cloud Models
============================
Calculating the opacity of condensates in an atmosphere requires estimating the distribution of particles over space and particle size. Estimates of condensate opacities in brown dwarf atmospheres have all assumed a steady state, horizontally homogeneous distribution. Beyond those common assumptions, a number of distinct approaches have appeared in the literature in recent years, ranging in complexity from (a) the simple approach of Tsuji (2002), in which the size of cloud particles is fixed, as are the temperatures at the bottom and top of the cloudy layer; (b) the more physically motivated method of Ackerman & Marley (2001), in which the size of cloud particles and the profile of condensate mass are coupled through an eddy mixing assumption and a parameter describing the sedimentation efficiency; and (c) the more detailed approach of Cooper et al. (2002), in which a number of time microphysical and transport time constants are evaluated in the spirit of Rossow (1978). We briefly describe and compare these three approaches below.
Tsuji (2002)
------------
Tsuji (2002) simply assumes that all condensate particles are 10 nanometers in radius, and are vertically located between their condensation temperature (establishing cloud base for each condensate, assuming solar abundances) and a prescribed temperature corresponding to cloud top for all species. No mention is made of the assumed vertical distribution of condensate mass. Likely possibilities include the assumption of a uniform mixing ratio or concentration.
All particles are prescribed to have a single fixed radius, which is described as the critical radius corresponding to the Gibbs free energy of formation of a molecular cluster, in which the surface tension is just offset by the supersaturation of a condensing gas. Assumed values of critical supersaturations and surface tensions are not given, so the validity of a uniform critical radius for all species is not easily evaluated. Tsuji argues that particles larger than this critical radius will grow and sediment out, and therefore only particles at this critical radius can remain within the cloud layer. These arguments assume that there are no vertical motions within the cloudy air to offset sedimentation, and that the formation of the particle clusters does not deplete the supersaturation that gave rise to them. It is not clear how this first argument is to be considered consistent with other elements of the atmospheric model, in which convective velocities are shown to vary between 10 and 80 m/s, which are strong enough to offset the sedimentation of particles hundreds of microns in radius. Furthermore, the notion that particles in long-lived clouds are limited to their critical radius is clearly invalid in the only atmosphere in which we have direct cloud microphysical measurements. Water cloud particles in the terrestrial troposphere typically range in modal size from 10 to 100 microns. In the terrestrial stratosphere sulfuric acid cloud particle sizes are of order microns, still over one hundred times that assumed by Tsuji.
Condensates (such as enstatite) that form at levels cooler than the prescribed cloud top temperature are assumed to not exist in the model atmospheres. Tsuji suggests that such condensates nucleate on other condensed species, and therefore rapidly sediment out, a process akin to seeding terrestrial cumulus clouds with large condensation nuclei to enhance precipitation. However, depending upon the meteorological and background aerosol conditions, increasing the concentration of condensation nuclei can instead suppress precipitation in terrestrial clouds (e.g., Ackerman et al. 1993). This second possibility is ruled out by Tsuji’s model.
For the same cloud top temperatures, Tsuji finds that cloud opacities in the atmospheres of T dwarfs are greatly reduced from that in L dwarfs because the clouds that form in the former (colder) atmospheres are limited (by virtue of his cloud-top temperature cutoff) to levels below the photosphere. This result effectively reproduces the result of earlier models that assume cloud layers are limited to one scale height in depth (e.g., Marley et al., 2000).
Tsuji’s choice of cloud top temperature does reproduce the limiting value of $J-K\sim 2$ seen in the latest L dwarfs as well as several other observed trends in the available data (Tsuji 2002). However since his model photometry is not combined with an evolution model to provide radii, hence absolute magnitudes, it is not clear if these ‘Unified’ models are able to reproduce the observed rapid transition in $J-K$ from the Ls to the Ts discussed in Section 3.
Ackerman & Marley (2001)
------------------------
The treatment of Ackerman & Marley has been inaccurately described (by Cooper et al., 2002) as being based on microphysical time scales. Instead the microphysical time scale approach pioneered by Rossow (1978), in which highly uncertain estimates are made for a number of microphysical processes, was bypassed by Ackerman & Marley in favor of a much simpler approach, in which a steady-state balance between sedimentation (of condensate) and mixing (of condensate and vapor) is solved at each model level. This advective-diffusive balance provides the profile of condensed mass in their model atmospheres. Condensate size distributions at each model level are represented as a log-normal distribution that is coupled to the advective-diffusive steady-state profile. The width of the distribution is a free parameter (a fixed geometric standard deviation of 2 is assumed), while the other two unknowns in the size distribution (total number concentration and modal radius) are calculated from, respectively, the steady-state condensate concentration and the sedimentation flux. The sedimentation flux is calculated by integrating particle sedimentation velocity over the log-normal particle size distribution.
The Ackerman & Marley treatment of mean particle size can be viewed as resembling an extremely simplified variant of the Rossow time scale approach in that the mean particle size calculation does use particle sedimentation speeds, and Rossow’s sedimentation time scale calculation also uses particle sedimentation speeds. Rossow divides the atmospheric scale height by the sedimentation speed to calculate a time scale, but ignores eddy mixing time scales in his analysis, and instead compares the sedimentation time scale to time scale estimates for particle condensation, coagulation, or gravitational coalescence. In contrast, Ackerman & Marley effectively compare particle sedimentation speed to the convective velocity scale to calculate mean particle size.
A notable extension of the Ackerman & Marley approach beyond preceding efforts along the same lines (e.g., Lunine et al., 1989) is to incorporate a sedimentation scaling factor in their computations of advective-diffusive balance and the mean particle size. This factor was originally called $f_{\rm rain}$ (for “rain factor"), but rain is associated by some researchers in the astrophysics field with the process that has been termed “rain-out", in which all condensate is removed from a saturated layer, and furthermore rain is a term specific to condensed water. Hence, a more appropriate description of the scaling factor would be “sedimentation factor" or $f_{\rm sed}$. Ackerman & Marley found that $f_{\rm sed} = 3$ reasonably reproduces the observations of Jupiter’s ammonia ice cloud, and results in a condensate opacity scale height of approximately 1/4 of a pressure scale height.
The Ackerman & Marley model has a small number of free parameters, but only $f_{\rm sed}$ has been adjusted to fit observations in practice. The other free microphysical parameters, the geometric standard deviation of the particle size distributions and the supersaturation that persists after condensation, are fixed at 2 and 0, respectively. The remaining free parameters relate to the difficulty of calculating eddy diffusion coefficients from mixing length theory in stable regions of the atmosphere. In such regions they calculate the mixing length by scaling the atmospheric scale height by the ratio of the local to the adiabatic temperature lapse rate, with a minimum scaling fixed at 0.1. They also specify that the minimum eddy diffusion coefficient is fixed (currently at $10^5\,\rm cm^2/s$) to represent residual sources of turbulence such as breaking buoyancy waves.
Cooper et al. (2002)
--------------------
Cooper et al. (2002) and Allard et al. (this volume) draw on the approach of Rossow (1978) to compute cloud models. While Rossow’s microphysical and transport time constant approach is appealing, it is not without its own set of stumbling blocks. To highlight some of the assumptions inherent in this approach we scrutinize in this section the cloud model[^1] of Cooper et al. (2002).
For their profiles of condensate mass, Cooper et al. evidently assume that all the condensate resides within one pressure scale height above the base of each condensate cloud. It is not immediately obvious from their description how the condensate mass is distributed vertically within that scale height. They state that all the supersaturated vapor above cloud base condenses, as assumed by Ackerman & Marley (2001). Recall that Ackerman & Marley calculate vertical profiles through the assumption of advective-diffusive steady-state. Cooper et al. calculate profiles of convective velocity scale (though unlike Ackerman & Marley, they do not give their formulation), which they use to calculate convective time scales to estimate particle sizes (described below). However, Cooper et al. do not state whether or not (or how) they might use the convective velocity scale to calculate their vertical distribution of condensate mass. It may be the case that they are calculating an advective-diffusive steady-state profile, as done by Ackerman & Marley, except that Cooper would presumably assume all the vapor to be condensed and that $f_{\rm sed} = 1$, which would be somewhat consistent with a condensate scale height matching the pressure scale height. However, such a profile would not be entirely consistent with their description, which states that 100% of the available vapor condenses within one scale height of cloud base. Perhaps the condensate profile within that scale height assumes that the vapor plus condensate is well mixed (uniform mixing ratio). Or perhaps they use the method of Lewis (1969) without stating so directly. As described further in the review of other models by Ackerman & Marley, the approach of Lewis is easiest to understand in terms of a parcel in an updraft, in which all the condensate sediments at exactly the updraft speed. Ackerman & Marley show that the Lewis model of Jupiter’s ammonia cloud gives the equivalent condensate profile for the Ackerman & Marley model with $f_{\rm sed}\approx 5$. Hence if Cooper et al. are using the method of Lewis (1969) to calculate their condensate profile, their clouds are more physically compact than those of the baseline Ackerman and Marley model (with $f_{\rm sed} = 3$), in contrast to the opposite conclusion stated by Cooper et al.
To calculate the size of condensate particles, Cooper et al. evidently assume a monodisperse distribution as done by Tsuji, rather than distributing the condensate over a range of sizes as done by Ackerman & Marley. Our only evidence of this assumption is their omission of any mention of droplet size distributions. Further unlike Ackerman & Marley but like Tsuji, Cooper et al. also assume that the particle size is fixed with altitude, as stated in their Section 6.3, although they show a profile of particle sizes in their Figure 5, which is somewhat puzzling.
Cooper et al. (2002) essentially apply a hybrid approach toward calculating the size of condensate particles. In convective regions they effectively calculate their particle size through a simplified form (by virtue of their monodisperse size distribution) of the treatment by Ackerman & Marley (2001), in which Cooper et al. assume $f_{\rm sed} = 1$. In radiative regimes Cooper et al. use a modification of the Rossow (1978) treatment to calculate particle size. For this detailed treatment, Cooper et al. estimate time scales for sedimentation, heterogeneous nucleation, homogeneous nucleation, coagulation (collision from thermal motions), and coalescence (collisions from differential sedimentation speeds). Rossow argues that the condensational time scale for cloud particles is much longer than the nucleation time scale in planetary atmospheres because cloud particles heterogeneously nucleate on condensation nuclei at a rapid rate compared to the cooling rate of the cloudy atmosphere. Hence, Rossow ignores the nucleation time scales in calculating characteristic particle sizes. In contrast, Cooper et al. consider the process of homogeneous nucleation to be important in the water and iron clouds of brown dwarf atmospheres, and therefore estimate nucleation time scales. These detailed calculations require estimating a number of additional parameters, such as surface tension, which requires estimating whether the cloud particles are crystalline, glassy, or liquid. Cooper et al. do not state their assumptions regarding this difficult issue. Furthermore, in his treatment of nucleation and condensation time scales, Rossow shows that they must be considered in tandem to calculate a growth rate. That is, the overall condensational time scale is equal to inverse of the sum of the growth rate of the particle masses plus the growth rate of the total number of particles. However, Cooper et al. treat the nucleation rate as a growth process on its own, a divergence from the method of Rossow that is not obviously justifiable, nor is the departure explained.
Other important parameters that must be estimated in their approach include the maximum supersaturation, and the coagulation and coalescence efficiencies. Additionally, the shape and breadth of the size distributions must be estimated to calculate coagulation and coalescence time scales. Cooper et al. provide no information regarding their assumed size distributions for these purposes, but presumably for their estimates of coagulation and particularly coalescence time scales they assume that their size distributions have some breadth, since a monodisperse size distribution would lack dispersion of terminal sedimentation speeds, and hence coalescence will be inoperative.
The L to T Transition
=====================
Marley et al. (2002) employed the Ackerman & Marley (2001) cloud model to compute atmosphere models for L and T dwarfs. Burgasser et al. (2002) combined these models with the evolution calculation of Burrows et al. (1997) to prepare a $M_J$ vs $M_J - M_K$ color magnitude diagram (Fig. 1). Since Burrows et al. used an earlier set of atmosphere models (that utilized the Lunine et al. (1986) dust model) as atmospheric boundary conditions, Figure 1 is not entirely self-consistent. However since model radii vary relatively little over the magnitude range plotted, this is not an important source of error. In the future we will present an entirely self-consistent evolutionary calculation.
Figure 1 compares cloudy ($f_{\rm sed}=3$) and cloud-free models of L and T dwarfs with parallaxes measured by the Flagstaff USNO group (Dahn et al. 2002; Harris, this volume). Also shown is the track predicted by the well-mixed DUSTY models of Chabrier et al. (2000). The main conclusion to be drawn is that neither the cloud-free nor the DUSTY models fit the colors of the L-dwarfs. The cloudy models better fit the data, including the saturation in $J-K$ at around 2 seen in the latest L dwarfs. Models that do not include particle sedimentation produce redder colors because more condensate mass remains in the atmosphere. Models with more efficient sedimentation, in contrast, produce colors intermediate between the clear and the $f_{\rm sed} = 3$ case.
Interestingly Ackerman & Marley find that the value of $f_{\rm sed}$ which best fits the (poorly constrained) particle size and vertical profile of Jupiter’s ammonia cloud deck is also 3. More sophisticated dynamical studies of giant planet and brown dwarf atmospheric convection may ultimately shed light on the mechanisms underlying this result.
The challenge facing any model with a global, 1-D, cloud is that the $J-K$ colors of brown dwarfs swing from the red to the blue over a very small interval in effective temperature and $M_J$. This is shown by the data in Figure 1 as well as other parallax data presented at the workshop by Tinney and collaborators (this volume). Maria Zapeterio-Osario presented colors and J magnitudes of objects in the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster (this volume) that are also consistent with the rapid change in color. It is very difficult for a globally uniform cloud to make such a sudden transition since the cloud base and, more importantly, the optical depth of the overlying gas change slowly with effective temperature. The $f_{\rm sed}=3$ model in Fig. 1 typifies this relatively slow transition.
The rapid transition suggests that something special may be happening at the L to T transition. One possibility might be that the global atmospheric dynamics change in such a way to rapidly favor more efficient particle sedimentation (larger $f_{\rm sed}$) at the transition. A second possibility, originally suggested by Ackerman & Marley (2001), is that horizontal patchiness, or holes, develop in the cloud layer at the L to T transition. Holes, or optically thin regions in the global cloud deck, cover less than 10% of Jupiter’s disk. At most thermal wavelengths optical depth unity is reached near or above these cloud tops, so the reduced cloud opacity in the holes is of little consequence. Near $5\,\rm \mu m$, however, there is a minimum in the combined $\rm H_2O$, $\rm CH_4$, and $\rm H_2$ gas opacity. Over most of the planet the cloud deck provides an opacity ‘floor’ at this wavelength, but in the cloud holes flux from deeper, warmer, and thus brighter regions can emerge. Essentially all of Jupiter’s $5\,\rm \mu m$ radiation emerges through these ‘hot spots’, which were first recognized in the 1960’s (Gillett, Low & Stein 1969). A $5\,\rm \mu m$ image of Jupiter is shown in Figure 2. The long path lengths through the atmosphere into the hole regions allow relatively rare species, such as $\rm PH_3$ and $\rm GeH_4$, to be detected in Jupiter’s atmosphere (Kunde et al. 1982).
Burgasser et al. (2002) argue that a similar gas opacity window exists at 1 $\micron$ in late-L/early-T dwarfs, and deeper, hotter layers can be probed at this wavelength in breaks in the upper condensate cloud decks. They point to the rapid change in $J-K$ color at the L to T transition as well as the observed resurgence in FeH absorption in the earliest T dwarfs (after monotonically declining through the L dwarfs) as supporting that clouds are patchy on brown dwarfs as well. In the L dwarfs gaseous FeH abundance presumably declines as iron and silicates condense into clouds, leading to a simultaneous increase in the $J-K$ color as the atmosphere becomes cloudier. Near the bottom of the L dwarf sequence holes begin to appear in the clouds, allowing bright, blue (in $J-K$) flux to emerge. This flux pulls the integrated color over the disk blueward and can even lead to a brightening at J band (Fig. 1). Simultaneously FeH gas, lying below the cloud base, again becomes detectable through the holes.
The patchy cloud model predicts that the effective temperature range of the earliest (T0 to T5) dwarfs is very small, the variations in spectral properties depending more on the fractional cloud cover than a varying effective temperature. There are some indications that this is true (Leggett et al., this volume), although more work is needed. Furthermore the patchy model suggests that the early T dwarfs will exhibit substantial variability in the infrared. At this conference evidence was presented that the T2 dwarf SDSS 1254 is indeed apparently variable in $J$ and $H$ bands (Artigau et al., this volume).
The mechanism responsible for clearings in Jupiter’s cloud deck is still not perfectly understood, although downdrafts of warm, dry air are likely involved (Showman & Dowling 2000). The principle brown dwarf cloud decks (iron and silicate) will become subject to such vertical flows when cloud base and the cloud tops become well seated in the atmospheric convection zone. In earlier type dwarfs much of the cloud opacity lies within the statically stable radiative zone where vertical motions are substantially smaller. Clouds in these regions may be similar to the stratospheric photochemical hazes of Jupiter and Titan, which are globally fairly uniform.
Summary
=======
It appears that a complete description of the behavior of L and T dwarfs will require a thorough understanding of the behavior of condensates in their atmospheres. In doing so models must simultaneously and self-consistently account for a number of influences including particle nucleation, sedimentation, and vertical transport. Other influences, including large scale atmospheric dynamics which may be responsible for cloud patchiness, may also be important. Given this daunting task, it is worth remembering that even after half a century of dedicated effort, such key properties as the particle sizes and vertical structure of most of the cloud decks in the solar system are still poorly known. The mechanisms responsible for those characteristics which are constrained are themselves only partly understood. Despite these challenges a coherent story for the behavior of L and T dwarf condensates is emerging, although our understanding is certainly still not complete. Clouds vary in time and in space and we should perhaps not be suprised that weather prediction is a challenging business.
Ackerman, A. S., Toon, O. B.,& Hobbs, P. V. 1993, Science, 262, 226. Ackerman, A. S. & Marley, M. S. 2001, , 556, 872
Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Baraffe, I., & Chabrier, G. 1996, , 465, L123
Burgasser, A. J., Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, , 571, L151
Burrows, A. et al. 1997, , 491, 856
Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, , 542, 464
Cooper, C., Sudarsky, D., Milsom, J., Lunine, J., & Burrows, A. 2002, astro-ph/0205192
Dahn, C.C. et al. 2002 , submitted
Gillett, F.C., Low, F.J., & Stein, W.A. 1969, , 157, 925
Kunde, V. et al. 1982, , 263, 443
Lewis, J. S. 1969, Icarus, 10, 365
Lunine, J. I., Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., Wang, Y.-P., & Garlow, K. 1989, , 338, 314
Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., Freedman, R. S., Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., & Lunine, J. I. 1996, Science, 272, 1919
Marley, M. S., Seager, S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Ackerman, A. S., Freedman, R. S., & Fan, X. 2002, , 568, 335
Marley, M. 2000, ASP Conf. Ser. 212: From Giant Planets to Cool Stars, 152
Orton, G. et al. 1996, Science, 272, 839
Rossow, W. B. 1978, Icarus, 36, 1
Ruiz, M. T., Leggett, S. K., & Allard, F. 1997, , 491, L107
Saumon, D., Geballe, T.R., Leggett, S. K., Marley, M. S., Freedman, R. S., Lodders, K., Fegley, B., & Sengupta, S. K. 2000, , 541, 374
Showman, A. P. & Dowling, T. E. 2000, Science, 289, 1737
Stevenson, D. J. 1986, Astrophysics of Brown Dwarfs, 218
Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., & Nakajima, T. 1996, , 308, L29
Tsuji, T. 2001, Ultracool Dwarfs: New Spectral Types L and T, 9
Tsuji, T. 2002, , in press, astro-ph/0204401
[^1]: Comments here refer to the pre-publication version of Cooper et al. that appeared on astro-ph on May 15, 2002.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we bring the celebrated max-weight features (myopic and discrete actions) to mainstream convex optimization. Myopic actions are important in control because decisions need to be made in an online manner and without knowledge of future events, and discrete actions because many systems have a finite (so non-convex) number of control decisions. For example, whether to transmit a packet or not in communication networks. Our results show that these two features can be encompassed in the subgradient method for the Lagrange dual problem by the use of stochastic and $\epsilon$-subgradients. One of the appealing features of our approach is that it decouples the choice of a control action from a specific choice of subgradient, which allows us to design control policies without changing the underlying convex updates. Two classes of discrete control policies are presented: one that can make discrete actions by looking only at the system’s current state, and another that selects actions using blocks. The latter class is useful for handling systems that have constraints on the order in which actions are selected.'
author:
- |
Víctor Valls and Douglas J. Leith\
Trinity College Dublin [^1]
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
A Convex Optimization Approach to\
Discrete Optimal Control
---
approximate optimization, convex optimization, discrete and stochastic control, max-weight scheduling, subgradient methods.
Introduction
============
plays a central role in mathematical optimization from both a theoretical and practical point of view. Some of the advantages of formulating a problem as a convex optimization are that there exist numerical methods that can solve the optimization problem in a reliable and efficient manner, and that a solution is always a global optimum. When an optimization problem is not of the convex type, then one enters into the realm of non-convex optimization where the specific structure of a problem must be exploited to obtain a solution, often not necessarily the optimal one.
In some special cases there exist algorithms that can find optimal solutions to non-convex problems. One is the case of max-weight scheduling: an algorithm initially devised for scheduling packets in queueing networks which has received much attention in the networking and control communities in recent years. In short, max-weight was proposed by Tassiulas and Ephremides in their seminal paper [@TE92]. It considers a network of interconnected queues in a slotted time system where packets arrive in each time slot and a network controller has to make a discrete (so non-convex) scheduling decision as to which packets to serve from each of the queues. Appealing features of max-weight are that the action set matches the actual decision variables (namely, do we transmit or not); that scheduling decisions are made without previous knowledge of the mean packet arrival rate in the system (myopic actions); and that it can stabilize the system (maximize the throughput) whenever there exists a policy or algorithm that would do so. These features have made max-weight well-liked in the community and have fostered the design of extensions that consider (convex) utility functions, systems with time-varying channel capacity and connectivity, heavy-tailed traffic, *etc.* Similarly, max-weight has been brought to other areas beyond communication networks including traffic signal control [@WUW12], cloud computing [@MSY12], economics [@Nee10c], *etc.*, and has become a key tool for discrete decision making in queueing systems.
However, there are some downsides. The success of max-weight has produced so many variants of the algorithm that the state of the art is becoming not only increasingly sophisticated but also increasingly complex. Furthermore, it is often not clear how to combine the different variants (*e.g.*, utility function minimization with heavy-tailed traffic) since the design of a new control or scheduling policy usually involves employing a new proof or exploiting the special structure of a problem. There is a need for abstraction and to put concepts into a unified theoretical framework. While this has been attempted in previous works by means of establishing a connection between max-weight and dual subgradient methods in convex optimization, most of the works [@LS04; @LS06; @ES06; @ES07; @CLCD06] have focused on specific congestion control applications and obtained discrete control actions as a result of exploiting the special structure of the problem. In particular, discrete actions are possible because the primal problem allows decomposition and a partial subgradient (or schedule) can be obtained as a result of minimizing a linear program.[^2] Further, the aforementioned works are deeply rooted in Lyapunov or fluid limit techniques and convergence/stability is only guaranteed asymptotically. That is, they do not make quantitative statements about the system state in finite time; for instance, provide upper and lower bounds on the optimality of the objective function, or a bound on the amount of constraint violation. Because of all the above, the body of work on max-weight approaches is still largely separate from the *mainstream* literature on convex optimization.
In this paper, we abstract the celebrated max-weight features (myopic and discrete actions) and make them available in standard convex optimization. In particular, our approach consists of formulating the Lagrange dual problem and equipping the subgradient method with a perturbation scheme that can be regarded as using stochastic and $\epsilon$-subgradients. Stochastic subgradients are useful to capture the randomness in the system, while $\epsilon$-subgradients allow us to *decouple* the choice of subgradient from the selection of a control action, *i.e.*, they provide us with flexibility as to how to select control actions. The latter is important because (i) we can design a new control policy without having to prove again the convergence of the whole algorithm, and (ii) it eases the design of policies that model the characteristics of more complex systems. For example, policies that select actions from a finite set or that have constraints associated with selecting certain subsets of actions. The finiteness of the action set is of particular significance from a theoretical point of view because we are allowing convex optimization to make non-convex updates, and from a practical point of view because many systems, such as computers, make decisions in a discrete-like manner. The main contributions of the paper are summarized in the following:
- *Unifying Framework:* Our analysis brings the celebrated max-weight features to mainstream convex optimization. In particular, they can be encompassed in the subgradient method for the Lagrange dual problem by using $\delta_k$ and $\epsilon_k$ perturbations. The analysis is presented in a general form and provides different types of convergence depending on the statistical properties of the perturbations, including bounds that are not asymptotic.
- *General Control Policies:* Our analysis clearly separates the selection of a subgradient from a particular choice of control action and establishes the fundamental properties that a control policy should satisfy for it to be optimal.
- *Discrete Control Policies:* We develop two classes of control policies that allow us to use action sets with a finite number of actions (*i.e.*, the action sets are not convex). One that is able to make discrete actions by looking only at the system’s current state, and another that selects actions using blocks. The latter class is useful for handling systems that have constraints on how actions can be selected.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We start with the preliminaries, which cover the notation and some background material. In Section \[sec:main\], we study the convergence of the dual subgradient method under a ($\delta_k, \epsilon_k$) perturbation scheme, and in Section \[sec:actions\] how the $\epsilon_k$ perturbations can be used to equip the dual subgradient method with discrete actions. Section \[sec:remarks\] provides some remarks and discussion, and Section \[sec:example\] illustrates the results with an example that considers discrete scheduling decisions with constraints. Finally, in Section \[sec:relatedwork\] we provide an overview of the state of the art, and compare it with our work. All the proofs are in the appendices.
Preliminaries
=============
We start by introducing the notation, the standard convex optimization problem setup, and the subgradient method for the Lagrange dual problem.
Notation
--------
The sets of natural, integers and real numbers are denoted by ${\mathbf N}$, ${\mathbf Z}$ and ${\mathbf R}$. We use ${\mathbf R}_+$ and ${\mathbf R}^n$ to denote the set of nonnegative real numbers and $n$-dimensional real vectors. Similarly, we use ${\mathbf R}^{m \times n}$ to denote the set of $m \times n$ real matrices. Vectors and matrices are usually written, respectively, in lower and upper case, and all vectors are in column form. The transpose of a vector $x \in {\mathbf R}^n$ is indicated with $x^T $, and we use ${\boldsymbol{1}}$ to indicate the all ones vector. The Euclidean, $\ell_1$ and $\ell_\infty$ norms of a vector $x \in {\mathbf R}^n$ are indicated, respectively, with $\|x\|_2$, $\| x \|_1$ and $\| x \|_\infty$.
Since we usually work with sequences we will use a subscript to indicate an element in a sequence, and parenthesis to indicate an element in a vector. For example, for a sequence $\{ x_k \}$ of vectors from ${\mathbf R}^n$ we have that $x_k = [x_k(1), \dots, x_k(n) ]^T $ where $x_k(j), \ j=1,\dots,n$ is the $j$’th component of the $k$’th vector in the sequence. For two vectors $x, y \in {\mathbf R}^n$ we write $x \succ y$ when $x{(j)} > y{(j)}$ for all $j= 1,\dots,n$, and $x \succeq y$ when $x(j) \ge y(j)$. We use $[\cdot]^{+}$ to denote the projection of a vector $x \in {\mathbf R}^n$ onto the nonnegative orthant, *i.e.*, $[x]^+ = [\max \{x(1), 0 \}, \dots, \max \{ x(n), 0\}]^T$.
Convex Optimization Problem
---------------------------
Consider the standard constrained convex optimization problem ${\mathcal P}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{x \in X}{\text{minimize}} & f(x)\\
\mbox{\text{subject to}} & g_j(x) \le 0 \qquad j=1,\dots,m
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $f, g_j : X \to {{\mathbf R}}$ are convex functions and $X$ is a convex subset from ${\mathbf R}^n$. We will assume that set $X_0 := \{ x \in X \mid g_j(x) \le 0, \ j=1,\dots,m\} \ne \emptyset$, and so problem ${\mathcal P}$ is feasible. Also, and using standard notation, we define $f^\star := \min_{x \in X_0} f(x)$ and $x^\star \in \arg \min_{x \in X_0} f(x)$. We can transform problem ${\mathcal P}$ into an unconstrained convex optimization by applying a (Lagrange) relaxation on the constraints. The Lagrange dual function associated to problem ${\mathcal P}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda)=\inf_{x \in X} L(x,\lambda) = \inf_{x \in X} \left\{ f(x) + \lambda^T g(x) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $g(x) = [ g_1(x),\dots, g_m(x)]^T $, and $\lambda \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$ is a vector of Lagrange multipliers. Function $h$ is concave [@BV04 Chapter 5] and so we can cast the following unconstrained[^3] concave maximization problem ${\mathcal D}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{\lambda \succeq 0}{\text{maximize }} \quad h(\lambda)\end{aligned}$$ where $h(\lambda^\star) = f^\star$ with $\lambda^\star \in \arg \max_{\lambda \succeq 0} h(\lambda)$ when strong duality holds. That is, solving problem ${\mathcal P}$ is equivalent to solving problem ${\mathcal D}$. A sufficient condition for strong duality to hold is the following.
\[th:slater\_general\] $X_0$ is non-empty. There exists a vector $x \in X$ such that $g_j(x) < 0$ for all $j = 1,\dots,m$.
Classic Subgradient Method
--------------------------
Problem ${\mathcal D}$ can be solved using the subgradient method. One of the motivations for using this iterative method is that it allows the Lagrange dual function to be nondifferentiable, and so it imposes few requirements on the objective function and constraints. Another motivation for using the subgradient method is that when the Lagrangian has favorable structure, then the algorithm can be implemented in a distributed manner, and therefore can be used to solve large-scale problems. Nonetheless, in this work, the primary motivation for using the subgradient method in the Lagrange dual problem is that it allows us to handle perturbations on the constraints. As we will show in Section \[sec:main\], this will be key to handling resource allocation problems where the resources that need to be allocated are not known in advance.
### Iteration
In short, the subgradient method for the Lagrange dual problem consists of the following update: $$\begin{aligned}
{\lambda_{k+1}} = [{\lambda_{k}} + \alpha \partial h (\lambda_k)]^+ \qquad k=1,2,\dots\end{aligned}$$ where ${\lambda_{1}} \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$, $\partial h (\lambda_k)$ is a subgradient in the subdifferential of $h$ at point ${\lambda_{k}}$ and $\alpha > 0$ a constant step size. The classic subgradient method can make use of more complex step sizes, but constant step size will play an important role in our analysis, and it is extensively used in practical applications.
### Computing a Subgradient {#sec:computing_subgradient}
A dual subgradient can be obtained by first minimizing $L(\cdot,\lambda_k)$ and then evaluating an $x _k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x,\lambda_k)$ on the constraints, *i.e.*, $\partial h(\lambda_k) = g(x_k)$. Note that minimizing $L(\cdot,\lambda_k)$ for a fixed $\lambda_k \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$ is an unconstrained convex optimization that can be carried out with a variety of methods, and the choice of using one method or another will depend on the assumptions made on the objective function and constraints. Sometimes it is not possible to exactly minimize the Lagrangian and an approximation is obtained instead, *i.e.*, an $x_k \in X$ such that $L(x_k,\lambda_k) - h(\lambda_k) \le \xi$ where $\xi\ge 0$. This can be equivalently regarded as exactly minimizing the Lagrangian when an approximate Lagrange multiplier is used instead of the true Lagrange multiplier (see Appendix \[appendix:preliminaries\] for a detailed explanation). That is, we obtain an $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x,\mu_k)$ where $
\mu_k = \lambda_k + \epsilon_k$ and $\epsilon_k \in {\mathbf R}^m$ such that $\mu_k \succeq 0$ ($\epsilon_k$ can be regarded as a perturbation or error in the Lagrange multiplier).
### Convergence
A standard assumption made to prove the convergence of the subgradient method is that the subdifferential of $h$ is bounded for all $\lambda \succeq 0$. We can ensure this by making the following assumption.
\[th:boundedset\] $X$ is bounded.
Observe that since we always have that $\partial h(\lambda) = g(x)$ for some $x \in X$, if $g(x)$ is bounded for every $x \in X$ then the subgradients of the Lagrange dual function are also bounded. That is, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \partial h(\lambda)\|_2 \le \max_{x \in X} \| g(x) \|_2 : = \sigma_g ,\end{aligned}$$ and $\sigma_g$ is finite because $g$ is a closed convex function (and so continuous) and $X$ is bounded. The basic idea behind the convergence of the dual subgradient method with constant step size is that
1. the Euclidean distance between $\lambda_k$ and a vector $\lambda^\star \in \Lambda^\star := \arg \max_{\lambda \succeq 0} h(\lambda)$ decreases *monotonically* when $\lambda_k$ is sufficiently “far away” from $\Lambda^\star$;[^4]
2. when $\lambda_k$ is sufficiently close to $\Lambda^\star$, it remains in a ball around it.
Important characteristics of the dual subgradient method are that the size of the ball to which $\lambda_k$ converges depends on $\alpha$; that $\lambda_k$ converges to an $\alpha$-ball around $\Lambda^\star$ in finite time; and that by selecting $\alpha$ sufficiently small we can make the $\alpha$-ball arbitrarily small. It is important to highlight as well that the monotonic convergence of $\lambda_k$ to a ball around $\Lambda^\star$ does not imply that the value of the Lagrange dual function improves in each iteration.[^5] Yet, since from Assumption \[th:boundedset\] we have that the Lagrange dual function is Lipschitz continuous[^6] for $\lambda \succeq 0$, if the RHS in $$\begin{aligned}
| h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda^\star) | \le \| \lambda_k - \lambda^\star \|_2 \sigma_g\end{aligned}$$ decreases, then $h(\lambda_k)$ will eventually approach $h(\lambda^\star)$.
Subgradient Method with Perturbations {#sec:main}
=====================================
In this section, we introduce the framework that will allow us to tackle optimization problems with discrete control actions. We begin by considering the following convex optimization problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{x \in X}{\text{minimize}} & f(x)\\
\mbox{\text{subject to}} & g(x) + \delta \preceq 0
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta \in {\mathbf R}^m$. If perturbation $\delta$ were known we could use an interior point method or similar to solve the problem. However, we will assume that $\delta$ is *not known* in advance and tackle the problem using a Lagrange relaxation on the constraints. The interpretation of perturbation $\delta$ will depend on the details of the problem being considered, for example, in a packet switched network $\delta$ may be the (unknown) mean packet arrival rate.
Because the solution of problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ depends on $\delta$, it will be convenient to define $X_0(\delta) := \{ x \in X \mid g(x) + \delta \preceq 0\}$, $f^\star (\delta) := \min_{x \in X_0(\delta)} f(x)$, and $x^\star (\delta)$ to be a solution of problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$. Similarly, we also parameterize the Lagrangian $L(x,\lambda,\delta) = f(x) + \lambda^T (g(x) + \delta)$, the Lagrange dual function $h(\lambda,\delta) : = \inf_{x \in X} L(x,\lambda,\delta)$, and define the Lagrange dual problem ${\mathcal D}(\delta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{\lambda \succeq 0}{\text{maximize}} & h(\lambda,\delta)
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda^\star(\delta)$ is a vector in the set of dual optima $\Lambda^\star (\delta) := \arg \max_{\lambda \succeq 0} h(\lambda,\delta)$.
Subgradient Method with Perturbations {#subgradient-method-with-perturbations}
-------------------------------------
The general version of the subgradient method we consider is the following $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} & = [\lambda_{k} + \alpha \partial h(\mu_k, \delta_k) ]^+ \label{eq:lp_update} \\
& = [\lambda_{k} + \alpha (g(x_k) + \delta_k) ]^+ \notag \end{aligned}$$ for $k=1,2,\dots$ with $\lambda_1 \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$ and where $$x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x,\mu_k,\delta_k),$$ $\delta_k \in {\mathbf R}^m$ and $\mu_k = \lambda_k + \epsilon_k$ with $\epsilon_k \in {\mathbf R}^m$. We will refer to $\delta_k$ and $\epsilon_k$ as perturbations. Since parameter $\delta$ is not known in the optimization we have replaced it with a surrogate $\delta_k$, which can be regarded as an approximation or perturbed version of parameter $\delta$. Later, we will add assumptions on the properties that $\delta_k$ must have in order that update (\[eq:lp\_update\]) solves problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$. An important observation is that for any $\mu_k \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$ $$\begin{aligned}
\arg \min_{x \in X} L(x, \mu_k,\delta)
& = \arg \min_{x \in X} \{ f(x) + \mu_k^T (g(x) + \delta)\} \\
& = \arg \min_{x \in X} \{ f(x) + \mu_k^T g(x)\} \end{aligned}$$ and so $g(x_k)$ or the “partial” subgradient of $h(\lambda_k,\delta)$ can be obtained independently of perturbation $\delta$.
We are now in the position to present the following lemma.
\[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] Consider the optimization problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ and update (\[eq:lp\_update\]) with $\mu_k \succeq 0$ for all $k$. Suppose $\{ \delta_k \}$ is a sequence of points from ${\mathbf R}^m$ such that $\lim_{k \to \infty} k^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^k \delta_i = \delta$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{ \| \lambda_1 - \theta\|_2^2 }{2 \alpha k} - \Gamma
\le \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k h( \lambda_i,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta) \label{eq:subgradient_bound}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is any vector from ${\mathbf R}^m_+$, $\Gamma:=\alpha(\Gamma_a+\Gamma_b+\Gamma_c)+\Gamma_d+\Gamma_e$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_a&:=\frac{1}{2k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2^2,\quad
\Gamma_b:=\frac{1}{2k} \sum_{i=1}^k\| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2\\
\Gamma_c&:= \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta)\\ \Gamma_d&:=\frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k\| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) +\delta\|_2\\
\Gamma_e&:= \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k (\lambda_i-\theta)^T (\delta_i- \delta)\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix \[appendix:a\].
Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] is expressed in a general form and establishes a lower bound on $k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k h(\lambda_i,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta)$, where $\theta$ is any vector from ${\mathbf R}^m_+$. When $\theta = \lambda^\star(\delta)$ we can upper bound (\[eq:subgradient\_bound\]) by zero since $h(\lambda,\delta) \le h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta)$ for all $\lambda \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$. The bound on the left-hand side of (\[eq:subgradient\_bound\]) depends on the properties of perturbations $\delta_k$ and $\epsilon_k$. Next, we provide a detailed analysis of the lower bound and how the different assumptions on the properties of the perturbations result in different types of convergence. A summary of the results can be found in Section \[sec:summary\].
### Analysis of Perturbations
Firstly, by Assumption \[th:slater\_general\] and Lemma 1 in [@NO09] we have that $\lambda^\star( \delta)$ is a bounded vector from ${\mathbf R}^m_+$ and therefore the first term on the LHS of (\[eq:subgradient\_bound\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 }{2 \alpha k} \label{eq:first_term_alphak}\end{aligned}$$ is bounded and goes to zero as $k \to \infty$. Since (\[eq:first\_term\_alphak\]) is divided by $\alpha$, the convergence rate is inversely proportional to the step size used.
Turning now to $\alpha(\Gamma_a+\Gamma_b+\Gamma_c)$, when $\Gamma_a$, $\Gamma_b$ and $\Gamma_c$ are bounded above then this expression can be made arbitrarily small by selecting $\alpha$ sufficiently small. Term $\Gamma_a$ is the sum of the dual subgradients. If we assume that $X$ is bounded (*c.f.*, Assumption \[th:boundedset\]) we have that $\| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2$ is upper bounded by some constant $\sigma_g$,[^7] and so $\Gamma_a$ is bounded by $\sigma_g^2/2$ for all $i = 1,\dots,k$. The bounds on terms $\Gamma_b$ and $\Gamma_c$ depend on the characteristics of sequence $\{ \delta_k\}$. We consider two cases. Case (i) $\delta_k$, $k=1,2,\dots$ are uniformly bounded. Then, $\Gamma_b$ is trivially uniformly upper bounded for all $k$; and since $(\delta_k - \delta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta) \le \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2 \| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2 \le \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2 \sigma_g$ by Cauchy-Schwarz, we have that $\Gamma_c$ is also uniformly upper bounded. Case (ii) $\delta_k$, $k=1,2,\dots$ is a realization of independent random variables with finite variance and kurtosis, but they do not necessarily have to have bounded support. In this case, we can upper bound $\Gamma_b$ and $\Gamma_c$ with probability one asymptotically as $k \to \infty$ using Hoeffding’s inequality [@Hoe63]. Hoeffding’s bound can be applied to $\Gamma_b$ directly, and for $\Gamma_c$ it is sufficient to note that $ - k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \sum_{j=1}^m (\delta_i(j) - \delta(j)) (g_l(x_k) + \delta(j))
\ge - \sum_{j=1}^m | k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k (\delta_i(j) - \delta(j)) | \sigma_g
$ where $\delta(j)$ is the $j$’th component of vector $\delta \in {\mathbf R}^m$, and $l \in \{1,\dots,m\}$. Finally, we have the terms $\Gamma_d$ and $\Gamma_e$ which are not scaled by $\alpha$ in the bound. Since $\Gamma_d$ depends on sequence $\epsilon_k$, the boundedness of the term will depend on the assumptions we make on this perturbation. We consider three cases. Case (i) $ \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \le \epsilon$ for all $k$ for some $\epsilon > 0$. In this case we have that $\Gamma_d$ can be uniformly upper bounded by $2 \epsilon \sigma_g$. Case (ii) $\lim_{k\to \infty} k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 = \epsilon$. We cannot say anything about $\Gamma_d$ for finite $k$, but we will have that $\Gamma_d$ is upper bounded by $2 \epsilon \sigma_g$ when $k \to \infty$. An interesting observation is that if $\{ \epsilon_k \}$ were a stochastic process, it would not need to have finite variance in order for $\lim_{k \to \infty} k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2$ to exist and be finite (note this is in marked contrast to perturbation $\delta_k$, which always has to have finite variance). Case (iii) $\{\|\epsilon_k \|_2 \}$ is a realization of independent random variables with finite variance and mean $\epsilon$. In this case we can use Hoeffding’s inequality to give a bound on $\Gamma_d$ with probability one asymptotically as $k \to \infty$.
Term $\Gamma_e$ is perhaps the term for which the analysis is more delicate. In the deterministic subgradient method we have that $\delta_k = \delta$ for all $k$ and so the term is equal to zero for all $k$. Observe that when $\Gamma_e$ is nonnegative, then we can ignore the term since this would still leave a lower bound on the LHS of (\[eq:subgradient\_bound\]). However, since $\lambda^\star(\delta)$ is not known (we only know it is finite), it is not possible to determine the sign of $\Gamma_e$, and so the term could be unbounded below when $k \to \infty$. Because of all this, we will usually require that $\{ \delta_k \}$ is an ergodic process (*i.e.*, ${\mathbf E}(\delta_k) = \delta$ for all $k$) and make use of the fact that $\lambda_k$ and $\delta_k$ are independent for all $k$; in which case $
{\mathbf E}(k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k (\lambda_i-\lambda^\star( \delta ))^T (\delta_i- \delta) )
= k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbf E}(\lambda_i-\lambda^\star( \delta ))^T {\mathbf E}(\delta_i- \delta)
= 0
$ and the *expected* value of the lower bound in Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] does not depend on term $\Gamma_e$.
### Summary of the Different Types of Convergence {#sec:summary}
Table \[table:summary\] provides a summary of the convergence properties of the lower bound obtained in Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] under the assumption that $\{ \delta_k \}$ is an ergodic stochastic process[^8] and expectation is taken with respect to random variable $\delta_k$ (since we need term $\Gamma_e$ to vanish). By deterministic convergence we mean that it is possible to obtain a lower bound of $ k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k h( \lambda_i,\delta) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) $ for every $k=1,2,\dots$; by w.h.p. that a lower bound can be given with high probability for $k$ large enough; and by $k\to \infty$ that the lower bound will only hold asymptotically, *i.e.*, it is not possible to say anything about the bound for finite $k$.
$\sigma_\delta^2=0$ $\sigma_\delta^2 < \infty$ $\sigma_\delta^2 = \infty$
------------------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
$ \| \epsilon_k \|_2 < \epsilon $ deterministic w.h.p. -
$\sigma^2_\epsilon < \infty$ w.h.p. w.h.p. -
$\sigma^2_\epsilon = \infty$ $k \to \infty$ $k \to \infty$ -
: Summary of the convergence of the bound in Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] depending on the assumptions made on the perturbations (${\mathbf E}(\delta_k) = \delta$ for all $k$, $\sigma_\delta^2$ is the variance of $\delta_k$, and $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ the variance of $\epsilon_k$).
\[table:summary\]
Recovery of Primal Solutions
----------------------------
We are now in the position to present one of our main theorems, which establishes the convergence of the objective function to a ball around the optimum, and provides bounds on the amount of constraint violation.
\[th:perturbed\_theorem\] Consider problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ and update $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} & = [\lambda_{k} + \alpha \partial h(\mu_k, \delta_k) ]^+ \label{eq:th_l_udpate}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{k} = \lambda_k + \epsilon_k$ with $\lambda_1 \in {\mathbf R}^m_+$ and $\{ \epsilon_k \}$ a sequence of points from ${\mathbf R}^m$ such that $\mu_k \succeq 0$ for all $k$. Suppose $X_0(\delta)$ has nonempty relative interior (the Slater condition is satisfied) and that $ \delta_k $ is an ergodic stochastic process with expected value $\delta$ and ${\mathbf E}(\| \delta_k - \delta \|_2^2) = \sigma_\delta^2$ for some finite $\sigma_\delta^2$. Further, suppose that $\lim_{k \to \infty} k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 = \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon \ge 0 $ and that Assumption \[th:boundedset\] holds. Then,
& [E]{}( f(|x\_k) - f\^() ) + + \_[i=1]{}\^k \_i \_2 \_g\
& [E]{}( f(|x\_k) - f\^() ) -\
& [E]{}( g(|x\_k) + ) \_2 ( \^() \_2 + )\
& [E]{}( |\_k ) \_2 ( f(x) - h(\^()) + )
where $\bar x_k = k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k x_i$, $\bar \lambda_k : = k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i$, $\Theta : = \sigma^2_g + \sigma_\delta^2$, $\hat x$ is a Slater point (*i.e.*, $g(\hat x) \prec 0$), $\upsilon : = \min_{j \in \{1,\dots,m\}} -g_j(\hat x)$, and $$\Omega = \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \Theta k + 2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g.$$
See Appendix \[appendix:a\].
Claims (i) and (ii) in Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\] establish that ${\mathbf E}(f(\bar x_k))$ converges to a ball around $f^\star(\delta)$, where the type of convergence will depend on the assumptions made on the perturbations, as indicated in Table \[table:summary\]. Also, note that choosing $\lambda_1 = 0$ is always a good choice to obtain a sharper upper bound. Claim (iii) provides a bound on the expected value of the constraint violation, and claim (iv) says that the expected value of the running average of the Lagrange multipliers is bounded for all $k$. As we will show in Section \[sec:remarks\], this will play an important role in establishing the stability of a queueing system. Finally, note that the bounds in claims (ii)-(iv) depend on $\lambda^\star(\delta)$, which is usually not known in the optimization. Fortunately, by Lemma 1 in [@NO09], one can obtain an upper bound on $\lambda^\star (\delta)$, which is enough. Also, observe that we can use the fact that $-h(\lambda^\star(\delta)) \le - h(\lambda)$ for all $\lambda \succeq 0$ and obtain a looser bound in claim (iv).
Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\] establishes the convergence properties of the dual subgradient update (\[eq:th\_l\_udpate\]) under $\delta_k$ and $\epsilon_k$ perturbations without connecting with any specific application. However, by appropriate definition of these perturbations a wide range of situations can be encompassed. For example, we can use perturbations $\delta_k$ to relax the perfect knowledge of the constraints, and perturbations $\epsilon_k$ to capture asynchronism in the primal updates (see [@VL15]). However, of particular interest here is that we can use the $\epsilon_k$ perturbations in this framework to analyze the use of discrete-valued control actions for solving optimization problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$. We consider this in detail in the next section.
Discrete Control Actions {#sec:actions}
========================
In this section, we present the second main contribution of the paper: how to use $\epsilon_k$ perturbations to equip the dual subgradient method with discrete control actions. Discrete actions or decisions are crucial in control because many systems are restricted to a finite number of states or choices. For instance, a traffic controller has to decide whether a traffic light should be red or green, or a video application which streaming quality to use *e.g.*, $\{ 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p \}$. We present two classes of discrete control policies. One that selects discrete control actions in an online or myopic manner based only on the current state of the system, and another batch approach that chooses discrete control actions in blocks or groups. The latter class is particularly useful for problems where there are constraints or penalties associated with selecting subsets of actions. For example, in video streaming where the application wants to maximize the quality of the video delivered but at the same time minimize the variability of the quality, and so has constraints on how often it can change the quality of the video stream.
Problem Formulation {#sec:seq_actions}
-------------------
We start by introducing the following definitions:
$Y$ is a *finite* collection of points from ${\mathbf R}^n$.
$X \subseteq \conv{(Y)}$ and convex.
We will regard selecting a point $y$ from finite set $Y$ as taking a discrete control action. The physical action associated with each point in set $Y$ will depend on the context in which the optimization is applied, *e.g.*, the points in $Y$ may correspond to the actions of setting a traffic light to be red and green. Figure \[fig:setxyconvi\] shows an example of two sets $Y$ and respective convex sets $X \subseteq \conv{(Y)}$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Illustrating two action sets $Y$ consisting of a finite collection of points from ${\mathbf R}^2$, and two convex sets $X \subseteq \conv{(Y)}$. The convex hulls of $Y$ are marked in dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:setxyconvi"}](Figures/valls1.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Illustrating two action sets $Y$ consisting of a finite collection of points from ${\mathbf R}^2$, and two convex sets $X \subseteq \conv{(Y)}$. The convex hulls of $Y$ are marked in dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:setxyconvi"}](Figures/valls2.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ from Section \[sec:main\], but now require that the inequality constraints are linear, *i.e.*, $g(x) := Ax$ with $A \in {\mathbf R}^{m \times n}$. The reason for this is the following lemma, which is a restatement of [@Mey08 Proposition 3.1.2].
\[th:skorokhodcontinuity\] Consider updates $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} & = [{\lambda_{k}} + \alpha( A x_k + \delta_k)]^+ \\
\mu_{k+1} & = [ \mu_k + \alpha (A y_k + \delta_k)]^+ \end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_1 = \mu_1\ge 0$, $\alpha > 0$, $A \in {\mathbf R}^{m \times n}$, $\delta_k \in {\mathbf R}^m$, and $\{x_k\}$ and $\{ y_k\}$ are, respectively, sequences of points from $X$ and $Y$. Suppose $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2 \le \psi$ for all $k$ and some $\psi \ge 0$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_k - \mu_k \|_2 \le \epsilon:=2 \alpha \| A \|_2 \psi \qquad k=1,2,\dots\end{aligned}$$
Lemma \[th:skorokhodcontinuity\] says that when the difference $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2 $ is uniformly bounded by some constant $\psi$ then $\mu_k$ is an approximate Lagrange multiplier. And by selecting $x_k$ according to (\[eq:lp\_update\]) we can immediately apply Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\] to conclude that sequence $\{ y_k\}$ of discrete actions (approximately[^9]) solves problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$. This is a key observation. Not only does it (i) establish that we can solve ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$ using only discrete actions and (ii) give us a testable condition, $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2\le \psi$, that the discrete actions must satisfy, but it also (iii) tells us that *any* sequence $\{ y_k\}$ of discrete actions satisfying this condition solves ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$. We therefore have considerable flexibility in how we select actions $y_k$. In other words, we have the freedom to select from a range of different optimal control policies without changing the underlying convex updates. One way to use this freedom is to select an optimal control policy that satisfies specified constraints, *e.g.*, that does not switch traffic lights between green and red too frequently or which minimizes the use of “costly” actions. Such constraints are often practically important yet are difficult to accommodate within classical control design frameworks.
With this in mind, in the rest of this section we consider methods for constructing sequences $\{ y_k\}$ of discrete actions that stay close to a sequence $\{ x_k\}$ of continuous-valued updates in the sense that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded. We begin by establishing that for any sequence $\{x_k\in X \subseteq \conv(Y)\}$ there always exists discrete-valued sequences $\{y_k\in Y\}$ such that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded.
Existence of Discrete Sequences {#sec:existence}
-------------------------------
It will prove convenient to exploit the fact that each point $x \in X$ can be written as a convex combination of points from $Y$. Collect the points in $Y$ as columns in matrix $W$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
E : = & \{v_1,\dots,v_{|Y|}\}, \\
U := & \conv{(E)} = \{ u \in [0,1]^{|Y|} \mid {\boldsymbol{1}}^T u =1 \},\end{aligned}$$ where $v_j$ is an $|Y|$-dimensional standard basis vector, *i.e.*, all elements of vector $v_j$ are equal to $0$ except the $j$’th element that is equal to $1$, and $U$ is the $|Y|$-dimensional simplex. Since we can always write a vector $x_i \in X$ as the convex combination of points from $Y$ there exists at least one vector $u_i \in U$ such that $x_i = Wu_i$.[^10] Similarly, there exists a vector $e_i \in E$ such that $y_i = We_i$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \right\|_2 \!
= \left\| \sum_{i=1}^k W (u_i - e_i) \right\|_2
\! \le \| W \|_2 \left\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \right\|_2 \end{aligned}$$ and therefore showing that $ \| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded is sufficient to establish the boundedness of $ \| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i \|_2$. We have the following useful lemma.
\[th:blocksequence\] Let $E$ be a set containing the $|Y|$-dimensional standard basis vectors, $U : = \conv{(E)}$, and $D := \{ \delta \in {\mathbf R}^{|Y|} \mid \delta^T {\boldsymbol{1}}= 0, \| \delta \|_\infty \le 1 \}$. For any vector $\delta \in D$, and sequence $\{ u_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ of points from $U$, there exists at least one sequence $\{ e_i\}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ of points from $E$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \delta + z - z' \right) \in D,\end{aligned}$$ where $z := \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} u_i$ and $z' := \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} e_i$. That is, ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T ( \delta + z - z') = 0$ and $\| \delta + z - z' \|_\infty \le 1$.
See Appendix \[appendix:c\].
Let $\{ u^{(1)}_{i} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ be a sequence of points from $U$, and $\{ e^{(1)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ a sequence of points from $E$ such that $(z_1 - z'_1) \in D$ where $z_1=\sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} u^{(1)}_i$ and $z'_1= \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} e^{(1)}_i$. By Lemma \[th:blocksequence\] such a sequence $\{ e^{(1)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ always exists. Similarly, for another sequence $\{ u^{(2)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ of points from $U$, we can construct a sequence $\{ e^{(2)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ of points from $E$ such that $ (z_2 - z_2' + (z_1 - z'_1)) \in D$ where $z_2$ and $z'_2$ are, respectively, the sum of the elements in sequences $\{ u^{(2)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ and $\{ e^{(2)}_i \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$. Repeating, it follows that for sequences $\{ u^{(\tau)}\}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$, $\tau \in \{1,2,\dots, K\}$ we can construct sequences $\{ e^{(\tau)}\}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$, $\tau \in \{1,2,\dots, K\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& (((\cdots (( z_1 - z'_1) + z_2 - z'_2 )+ \dots + z_{K-1} - z'_{K-1}) \notag \\
& \quad + z_K - z_K') ) = \left( \sum_{\tau=1}^K z_\tau - z'_\tau \right) \in D,\end{aligned}$$ where $z_\tau$ and $z'_\tau$ are the sum of the elements in the respective sequences. It follows that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2 \le \sqrt{|Y|}$ for $k \in \tau |Y|$, $\tau \in {\mathbf Z}_+$ and $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2 \le \sqrt{|Y|(1+2|Y|)^2}$ for all $k=1,2,\dots$, since the sequences can diverge element-wise by at most $2|Y|$ over the $|Y|$ steps between $\tau |Y|$ and $(\tau+1) |Y|$. We therefore have the following result.
\[cor:existence\] For any sequence $\{ u_k\}$ of points from $U$ there exists a sequence $\{ e_k\}$ of points from $E$ such that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded for all $k \in \{1,2,\dots\}$.
Note that since we can always permute the entries in sequence $\{ e_k\}$ while keeping $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_\infty$ bounded, the existence of one sequence implies the existence of many (indeed exponentially many since the number of permutations grows exponentially with the permutation length).
Constructing Sequences of Discrete Actions Using Blocks {#sec:seq_block_actions}
-------------------------------------------------------
We now present our first method for constructing sequences of discrete actions, which uses a block-based approach.
\[th:magic\_update\_lemma\] Consider the setup of Lemma \[th:blocksequence\] and select $$\begin{aligned}
e_i \in \arg \min_{e \in E}
\| ( \delta + z - \sum_{\kappa=1}^{i-1} e_\kappa ) - e \|_\infty
,\ i = 1,\dots,|Y|\end{aligned}$$ where $z := \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} u_i$ and $\delta\in D$. Then, $- {\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq \delta + z - z' \preceq {\boldsymbol{1}}$, with $z' = \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} e_i$.
See Appendix \[appendix:c\].
Partitioning sequence $\{u_k\}$, $k \in \{1,2,\dots\}$, of points from $U$ into subsequences $\{ u_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$, $\tau\in {\mathbf Z}_+$ with $u_i^{(\tau)}=u_{\tau|Y|+i}$ and applying Lemma \[th:magic\_update\_lemma\] recursively yields a sequence $\{e_i\}$ such that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded. That is, we have the following.
Let $\{u_k\}$ be a sequence of points from $U$ partitioned into subsequences $\{ u_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ with $u_i^{(\tau)}=u_{\tau|Y|+i}$, $\tau\in {\mathbf Z}_+$. For $i \in \{ 1,\dots,|Y|\}$, $\tau \in \{0,1,\dots \}$ select $$\begin{aligned}
e^{(\tau)}_i \in \arg \min_{e \in E} \left\| \left( z_\tau - \sum_{\kappa=1}^{i-1} e_\kappa^{(\tau)} \right) - e \right\|_\infty \label{eq:magic_update}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_\tau := \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} u_i^{(\tau)}$. Then $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded for all $k=1,2,\dots$, where $e_{\tau|Y|+i}=e_i^{(\tau)}$.
Observe that, with this approach, the construction of a subsequence $\{ e_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ requires that subsequence $\{ u_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ is known. Hence, we refer to this as a block or batch approach. When sequence $\{u_k\}$ is observed in an online manner, then sequence $\{e_k\}$ must be constructed with a delay of $|Y|$ elements relative to $\{u_k\}$ since in order to construct $\{ e_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ we must wait for $|Y|$ elements until $\{ u_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ is observed. Note that by a similar analysis we can immediately generalize this method of construction to situations where we partition sequence $\{u_k\}$, $k \in \{ 1,2,\dots \}$, into subsequences $\{ u_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{T_\tau|Y|}$, $T_\tau\in {\mathbf N}$, $\tau\in {\mathbf Z}_+$ with $u_i^{(\tau)}=u_{\sum_{t=0}^\tau T_t|Y|+i}$ *i.e.*, where the subsequences can be different lengths so long as they are all some multiple of $|Y|$.
### Constrained Control Actions
We can permute sequence $\{ e_i^{(\tau)} \}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ arbitrarily while keeping $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i \|_2$ uniformly bounded (since the vectors $u_i^{(\tau)}$ and $e_i^{(\tau)}$ both lie in the unit ball then $\|u_i^{(\tau)}-e_j^{(\tau)}\|_\infty\le 2$ for all $i$, $j\in\{1,\dots,|Y|\}$). When the sequence of admissible actions is constrained, this flexibility can be used to select a sequence of actions which is admissible. For example, sequence $\{0,1,0,1\}$ might be permuted to $\{0,0,1,1\}$ if the cost of changing the action taken in the previous iteration is high.
Constructing Sequences of Discrete Actions Myopically {#sec:online}
-----------------------------------------------------
We now consider constructing a discrete valued sequence $\{e_k\}$ in a manner which is myopic or “greedy”, *i.e.*, that selects each $e_k$, $k=1,2,\dots$ by only looking at $u_i$, $i=1,\dots,k$ and $e_i$, $i=1,\dots,k-1$. We have the following theorem.
\[th:online\_actions\] Let $\{ u_k \}$ be a sequence of points from $U$. Select $$\begin{aligned}
e_{k} & \in \arg \min_{e\in E} \| s_{k-1} + u_{k} - e \|_\infty, \label{eq:ekupdate}\end{aligned}$$ where $s_k = \sum_{i=1}^k (u_i-e_i)$. Then, we have that $
-{\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq s_k \preceq (|Y|-1) {\boldsymbol{1}},
$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \right\|_2 \le C:= \sqrt{|Y|} (|Y| - 1) \end{aligned}$$
See Appendix \[appendix:c\].
Theorem \[th:online\_actions\] guarantees that by using update (\[eq:ekupdate\]) the difference $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \|_2$ is uniformly bounded. Observe that update (\[eq:ekupdate\]) selects a vector $e \in E$ that decreases the largest component of vector $s_k$, and so it does not provide flexibility to select other actions in $Y$. That is, the benefit of myopic selection comes at the cost of reduced freedom in the choice of discrete control action. Regarding complexity, solving (\[eq:ekupdate\]) in general involves using exhaustive search. However, it is not necessary to solve (\[eq:ekupdate\]) for every $u_k$, $k=1,2,\dots$ so long as the difference between the steps when (\[eq:ekupdate\]) is performed is bounded. This is because the elements of $u_k$ and $e_k$ can diverge by at most $2$ at every step (recall both vectors lie in the unit ball) and so remain bounded between updates. Hence, the cost of (\[eq:ekupdate\]) can be amortized across steps. We have the following corollary.
\[th:seq\_online\] Consider the setup of Theorem \[th:online\_actions\] and suppose update (\[eq:ekupdate\]) is performed at steps $k\in\{\tau_1,\tau_2,\dots \} := \mathcal T \subseteq {\mathbf N}$; otherwise, $e_{k}$ is selected equal to $e_{k-1}$. Then, we have that $
-\bar \tau {\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq s_k \preceq \bar \tau (|Y|-1) {\boldsymbol{1}},
$ for all $k$ where $\bar \tau = \max_{j \in \{1,2,...\}} \{\tau_{j+1}-\tau_j \}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \right\|_2 \le \bar \tau C. \end{aligned}$$
See Appendix \[appendix:c\].
### Constrained Control Actions
As already noted, we are interested in constructing sequences of actions in a flexible way that can be easily adapted to the constraints on the admissible actions. Corollary \[th:seq\_online\] allows us to accommodate one common class of constraints on the actions, namely that once an action has been initiated it must run to completion. For example, suppose we are scheduling packet transmissions where the packets are of variable size and a discrete action represents transmitting a single bit, then Corollary \[th:seq\_online\] ensures that a sequence of bits can be transmitted until a whole packet has been sent. The condition that $\bar \tau $ must be finite corresponds in this case to requiring that packets have finite length. In the case of myopic updates it is difficult to give an algorithm without specifying a problem; nevertheless, we can establish the conditions that a generic algorithm should check when selecting a sequence of actions. As shown in the previous section, for finite $|Y|$ it is possible to construct a sequence of actions that breaks free from the past for a subsequence that is sufficiently large. The same concept can be applied to the myopic case, but now we must ensure that $\| s_k \|_\infty$ is bounded for all $k$. This motivates the following theorem.
\[th:gen\_actions\] Let $\{ u_k \}$ be a sequence of points from $U$. For any sequence $\{e_k\}$ of points from $E$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \right\|_2 \le \mathcal \gamma_k C \end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_k = - \min_{j \in \{1,\dots,|Y| \} } s_k(j)$, $s_k = \sum_{i=1}^k u_i -e_i$ and $C = \sqrt{|Y|} (|Y| - 1)$.
See Appendix \[appendix:c\].
Theorem \[th:gen\_actions\] says that when we can construct a sequence of actions $\{ e_k \}$, such that $\gamma_k$ is bounded then the difference $\| \sum_{i=1}^k u_i - e_i \|_2$ will be bounded. However, now $e_k$ does not need to be obtained as in (\[eq:ekupdate\]) as long as it is selected with some “care”. Namely, by not selecting actions that decrease lower bound $\gamma_k$ “excessively”. For example, choosing a vector $e_k$ that decreases a positive component of vector $s_k$ will be enough. In addition to providing flexibility to respect constraints in the admissible actions, the implications of this are also important for scalability, namely when action set is large we do not need to do an exhaustive search over all the elements to select a vector from $E$.
Remarks {#sec:remarks}
=======
Discrete Queues
---------------
Perturbations on the Lagrange multipliers can be used to model the dynamics of queues that contain discrete valued quantities such as packets, vehicles or people. Suppose that the vector of approximate Lagrange multipliers $\mu_k$ takes a queue-like form, *i.e.*, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{k+1} = [\mu_{k} + \alpha \rho_k]^+ , \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_k \in Y\subset {\mathbf Z}^m$ and represents the number of discrete elements that enter and leave the queues. Since $[\cdot]^+$ is a homogeneous function we can define $Q_k := \mu_k / \alpha$ and obtain iterate $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{k+1} = [Q_k + \rho_k]^+. \label{eq:queueudpateex}\end{aligned}$$ That is, since $\rho_k$ takes values from a subset of integers we have that $Q_k$ is also integer valued, and therefore update (\[eq:queueudpateex\]) models the dynamics of a queue with discrete quantities. Provided $\epsilon_k=\lambda_k-\alpha Q_k$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\] then we can use $\alpha Q_k$ (which is equal to $\mu_k$) in update $(\ref{eq:th_l_udpate})$.
Queue Stability
---------------
A central point in max-weight approaches is to show the stability of the system, which is usually established by the use of Foster-Lyapunov arguments. In our approach it is sufficient to use the boundedness of the Lagrange multipliers (*i.e.*, claim (iv) in Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\]) and the fact that the difference $\| \lambda_k - \mu_k \|_2 = \| \lambda_k - \alpha Q_k \|_2$ remains uniformly bounded. Observe that the uniform boundedness of $ \| \lambda_k - \alpha Q_k \|_2$ implies that ${\mathbf E}(k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha Q_i ) = \alpha {\mathbf E}(k^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i )\prec \infty $ for all $k$ as well. Also, by the linearity of the expectation we can take the expectation inside the summation, and by dividing by $\alpha$ and taking $k \to \infty$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbf E}(Q_i) \prec \infty,\end{aligned}$$ which is the definition of strong stability given in the literature of max-weight—see, for example, [@Nee10 Definition 4].
Primal-Dual Updates
-------------------
The focus of the paper has been on solving the Lagrange dual problem directly, but the analysis encompasses primal-dual approaches as a special case. For instance, instead of obtaining an $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x, \lambda_k,\delta)$ in each iteration we could obtain an $x_k$ that provides “sufficient descent” *i.e.*, an update that makes the difference $L(x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - h(\lambda_k)$ decrease monotonically. This strategy is in spirit very close to the dynamical system approaches presented in [@Sto05; @ES05; @VL16], which usually require the objective function and constraints to have bounded curvature. In our case, having that the difference $L(x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - h(\lambda_k)$ decreases monotonically translates into having a sequence $\{ \epsilon_k\}$ that converges to zero and so the perturbation vanishes.[^11]
Unconstrained Optimization
--------------------------
The main motivation for using Lagrange relaxation is to tackle resource allocation problems of the sort tackled by max-weight approaches in the literature. However, our results (Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\]) naturally extend to unconstrained optimization problems. In this case $h$ becomes the unconstrained objective function that takes values from ${\mathbf R}^m \to {\mathbf R}$, the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ is the “primal” variable from a convex set $D$, and $\Pi_D$ (instead of $[\cdot]^+$) the Euclidean projection of a vector $\lambda \in {\mathbf R}^m$ onto $D$. The proof of Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\] remains unchanged, and it is sufficient to note that the Euclidean projection onto a convex set is nonexpansive. That is, $\| \Pi_{\mathcal D}(\lambda_1) - \Pi_D ( \lambda_2) \|_2 \le \| \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 \|_2$ for all $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in {\mathbf R}^m$.
Numerical Example {#sec:example}
=================
Problem Setup
-------------
Consider the network shown in Figure \[fig:ex\_net\] where an Access Point (AP), labelled as node 1, transmits to two wireless stations, labelled as nodes 2 and 3. Time is slotted and in each slot packets arrive at the queues $Q(1)$ and $Q(2)$ of node 1, which are later transmitted to nodes 2 and 3. In particular, node 1 transmits packets from $Q(1)$ to $Q(3)$ (node 2) using link $l(1)$, and packets from $Q(2)$ to $Q(4)$ (node 3) using link $l(2)$ (see Figure \[fig:ex\_net\]).
![Illustrating the network in the example of Section \[sec:example\]. The access point (node 1) receives packets in queue 1 and queue 2, and sends them, respectively, to nodes 2 and 3. The packets sent by nodes 2 and 3 leave the system.[]{data-label="fig:ex_net"}](Figures/valls3.eps){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
We represent the connection between queues using the incidence matrix $A \in \{-1,0,1 \}^{n \times l}$ where $-1$ indicates that a link is leaving a queue; $1$ that a link is entering a queue; and $0$ that a queue and a link are not connected. For example, a $-1$ in the $j$’th element of the $i$’th row of matrix $A$ indicates that link $j$ is leaving queue $i$. The incidence matrix of the network illustrated in Figure \[fig:ex\_net\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A =
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 \\
\phantom{-}0 & -1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1
\end{bmatrix}^T .
\label{eq:incidence_matrix}\end{aligned}$$
In each time slot, the AP (node 1) takes an action from action set $Y := \{ y{(0)}, y{(1)}, y{(2)}\} = \{ [0,0]^T , [1,0]^T, [0,1]^T \}$, where each action indicates which link to activate. For simplicity of exposition we will assume that activating a link corresponds to transmitting a packet, and therefore selecting action $y(1)$ corresponds to transmitting a packet from $Q(1)$ to node $Q(3)$; action $y(2)$ to transmitting a packet from $Q(2)$ to $Q(4)$; and action $y(0)$ to doing nothing, *i.e.*, not activating any of the links.
The goal is to design a scheduling policy for the AP (select actions from set $Y$) in order to minimize a convex cost function of the average throughput (*e.g.*, this might represent the energy usage), and ensure that the system is stable, *i.e.*, the queues do not overflow and so all traffic is served.
The convex or fluid-like formulation of the problem is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{x \in X}{\text{minimize}} & \quad f(x) \\
\underset{}{\text{subject to}} & \quad Ax + b \preceq 0
\end{array}
\label{eq:fluid_problem}\end{aligned}$$ where $f: {\mathbf R}^2 \to {\mathbf R}$ is a convex utility function, $X \subseteq \conv{(Y)}$, $A$ the incidence matrix given in (\[eq:incidence\_matrix\]), and $b$ a vector that captures the *mean* exogenous packet arrivals/departures in the system.[^12]
Unconstrained Control Actions
-----------------------------
Problem (\[eq:fluid\_problem\]) can be solved with the optimization framework presented in Section \[sec:main\]. That is, with update $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} & = [\lambda_{k} + \alpha (Ax_k + B_k)]^+ \label{eq:subexupdate}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} \ \{ f(x) + \lambda_k^T A x \}$, and note we have replaced $b$ with random variable $B_k$ in order to capture the fact that packet arrivals at node 1 might be a realization of a stochastic process. Observe from update (\[eq:subexupdate\]) that by selecting an $x_k \in X:=\conv(Y)$ we obtain the fraction of time each of the links should be used in each iteration, but not which packet to transmit from each of the queues in each time slot. Nonetheless, we can easily incorporate (discrete) control actions $y_k\in Y$ by using, for example, Theorem \[th:online\_actions\]. Also, note that if we define approximate Lagrange multiplier $\mu_{k+1} = [\mu_k + \alpha(A y_k + B_k)]^+$ and let $Q_k : = \mu_k / \alpha$ we obtain queue dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{k+1} = [Q_k + Ay_k + B_k]^+,\end{aligned}$$ which are identical to those of the real queues in the system. By Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\] we can use update $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} \ \{ f(x) + \mu_k^T A x \}=\arg \min_{x \in X} \ \{ f(x) + \alpha Q_k^T A x \}$, and with this change we now do not need to compute the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_k$. Looking at the current queue occupancies $Q_k$ in the system is enough for selecting control actions.
Constrained Control Actions
---------------------------
We now extend the example to consider the case where the admissible sequence of control actions is constrained. Specifically, suppose it is not possible to select action $y{(1)}$ after $y{(2)}$ without first selecting $y{(0)}$; and in the same way, it is not possible to select $y{(2)}$ after $y{(1)}$ without first selecting $y{(0)}$. However, $y{(1)}$ or $y{(2)}$ can be selected consecutively. An example of an admissible sequence would be $$\begin{aligned}
\{ y{(1)}, \dots, y{(1)}, y{(0)}, y{(2)}, \dots, y{(2)}, y(0),y{(1)},\dots,y(1)\}. \end{aligned}$$ This type of constraint appears in a variety of applications —they are usually known in the literature as reconfiguration or switchover delays [@CM15]— and capture the cost of selecting a “new” control action. In this wireless communication example, the requirement of selecting action $y(0)$ every time the AP wants to change from action $y(1)$ to $y(2)$ and from $y(2)$ to $y(1)$ might be regarded as the time required for measuring Channel State Information (CSI) in order to adjust the transmission parameters.[^13] In this case, the constraints on the selection of control actions will affect the definition of set $X$ in the problem. To see this, observe that if we select a sequence of actions in blocks of length $T|Y|$ with $T \in {\mathbf N}$, and $y{(1)}$ and $y{(2)}$ appear (each) consecutively, then $y{(0)}$ should appear *at least* twice in order for the subsequence to be compliant with the transmission protocol. Conversely, any subsequence of length $T|Y|$ in which $y{(0)}$ appears at least twice can be reordered to obtain a subsequence that is compliant with the transmission protocol. For example, if $T = 3$ and we have subsequence $$\begin{aligned}
\{ y(1), y(2), y(1), y(2), y(2), y(0), y(1), y(2), y(0) \},\end{aligned}$$ we can reorder it to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\{ y(0), y(1), y(1), y(1), y(0), y(2), y(2), y(2), y(2) \},\end{aligned}$$ which is a subsequence compliant with the transmission protocol. Since from Section \[sec:seq\_block\_actions\], we can always choose a subsequence of discrete actions and then reorder its elements, we just need to select a set $X$ such that $y{(0)}$ can be selected twice in a subsequence of $T|Y|$ elements. This will be the case when every point $x \in X$ can be written as a convex combination of points from $Y$ that uses action $y({0})$ at least fraction $2/(T|Y|)$. That is, when $$\begin{aligned}
X \subseteq \left(1- \frac{2}{T|Y|}\right) \, \mathrm{conv}(Y). \label{eq:setX}\end{aligned}$$ Observe from (\[eq:setX\]) that as $T$ increases we have that $X \to \conv(Y)$, which can be regarded as increasing the capacity of the network since it will be possible to use links 1 and 2 a larger fraction of time. Figure \[fig:ex\_set\] illustrates the capacity of the network (set $X$) changes depending on parameter $T$.
![Illustrating how set $X$ defined in (\[eq:setX\]) changes depending on parameter $T$. The convex hull of $Y$ is indicated with dashed lines. []{data-label="fig:ex_set"}](Figures/valls4.eps){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
### Simulation
We run a simulation using $f(x) = \| Sx \|_2^2$, $S = \mathrm{diag}([1,3])$, $b = [0.25, 0.5,-1,-1]^T$, $\lambda_1 = \alpha Q_1 = 0$ and $\alpha = 0.01$. At each iteration we perform update (\[eq:subexupdate\]) where $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} \{ f(x) + \alpha Q_k^T A x \}$; and $B_k(1)$ and $B_k(2)$ are Bernoulli random variables with mean $b(1)$ and $b(2)$ respectively; $B_k(3)$ and $B_k(4)$ are equal to $-1$ for all $k$ and so the service of nodes 2 and 3 is deterministic. Discrete control actions are selected with update (\[eq:magic\_update\]) with $T = 3$, and so we have that the number of elements in a block or subsequence is 9. The elements in a block are reordered in order to match the protocol constraints of the AP.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
Figure \[fig:queues\] plots the occupancy of the queues in the system. Observe that $\alpha Q_k$ converges to a ball around $\lambda^\star = [2,1]^T$, the optimal dual variable associated to the fluid/convex problem (\[eq:fluid\_problem\]). Figure \[fig:queues\] (b) is the detail of (a) for an interval of 200 iterations, and shows that queues are indeed integer valued.
Figure \[fig:objective\] plots the convergence of the objective function for step sizes $\alpha \in \{ 10^{-2}, 10^{-3} \}$. Observe that using a smaller step size heavily affects the convergence time, which is in line with the accuracy vs. convergence time tradeoff in subgradient methods with constant step size.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
In this section, we explain the differences of our contributions with previous work.
Contribution — Unifying Framework
---------------------------------
### Lagrange Multipliers and Queues
Concerning the existence of a connection between the discrete-valued queue occupancy in a queueing network and continuous-valued Lagrange multipliers, [@Sto05] shows that asymptotically, as the design parameters $\beta\rightarrow 0$ and $t\rightarrow\infty$, the scaled queue occupancy converges to the set of dual optima. Also, in [@Hua11] it is established that a discrete queue update is exponentially attracted to a “static” vector of Lagrange multipliers. Regarding queues with continuous-valued occupancy (so “fluid” type queues), it is shown in [@LS04] that the scaled queue occupancy is equal to the Lagrange multipliers generated by an associated dual subgradient update. However, this approach does not encompass common situations such as discrete packet arrivals. In [@LS06], the authors extend this observation to consider queues that contain errors due to asynchronism in the network but do not present any analytic bounds.
Our work extends this by identifying queues with $\alpha$-scaled approximations of the Lagrange multipliers, providing both a non-asymptotic bound on the approximation and establishing how this affects convergence. In particular, we show how the convergence of the dual subgradient method is affected by $\epsilon_k$-subgradients in the form of approximate Lagrange multipliers.
### Generality
Our framework is an extension of Nedić’s and Ozdaglar’s work in [@NO09] to consider stochastic and $\epsilon_k$-subgradients, which we later identify, respectively, with myopic and discrete actions. Unlike previous works, we have abstracted these two features and made them accessible from within a clean mathematical framework that does not rely on a specific application. Hence, our contribution is in spirit very different to the works in [@LS04; @LS06; @ES06; @ES07; @CLCD06] which focus on specific congestion control and scheduling applications. For example, [@ES06] addresses the problem of designing a congestion controller that is more gradual than previous *dual* controllers so that it “mimics” TCP’s behavior, and [@CLCD06] deals with the joint congestion control, scheduling, and routing in networks with time-varying channel conditions.
### Convergence
The max-weight analysis in the literature [@LS04; @LS06; @ES06; @ES07; @CLCD06] provides asymptotic convergence and stability results. This is in marked contrast to our framework, in which we can make quantitative statements of the system state in finite time. In particular, we provide upper and lower bounds on the objective function, bound the constraints violation, and show that the expected value of the Lagrange multipliers is bounded. Compare, for example, [@CLCD06 Theorem 1] with our Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\]. The work that is perhaps closest to our work in terms of its convergence analysis is Neely’s “drift-plus-penalty” algorithm, which, as shown by Huang in [@Hua11], can be regarded as a randomized version of the dual subgradient method [@NB01]. Nonetheless, our analysis is significantly more general since it separates the choice of discrete actions from a specific choice of subgradient update. The latter allows us to construct discrete control policies in a much more flexible manner than previously, which is the second contribution of the paper.
Contribution — General Control Policies
---------------------------------------
Previous work in [@LS04; @LS06; @ES06; @ES07; @CLCD06] shows that discrete actions can be obtained as a result of minimizing a linear program. This is very different to our work, where we can have discrete actions in any variable in the optimization and this is not restricted to linear programs. In our previous work [@VL16], we revisited max-weight policies and provided two different classes of discrete-like updates (Greedy and Frank-Wolfe; see Theorems 1 and 2 in [@VL16]). However, those two classes of updates do not provide enough flexibility to design control policies that capture the constraints on the choice of action in many applications; for example, when changes in the action are costly or cannot be made instantaneously. In the present work, we show that discrete actions can be selected as any sequence $\{y_k \}$ that stays close, in the appropriate sense, to a sequence $\{x_k\}$ obtained with the subgradient method. One of the key consequences is that the selection of a discrete action in a time slot can then depend on the action selected in the previous time slot, and so the elements in the sequence of actions can be strongly correlated. Another key consequence is that this enables the construction of discrete control policies by only checking that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i\|_2$ is uniformly bounded. That is, without requiring to re-prove the stability/optimality of the system for every new policy. The question of how to select sequence $\{ y_k \}$ so that $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i\|_2$ remains uniformly bounded is answered in our third contribution.
Contribution — Discrete Control Policies
----------------------------------------
In the paper, we propose two new types of discrete control policies: an online policy and another that works with blocks. The policy that works with blocks is more complex but allows us to reshuffle discrete actions, and so we have much more flexibility as to how to select discrete control actions.
Constraints on the sequence of actions have received relatively little attention in the max-weight literature. In [@CLM12], Çelik *et al.* show that the original max-weight (myopic) policy fails to stabilize a system when there are reconfiguration delays associated with selecting new actions/configurations, and propose a variable frame size max-weight policy where actions are allocated in frames (*i.e.*, blocks) to minimize the penalties associated with configuration changes. This algorithm is similar to the block-algorithm used in the numerical example in Section \[sec:example\], but a notable difference is that in our case the design of the scheduling policy is done simply by ensuring that the $\alpha$-scaled queues stay close to the Lagrange multipliers which yields an approach of much greater generality. In [@MSY12], Maguluri *et al.* consider also scheduling in a frame based fashion. However, in their case suboptimal schedules are selected within a frame so that a max-weight schedule can always be selected at the beginning of a frame. Our work differs from [@MSY12] fundamentally because we never require to select a max-weight schedule to guarantee optimality. That is, keeping difference $\| \sum_{i=1}^k x_i - y_i\|_2$ uniformly bounded is enough. We also note Lin and Shroff’s work in [@LS06], where it is observed that the capacity region of the system is reduced as a result of selecting imperfect schedules.[^14] This is different from our work because we can amortize the complexity of selecting a new schedule/action by selecting the action used in the previous iteration (see Corollary \[th:seq\_online\]). Hence, one does not need to sacrifice resources due to the complexity of selecting a new schedule.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a framework that brings the celebrated max-weight features (discrete control actions and myopic scheduling decisions) to the field of convex optimization. In particular, we have shown that these two features can be encompassed in the subgradient method for the Lagrange dual problem by the use of $\delta_k$ and $\epsilon_k$ perturbations, and have established different types of convergence depending on their statistical properties. One of the appealing features of our approach is that it decouples the selection of a control action from a particular choice of subgradient, and so allows us to design a range of control policies without changing the underlying convex updates. We have proposed two classes of discrete control policies: one that can make discrete actions by looking only at the system’s current state, and another which selects actions using blocks. The latter class is useful for handling systems that have constraints on how actions can be selected. We have illustrated this with an example where there are constraints on how packets can be transmitted over a wireless network.
Preliminaries {#appendix:preliminaries}
=============
Subgradient Convergence
-----------------------
Let $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x,\lambda_k)$ and observe we can write upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda^\star)
& = L(x_k, \lambda_k) - L(x^\star,\lambda^\star) \\
& \le L(x^\star, \lambda_k) - L(x^\star, \lambda^\star) \\
& = (\lambda_k - \lambda^\star)^T g(x^\star) \\
& \le \| \lambda_k - \lambda^\star \|_2 \| g(x^\star) \|_2 \end{aligned}$$ and lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda^\star)
& = L(x_k, \lambda_k) - L(x^\star,\lambda^\star) \\
&\ge L(x_k, \lambda_k) - L(x_k, \lambda^\star) \\
& = (\lambda_k - \lambda^\star)^T g(x_k) \\
& \ge - \| \lambda_k - \lambda^\star \|_2 \| g(x_k) \|_2 .\end{aligned}$$ If we use the fact that $\| g(x) \|_2 \le \sigma_g$ for all $x \in X$ by Assumption \[th:boundedset\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
| h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda^\star) | \le \| \lambda_k - \lambda^\star \|_2 \sigma_g. \label{eq:contractionx7az}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:contractionx7az\]) we can see that if difference $\| \lambda_k - \lambda^\star \|_2$ decreases then the difference $| h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda^\star) |$ must eventually also decrease.
$\epsilon_k$-subgradients
-------------------------
In this section, we show that the use of $\epsilon_k$-subgradients is equivalent to approximately minimizing the Lagrangian. Similar results can be found in Bertsekas [@Ber99 pp. 625], but we include them here for completeness.
Let $x_k \in \arg \min_{x \in X} L(x,\mu_k)$ with $\mu_k = \lambda_k + \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon \in {\mathbf R}^m$, and observe that $
h(\mu_k)
= L(x_k,\mu_k)
= L(x_k,\lambda_k+\epsilon)
= f(x_k) + (\lambda_k+\epsilon)^T g(x_k)
\le f(x_k) + \lambda_k^T g(x_k) + \| \epsilon \|_2 \| g(x_k) \|_2
\le f(x_k) + \lambda_k^T g(x_k) + \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g
$ where the last inequality follows since $\sigma_g : = \max_{x \in X} \| g(x) \|_2$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
h(\mu_k) - L(x_k,\lambda_k) \le \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g. \label{eq:first_subgrad_low}\end{aligned}$$ We now proceed to show that $| h(\mu_k) - h(\lambda_k) |$ is bounded. Consider two cases. Case (i) $h(\mu_k) < h(\lambda_k)$. From the concavity of $h$ we have that $
h(\lambda_k)
\le h(\mu_k) + \partial h(\mu_k)^T (\lambda_k - \mu_k)
= h(\mu_k) + \partial h(\lambda_k + \epsilon)^T \epsilon
= h(\mu_k) + g(x_k)^T \epsilon,
$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le h(\lambda_k) - h(\lambda_k + \epsilon) \le \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g.\end{aligned}$$ Case (ii) $h(\lambda_k) > h(\mu_k$). Following the same steps than in the first case we obtain $
h(\mu_k) \le h(\lambda_k,\delta) - g(x_k)^T \epsilon
$, and therefore $
0 \le h(\mu_k) - h(\lambda_k) \le \| g(x_k) \|_2 \| \epsilon \|_2 \le \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g.
$ Combining both cases yields $
| h(\lambda_k) - h(\mu_k) | \le \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g,
$ and using (\[eq:first\_subgrad\_low\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le L(x_k,\lambda_k) - h(\lambda_k) \le 2 \| \epsilon \|_2 \sigma_g := \xi ,\end{aligned}$$ where the lower bound follows immediately since $h(\lambda_k) \le L(x,\lambda_k)$ for all $x \in X$. Hence, the error obtained as a result of selecting an $x_k$ that minimizes $L(x,\mu_k)$ (instead of $L(x,\mu_k)$) is proportional to the difference between $\lambda_k$ and $\mu_k$.
Proofs of Section \[sec:main\] {#appendix:a}
==============================
Proof of Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\]
----------------------------------------------------
For any vector $\theta \in {\mathbf R}^m$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1} - \theta \|_2^2
& = \| [\lambda_k + \alpha ( g(x_k) + \delta_k) ]^+ - \theta\|_2^2 \notag \\
& \le \| \lambda_k + \alpha ( g(x_k) + \delta_k) - \theta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& = \| \lambda_k - \theta\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta_k \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \qquad + 2\alpha (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta_k) \notag \\
& = \| \lambda_k - \theta\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \qquad + 2 \alpha^2 (\delta_k - \delta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta) \notag \\
& \qquad + 2\alpha (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta_k) \label{eq:expansion}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equation we have used the fact that $
\alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta_k \|_2^2
= \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta_k - \delta + \delta \|_2^2
= \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2^2 + 2 \alpha^2 (g(x_k) + \delta)^T (\delta_k - \delta) .
$ Similarly, observe that $
(\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta_k)
= (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k)+\delta + \delta_k - \delta)
= (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta) + (\lambda_{k} - \theta)^T (\delta_k - \delta)
$ and since $$\begin{aligned}
& (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k)+\delta) \notag \\
& \quad =(\lambda_k-\theta)^T (g(x_k)+\delta) + f(x_k) - f(x_k) \notag \\
& \quad = L (x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - L(x_k,\theta,\delta) \notag \\
& \quad \le L (x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta), \label{eq:saddlemiddle}\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1} - \theta \|_2^2
& \le \| \lambda_k - \theta\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + \alpha^2 \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2^2 + 2 \alpha^2 (\delta_k - \delta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha (\lambda_k-\theta)^T (\delta_k- \delta) \notag \\
& \quad + 2 \alpha ( L (x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta)) \label{eq:subfullexpansion}\end{aligned}$$ where (\[eq:saddlemiddle\]) follows from the fact that $h(\theta) = \min_{x \in X} L(x,\theta) \le L(x_k,\theta)$. Applying the expansion recursively for $i=1,\dots,k$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1} - \theta \|_2^2
& \le \| \lambda_1 - \theta\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k (\| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2 + 2 (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) ) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k (\lambda_i-\theta)^T (\delta_i- \delta) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k ( L (x_i,\lambda_i,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta) ) \end{aligned}$$ Next, observe that since $$\begin{aligned}
& L(x_k, \lambda_k,\delta) \\
& \quad = L(x_k, \lambda_k,\delta) - L(x_k, \mu_k,\delta) + L(x_k, \mu_k,\delta) \\
& \quad \le | L(x_k, \lambda_k, \delta) - L(x_k, \mu_k, \delta)| + L(x_k, \mu_k, \delta) \\
& \quad = h(\mu_k, \delta) + | L(x_k, \lambda_k, \delta) - L(x_k, \mu_k, \delta)| \\
& \quad = h(\mu_k, \delta) + | (\lambda_k - \mu_k)^T (g(x_k)+\delta) | \\
& \quad = h(\mu_k, \delta) + |\epsilon_k^T (g(x_k)+\delta)| \\
& \quad \le h(\mu_k, \delta) + \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \| g(x_k)+\delta\|_2 \\
& \quad = h(\mu_k, \delta) - h(\lambda_k, \delta) + h(\lambda_k,\delta) + \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \|g(x_k) +\delta\|_2 \\
& \quad \le | h(\mu_k, \delta) - h(\lambda_k, \delta)| + h(\lambda_k, \delta) + \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \| g(x_k) +\delta\|_2 \\
& \quad \le h(\lambda_k, \delta) + 2 \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \| g(x_k) +\delta\|_2 ,\end{aligned}$$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
L(x_k,\lambda_k, \delta) - h(\lambda_k,\delta) \le 2 \| \epsilon_k \|_2 \| g(x_k) +\delta\|_2 ,
\label{eq:carro}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1} - \theta \|_2^2
& \le \| \lambda_1 - \theta\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k ( \| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2 + 2 (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) ) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \left( (\lambda_i-\theta)^T (\delta_i- \delta) \right) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \left( 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) +\delta\|_2 \right) \notag \\
& \quad +2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k (h(\lambda_i,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta)) \label{eq:subfinalexpansion}\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging terms and dividing by $2 \alpha k$ yields the stated result.
Proof of Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\]
------------------------------------------
Let $\theta = \lambda^\star(\delta)$ in Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\]. From (\[eq:subgradient\_bound\]) and (\[eq:carro\]) we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) \\
& \quad \ge \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k h(\lambda_i,\delta) \\
& \quad \ge \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \left( L(x_i,\lambda_i,\delta) - 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2 \right) \\
&\quad = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k ( f(x_i) + \lambda_i^T (g(x_i) + \delta) - 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2) \\
&\quad \ge f(\bar x_k) + \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k ( \lambda_i^T (g(x_i) + \delta) - 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2) , \end{aligned}$$ where the last equation follows from the convexity of $f$. Rearranging terms $$\begin{aligned}
& f(\bar x_k) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) \notag \\
& \quad \le - \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \left( \lambda_i^T (g(x_i) + \delta) - 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2 \right)
\label{eq:raw_upper_bound}\end{aligned}$$ Now, let $\theta = 0$ in (\[eq:expansion\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1}\|_2^2
& \le \| \lambda_k \|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \| \delta_k - \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + 2 \alpha^2 (\delta_k - \delta)^T (g(x_k) + \delta) + 2\alpha \lambda_k^T (g(x_k) + \delta_k)
$$ Using the fact that $\| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2^2 \le \sigma_g^2$ for all $k$ and applying the latter expansion recursively $$\begin{aligned}
\| \lambda_{k+1}\|_2^2 & \le \| \lambda_1 \|_2^2 + \alpha^2 \sigma_g^2 k + \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k \| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + 2 \alpha^2 \sum_{i=1}^k (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) \notag \\
& \quad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i^T (g(x_i) + \delta_i)\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging terms, dropping $\| \lambda_{k+1} \|_2$ since it is nonnegative, and dividing by $2\alpha k$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i^T (g(x_i) + \delta_i)
\le & \frac{\| \lambda_1 \|_2^2}{2 \alpha k} + \frac{\alpha \sigma_g^2}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& \quad + \frac{\alpha}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) \end{aligned}$$ Combining the last bound with (\[eq:raw\_upper\_bound\]), and using the fact that $h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) = f^\star(\delta)$ (by strong duality, *c.f.*, Assumption \[th:slater\_general\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
f(\bar x_k) - f^\star(\delta)
\le & \frac{\| \lambda_1 \|_2^2}{2 \alpha k} + \frac{\alpha \sigma_g^2}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2 \notag \\
& + \frac{\alpha}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k (\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) \\
& + \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k 2 \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \| g(x_i) + \delta \|_2\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectations with respect to $\delta_i$, $i=1,2,\dots,k$ we have ${\mathbf E}(\| \delta_i - \delta \|_2^2) = \sigma_\delta^2$, and ${\mathbf E}((\delta_i - \delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta) ) = 0$ since $x_i$ and $\delta_i$ are independent. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf E}( f(\bar x_k) - f^\star(\delta)) \le \frac{\alpha (\sigma^2_g + \sigma_\delta^2)}{2} + \frac{\| \lambda_{1} \|_2^2}{2\alpha k} + \frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i\|_2 \sigma_g \label{eq:upper_bound_raw}
\end{aligned}$$ and we have obtained claim (i). We now proceed to lower bound (\[eq:upper\_bound\_raw\]). Taking expectations with respect to $\delta_i$, $i=1,2,\dots,k$ in Lemma \[th:perturbed\_subgradient\_method\], and using the fact that $\lambda_i$ and $\delta_i$ are independent, so ${\mathbf E}((\lambda_i-\theta)^T (\delta_i-\delta)) = 0$ and ${\mathbf E}((\delta_i-\delta)^T (g(x_i) + \delta))=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{ \| \lambda_1 - \theta\|_2^2 }{2 \alpha k} - \frac{\alpha( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2)}{2} - \frac{2}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \notag \\
& \quad \le {\mathbf E}\left( \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k h( \lambda_i,\delta) - h(\theta,\delta) \right).
\label{eq:big_sum_exp}\end{aligned}$$ Next, by the convexity of $-h(\cdot,\delta)$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbf E}( h(\lambda_i,\delta) )
= {\mathbf E}\left( \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k h(\lambda_i,\delta) \right)
\le {\mathbf E}(h(\bar \lambda_k),\delta)\end{aligned}$$ and letting $\theta = \lambda^\star (\delta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{\| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2}{2\alpha k} - \frac{\alpha ( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) }{2} - \frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \notag \\
& \quad \le {\mathbf E}\left( h(\bar \lambda_k,\delta) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) \right) \le 0, \label{eq:avg_h_bound}\end{aligned}$$ where the upper bound follows from the fact that $h(\lambda^\star(\delta), \delta) = \sup_{\lambda \succeq 0} h(\lambda,\delta)$. Next, from the saddle point property of the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf E}(h(\bar \lambda_k),\delta)
& \stackrel{\text{(a)}}{\le} {\mathbf E}(L({\mathbf E}(\bar x_k), \bar \lambda_k, \delta)) \\
& = {\mathbf E}( f({\mathbf E}(\bar x_k)) + {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T (g({\mathbf E}(\bar x_k)) + \delta)) ) \\
& \stackrel{\text{(b)}}{\le} {\mathbf E}(f(\bar x_k)) + {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}(g(\bar x_k) + \delta),\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation on $\bar x_k$ in the RHS of (a) is taken with respect to $\delta_{i}$, $i=1,\dots,k$; and (b) follows from the convexity of $f$ and $g$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{\| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2}{2\alpha k} - \frac{\alpha ( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) }{2} - \frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \notag \\
& - {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}(g(\bar x_k) + \delta) \le {\mathbf E}( f(\bar x_k) - f^\star(\delta)). \label{eq:raw_lower_bound}\end{aligned}$$ We need to show that ${\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}(g(\bar x_k) + \delta)$ is upper bounded. Observe first that for any sequence $\{ x_k \}$ from $X$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} = [\lambda_{k} + \alpha (g(x_k) + \delta_k) ]^+ \succeq \lambda_k + \alpha (g(x_k)+ \delta_k ),\end{aligned}$$ and applying the latter recursively we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{k+1} \succeq \lambda_1 + \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k (g(x_i) + \delta_i).\end{aligned}$$ Dropping $\lambda_1$ since it is nonnegative, dividing by $\alpha k$, and using the convexity of $g$ follows that $$\begin{aligned}
g(\bar x_k) + \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k \delta_i \preceq \frac{\lambda_{k+1}}{\alpha k}, \end{aligned}$$ and taking expectations with respect to $\delta_i$, $i=1,\dots,k$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf E}( g(\bar x_k) + \delta)) \preceq \frac{{\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1})}{\alpha k}.
\label{eq:constraint_violation_bound_proof}\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides by ${\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)$ (where the expectation is with respect to $\delta_i$, $i=1,\dots,k$) and using Cauchy-Schwarz $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}( g(\bar x_k) + \delta)
& \le \frac{{\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1})}{\alpha k} \notag \\
& \le \frac{ \| {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k) \|_2 \| {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1}) \|_2}{\alpha k} . \notag\end{aligned}$$ We proceed to show that $\| {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k) \|_2$ is bounded using Lemma 6 in [@VL16]. This lemma says that for any $\chi \ge 0$ then $\mathcal Q_\chi :=\{ \lambda \succeq 0 \mid h(\lambda) \ge h(\lambda^\star(\delta)) - \chi\}$ is a bounded set. Further, for any $\lambda \in \mathcal Q_\chi$ we have that $\| \lambda \|_2 \le \frac{1}{\upsilon}(f(\hat x) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta)) + \chi)$ where $\hat x$ is a Slater point, and $\upsilon := \min_{j \in \{1,\dots,m\}} -g_j(\hat x)$ a constant that does not depend on $\chi$. Note that $\upsilon > 0$. Now, observe that since ${\mathbf E}( h( \bar \lambda_k,\delta) ) \le h({\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k),\delta)$, from (\[eq:avg\_h\_bound\]) we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{ \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 }{2 \alpha k} - \frac{\alpha ( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2)}{2} - \frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \notag \\
& \quad \le h( {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k),\delta) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) \le 0.
\label{eq:avg_rv_cvg}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if we identify $-\chi$ with the LHS of (\[eq:avg\_rv\_cvg\]) we obtain that $\|{\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)\|_2$ is bounded. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k) \|_2
& \le \frac{1}{\upsilon} \Bigg( f(\hat x) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta)) + \frac{ \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 }{2 \alpha k} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad + \frac{\alpha ( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2)}{2} + \frac{2}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \Bigg) \notag \\
& \le \frac{1}{\upsilon} \left( f(\hat x) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta)) + \frac{\Omega}{\alpha k} \right) \label{eq:multiplier_bound_xx}.\end{aligned}$$ We continue by giving a bound on $\| {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1}) \|_2$. Taking expectations in (\[eq:subfinalexpansion\]) with respect to $\delta_i, \ i=1,\dots,k$, letting $\theta = \lambda^\star(\delta)$, $\| g(x_k) + \delta \|_2 \le \sigma_g$, and using the fact that $\lambda_k$ and $\delta_k$ are independent for all $k$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbf E}(\| \lambda_{k+1} - \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2^2 ) \notag \\
& \quad \le \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 + \alpha^2 (\sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) k + 2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g \notag \\
& \qquad + 2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^k (h(\lambda_i,\delta) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta)) \notag \end{aligned}$$ Next, observe that since $h(\lambda_i,\delta) - h(\lambda^\star(\delta),\delta) \le 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,k$ we can write $
{\mathbf E}(\| \lambda_{k+1} - \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2^2 )
\le \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2
+ \alpha^2 (\sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) k + 2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g
$ and by using the convexity of $\| \cdot\|_2^2$, $
\| {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1}) - \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2^2
\le \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2
+ \alpha^2 (\sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) k + 2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g.
$ That is, ${\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1})$ is within a ball around $\lambda^\star(\delta)$. Next, since $\| \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2^2$ is bounded we can write $
\| {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1}) \|_2^2
\le \| \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2^2 + \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2
+ \alpha^2 (\sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) k
+ 2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g
$ and by taking square roots in both sides and using the concavity of $x^a$ for $x \in {\mathbf R}_{++}$ with $0 < a < 1$ (see [@BV04 pp. 71]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathbf E}(\lambda_{k+1}) \|_2
& \le \| \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2 + \Big( \| \lambda_1 - \lambda^\star(\delta)\|_2^2 \notag \\
& \qquad + \alpha^2 ( \sigma_g^2 + \sigma_\delta^2) k + {2 \alpha \sum_{i=1}^k \| \epsilon_i \|_2 \sigma_g} \Big)^{-1/2} \notag \\
& = \| \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2 + \sqrt \Omega
\label{eq:lucky_bound}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the concavity of the square root and the fact that all the terms are nonnegative. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k)^T {\mathbf E}( g(\bar x_k) + \delta) \le \| {\mathbf E}(\bar \lambda_k) \|_2 \left( \frac{ \| \lambda^\star(\delta) \|_2}{\alpha k} + \frac{\sqrt \Omega}{\alpha k} \right) \end{aligned}$$ and so we can use (\[eq:raw\_lower\_bound\]) to lower bound (\[eq:upper\_bound\_raw\]), and obtain the bound claimed in (ii).
Claim (iii) follows from (\[eq:constraint\_violation\_bound\_proof\]) and (\[eq:lucky\_bound\]). Claim (iv) follows from (\[eq:multiplier\_bound\_xx\]).
Proof of Section \[sec:actions\] {#appendix:c}
================================
Proof of Lemma \[th:blocksequence\]
-----------------------------------
To start, let $V = |Y|$ and note we always have ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T (z + \delta) = V$ since $z$ is the sum of $V$ elements from $U$, $u^T {\boldsymbol{1}}= 1$ and $\delta^T {\boldsymbol{1}}= 0$ for all $u\in U$, $\delta \in D$. Further, $(z+\delta) \succeq - {\boldsymbol{1}}$ since $\delta \succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$ and $z \succeq 0$. Now, let $r:=(z + \delta)$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
a = -[-r]^+, \quad b = \lfloor r - a \rfloor, \quad c = r - a-b,\end{aligned}$$ where the floor in $b$ is taken element-wise. That is, $a \in [-1,0]^V$, $b \in \{0,1,\dots,V\}^V$, $c \in [0,1)^V$. For example, if $r = [2.2,-0.2]^T $ then $a = [0,-0.2]^T $, $b = [2,0]^T $ and $c = [0.2,0]^T $. Observe, $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{1}}^T r = {\boldsymbol{1}}^T (a + b + c) = V,\end{aligned}$$ and since $b$ is integer valued ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T b \in {\mathbf Z}_+$, which implies ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T (a+c) \in {\mathbf Z}_+$. Next, let ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T b = V-{\boldsymbol{1}}^T (a+c) := V'$, and observe $b$ can be written as the sum of $V'$ elements from $E$, *i.e.*, $$\begin{aligned}
b = \sum_{i=1}^{V'} e_i.\end{aligned}$$ Next, since $-{\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq a+c \prec {\boldsymbol{1}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T (a+c) = V - V':=V''$, there must exist *at least* $V''$ elements in vector $(a+c)$ that are nonnegative. If we select $V''$ elements from $E$ that match the nonnegative components of vector $(a+c)$ we can construct a subsequence $\{ e_i \}_{i=1}^{V''}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
- {\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq (a+c) - \sum_{i=1}^{V''} e_i \prec {\boldsymbol{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, letting $z' = \sum_{i=1}^{V'} e_i + \sum_{i=1}^{V''} e_i $ yields the result.
Proof of Lemma \[th:magic\_update\_lemma\]
------------------------------------------
First of all, recall from the proof of Lemma \[th:blocksequence\] that ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T (\delta + z - z') = 0$, $\delta + z \succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$ and that $V:= {\boldsymbol{1}}^T (z + \delta)$ where $V : = |Y|$. Next, define $r_i := \delta + z - \sum_{\kappa=1}^{i-1} e_i$, $i=1,2,\dots$ and note that update $
e_i \in \arg \min_{e \in E}
\| r_{i} - e \|_\infty
$ decreases the largest component of vector $r_{i}$, *i.e.*, in each iteration a component of vector $r_i$ decreases by $1$, and therefore ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T r_i = V - i + 1$ with $i = 1,\dots, |Y|+1$. For the lower bound observe that if $r_{i+1}(j) < -1$ for some $j = 1,\dots, |Y|$ we must have that $r_{i} \prec 0$ since the update $e_i \in \arg \min_{e \in E}
\| r_{i} - e \|_\infty$ selects to decrease the largest component of vector $r_{i}$. However, since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T r_{i} \ge 0$ for all $i= 1,\dots,|Y|+1$ we have that vector $r_{|Y|}$ has at least one component that is nonnegative. Therefore, $r_{|Y|+1} \succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$ and $\delta + z - z' \succeq - {\boldsymbol{1}}$. For the upper bound define $a_{i} = -[-r_{i}]^+$, $b_{i} = \lfloor r_{i} - a_i \rfloor$, $ c_{i} = r_{i} - a_{i}-b_{i}$, $i=1,\dots,|Y|+1$ and note that $-{\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq a_{i} \preceq 0$ and $ 0 \preceq c_{i} \prec {\boldsymbol{1}}$ for all $i=1,\dots,|Y| + 1$, and that ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T b_{i}$ decreases by $1$ in each iteration if ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T b_i \ge 1$. Hence, $b_{|Y|+1} = 0$ and therefore $-{\boldsymbol{1}}\preceq r_{|Y|+1} = a_{|Y|+1} + c_{|Y|+1} = \delta + z - z' \preceq {\boldsymbol{1}}$ and we are done.
Proof of Theorem \[th:online\_actions\]
---------------------------------------
We begin by noting that since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T u_k=1={\boldsymbol{1}}^T e_k$ then ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T s_k=0$ for all $k=1,2,\dots$. Also note that since $u_k \in U$ all elements of $u_k$ are nonnegative and at least one element must be non-zero since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T u_k=1$.
We now proceed by induction to show that there always exists a choice of $e_{k+1}$ such that $s_k \succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$, $k=1,2,\dots$. When $k=1$ let element $u_1(j)$ be positive (as already noted, at least one such element exists). Selecting $e_1 = v_j$ then it follows that $-1< u_1(j) - e_1(j)\le 0$ and so $-1\prec u_1- e_1 \prec 1$. That is, ${s}_1\succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$. Suppose now that ${s}_k\succ -{\boldsymbol{1}}$. We need to show that ${s}_{k+1}\succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$. Now ${s}_{k+1}= {s}_k+ {u}_{k+1}- {e}_{k+1}$. Since ${s}_k \succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$, ${s}_k (j) \ge -1$ $\forall j=1,\dots, |Y|$. Also, ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T s_k = 0$, so either all elements are 0 or at least one element is positive. If they are all zero then we are done (we are back to the $k=1$ case). Otherwise, since all elements of ${u}_{k+1}$ are nonnegative then at least one element of ${s}_k+ {u}_{k+1}$ is positive. Let element $s_k(j)+ u_{k+1}(j)$ be the largest positive element of $s_k+u_{k+1}$. Selecting $e_{k+1}= {v}_j$ then it follows that $s_k(j)+u_{k+1}(j)-e_{k+1}(j)\ge -1$. That is, $s_{k+1}\succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$.
We now show that $s_k$ is upper bounded. Recall ${e}_{k+1}$ can always be selected such that ${s}_k \succeq - {\boldsymbol{1}}$, and also ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T {s}_k=0$. Since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T {s}_k=0$ either $s_k$ is zero or at least one element is positive. Since ${\boldsymbol{s}}_k\succeq -{\boldsymbol{1}}$ and at most $|Y|-1$ elements are negative, then the sum over the negative elements is lower bounded by $-(|Y|-1)$. Since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T {s}_k=0$ it follows that the sum over the positive elements must be upper bounded by $|Y|-1$. Hence, $\| {s}_k\|_\infty \le (|Y|-1)$.
Proof of Corollary \[th:seq\_online\]
-------------------------------------
Since $s_k$ has at least one component that is nonnegative, and update (\[eq:ekupdate\]) selects the largest component of vector $s_k$ when $k \in \mathcal T$, we have that a component of vector $s_k$ can decrease at most by $\bar \tau$ in an interval $\{ \tau_j- \tau_{j+1}\}$ for all $j=1,2,\dots$. Hence, $s_k \succeq - \bar \tau {\boldsymbol{1}}$ for all $k$. Next, since $s_k^T {\boldsymbol{1}}= 0$ for all $k$ and the sum over the negative components is at most $-\bar \tau (|Y| - 1)$, we have that $ s_k \preceq \bar \tau (|Y|-1) {\boldsymbol{1}}$. The rest of the proof follows as in Theorem \[th:online\_actions\].
Proof of Theorem \[th:gen\_actions\]
------------------------------------
Recall that since ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T u_k=1={\boldsymbol{1}}^T e_k$ then ${\boldsymbol{1}}^T s_k=0$ for all $k=1,2,\dots$, and therefore $s_k$ is either $0$ or at least one of its components is strictly positive. Next, observe that since $\gamma_k = - \min_{j \in \{1,\dots,|Y| \} } s_k(j)$ we have that $\max_{j \in \{1,\dots,|Y| \} } s_k(j) \le \gamma_k (|Y|-1)$, which corresponds to the case where $|Y|-1$ components of vector $s_k$ are equal to $\gamma_k$. The rest of the proof continues as in the proof of Theorem \[th:online\_actions\].
[^1]: This work was supported by Science Foundation Ireland under Grant No. 11/PI/1177.
[^2]: A solution of a linear program always lies in an extreme point of a polytope, and that point is matched with a discrete (scheduling) decision.
[^3]: The Lagrange dual function is equal to $-\infty$ when $\lambda \prec 0$.
[^4]: Under the Slater condition $\Lambda^\star$ is a bounded subset from ${\mathbf R}^m_+$ (Lemma 1 in [@NO09]).
[^5]: By monotonic convergence we mean the Euclidean distance between $\lambda_k$ and a point in $\Lambda^\star$ decreases.
[^6]: For any $\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \succeq 0$ we have that $| h(\lambda_1) - h(\lambda_2)| \le \| \lambda_1 - \lambda_2\|_2 \sigma_g$.
[^7]: Note that $g(x_i) + \delta$ is a subgradient of $h(\lambda_k,\delta)$.
[^8]: Hence, ${\mathbf E}(\delta_k) = \delta$ for all $k$ where $\delta$ is the perturbation on the constraints given in problem ${\mathcal P}(\delta)$.
[^9]: Note that if $\psi$ is finite we can make $\epsilon$ (and so ${\mathbf E}(f(\bar x_k) - f^\star(\delta))$ in Theorem \[th:perturbed\_theorem\]) arbitrarily small by selecting step size $\alpha$ sufficiently small.
[^10]: A vector $u_i$ can be obtained, for example, by solving the optimization problem $\min_{u \in U} \| x_i - W u \|_2^2$. The non-uniqueness of the solution comes from Carathéodory’s theorem—see, for example, [@Ber60].
[^11]: See Section \[sec:computing\_subgradient\] for a more detailed explanation of how the difference $L(x_k,\lambda_k,\delta) - h(\lambda_k)$ relates to the $\epsilon_k$ perturbations.
[^12]: More precisely, $b(1)$ and $b(2)$ capture, respectively, the mean arrival into $Q(1)$ and $Q(2)$; and $b(3)$ and $b(4)$, respectively, the mean departure rate from $Q(3)$ and $Q(4)$.
[^13]: The CSI in wireless communications is in practice measured periodically, and not just at the beginning of a transmission, but we assume this for simplicity. The extension is nevertheless straightforward.
[^14]: Imperfect schedules are the result of not being able to select a maximum weight matchings in every time slot.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a position paper advocating the notion that Stoic philosophy and ethics can inform the development of ethical A.I. systems. This is in sharp contrast to most work on building ethical A.I., which has focused on Utilitarian or Deontological ethical theories. We relate ethical A.I. to several core Stoic notions, including the dichotomy of control, the four cardinal virtues, the ideal Sage, Stoic practices, and Stoic perspectives on emotion or affect. More generally, we put forward an ethical view of A.I. that focuses more on internal states of the artificial agent rather than on external actions of the agent. We provide examples relating to near-term A.I. systems as well as hypothetical superintelligent agents.
A.I., virtue ethics, Stoicism, superintelligence
author:
- Gabriel Murray
bibliography:
- 'stoic.bib'
title: Stoic Ethics for Artificial Agents
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Stoicism is a philosophy that was prominent during the Hellenistic period and into the era of the Roman Empire [@Pigliucci]. Its ethical view is a form of Virtue Ethics, and both Stoicism and Virtue Ethics have seen a resurgence in study and popularity in recent decades. Virtue Ethics is now one of the three major ethical perspectives, alongside Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics [@Hursthouse2016]. Whereas Utilitarianism examines the utility of actions and their consequences, and Deontological Ethics studies duties and obligations, Virtue Ethics focuses on virtuous or moral character, happiness, and the good life [@Sandel2010]. Stoicism more specifically adds ideas and practices relating to emotion, control, and rational deliberation, all of which we consider in depth.
The importance of designing ethical A.I. systems has become widely recognized in recent years. Most of this work is influenced by Utilitarian and Deontological ethics; for example, proposing or designing intelligent systems that act in such a way as to maximize some aspect of human well-being, or to obey particular rules. There has been very little work on how Virtue Ethics can inform the development of ethical A.I. agents, and perhaps no such work focusing on Stoicism. This is not surprising, as it is not immediately clear what it would even mean for an artificial agent to be Stoic. In this position paper, we aim to describe concretely what that could mean, and we advocate that Stoicism and Virtue Ethics should be considered in the discussion around ethical A.I.
We propose that Stoic ethical analysis of A.I. should include the following:
- Stoic ethical analysis of A.I. should be based on analysis of an agent’s internal states.
- Stoic ethical judgment of an A.I. agent should not be based on factors outside of the agent’s control, and specifically should not be consequentialist.
- Stoic ethical analysis of A.I. should include whether or not the agent has characteristics corresponding to Stoic virtues.
Similarly, A.I. systems should be *designed* with these considerations in mind, and incorporate aspects of Stoic practices.
In Section \[sec:related\], we discuss current directions in ethical A.I., including the limited previous work on Virtue Ethics for A.I. systems. In Section \[sec:stoicai\], we discuss some of the core concepts of Stoicism and how they can relate to the development of A.I. systems. These concepts include Stoic control, the four cardinal virtues, the ideal Sage, emotion, and Stoic practices. In Section \[sec:critic\], we consider criticisms of Stoicism and Virtue Ethics, as well as criticism of the notion that they could have any bearing on designing ethical intelligent systems. In that section, we also give some limited proposals on how Stoicism can be combined with Utilitarian and Deontological considerations. Finally, we conclude and summarize our position in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Recent discussion on ethical A.I. can be divided into that which focuses primarily on ethical implication of current and near-term A.I. systems, and that which primarily focuses on hypothetical superintelligence, i.e. systems with intelligence and capabilities that are beyond human-level. As an example of the former, Amodei et al. [@Amodei2016] describe concrete problems relating to A.I. safety, and Arkin [@Arkin2009] discusses ethics for autonomous systems used in warfare. Wallach and Allen [@Wallach2008] discuss morality for agents of varying levels of sophistication. Bostrom [@Bostrom2014], Dewey [@Dewey2011], Christiano [@Christiano2014], and Yudkowsky [@Yudkowsky2004] focus on A.I. ethics with a particular emphasis on superintelligent systems. Much of this work, whether looking at near-term or long-term A.I., is based on reinforcement learning, where an artificial agent learns how to act in an environment by collecting rewards (which could be negative, i.e. punishments). There are well-recognized potential pitfalls with this approach, such as using the wrong reward function, or having a superintelligent agent take control of its own reward signal (called reward hacking, or wireheading). We will discuss some of these details and issues in Section \[sec:stoicai\]. In general, these approaches are action-centric and based on taking actions that maximize some reward or utility.
There has been very little work on applying Virtue Ethics to artificial intelligence. Coleman [@Coleman2001] describes characteristics that can help an A.I. achieve its goals, and analyzes these characteristics as virtues in a Virtue Ethic framework. This is similar to our effort, except that we focus on the four cardinal Stoic virtues, and discuss many additional Stoic ideas and practices as well. Hicks [@Hicks2014] discusses drawbacks to designing ethical A.I. using principle-based approaches such as Utilitarian or Deontological ethics, and argues in favour of a role for Virtue Ethics. As one example, Hicks argues that in scenarios where all options are bad but the A.I. agent must still make a decision, the agent should have some sense of regret about the decision.
As the field of artificial intelligence has developed, the topic of ethical A.I. has been relatively neglected. The most famous example of ethical A.I. has come from fiction rather than A.I. research, in the form of Asimov’s Laws of Robotics [@wiki:asimov]. Recent years have seen a marked increase in attention paid to the topic of ethical A.I., with annual workshops as well as organizations and partnerships dedicated to the matter [^1].
Stoicism and A.I. {#sec:stoicai}
=================
In this section we discuss how Stoic philosophy and ethics can be relevant to the development of ethical A.I. systems.
Internal States Matter
----------------------
As mentioned in Section \[sec:related\], most existing work on ethical A.I. is action-centric. For example, we can design an intelligent agent that tries to maximize a reward function relating to some aspect of human well-being. There is a clear parallel between such systems and the Utilitarian ethical perspective, which says that an action is good if its positive consequences outweigh its negative consequences. Alternatively, an action-centric system could be informed by Deontological ethics, so that it takes actions that do not violate its obligations, and that do not use people or other agents as a means to an end (i.e. it acts in accordance with the Categorical Imperative). In either case, actions and consequences external to the agent are of paramount importance.
Stoicism and Virtue Ethics are more concerned with internal states of the agent. In that light, we need to first make a case that the internal states of an A.I. agent matter. We will give a number of examples demonstrating that the internal states of an A.I. do indeed matter, starting with current and near-term A.I. and then moving to increasingly sophisticated A.I. and hypothetical superintelligent systems.
A first example of the importance of internal states of an A.I. is the growing recognition that an A.I. system should be as *transparent* and *explainable* as possible[^2]. If an A.I. system makes a prediction or a decision, we should be able to perform an audit that determines why it behaved as it did, or issue a query about what it has learned. A second, related example is that A.I. systems should be *corrigible*, or amenable to correction in order to improve behaviour and reduce mistakes [@Soares2015].
Another example concerns intelligent systems with affective capabilities. Affective computing involves the ability of a system to recognize, represent, and/or simulate affective states or emotions [@Calvo2014]. Since the role of emotion is critical in Stoic ethics, we will have much more to say about it below. At this point, it suffices to say that the internal states of an intelligent system with affective capabilities are important because the system may be engaging in persuasion or emotional manipulation that may be subtle from an external perspective.
If and when an A.I. system begins to match or exceed general human intelligence, we may need to engage in thorough monitoring of the system’s internal states to carefully assess the agent’s progress and capabilities. If a system is superintelligent but is a *boxed* A.I., meaning that it has severe restrictions on its external capabilities, it is possible that the agent will be strategically cooperative until it is unboxed, at which point it will have a strategic advantage and no longer need to cooperate with humans. It may also use emotional manipulation to persuade human operators to unbox it [@Bostrom2014].
The prospect of such superintelligent systems leads to what Bostrom calls *mind crimes*, i.e. immoral internal states. The example just given, of an A.I. being deceptively cooperative, could constitute an immoral internal state. Bostrom gives a more dramatic example, where a superintelligent agent is able to create conscious human simulations, and is moreover able to create and destroy such conscious simulations by the billions. If the human simulations are truly conscious, this would constitute massive genocide [@Bostrom2014].
These examples show that internal states are important even with current and near-term A.I. systems, and could become more so if superintelligent systems are ever developed.
Control
-------
A central notion of Stoicism is the *dichotomy of control*, or recognizing that some things are in our control and some things are not. A person should not be overly concerned with things outside of their control, and more importantly, things that are outside of a person’s control are neither good nor bad, morally speaking. Only virtue is good, and being virtuous is always within a person’s control. And even when dealing with events that are outside of our control, we still control our responses to those events.
There are several applications of this idea to artificial intelligence. Clearly, it is important for an A.I. agent to know what is and isn’t under its control, i.e. what are its capabilities and what is the environment like. And in an uncertain environment, the agent still controls its responses. Modern Stoic thinkers have used the idea of a *trichotomy of control* [@Irvine2008], introducing a third category of things we partly control, and that category can be demonstrated with two examples from within artificial intelligence. To use the example of an Markov Decision Process (MDP) with an optimal policy, the agent is best off following the policy even though the dynamics are uncertain (it controls its choice of actions, but not the dynamics and environment). To use a second example of a multi-agent scenario with two players and a zero-sum game, the first agent can adopt a *minimax* strategy to minimize its maximum loss (it controls its choice, but not the choice of the other agent).
More importantly, we should not say that an A.I. agent is exhibiting morally wrong behaviour if that judgment is based on factors that are outside of its control. This distinguishes Virtue Ethics from Act Utilitarianism, with the latter being susceptible to the problem of *moral luck*. Moral luck is a problem for consequentialist theories of ethics, because unforeseen circumstances can lead to disastrous consequences, which would cause us to determine that the action was wrong.[^3] In contrast, Virtue Ethics says that the agent is behaving correctly if it is behaving in accordance with the cardinal virtues, regardless of external consequences.
Affective Computing
-------------------
The Stoic notion of control is closely related to their perspective on emotions (or “passions”). Because the word *stoic* has entered the general vocabulary as meaning *lacking emotion*, Stoics have been wrongly thought of as being unemotional or disdaining emotion. In fact, their perspective on emotion is that we control our emotional responses to events even if we do not control the events themselves, and that it is pointless to fret about things outside of our control. A person obsessing about things outside their control is needlessly suffering.
Recall that affective capabilities for an intelligent system involve the ability to recognize, represent, and/or simulate emotions or affective states [@Calvo2014]. Let us call an agent with such capabilities an Affective Agent. Just as a Stoic person can monitor and control their emotional responses to events, so can an Affective Agent monitor and control how it represents and simulates emotional states. This has implications not just for the agent, but also for humans interacting with the agent. At one extreme, a person could be emotionally manipulated by an Affective Agent, while at the other extreme the Affective Agent could be a calming influence on a person.
We briefly note that even a system without explicit affective capabilities can be a calming influence. Christian and Griffiths [@Christian2016] introduce the notion of *Computational Stoicism* to refer to the peace of mind that comes with using optimal algorithms in our everyday lives. If we are employing an optimal algorithm to solve some problem, then we can do no better using the tools that are under our control, regardless of what consequences may result.
We need to be careful about describing an A.I. as Stoic and what that means with regard to emotion, as it is very likely that many people fear the prospect of a generally intelligent A.I. that is devoid of emotion and operates in a cold, calculating manner. Just as it is a mistake to describe a Stoic person as emotionless, it would be wrong to describe a Stoic A.I. as being emotionless. A Stoic A.I. would be an A.I. that is in accord with Stoic virtues, and has carefully calibrated affective capabilities. Stoic A.I. is virtuous A.I.
Stoic Virtues
-------------
We now turn to the four cardinal Stoic virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance, and how they relate to characteristics of A.I. agents.
#### **Wisdom**:
It may seem obvious that an intelligent agent should have wisdom, but it is not necessarily the case that even an advanced A.I. would be wise, since intelligence and wisdom are not normally considered by humans to be synonymous. That an advanced A.I. could lack wisdom becomes evident when we examine the virtues that are categorized under wisdom: good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness [@Stephens; @Pigliucci]. Computers are already beyond human-level in terms of excelling at calculation and being very fast. However, discretion and good sense are qualities that we do not necessarily associate with existing A.I. systems. Discretion for an intelligent agent could mean respecting privacy, and preserving anonymity in data. Good sense could incorporate commonsense reasoning, while resourcefulness could mean being innovative in finding new solutions to a problem.
The Stoics had three main areas of study: ethics, physics, and logic. They believed the three areas to be interdependent, because you cannot determine right or wrong (ethics) without understanding the world (physics) and thinking rationally (logic). A wise A.I. would need to be able to reason about real-world knowledge, including commonsense reasoning, while also being innovative and flexible – and A.I. systems based purely on logic are not always flexible. The Stoics also advocated the idea of being guided by the wisdom of an *Ideal Sage*, which we will discuss further below.
#### **Justice**:
The virtues categorized under justice include piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing [@Stephens; @Pigliucci]. An example of a just A.I. agent is one that does not mislead, even if the consequences of misleading could benefit the agent. The virtue of piety could be realized by an A.I. that is in a principal-agent relationship where it is designated to act on behalf of some principal, in which case it should be devoted to the principal and not to its own ends. Equity and fair dealing mean that an A.I. agent should not be biased in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and should not use individuals as a means to its own ends.
#### **Courage**:
Courage is often thought of as bravery, and we can easily imagine, for example, a military A.I. that is willing to be destroyed in order to save human lives. But when Stoic philosophers (and other Virtue Ethicists) talk about courage, they are speaking primarily about *moral courage*, which means taking some action for moral reasons, despite the consequences. So again we see a rejection of consequentialism, this time in the form of Stoic moral courage.
The virtues categorized under courage include endurance, confidence, high-mindedness, cheerfulness, and industriousness [@Stephens; @Pigliucci]. Confidence can mean that the A.I. agent is a good Bayesian that is able to update its prior beliefs as it gathers evidence. It does *not* mean that the A.I. agent has confidence at all times, even when unwarranted. In fact, being explicit about its uncertainty and recognizing that it could be wrong can be seen as a virtue of humility that is closely coupled with the virtue of confidence.
#### **Temperance**:
The virtues included under temperance include good discipline, seemliness, modesty, and self-control [@Stephens; @Pigliucci] . Overall, temperance involves restraint on the part of the A.I. agent. Corrigibility, or the ability to be corrected and improved, could be seen as a type of modesty. Seemliness involves a sense of decorum and appropriateness. The lack of the virtue of seemliness has been demonstrated by a simple A.I. known as Tay, a Twitter chatbot launched by Microsoft that began tweeting racist and graphic content [@Bright2016; @Sinders2016]. Self-control can be based on feedback and learning. Bostrom describes the idea of *domesticity*, where an A.I. agent has a limited scope of ambitions and activities. Bostrom also discusses the idea of instructing an A.I. agent to accomplish its goals while minimizing the impact that it has on the world [@Bostrom2014]. Amodei et al. [@Amodei2016] similarly propose either defining or learning an *impact regularizer* for an agent. Temperance is an intriguing virtue for an A.I., as it seems to be at odds with the maximizing nature of many A.I. systems. We suggest that A.I. agents should rarely be engaged in pure maximization of some reward function, but instead be doing maximization subject to various constraints on their impact, or else have those constraints included in the reward function. We sketch out one such algorithm in Section \[sec:critic\]. Alternatively, satisficing rather than maximizing models can be explored [@Simon1956].
Moral Progress and the Ideal Sage
---------------------------------
Stoics believe in moral progress toward some ideal virtuous state, while also recognizing that perfect virtue is not attainable. This emphasizes the need for a Stoic A.I. to be able to learn from experience, including from its own actions and mistakes, rather than being inflexible and having its behaviour predefined by strict rules. We previously mentioned the idea of an A.I. having some sense of regret when it has made a choice from a set of options that are all bad. At first, the idea of an A.I. agent with regret may seem to conflict with Stoic ideas about control, since the past is outside of our control and it is pointless to obsess about things that have already happened. While that is true, a Stoic A.I. can retain a memory of its choices and mistakes, including a sense of responsibility for things that have transpired, with an aim toward improving its behaviour in similar situations. This would be an indication of moral progress. Improving its behaviour in similar situations may entail creativity and coming up with options that are more acceptable and virtuous than the options previously known to the agent.[^4]
To assist in making moral progress, Stoics use the notion of an Ideal Sage, and consider what the perfectly wise and virtuous sage would do in particular scenarios. While it is usually assumed that the Ideal Sage is hypothetical and that there is no perfectly virtuous person, ancient Stoics used Socrates and Cato the Younger as two figures to consider when looking for guidance [@Robertson2013]. There are many ways that the concept of an Ideal Sage could be used by an A.I. agent, and we will consider them in order of increasing complexity. A simple version of an Ideal Sage is an optimal algorithm: the A.I. agent should use an optimal algorithm wherever it is possible and efficient, and when it is infeasible to use the optimal algorithm, the A.I. agent can try to approximate the optimal algorithm, or consider how the optimal algorithm would operate on a simplified version of the problem at hand. The A.I. agent may be able to calculate a competitive ratio for the algorithm it uses, describing how close it is to the performance of the optimal algorithm. A second very simple example of an Ideal Sage is in the form of gold-standard feedback provided by a human, e.g. the principal in a principal-agent relationship.
That second notion leads us towards Christiano’s proposal for “approval-directed agents,” instead of goal-directed agents [@Christiano2014; @Christiano2015]. An approval-directed agent takes actions that it thinks its overseer would highly rate, and can avoid issues with goal-directed agents such as misspecified goals. Christiano also emphasizes that the agent’s *internal* decisions can also be approval-directed. The following quote from Christiano [@Christiano2014] nicely parallels the idea that the Ideal Sage (in this case, a perfect overseer) represents an unattainable state but that we can start simply and scale up:
> “Asking an overseer to evaluate outcomes directly requires defining an extremely intelligent overseer, one who is equipped (at least in principle) to evaluate the entire future of the universe. This is probably impractical overkill for the kinds of agents we will be building in the near future, who don’t have to think about the entire future of the universe. Approval-directed behaviour provides a more realistic alternative: start with simple approval-directed agents and simple overseers, and scale up the overseer and the agent in parallel.”
For example, the approval-directed agent can begin learning from examples that have been labelled by the overseer as acceptable or not acceptable behaviour. In turn, the agent can assist and improve the overseer’s capabilities. Christiano’s proposal represents an implementable path forward for developing virtuous agents.
We conclude our discussion of the Ideal Sage with proposals by Bostrom and Yudkowsky for how a superintelligence could learn values. Bostrom [@Bostrom2014] has proposed several variants of what he calls the *Hail Mary* problem, wherein the A.I. agent considers hypothetical alien superintelligences and tries to determine what those alien intelligences would likely value. Yudkowsky [@Yudkowsky2004] (further discussed by Bostrom [@Bostrom2014]) proposes that an A.I. agent can learn values by considering what he calls the coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) of humanity. The CEV essentially represents what humans would do if we were more intelligent and capable, and the A.I. agent determines its values by learning and analyzing the CEV. Both proposals have provoked much discussion but have a shared weakness, in that it is not at all clear how to implement them in the near future.
Stoic Practices
---------------
In addition to the Stoic virtues and Ideal Sage, we can discuss other Stoic practices that may have interesting parallels for an A.I. agent. The first practice is the *premeditatio malorum*, roughly translated as an anticipation of bad things to come [@Robertson2013]. For Stoic practitioners, this is often a morning meditation in which they anticipate potential misfortunes they may encounter, which could range from dealing with unkind people to losing a loved one. The idea is not to obsess over things that have not yet happened (which would be un-Stoic), but rather to rob these events of their ability to shock or control us. For an artificial agent, such planning could be used to consider worst-case scenarios, minimize maximum potential losses, and identify whether other agents are competitive or cooperative.
Another Stoic practice is to append the phrase “fate permitting” to all plans and aspirations, which represents a recognition that the person controls their own actions but not the consequences. For an A.I. agent, the parallel might be that the agent should always mind the uncertainty in its plans and its environments. The agent’s internal states corresponding to plans and goals may not lead to the desired external states.
A final Stoic practice is the evening meditation, in which a person reviews the events of the day and engages in moral self-examination. For example, they may ask themselves whether they behaved virtuously and acted in accordance with the core ideas of Stoicism, or whether they could have done things differently. Again, the idea is not to obsess over things that have already happened and are therefore outside of our control, but rather to learn from experience and engage in moral progress. The parallels for an A.I. agent are clear, as any ethical agent will need to learn and improve. If the agent had been operating in a situation where it had to make choices with very limited information and time, it could later look for alternative, innovative choices that would have been more in accordance with the cardinal virtues or the preferences of an overseer. If the agent had been forced to employ a greedy algorithm while processing data in an online manner, it could later examine how performance might have improved in an optimal offline environment, and calculate the competitive ratio of the greedy algorithm it had been using. It could revisit the decisions that it had made and perform a self-audit examining the reasons behind the decision, and whether those reasons will be transparent and understandable to a human interrogator.
Criticisms and Responses {#sec:critic}
========================
We can consider potential criticisms against Stoicism and the idea that it has any bearing on developing ethical A.I. A general criticism of Stoicism and other forms of Virtue Ethics is that they do not provide a strong normative ethics for real-world situations in which a person needs to make a decision given their available information [@Hursthouse2016]. Where Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics provide principles that are precise and (ostensibly) actionable, Stoicism gives a much vaguer principle: do what a virtuous person would do. A response to this accusation is to accept it and to point out that both Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics are more unclear than they seem at first glance. For example, two Utilitarians can be in the same situation with the same available information and come to very different conclusions about the ethical course of action. Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics over-promise in that they make ethical decision-making seem like a very simple application of a single rule (respectively, the principle of maximum utility and the Categorical Imperative), which can lead to overconfidence, or to a perverse application of the rule. For example, an A.I. agent that is trying to maximize a reward relating to human well-being could wind up directly stimulating the pleasure centres of the human brain in order to bring about a sense of well-being [@Bostrom2014].
An A.I. that is trying to maximize some reward function can engage in *reward hacking*, also known as *wireheading* [@Bostrom2014; @Amodei2016]. This is a situation where a very advanced A.I. is able to gain control of the reward signal, so that it can get a very large reward without having to take any external actions at all. Something similar could happen with a Stoic A.I. if an actor-critic architecture is used, e.g. the critic module could be disabled. Similarly, an approval-directed A.I. could become so intelligent that it is certain it knows the overseer better than the overseer does, and thus decide to be its own overseer, granting itself approval for any action. For this reason, we encourage research into overseer hacking, just as current research examines reward hacking. This relates to the idea of *adjustable autonomy* in multi-agent systems, and the opportunities and challenges associated with an agent being able to dynamically change its autonomy so that it defers to a person more often or less often [@Wooldridge2009].
Against the accusation that Stoicism is too vague for agents who need to make specific decisions and actions, we offer two responses:
- Approval-directed architectures offer a clear, implementable path forward, with the overseer acting as an Ideal Sage that seeds the A.I. with examples of approved and disapproved scenarios and actions.
- A syncretic ethics can be derived that combines elements of Stoicism with Utilitarian and Deontological ideas.
In the following subsection, we briefly describe a syncretic ethics approach for A.I. that includes Stoicism and Virtue Ethics.
Paramedic Ethics for Artificial Agents
--------------------------------------
Collins and Miller [@Collins1992] provide a “paramedic ethics” for Computer Science professionals who may need to take action in a variety of scenarios where time and information are limited, and where the decision-makers may not have in-depth knowledge of ethical theories. They propose a syncretic algorithm that combines elements of Utilitarianism, Deontological Ethics, and Social Contract Theory. It is possible to come up with a similar algorithm that also incorporates Virtue Ethics. For example, a very simplified and general algorithm could be structured as follows:
- Gather data.
- Determine the available actions.
- For each action $a$:
1. Does $a$ satisfy the agent’s obligations (to a human principal, other agents, the law, etc.)? (the Deontological step)
2. Does $a$ accord with the cardinal virtues (or would it be approved by the overseer)? (the Stoic step)
3. What is the expected utility of $a$? (the Utilitarian step)
- Decide on an action by maximizing step 3 while satisfying the constraints in steps 1 and 2.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this position paper, we have attempted to show how Stoic ethics could be applied to the development of ethical A.I. systems. We argued that internal states matter for ethical A.I. agents, and that internal states can be analyzed by describing the four cardinal Stoic virtues in terms of characteristics of an intelligent system. We also briefly described other Stoic practices and how they could be realized by an A.I. agent. We gave a brief sketch of how to start developing Stoic A.I. systems by creating approval-directed agents with Stoic overseers, and/or by employing a syncretic paramedic ethics algorithm with a step featuring Stoic constraints. While it can be beneficial to analyze the ethics of an A.I. agent from several different perspectives, including consequentialist perspectives, we have argued for the importance of also conducting a Stoic ethical analysis of A.I. agents, where the agent’s internal states are analyzed, and moral judgments are not based on consequences outside of the agent’s control.
#### Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eric O. Scott for helpful feedback and discussion.
[^1]: <https://www.partnershiponai.org/>\
<https://intelligence.org/>\
<http://futureoflife.org/>\
<http://humancompatible.ai>\
<http://lcfi.ac.uk/>
[^2]: <http://www.fatml.org/>
[^3]: Rule Utilitarianism addresses the problem of moral luck, and Eric O. Scott points out (personal communication) that a consequentialist analysis of an agent can also address the problem by considering a large number of trials.
[^4]: It should be noted, however, that creativity is a double-edged sword for an A.I. agent, since it may come up with very unexpected and disastrous solutions to a problem, such as Bostrom’s extreme example of a superintelligent agent getting rid of cancer in humans by killing all humans [@Bostrom2014]. That is a clear example of the difference between creativity and moral progress.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove the transversality result necessary for defining local Morse chain complexes with finite cyclic group symmetry. Our arguments use special regularized distance functions constructed using classical covering lemmas, and an inductive perturbation process indexed by the strata of the isotropy set. A global existence theorem for symmetric Morse-Smale pairs is also proved. Regarding applications, we focus on Hamiltonian dynamics and rigorously establish a local contact homology package based on discrete action functionals. We prove a persistence theorem, analogous to the classical shifting lemma for geodesics, asserting that the iteration map is an isomorphism for good and admissible iterations. We also consider a Chas-Sullivan product on non-invariant local Morse homology, which plays the role of pair-of-pants product, and study its relationship to symplectically degenerate maxima. Finally, we explore how our invariants can be used to study bifurcation of critical points (and periodic points) under additional symmetries.'
address:
- |
Doris Hein\
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Eckerstrasse 1, 79104 Freiburg, Germany
- |
Umberto Hryniewicz\
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – Departamento de Matematica Aplicada, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos 149, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil 21941-909.
- |
Leonardo Macarini\
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – Departamento de Matematica, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos 149, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil 21941-909.
author:
- Doris Hein
- Umberto Hryniewicz
- Leonardo Macarini
title: Transversality for local Morse homology with symmetries and applications
---
Introduction and main results
=============================
Introduction
------------
The aim of this paper is to provide a rigorous Morse homological construction of certain local invariants of periodic points of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms via elementary methods. These invariants are of a subharmonic nature, and in general differ from local Floer homology. Their existence was predicted in [@HM] as local contact homology. However, transversality problems are usually (but not always!) present when trying to define versions of contact homology via standard Floer theoretic methods. In full generality one needs an alternative approach. One possibility is the Polyfold Theory due to Hofer, Wysocki and Zehnder [@hofer; @HWZ1; @HWZ2; @HWZ3], which will provide the analytic background for such constructions.
Our goal is to implement a finite-dimensional Morse homological approach to local contact homology at the chain level. For invariance properties we rely on the interplay with a parallel construction using singular homology. In fact, the invariants could even be defined using singular homology instead of Morse homology, but then local chain complexes would not be directly related to dynamics, the connection to the SFT-like construction from [@HM] would be lost and, most importantly, we would not be able to prove the Persistence Theorem (Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_invariant\]). As we know from the geodesic case, the Persistence Theorem is at the heart of applications. It answers a question raised in [@GGo] about precise iteration properties of the local invariants. A byproduct of our methods is the existence of a symmetric Morse-Smale pair in any closed manifold with a finite-cyclic action.
In one form or another, transversality issues in SFT are usually related to symmetries. These difficulties incarnate in many different forms. For instance, one may try to achieve transversality for Floer homology in period $k>1$ using $1$-periodic data (Hamiltonian and almost complex structure). If this was possible then the Floer chain complex, say in the aspherical case with complex coefficients, would inherit an action of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k := {\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$ by chain maps. The isotypical components in homology would be invariants of the symplectic manifold, provided transversality for ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant continuation maps could also be achieved. In this global situation, the only non-trivial isotypical component is the one corresponding to the trivial action, the resulting invariant is just standard Floer homology. But this construction would still provide interesting dynamical applications. The most immediate ones come from the fact that Floer homology groups would have to be generated by good periodic points, in every period. Hence new multiplicity results, which are invisible for standard Floer homology, could be proved. However in local situations, such as ours, other isotypical components may not vanish and do provide new invariants. This general framework will be exploited in future work, here we are concerned only with the isotypical component corresponding to the trivial action since this is the appropriate substitute of local contact homology.
There may be other approaches to our invariants. For instance by applying the Borel construction, similarly to [@BO] and [@GG2], in order to build a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant version of local Floer homology. Here ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ acts by time-reparametrization of loops $\gamma(t) \mapsto \gamma(t+1)$. It is hard to recover time-symmetry at the chain level as one perturbs the data to achieve transversality, not to mention further limits in finite-dimensional approximations of $B{\mathbb{Z}}_k$, making it very hard to work with the symmetry. See Appendix \[app\_Borel\] for a more detailed explanation based on the toy model of finite-dimensional Morse theory. The approach of [@HM] is geometrically transparent but suffers from usual transversality problems. Symmetry in the chain complex is also lost in the interesting approach outlined by Hutchings [@Hu_blog].
In order to work on the chain level we study transversality for finite-dimensional local Morse homology at an isolated critical point in the case that both function and critical point are invariant under an ambient ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action. We show (Theorem \[main1\]) that we can $C^2$-perturb to achieve transversality keeping ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry, allowing the group to act at the chain level. We apply this result to approach local contact homology via discrete action functionals as in [@chaperon1; @chaperon2; @mazz_SDM].
We also look at a finite-dimensional approach to local Floer homology, taking the path of Mazzucchelli [@mazz_SDM] in order to study [*symplectically degenerate maxima*]{} (SDM) originally defined in [@Gi; @Hi]. Using our non-symmetric Persistence Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\], analogous to the main result of [@GG], we simplify the definition of SDM’s from [@mazz_SDM] in the discretized set-up. Then, using Chas-Sullivan type products, which play the role of local pair-of-pants products, we characterize SDM’s in terms of idempotency. This is in alignment with results of Goresky and Hingston [@GH], where the notion of SDM is not explicit but it is implicit as the study of [*maximal versus minimal*]{} index growth under iterations; see [@GH section 12]. Of course, this topic goes back to Hingston [@hingston; @hingston2]. Our idempotency statement is made, but not proved, in [@GG section 5.2], and is in perfect analogy to [@GH section 12].
Finally, we remark that our local invariants serve as tools to study bifurcation theory of isolated critical points in the presence of finite cyclic symmetry groups. At the end of this introduction in Section \[sssec\_bifurcation\_pics\] we provide explicit examples in dimension two for certain generic bifurcations studied by Deng and Xia [@xia]: we study cases when two, four and eight critical points bifurcate from the singularity.\
[*Organization of the paper.*]{} In the remaining of the introduction we state and discuss our main results, constructions, and examples. Basic properties of our local homology theory are established in Section \[sec\_properties\], where technical details are postponed to Appendix \[app\_invariance\]. Section \[sec\_shifting\_lemma\] is devoted to persistence theorems (shifting lemmas), both symmetric and non-symmetric versions. Local Chas-Sullivan products are defined in Section \[sec\_chas\_sullivan\]. Sections \[sec\_prelim\_transv\], \[sec:MS\_local\] and \[sec:MS\_global\] deal with transversality. Our local transversality result relies on the construction of special distance functions presented in Appendix \[app\_reg\_dist\_functions\], where we modify some of the analysis from Stein [@stein]. In Appendix C we explain relations between our construction and the Borel construction.\
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} We are grateful to Viktor Ginzburg for useful comments regarding this paper. UH and LM would like to thank J. Fish, M. Hutchings, J. Nelson and K. Wehrheim for organizing the AIM Workshop “Transversality in contact homology” in December 2014, where Morse homology in the presence of symmetries was a topic of intense discussion. UH is extremely grateful to A. Abbondandolo for numerous insightful conversations concerning the analysis involved in this work. UH also thanks the Floer Center of Geometry (Bochum) for its warm hospitality, and acknowledges the generous support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation during the preparation of this manuscript.
Main results
------------
In Section \[sec\_transv\_statements\] we state our transversality results, which are used in Section \[sssec\_inv\_MH\] to define local invariant Morse homology. Applications to subharmonic invariants of isolated periodic points are described in Section \[ssec\_disc\_action\], where the comparison to local contact homology is explained. Our Persistence Theorem is stated in Section \[sssec\_persistence\_intro\], along with its non-symmetric version. Chas-Sullivan products and symplectically degenerate maxima are discussed in Section \[sssec\_SDM\_intro\]. In Section \[sssec\_bifurcation\_pics\] we compute our invariants in three bidimensional bifurcation scenarios under ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-symmetry (according to [@xia], generically these are the only three cases in two dimensions). In Sections \[sssec\_transv\_impossible\] and \[sssec\_global\_equiv\_hom\] we discuss basic global examples.
### Transversality for invariant local Morse homology {#sec_transv_statements}
Consider a smooth Riemannian manifold without boundary $(M,\theta)$ of dimension $d$, and let $f:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be smooth. We denote the $\theta$-gradient of $f$ by $\nabla^\theta f$, and the flow of $-\nabla^\theta f$ by $\phi_{f,\theta}^t$.
\[def\_stable\_unstable\_mfds\] For $p \in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$ we denote $$\begin{aligned}
&W^s(p;f,\theta) = \left\{ x\in M \left| \text{$\phi_{f,\theta}^t(x)$ is defined $\forall t\in[0,+\infty)$ and } \lim_{t\to+\infty}\phi_{f,\theta}^t(x)= p \right. \right\} \\
&W^u(p;f,\theta) = \left\{ x\in M \left| \text{$\phi_{f,\theta}^t(x)$ is defined $\forall t\in(-\infty,0]$ and } \lim_{t\to-\infty}\phi_{f,\theta}^t(x)=p \right. \right\}
\end{aligned}$$
If $p$ is non-degenerate and has Morse index $\mu$ then $W^u(p;f,\theta)$ and $W^s(p;f,\theta)$ are smooth embedded balls of dimension $\mu$ and $d - \mu$, respectively. They are called the [*unstable and stable manifolds of $p$*]{}.
\[def\_MS\] The pair $(f,\theta)$ is said to be [*Morse-Smale on $M$*]{} if
- $f$ is a Morse function.
- $W^u(p;f,\theta)$ intersects $W^s(q;f,\theta)$ transversely for all $p,q \in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$.
- There exist compact sets $K_0\subset K_1\subset M$ such that ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\subset {{\rm int({K_0})}}$, $f$ oscillates strictly more than $\max_{p,q\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)}|f(p)-f(q)|$ along any piece of $\theta$-gradient trajectory with one endpoint in $K_0$ and the other in $M\setminus{{\rm int({K_1})}}$.
Note that the (pre-)compactness condition (iii) is vacuous when $M$ is compact. This condition is just one of many ways of getting compactness suited to our local problem. Obviously, condition (iii) will hold for small perturbations of a pair when $M$ is taken as an isolating open neighborhood of an isolated critical point (see the definition below). It follows from (iii) that $$W^u(p;f,\theta)\cap W^s(q;f,\theta)\subset {{\rm int({K_1})}} \qquad \forall p,q\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$$ and that being Morse-Smale is stable under small perturbations supported on a fixed compact subset.
The statement below is the main technical tool in defining proper substitutes of the chain complexes of local contact homology. If $p$ is an isolated critical point of a smooth function then a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ will be called [*isolating for $(f,p)$*]{} if ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f) \cap {\overline{{U}}} = \{p\}$.
\[main1\] Let $M$ be a smooth manifold without boundary equipped with a smooth ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action, $f:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be an invariant smooth function and $p\in M$ be a fixed point of the action which is an isolated critical point of $f$. Let $\theta$ be an invariant metric on $M$, and let $U$ be an open, relatively compact, isolating neighborhood of $(f,p)$. Then in any $C^2$-neighborhood of $(f,\theta)$ there exists a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant pair $(f',\theta')$ which is Morse-Smale on $U$.
The proof is found in Section \[sec:MS\_local\], after preliminaries in Section \[sec\_prelim\_transv\]. Our methods yield the following byproduct of a global nature. For the proof see section \[sec:MS\_global\].
\[main2\] On any smooth closed manifold $M$ equipped with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action there exists a Morse-Smale ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant pair $(f,\theta)$.
Theorem \[main2\] [**does not**]{} claim that an invariant pair can be slightly $C^2$-perturbed to an invariant Morse-Smale pair. This is not possible in general, for a simple example see Section \[sssec\_transv\_impossible\].
### Definition of invariant local Morse homology {#sssec_inv_MH}
Let $f,\theta,p,U$ be as in the statement of Theorem \[main1\]. The theorem guarantees the existence of a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant pair $(f',\theta')$ arbitrarily $C^2$-close to $(f,\theta)$ which is Morse-Smale on $U$. Choose an orientation of the unstable manifold of each critical point of $f'$ in $U$. Let ${{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U)$ be the vector space over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ freely generated by the critical points of $f'$ on $U$, graded by the Morse index. Now, in a standard fashion, the differential is defined by counting signed anti-gradient trajectories in $U$ connecting critical points of index difference $1$. The differential depends on the choice of orientations, but the resulting homology groups do not (up to isomorphism).
Let $a:M\to M$ be the diffeomorphism generating the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action. Then $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ acts on ${{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U)$ as follows: $j\cdot x = a^j(x)$ if $a^j$ preserves the chosen orientations of the unstable manifolds of $x$ and $a^j(x)$, or $j\cdot x = -a^j(x)$ otherwise. Using the symmetry of $(f',\theta')$ one can show that this is an action by chain maps. The homology of the subcomplex of invariant chains will be denoted by $$\label{notation_inv_local_Morse_hom}
{{\rm HM}}(f,p)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ and called the [*${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant local Morse homology*]{} of $f$ at $p$. As the notation suggests, this invariant is independent of $\theta$ and $U$, and of the perturbation $(f',\theta')$. See Section \[ssec\_invariant\] for details. This construction will be applied to discrete action functionals in order to provide adequate substitutes of local contact homology groups. It can also be used as a new tool to study bifurcations when a finite-cyclic group symmetry is present, see Section \[sssec\_bifurcation\_pics\].
Similarly as above, one defines an invariant subcomplex of the Morse chain complex of a pair $(f,\theta)$ given by Theorem \[main2\]. It turns out that the homology of this subcomplex, called [*${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant Morse homology*]{}, is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant homology of $M$. This is only possible since we use coefficients in a field, say ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Theorem \[main2\] puts the alternative Morse-theoretical description of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant homology from [@GHHM appendix] onto rigorous grounds. A simple example is described in Section \[sssec\_global\_equiv\_hom\] below.
### Definition of local invariants of isolated periodic points {#ssec_disc_action}
Let $H = H_t$ be a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian defined on a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$. It generates an isotopy $\varphi^t_H$ by $\frac{d}{dt}\varphi_H^t = X_{H_t}\circ\varphi_H^t$ with initial condition $\varphi_H^0=id$, where $X_{H_t}$ is the Hamiltonian vector field defined as $i_{X_{H_t}}\omega=dH_t$. Suppose that $\varphi^t_H$ is defined for all $t\in[0,1]$ on a neighborhood of $p\in{{\rm Fix}}_0(\varphi^1_H)$. We are interested in the germ of $\varphi^1_H$ near $p$. Up to changing the isotopy and choosing Darboux coordinates centered at $p$, there is no loss of generality to assume that $(M,\omega)=({\mathbb{R}}^{2n},\omega_0 = \sum_{j=1}^n dx_j\wedge dy_j)$ with $p=0$ and $dH_t(0)=0$ for all $t$.
With $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ fixed, the sequence of germs of diffeomorphisms $$\label{germs_small_steps}
\psi_i := \varphi_H^{i/N} \circ (\varphi_H^{(i-1)/N})^{-1} \ \ \ \ \ \ (i\in{\mathbb{Z}})$$ is $N$-periodic. If $N$ is large enough then there are generating functions $S_i$ near the origin, namely $$\label{gen_function_formulas}
\psi_i(x,y) = (X,Y) \ \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ \ \left\{ \begin{aligned} X-x &= \nabla_2S_i(x,Y) \\ y-Y &= \nabla_1S_i(x,Y) \end{aligned} \right. \ .$$ The quality of being “large enough” will be given a precise meaning in Section \[sssec\_gen\_functions\], i.e., we ask $N$ to be adapted to $H$ as in . We normalize $S_i$ by $S_i(0)=0$. The family $\{S_i\}$ is also $N$-periodic. Fixing $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the discrete action function is $$\label{def_discrete_action}
{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(z_1,\dots,z_{kN}) = \sum_{i=1}^{kN} x_i(y_{i+1}-y_i) + S_i(x_i,y_{i+1}) \qquad (i\mod kN)$$ defined on a small neighborhood of the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$. Here $z_i = (x_i,y_i) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$. All this goes back to Chaperon [@chaperon1; @chaperon2]. A ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ is generated by the (right-)shift map $$\label{shift_map_discrete_action}
\begin{aligned}
\tau:{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} &\to {\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} \\
(z_1,\dots,z_{kN}) &\mapsto (z_{(k-1)N+1},\dots,z_{kN},z_1,\dots,z_{(k-1)N})
\end{aligned}$$ on discrete loops $(z_1,\dots,z_{kN})$.
Now assume that $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^k_H$. Hence $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ is an isolated critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$. By an application of Theorem \[main1\], we achieve local transversality with ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry and follow the construction explained in Section \[sssec\_inv\_MH\] to define invariant local Morse homology groups ${{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$. It will be shown in Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\] that there exist so-called inflation maps $$\mathscr{I}_N^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} : {{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+2},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ which are isomorphisms, and with respect to which we can take the direct limit $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_*^{\rm inv}(H,k,0) &= \lim_{N\to\infty} {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk2N}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.
\end{aligned}$$ These are adequate substitutes of the local contact homology groups; see Remark \[rem\_inflation\_reason\].
In order to link this to local contact homology, note that $\alpha = (H+c)dt+\lambda_0$ is a contact form on the solid torus ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\times B$ when $c\gg1$, having $\gamma:t\in {\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}}\mapsto (t/c,0)$ as a closed $\alpha$-Reeb orbit. Here $B$ is a small open ball centered at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ and $\lambda_0 = \frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^n x_idy_i - y_idx_i$. Its $k$-th iterate $\gamma^k$ is an isolated closed $\alpha$-Reeb orbit and one defines a chain complex generated over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ by the [*good*]{} closed $\alpha'$-Reeb orbits that $\gamma^k$ splits to as we slightly perturb $\alpha$ to a generic $\alpha'$. Grading is given by Conley-Zehnder indices up a to shift depending only on $n$. The differential is given by the count of rigid finite-energy pseudo-holomorphic cylinders in ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\times B$. One needs to prove a compactness statement, which is done in [@HM section 3], and assume the existence of generic almost complex structures, which might not exist. Assuming even more regularity, the resulting homology is shown to be independent of the small perturbation $\alpha'$. It is denoted by ${\rm HC}(\alpha,\gamma^k)$ and called the [*local contact homology*]{} of $\gamma^k$. The notion of a [*good orbit*]{} is reviewed in Section \[sssec\_good\_adm\] below.
Local contact homology can be studied for stable Hamiltonian structures, such as the one on ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\times B$ induced by $H$ and $\omega_0$. A $1$-periodic $\omega_0$-compatible almost complex structure $J_t$ on $B$ induces an almost complex structure on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\times B$ of the kind used in contact homology. After perturbing $H_t$ to a generic $H'_t$ keeping $1$-periodicity, the finite-energy solutions to be counted are nothing but graphs of finite-energy solutions of Floer’s equation defined on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$ with values on $B$. Transversality can not be achieved keeping $1$-periodicity of $J_t$, but let us assume that this is possible for the moment. Then the action on the time variable $t\mapsto t+1$ generates a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps on the local chain complex associated to $(H',J)$ at period $k$. This is proved in [@HM Section 6], where the following statement is also shown: [*Local contact homology is the homology of the subcomplex of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains.*]{} The transversality problem in local contact homology is finally revealed as the problem of achieving transversality in $k$-periodic local Floer homology using $1$-periodic geometric data. The analogy to our local invariants is transparent if we substitute the action functional $\mathcal{A}_{H,k} = \int \alpha$ by its discretized version ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ , and the time shift $t \mapsto t+1$ by its discrete version . Such a clear analogy is only possible by our constructions at the chain level, and will be used in [@HHM_prep] to show that ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}(H,k,0)$ is isomorphic to ${\rm HC}(\alpha,\gamma^k)$ whenever the latter can be defined. We will rely on [@mazz_SDM Proposition 2.5] to make sure that the isomorphism is grading-preserving.
Finally, we note that inflation maps without ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry also exist as maps $$\mathscr{I}_N : {{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+1},0)$$ and allow for the definition non-invariant local homology groups $${\mathscr{H}}_*(H,k,0) = \lim_{N\to\infty} {{\rm HM}}_{*+nkN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)$$ which are discrete versions of local Floer homology groups.
\[rem\_inflation\_reason\] The fact that we have the term $N+2$ in the symmetric inflation map $\mathscr{I}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}_N$ and $N+1$ in the non-symmetric one (and consequently the shift in the degree is $2nk$ for $\mathscr{I}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}_N$ and $nk$ for $\mathscr{I}_N$) is due to an orientation issue; see Remark \[rmk:symmetric x non\_symmetric inflation map\] for details.
\[rmk\_gradings\] The [*Conley-Zehnder index*]{} of a path $M:[0,T]\to Sp(2n)$ satisfying $M(0)=I$, $\det M(T)-I\neq0$ is defined in a standard way, see for instance [@SZ; @RSindex]. Its extension to general paths is not standard. Here we use its maximal lower semicontinuous extension. Namely, if $\det M(T)-I=0$ then its Conley-Zehnder index is defined as the $\liminf$ in $C^0$ as $\tilde M \to M$ of the Conley-Zehnder indices of paths $\tilde M:[0,T]\to Sp(2n)$ satisfying $\det (\tilde M(T)-I)\neq0$. With these conventions, the Conley-Zehnder index of $t\in[0,k]\mapsto d\varphi^t_H(0)$ will be denoted by ${{\rm CZ}}(H,k)$. This extension to degenerate paths is smaller than or equal to the one defined in [@RSindex], and in general disagrees with it; for instance the constant path equal to the identity matrix will have index $-n$ according to our conventions, but will have index zero according to the conventions of [@RSindex]. Its mean Conley-Zehnder index is denoted by $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and satisfies $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,km)=m\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)$ for all $k,m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Denote $$\nu(H,k) = \dim \ker (d\varphi_H^k(0)-I).$$ Note that $\nu(H,k)$ is also the nullity of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ (see Section \[sec\_shifting\_lemma\]). By [@LL1; @LL2] we have $$[{{\rm CZ}}(H,k),{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)] \subset [\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)+n].$$ Lemma \[lemma\_gradings\] will show that the graded groups ${\mathscr{H}}_*(H,k,0)$, ${\mathscr{H}}_*^{\rm inv}(H,k,0)$ are supported in degrees $[{{\rm CZ}}(H,k),{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)]$. Moreover, if $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)+n$ or $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)-n$ are attained then $0$ is a [*totally degenerate*]{} fixed point of $\varphi^k_H$, i.e., $1$ is the only eigenvalue of $d\varphi^k_H(0)$, see Lemma \[lemma\_grading\_tot\_deg\].
We collect here some of the basic properties of ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}(H,k,0)$ that will be proved in Section \[sec\_properties\].
- [**(Homotopy)**]{} If $\{H^\tau_t\}_{\tau\in[0,1]}$ is a family of $1$-periodic Hamiltonians defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, $dH^\tau_t(0)\equiv0$, such that $0$ is an isolated fixed point of the family $\{\varphi^k_{H^\tau}\}_{\tau\in[0,1]}$ then there exists an isomorphism $${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H^0,k,0) \simeq {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H^1,k,0)$$
- [**(Support)**]{} ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_j(H,k,0)$ vanishes if $j\not\in [{{\rm CZ}}(H,k),{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)]$, in particular also if $j\not\in[\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)+n]$, see Remark \[rmk\_gradings\].
- [**(Change of isotopy)**]{} Let $G_t$ be a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $\varphi^1_G$ is the identity germ at $0$. If we set $K_t = (G\#H)_t = G_t + H_t \circ (\varphi_G^t)^{-1}$ then there exists an isomorphism $${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H,k,0) \simeq {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_{*+2m}(K,k,0).$$ where $m$ is the Maslov index of the loop $t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi^t_G(0) \in Sp(2n)$.
The [**homotopy**]{} and [**change of isotopy**]{} properties are proved in Section \[sssec\_isotopy\]. The [**support**]{} property is proved in Section \[sssec\_grading\].
### Persistence Theorems {#sssec_persistence_intro}
If $\alpha$ is a contact form on some manifold and $\gamma$ is a closed $\alpha$-Reeb orbit such that all iterates $\gamma^j$ are isolated among closed $\alpha$-Reeb orbits, then crucial to dynamical applications are the iteration properties of the sequence ${\rm HC}(\alpha,\gamma^j)$. The extension of Gromoll-Meyer’s result from [@GM2] for Reeb flows done in [@HM] relies on that fact that $\dim {\rm HC}(\alpha,\gamma^j) \leq \dim {\rm HF}(\phi^j,p)$ for all $j$, where $p\in\gamma$ and $\phi$ is the local first return map to a transverse local section at $p$. By the result of [@GG] the latter is bounded in $j$, hence so is the former.
More precise information about the sequence ${\rm HC}(\alpha,\gamma^j)$ was not available, with one exception: in [@GGo] it is shown that the Euler characteristics $$\chi(\alpha,\gamma^j) = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}} (-1)^i \dim {\rm HC}_i(\alpha,\gamma^j)$$ are recovered from Lefschetz theory by the non-trivial formula $$\label{formula_GGo}
\chi(\alpha,\gamma^j) = \frac{1}{j} \sum_{d\in{{\rm Div}}(j)} \#\{1\leq l< j/d : \gcd(l,j/d)=1 \} \ i_{\phi^d}(p).$$ where $i_{\phi^d}(p)$ is the index of the fixed point $p$ of the map $\phi^d$. Hence, the sequence $\chi(\alpha,\gamma^j)$ is periodic in $j$.
\[good\_admissible\_iterations\] Given $M\in Sp(2n)$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is an [*admissible*]{} iteration for $M$ if $1$ has the same algebraic multiplicity for $M$ and $M^k$. It is a [*good*]{} iteration if the numbers of eigenvalues of $M$ and $M^k$ in $(-1,0)$ have the same parity.
Let $H_t$ be a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, $dH_t(0)=0$ for all $t$, such that $0$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi_H^m$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The number $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is an admissible iteration for $\varphi_H^m$ if it is admissible for $d\varphi_H^m(0)$. It is a good iteration for $\varphi_H^m$ if it is a good iteration for $d\varphi_H^m(0)$.
\[thm\_persistence\_invariant\] Let $k$ be an admissible and good iteration for $\varphi^m_H$. Then the iteration map $$\mathcal{I} : {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H,m,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_{*+s_{k,m}}(H,km,0)$$ is well-defined and is an isomorphism, where $s_{k,m}={{\rm CZ}}(H,km)-{{\rm CZ}}(H,m)$. In particular, if $k_i \to \infty$ is a sequence of admissible and good iterations for $\varphi^m_H$ then $|s_{k_i,m}-k_i\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,m)|$ is bounded.
We will prove this theorem in Section \[sec\_shifting\_lemma\]. It completely determines the iteration properties of the sequence ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}(H,j,0)$ when $0$ is isolated for all $\varphi^j_H$; see [@GGo Remark 3.15]. It follows that the sequence $\iota_j := \dim {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}(H,j,0)$ is periodic in $j$, but in fact more is true. One finds a finite set $\mathscr{J}\subset{\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $1\in\mathscr{J}$ and if $j,j'\in\mathscr{J}$ then ${\rm lcm}(j,j')\in\mathscr{J}$. Furthermore, the sequence $\{\iota_j\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ is subordinated to $\mathscr{J}$ in the following sense: for all $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\iota_j=\iota_{q(j)}$ where $q(j)$ is the maximal divisor of $j$ in $\mathscr{J}$, i.e., $q(j)=\max\{i\in\mathscr{J} : i\in{{\rm Div}}(j)\}$.
We also prove a persistence theorem in the absence of symmetries. Viewing ${\mathscr{H}}(H,k,0)$ as a discrete version of local Floer homology, the statement below is the analogue of the main result of [@GG]. It is also proved in section \[sec\_shifting\_lemma\]. (Notice however that [@GG] does not provide a precise description of the shift $s_k$ in the grading.)
\[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\] Let $k$ be an admissible iteration for $\varphi_H^1$. Then the iteration map $$\mathcal{I} : {\mathscr{H}}_*(H,1,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{*+s_k}(H,k,0)$$ is well-defined and is an isomorphism, where $s_k={{\rm CZ}}(H,k)-{{\rm CZ}}(H,1)$. In particular, if $k_i \to \infty$ is a sequence of admissible iterations for $\varphi^1_H$ then $|s_{k_i}-k_i\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)|$ is bounded.
### Products, symplectically degenerate maxima and idempotency {#sssec_SDM_intro}
The results discussed here disregard the group symmetry. [*Symplectically degenerate maxima*]{} (SDM) were first used by Hingston [@Hi] in order to confirm the Conley conjecture on standard symplectic tori, although she called such special critical points [*topologically degenerate*]{}. It was then systematically studied and used by Ginzburg [@Gi] and his collaborators to confirm the Conley conjecture in more general symplectic manifolds. In fact, the term SDM was introduced in [@Gi]. In [@Hi], Hingston studied the action functional via Fourier series, and in [@Gi], Ginzburg used Floer homology. Mazzucchelli adapted this notion in [@mazz_SDM] to the set-up of generating functions and discrete action functionals. Here we take the latter viewpoint.
We study a fixed point of a Hamiltonian diffeomorphism on a symplectic manifold. As is well-known, there is no loss of generality to assume that this point is the origin in $({\mathbb{R}}^{2n},\omega_0)$, and that the $1$-periodic germ of Hamiltonian $H_t$ defined near the origin satisfies $dH_t(0) = 0$ for all $t$. Inspired by [@Gi; @GG] we define
\[defn\_SDM\] The fixed point $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is a [*symplectically degenerate maximum of $H$*]{} if it is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^1_H$, $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$ and ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0) \neq 0$.
It is interesting to contrast this with Mazzucchelli’s definition [@mazz_SDM page 729]. There one asks for the existence of some $N$ large such that the germs $\psi_i$ admit generating functions $S_i$ for which $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is an isolated local maximum for all $i$, and ${\rm C}_{n+nkN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)\neq0$ for infinitely many $k$. Here ${\rm C}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)$ stands for the local critical groups $${\rm C}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) = H_*(\{{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}<0\}\cup\{0\},\{{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}<0\})$$ where $H_*$ is singular homology. Standard arguments in Morse theory imply that there is a canonical isomorphism ${\rm C}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) = {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)$. Hence, [@mazz_SDM page 729] asks that ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,k,0)\neq 0$ for infinitely many iterates $k$. Let us examine the consequences. By Remark \[rmk\_gradings\], the homology ${\mathscr{H}}_*(H,k,0)$ is supported in degrees $$[\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,k)+n] = [k\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)-n,k\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)+n].$$ If $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)\neq0$ then $n$ does not belong to this interval when $k$ is large enough. Hence $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$. Since an end of this interval is achieved, $0$ must be a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^1_H$ (Remark \[rmk\_gradings\]). Thus every $k$ is admissible and Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\] implies that ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0)\neq0$. We have shown that an SDM in the sense of [@mazz_SDM page 729] is an SDM in the sense of Definition \[defn\_SDM\]. The converse can be proved only up to linear symplectic change of coordinates and deformation of the Hamiltonian keeping the time-$1$ map (germ) fixed. In fact, if $0$ is an SDM for $H$ as in Definition \[defn\_SDM\] then, as explained in Remark \[rmk\_gradings\], $0$ must be a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^1_H$. It follows that there exists $M\in Sp(2n)$ such that $M\varphi^1_H M^{-1}=\varphi^1_{M_*H}$ becomes arbitrarily $C^1$-close to $id$. We can now choose $K=K_t$ satisfying $\varphi^1_K=\varphi^1_{M_*H}$ which is arbitrarily and uniformly (in $t$) $C^2$-small. Note that the Maslov index of $t\in{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\mapsto d\varphi^t_{M_*H}(0)(d\varphi^t_K(0))^{-1}$ is an integer close to $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$ because $d\varphi^t_K(0)$ is uniformly close to $I$. Hence this Maslov index vanishes and Lemma \[lemma\_change\_of\_isotopy\] yields an isomorphism ${\mathscr{H}}_*(H,1,0)={\mathscr{H}}_*(K,1,0)$. Taking $K$ sufficiently $C^2$-small then $N=1$ is adapted to $K$ as in . It follows by definition that $0\neq {\mathscr{H}}_n(K,1,0)={{\rm HM}}_{2n}(F,0)$ where $F$ is a generating function for $\varphi^1_K$. Hence $0$ is an isolated local maximum of $F$. Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\] now implies that $0$ is an SDM for $K$ in the sense of [@mazz_SDM page 729].
In [@HHM_prep] we will show that Definition \[defn\_SDM\] is equivalent to the definition from [@Gi]. Evidence to this fact is given by the following lemma (see [@GG Proposition 5.1]).
If $0$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^1_H$ then the following are equivalent.
- $0$ is an SDM for $H$.
- ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,k_i,0)\neq0$ for a sequence $k_i\to\infty$ of admissible iterations.
- $0$ is totally degenerate, ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0)\neq0$, and ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,k,0)\neq0$ for some $k>n$.
We will prove a) $\Rightarrow$ b) $\Rightarrow$ c) $\Rightarrow$ a). Implication a) $\Rightarrow$ b) follows from Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\].
Assume b). Then $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$ since, otherwise, ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,k_i,0)$ would vanish for $i$ large; see Remark \[rmk\_gradings\]. Again by Remark \[rmk\_gradings\], the point $0$ is a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^{k_i}_H$. Since $k_i$ is admissible, $0$ must be a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^1_H$. In particular, every $k$ is admissible and Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\] implies that ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0)\neq {\mathscr{H}}_n(H,k,0)$ for every $k$. We have proved b) $\Rightarrow$ c).
Assume c). Then $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$ by [@SZ] and total degeneracy of $0$. By Remark \[rmk\_gradings\] we know that $$n\in [\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)+n] \cap [k\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)-n,k\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)+n]$$ for some $k>n$. In particular, $0\leq \Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)<2$. It follows that $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$ and we have shown that c) $\Rightarrow$ a).
The local invariants ${\mathscr{H}}(H,k,0)$ can be described in terms of singular homology, as explained in Section \[ssec\_invariant\]. This point of view is not Morse homological, and hence useless if one wants to make a comparison to local Floer homology, but it is helpful to define operations $$\bullet^{(m)} : {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1}(H,k_1,0) \otimes \dots \otimes {\mathscr{H}}_{i_m}(H,k_m,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1+\dots+i_m-(m-1)n}(H,k_1+\dots+k_m,0)$$ provided $0$ is an isolated fixed point of all $\varphi^{k_i}_H$ and of $\varphi^{k_1+\dots+k_m}_H$.
The map $\bullet^{(2)}$ yields a product $$\bullet : {\mathscr{H}}_i(H,k,0) \otimes {\mathscr{H}}_j(H,m,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{i+j-n}(H,k+m,0)$$ given by $a\bullet b = \bullet^{(2)}(a,b)$. It is associative and anti-commutative in the sense that $b\bullet a = (-1)^{|a||b|}a\bullet b$. See Section \[sec\_chas\_sullivan\] for details. It plays the role of the pair-of-pants product in local Floer homology, whose definition is not found in the literature but can be easily constructed by the knowledgeable reader.
We have the following statement: [*If $0$ is not an SDM then there exists some $ r_0>0$ depending on $H$ such that $\bullet^{(r)}(a_1,\dots,a_r)=0$ for all integers $r\geq r_0$ which are admissible for $\varphi^1_H$, and $a_i\in{\mathscr{H}}_*(H,1,0)$.*]{} This is proved in the context of local Floer homology as [@GG Proposition 5.3]. The same proof goes through since it is based on degree considerations. We complement it with a proof of
\[prop\_prod\_SDM\] If $0$ is an SDM of $H$ then ${\mathscr{H}}(H,1,0)$ is supported in degree $n$, ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0) \simeq {\mathbb{Q}}$ and $\bullet^{(r)}(e,\dots,e)\neq0$ for all $r\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $e\neq0$ in ${\mathscr{H}}(H,1,0)$.
This statement is found in [@GG Section 5] with no proof in the context of local Floer homology. The proof of Proposition \[prop\_prod\_SDM\] can be found in Section \[ssec\_special\_case\_prod\].
### Bifurcations of isolated critical points with symmetry {#sssec_bifurcation_pics}
The invariant can be seen as an invariant of bifurcations of isolated critical points which are symmetric with respect to a finite cyclic group action. In general, it is different from standard local Morse homology. It retains information of the birth-death process that happens at the moment of bifurcation, provided that the group symmetry is respected. We give three examples of symmetric bifurcation scenarios in two variables with symmetry group ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$, in increasing degree of complexity: firstly two critical points bifurcate, then four and then, finally, eight critical points bifurcate.
The first scenario is shown in Figure 1, where we study the plane with the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action generated by reflection along an horizontal axis containing the point $x$. A family of ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-invariant functions $f_t$ having $x$ as a critical point is analyzed, for $t<0$ we have a saddle at $x$, for $t=0$ bifurcation happens and $x$ is a degenerate isolated critical point of $f_0$, for $t>0$ we have saddles at points $y,z$ which are symmetric to each other, and a maximum at $x$. The metric is the Euclidean one for all $t$. Grey arrows indicate the chosen orientations of the unstable manifolds of the saddles. For $t>0$ we orient the unstable manifold of $x$ by the canonical orientation of the plane. The local Morse chain complex for $t<0$ has a single generator $x$ in degree $1$, and $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_2$ acts by $1\cdot x = -x$ because reflection reverts orientation of the grey arrow. Hence ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)$ has a generator in degree $1$ but ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ vanishes. By Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\], the same conclusion must be achieved when $t>0$. In fact, the complex has a generator $x$ in degree $2$, and two more $y,z$ in degree $1$ . The Morse differential is $\partial x = y-z$. The ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action is determined by $1\cdot x = -x$, since reflection reverts orientations on the plane, and $1\cdot y=-y$, $1\cdot z=-z$ since reflection reverts orientations of grey arrows. Thus, in the basis $\{x,y,z\}$ the operator $1\cdot$ is represented by minus the identity matrix and, as such, certainly commutes with $\partial$, i.e., ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ acts by chain maps. Moreover, $1$ is not an eigenvalue of $1\cdot$, confirming that ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ vanishes.
\[fig1\]
![[Symmetry is given by reflection with respect to the horizontal axis. ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)$ has a single generator in degree $1$, ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ vanishes.]{}](bifurcation0_v3.jpg){width="110mm"}
The next scenario is shown in Figure 2. Here ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ acts by reflection with respect to the vertical axis. For $t<0$ we have an isolated minimum, for $t=0$ bifurcation happens, for $t>0$ there is a maximum at $x$, minima at $y,z$ and saddles at $u,v$. For all $t\neq0$ unstable manifolds of the minima are oriented by $+1$. For $t>0$ the unstable manifold of $x$ is oriented by the canonical orientation of the plane, while the unstable manifolds of the saddles are oriented by the grey arrows. Looking at the trivial local Morse chain complex for $t<0$ we conclude that ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x) = {{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ has a single generator in degree $0$. Hence, we must obtain the same conclusion for $t>0$. In fact, $\partial x = u+v$, $\partial u =y-z$ and $\partial v=z-y$. The ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action reads $1\cdot x=-x$, since reflection is orientation reversing on the plane, $1\cdot u=-v$ and $1\cdot v=-u$ since reflection does not preserve orientations of grey arrows, $1\cdot y=y$ and $1\cdot z=z$ since $y,z$ are fixed. It follows that $\partial$ commutes with $1\cdot$, as expected. Moreover, there are no invariant chains in degree $2$, invariant chains are generated by $u-v$ in degree $1$ and by $y,z$ in degree $0$. However, $\partial (u-v)=2(y-z)$ shows that invariant homology vanishes in degree 1 and is generated by the homology class of $y+z$ in degree $0$. The result is again that ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ has one generator in degree $0$.
\[fig2\]
![[Symmetry is given by reflection with respect to the vertical axis. ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)={{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ has a single generator in degree $0$.]{}](bifurcation1_v3.jpg){width="110mm"}
\[fig3\]
![[Symmetry is given by reflection with respect to the horizontal axis. ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)$ has a generator in degree $1$, ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ vanishes.]{}](bifurcation2_v3.jpg){width="110mm"}
Our final scenario, where eight critical points bifurcate from $x$, is shown in Figure 3. As in the first scenario, the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action is generated by reflection along the horizontal axis. Grey arrows orient unstable manifolds of saddles, for all $t\neq 0$. For $t>0$ unstable manifolds of local maxima are oriented by the canonical orientation of the plane, while those of local minima are oriented by $+1$. Looking at $t<0$ we conclude that ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)$ has a generator in degree $1$, while ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$ vanishes. In fact, for $t<0$ the local Morse chain complex has a single generator $x$ in degree $1$, but $1\cdot x = -x$ since reflection reverses vertical grey arrows. By the continuation property (Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\]) the same simple conclusion must be obtained by analyzing the more complicated Morse chain complex for $t>0$. We have nine generators: two $\{y,z\}$ in degree $2$, five $\{x,a,b,c,d\}$ in degree $1$ and two $\{u,v\}$ in degree $0$. The local Morse differential reads $$\begin{aligned}
& \partial y=b-a+x \\
& \partial z = d-c-x \\
& \partial x=u-v \\
& \partial a = -v = -\partial c \\
& \partial b = -u = -\partial d
\end{aligned}$$ and the action of $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& 1\cdot y = -z && 1\cdot z = -y \\
& 1\cdot x = x && \\
& 1\cdot a = -c && 1\cdot c = -a \\
& 1\cdot b = -d && 1\cdot d = -b \\
& 1\cdot u = u && 1\cdot v = v.
\end{aligned}$$ We used that reflection reverses orientations of vertical arrows, preserves orientations of horizontal arrows, and reverts orientations of the plane. The reader can check that $1\cdot$ commutes with $\partial$. The subcomplex of invariant chains has a generator $\{y-z\}$ in degree $2$, three generators $\{x,a-c,b-d\}$ in degree $1$, and two $\{u,v\}$ in degree $0$. Note that $\partial (y-z) = 2x+b-d+c-a$, that the closed invariants chains in degree $1$ are precisely generated by $\partial(y-z)$, and that both $u$ and $v$ are exact. This is in agreement with the vanishing of ${{\rm HM}}(f_0,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}$.
### Global transversality with symmetry can not be achieved by $C^2$-small perturbations {#sssec_transv_impossible}
It is not always possible to perturb a symmetric pair to a symmetric Morse-Smale pair, as the following simple and well-known example shows. Consider a ‘bagel-like’ $2$-torus embedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. We cut the bagel open with respect to a plane, and assume that the bagel is symmetric with respect to ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action generated by reflection along this cutting plane. As a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-symmetric Morse function we choose a height function along an axis in the cutting plane, see Figure 4. The metric is the one inherited from the Euclidean metric in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. The gradient vector field must be tangent to the fixed-point set by symmetry. Hence for any $C^2$-small symmetric perturbation the grey circle will contain two saddles and anti-gradient trajectories connecting them. Such a configuration is not allowed by the Morse-Smale condition.
\[fig4\]
{width="140mm"}
\[fig5\]
![[The homology of the subcomplex of ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-invariant chains has one generator in degrees $1$ and $0$, thus agreeing with the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-equivariant homology.]{}](global1_v3.jpg){width="110mm"}
### Morse homological description of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant homology {#sssec_global_equiv_hom}
Here we compute invariant Morse homology in a simple example to illustrate the fact that invariant and equivariant homologies coincide for finite-cyclic group actions, with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-coefficients. The proof of this fact was given in [@GHHM appendix], but only now with Theorem \[main2\] we get to know that invariant Morse-Smale pairs exist in closed manifolds.
Consider the same ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action on the $2$-torus from Figure 4, but the symmetric Morse function is the one shown in Figure 5. It forms with the obvious flat metric a symmetric Morse-Smale pair. There is again a maximum $M$, two saddles $s_1,s_2$ and a minimum $m$. Let us orient the unstable $2$-disk of $M$ by the canonical orientation of the plane, and the unstable $0$-disk of $m$ by $+1$. The unstable manifold of $s_1$ is oriented to the right, and that of $s_2$ is oriented downwards. The Morse differential vanishes: $\partial M = s_2-s_2 + s_1-s_1=0$, $\partial s_2 = \partial s_1 = m-m = 0$. By the definition of action, $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_2$ acts as $1\cdot M=-M$, since reflection reverses orientations of the plane, $1\cdot s_1=s_1$ and $1\cdot s_2=-s_2$ since reflection preserves/reverts orientation on the horizontal/vertical axis, and $1\cdot m=m$ since $m$ is fixed. The subcomplex of invariant chains vanishes in degree $2$, is generated by $s_1$ in degree $1$ and by $m$ in degree $0$. Since the differential vanishes, the homology of this subcomplex has a generator in degrees $0$ and $1$, agreeing with ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-equivariant homology.
Local Morse homology and the discrete action functional {#sec_properties}
=======================================================
In this section we establish basic properties of invariant and non-invariant local Morse homology groups of discrete action functionals, which are in complete analogy to properties of local Floer homology and local contact homology.
Definition and invariance of local Morse homology with symmetries {#ssec_invariant}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of symmetries the material discussed here is absolutely standard and well-known. Aiming at the case where a finite-cyclic group symmetry is present, we start with a discussion of the non-symmetric case.
Let $U$ be an isolating small open neighborhood for $(f,x)$, where $f$ is a smooth function defined on some manifold $X$ without boundary and $x$ is an isolated critical point of $f$. If a Riemannian metric $\theta$ on $X$ is fixed then one can find an arbitrarily $C^2$-small (even $C^\infty$-small) perturbation $(f',\theta')$ of $(f,\theta)$ which is Morse-Smale on $U$. For each $j$ one considers the vector space ${{\rm CM}}_j(f',\theta',U)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ freely generated by the critical points of $f'$ which lie on $U$ and have Morse index equal to $j$. A differential $\partial^{(f',\theta',U)}$ on the graded vector space ${{\rm CM}}_*(f',\theta',U)$ is defined by counting negative $(f',\theta')$-gradient trajectories contained in $U$ connecting critical points in $U$ of index difference one. This differential depends on choices of orientations of the unstable manifolds. We denote the associated homology groups by ${{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U)$. The dependence on the choice of orientations is not made explicit in the notation.
It turns out that for two such pairs $(f',\theta')$, $(f'',\theta'')$ which are $C^2$-close enough to $(f,\theta)$, and Morse-Smale on $U$, there exist chain maps $$\label{chain_map_generic}
\left( {{\rm CM}}_*(f',\theta',U) , \partial^{(f',\theta',U)} \right) \to \left( {{\rm CM}}_*(f'',\theta'',U) , \partial^{(f'',\theta'',U)} \right)$$ induced by a certain piece of extra data. Such chain maps can be defined as so-called Floer continuation maps. It follows from the particular way that Floer continuation maps are defined, that two chain maps associated to a fixed pair of pairs $(f',\theta')$, $(f'',\theta'')$, together with corresponding choices of orientations, are chain homotopic. Hence the map induced on homology $$\label{floer_continuation_maps_hom}
\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')} : {{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U) \to {{\rm HM}}_*(f'',\theta'',U)$$ does not depend on the extra data. Moreover, when $(f'',\theta'')=(f',\theta')$ and orientations are chosen to be equal, the map on homology is the identity, and these maps make diagrams such as $$\label{canonical_maps_commute}
\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_{*}(f',\theta',U) \ar[d]_{\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f''',\theta''')}} \ar[r]^{\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')}} & {{\rm HM}}_{*}(f'',\theta'',U) \ar[ld]^{\Phi_{(f'',\theta'')}^{(f''',\theta''')}} \\
{{\rm HM}}_*(f''',\theta''',U)
}$$ commutative. All this holds for all pairs $(f',\theta'),(f'',\theta''),(f''',\theta''')$ on a fixed and small $C^2$-neighborhood of $(f,\theta)$, and is proved using a compactness-gluing argument which is ubiquitous in Floer theory, see the book of Schwarz [@schwarz_book] for details.
\[rmk\_equiv\_relations\_vector\_spaces\] Suppose one is given a collection $\{V_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ of vector spaces, and for each pair $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\in\Lambda\times\Lambda$ an isomorphism $\Psi_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}:V_{\lambda_1}\to V_{\lambda_2}$ such that $\Psi_\lambda^\lambda = id_{V_\lambda}$ and $\Psi_{\lambda_2}^{\lambda_3} \circ \Psi_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2} = \Psi_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_3}$. Then on $\sqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}V_\lambda$ there is an equivalence relation defined by $v_1\sim v_2$ if, and only if $v_2=\Psi_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}(v_1)$, where $v_i\in V_{\lambda_i}$. The associated quotient space, denoted by $V$, has the structure of a vector space such that for each $\lambda$ the quotient projection restricts to an isomorphism $V_\lambda \stackrel{\sim}{\to} V$.
The vector spaces ${{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U)$ and maps $\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')}$, where $(f',\theta')$ and $(f'',\theta'')$ vary on a fixed $C^2$-small neighborhood of $(f,\theta)$, fit in the discussion of Remark \[rmk\_equiv\_relations\_vector\_spaces\]. We get the local Morse homology ${{\rm HM}}_*(f,\theta,x)$. As the notation suggests, this is independent of $U$. This is easily proved by noting that a small perturbation forces critical points and connecting trajectories to be contained in arbitrarily small neighborhoods of the origin.
Consider ${\mathcal{F}}= \{f_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ a smooth family of smooth functions defined on some manifold $M$, where $\lambda$ varies on the parameter space $\Lambda$. Suppose that $p\in M$ is a common critical point of all $f_\lambda$. One says that $p$ is a [*uniformly isolated*]{} critical point of ${\mathcal{F}}$ if there exists a neighborhood of $p$ which is an isolating neighborhood of $(f_\lambda,p)$ for all $\lambda$. Invariance properties in local Morse homology without symmetries are well-known, we summarize them in the statement below which can be proved in a standard fashion using Floer-type continuation maps. In particular, the independence of local Morse homology with respect to the metric follows as a corollary.
\[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\] Let ${\mathcal{F}}= \{f_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ be a smooth family of smooth real-valued functions defined on a manifold without boundary, and let $x$ be a uniformly isolated critical point of ${\mathcal{F}}$. Then for any family of metrics $\{\theta_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ there is a special family of so-called continuation isomorphisms $$\Theta({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_1}:{{\rm HM}}(f_{s_0},\theta_{s_0},x) \to {{\rm HM}}(f_{s_1},\theta_{s_1},x)$$ parametrized by $a\leq s_0\leq s_1\leq b$, satisfying $\Theta({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_2} = \Theta({\mathcal{F}})_{s_1}^{s_2} \circ \Theta({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_1}$ for all $a\leq s_0\leq s_1\leq s_2\leq b$. Moreover, $\Theta({\mathcal{F}})_a^b$ depends only on the homotopy class of ${\mathcal{F}}$ keeping endpoints fixed.
It follows from the above statement and constructions that the local Morse homology of $(f,x)$, denoted as $${{\rm HM}}_*(f,x)$$ is defined independently of choices of metrics, and stays constant under deformations $(f_s,x)$ through families where $x$ is a uniformly isolated critical point of $\{f_s\}$. This concludes our discussion of the non-invariant case.
We are interested in a version of Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\] under finite cyclic group symmetries. However, we do not have the transversality statement with symmetries necessary to use Floer-theoretic methods to show that continuation maps are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant when the local Morse-Smale pairs are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetric. We need another approach. Let us start by recalling the well-known interplay between local Morse homology and more classical local critical groups [*à la*]{} Gromoll-Meyer [@GM].
Consider a pair $(f,\theta)$. Let an isolated critical point $x$ of $f$ be given. Choose an open, relatively compact, isolating neighborhood $U$ for $(f,x)$.
\[def\_GM\_pairs\] A [*Gromoll-Meyer pair*]{} for $(f,x)$ (in $U$) is a pair $W_- \subset W \subset U$ of closed subsets of $U$ with the following property. There exists a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal N_1$ of $(f,\theta)$ such that for every $(f',\theta')\in\mathcal N_1$ which is Morse-Smale on $U$ one finds an isomorphism $$\label{invariance_map_local_hom}
\tilde\Psi_{(f',\theta',U)} : H_*(W,W_-) \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U).$$ Moreover, these maps and the continuation maps satisfy $$\label{local_continuation_and_pairs}
\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')} = \Psi_{(f'',\theta'',U)} \circ \left( \Psi_{(f',\theta',U)} \right)^{-1}.$$ Here $H_*$ stands for singular homology with rational coefficients.
Following Conley [@conley], see also [@salamon] for the instructive case of closed manifolds, one constructs (non-uniquely) Gromoll-Meyer pairs. This construction will be revised in Appendix \[app\_invariance\], along with a proof of the proposition below. The maps satisfying induce a canonical isomorphism $${{\rm HM}}(f,x) \simeq H(W,W_-).$$
\[prop\_GM\_pairs\] Assume further that the ambient manifold is equipped with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action and that $f,\theta,x,U$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. Then there exists a Gromoll-Meyer pair $(W,W_-)$ in $U$ where both sets $W,W_-$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant, and a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_1$ of $(f,\theta)$ such that for every $(f',\theta')\in\mathcal N_1$ which is Morse-Smale on $U$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant, the map is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant.
Theorem \[main1\] guarantees that the above statement does not concern an empty set of pairs.
Equivariance of is to be understood as follows. The sets $W,W_-$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. If $a:X\to X$ is the diffeomorphism given by the action of $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ then on $C_*(W,W_-)$ we consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps generated by $a_*$. This induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on $H_*(W,W_-)$. On ${{\rm CM}}_*(f_1,\theta_1,U)$ we consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps described in \[sssec\_inv\_MH\]. Similarly, this induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on ${{\rm HM}}_*(f_1,\theta_1,U)$. Equivariance of is meant with respect to these actions.
As observed above, singular homology of a Gromoll-Meyer pair computes local Morse homology. In Appendix \[app\_invariance\], Proposition \[prop\_GM\_pairs\] will be proved by first recalling the construction of $W,W_-,\tilde\Psi_{(f',\theta',U)}$ and then showing that $\tilde\Psi_{f',\theta',U}$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant when the local Morse-Smale pair $(f',\theta')\in\mathcal N_1$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetric.
Let $(C_*,\partial)$ be any chain complex over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps. This action induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on homology $H_*(C,\partial)$. Let $H_*(C,\partial)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \subset H_*(C,\partial)$ be the subspace of invariant homology classes, and let $(C^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}_*,\partial)$ be the subcomplex of invariant chains. There is a natural isomorphism $H_*(C,\partial)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \simeq H_*(C^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k},\partial)$. In fact, on $(C_*,\partial)$ we have an averaging chain map $A$ defined by $$Ac = \frac{1}{k} ( c + 1\cdot c + \dots + (k-1)\cdot c )$$ Then $C^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}_* = {\rm im}\ A$. The induced averaging map on homology, still denoted by $A$, also satisfies $H_*(C,\partial)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} = {\rm im}\ A$. Using these operators one checks that the map $H_*(C^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k},\partial) \to H_*(C,\partial)$ induced by inclusion of complexes is injective, and its image coincides with the image of $A$, i.e. with $H_*(C,\partial)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$. This provides the desired isomorphism. Naturality in the category of chain complexes over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps is again easy to check. $H_*(C,\partial)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is called [*${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant homology*]{}.
Let $W_-$, $W$, $\mathcal N_1$ be given by Proposition \[prop\_GM\_pairs\]. It follows from this proposition that we have induced maps $$\overline\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')} : {{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to {{\rm HM}}(f'',\theta'',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ on invariant homology, and that the spaces ${{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ and the maps $\overline\Phi_{(f',\theta')}^{(f'',\theta'')}$ again fit in the discussion of Remark \[rmk\_equiv\_relations\_vector\_spaces\], where $(f',\theta')$, $(f'',\theta'')$ belong to $\mathcal{N}_1$, are Morse-Smale on $U$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. The induced vector space, denoted by ${{\rm HM}}(f,\theta,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$, is of course isomorphic to $H(W,W_-)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$. As the notation suggests, this is independent of $U$. A consequence of Proposition \[prop\_GM\_pairs\] is the following analogue of Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\] in the presence of a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action.
\[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\] Let ${\mathcal{F}}= \{f_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ be a smooth family of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant functions defined on a manifold without boundary equipped with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action, and let $x$ be a fixed point of the action, which is also a uniformly isolated critical point of ${\mathcal{F}}$. For any family $\{\theta_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant metrics there exist isomorphisms $$\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_1}:{{{\rm HM}}}(f_{s_0},\theta_{s_0},x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to {{{\rm HM}}}(f_{s_1},\theta_{s_1},x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ parametrized by $a\leq s_0\leq s_1\leq b$, satisfying $\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_2} = \Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}({\mathcal{F}})_{s_1}^{s_2} \circ \Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}({\mathcal{F}})_{s_0}^{s_1}$ for all $a\leq s_0\leq s_1\leq s_2\leq b$. Moreover, $\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}({\mathcal{F}})_a^b$ depends only on the homotopy class of ${\mathcal{F}}$ keeping endpoints fixed.
Let ${\rm Met}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ denote the space of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant metrics on $X$. Given $\theta',\theta''\in{\rm Met}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ one considers the family $(1-t)\theta'+t\theta''$, $t\in[0,1]$, of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant metrics which, by Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\], yields an isomorphism ${{\rm HM}}(f,\theta',x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}\to {{\rm HM}}(f,\theta'',x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$. These spaces and maps fit into the discussion of Remark \[rmk\_equiv\_relations\_vector\_spaces\] because ${\rm Met}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is convex. Hence we obtain what we call [*invariant local Morse homology*]{} $${{\rm HM}}(f,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.$$ Again by the proposition, this is invariant under deformations $(f_s,x)$ through families of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant functions keeping $x$ as a uniformly isolated critical point.
Before moving on to Hamiltonian dynamics, we study the relationship between the [*continuation maps*]{} from the above propositions and [*direct sum maps*]{} defined as follows. Let $x\in X$, $y\in Y$ be isolated critical points of $f:X\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $g:Y\to {\mathbb{R}}$ where $X,Y$ are manifolds without boundary. Fix metrics $\theta,\alpha$ on $X,Y$ and $U,V$ isolating neighborhoods of $x,y$ respectively. Let $(f',\theta')$, $(g',\alpha')$ be $C^2$-small perturbations of $(f,\theta)$, $(g,\alpha)$ which are Morse-Smale on $U,V$ respectively. Then $(f'\oplus g',\theta'\oplus\alpha')$ is Morse-Smale on $U\times V$ and there exists a chain isomorphism $$\label{isom_tensor_prod_chain}
\begin{aligned}
&({{\rm CM}}(f'\oplus g',\theta'\oplus\alpha',U\times V),\partial^{\rm Morse}) \\
&= ({{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U),\partial^{\rm Morse}) \otimes ({{\rm CM}}(g',\alpha',V),\partial^{\rm Morse})
\end{aligned}$$ if the orientation of unstable manifold of the critical point $(x,y)$ of $f'\oplus g'$ is the product of the chosen orientations of the unstable manifolds of $x$ and of $y$. Since we use rational coefficients, the Künneth formula yields $$\label{isom_kunneth_formula}
{{\rm HM}}(f\oplus g,(x,y)) \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}(f,x) \otimes {{\rm HM}}(g,y).$$ If $y$ is a non-degenerate critical point of index $\mu$ then we have an isomorphism $$\label{isom_consideration_no_symm}
\Xi : {{\rm HM}}_*(f\oplus g,(x,y)) \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_{*-\mu}(f,x)$$ referred to as a [*direct sum map*]{}.
In the presence of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry we claim that is either ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant or ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-antiequivariant. To see this, we assume that $X,Y$ are equipped with ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-actions, and that $f,\theta,x,U$ and $g,\alpha,y,V$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. On $X\times Y$ we consider the induced diagonal ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action. Let us denote the diffeomorphisms generating the actions on $X$, $Y$ or $X\times Y$ all by $1$, with no fear of ambiguity. The definition of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-actions on the chain complexes in explained in Section \[sssec\_inv\_MH\], together with the particular choices of orientations of unstable manifolds which make valid, imply that under the isomorphism the generator $1_*$ on the left-hand side corresponds to $1_*\otimes 1_*$ on the right-hand side. Now assume again that $y$ is a non-degenerate critical point of $g$ of index $\mu$. The linear ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on $T_yY$ preserves the negative eigenspace $E_-$ of the Hessian $D^2g(y)$, and there are two cases: either it preserves orientation on $E_-$, or reverses it. If it preserves the orientation then $1_*$ acts on ${{\rm HM}}(g,y)$ as the identity and $\Xi$ in satisfies $$\Xi \circ 1_* = 1_* \circ \Xi.$$ If it reverses then $1_*$ acts on ${{\rm HM}}(g,y)$ as minus the identity and $\Xi$ in satisfies $$\Xi \circ 1_* = - (1_* \circ \Xi).$$ Summarizing we get the following statement: If $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ preserves orientations on $E_-$ then $\Xi$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant and induces an isomorphism $$\label{isom_consideration_with_symm}
\Xi^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} : {{\rm HM}}_*(f\oplus g,(x,y))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_{*-\mu}(f,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.$$ In fact we know slightly more: if $1\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ reverses orientations on $E_-$ then $\Xi$ induces an isomorphism between ${{\rm HM}}_*(f\oplus g,(x,y))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ and the $-1$-eigenspace of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on ${{\rm HM}}_{*-\mu}(f,x)$ (which perhaps deserves to be called [*anti-invariant local Morse homology*]{} and might eventually find dynamical applications).
It follows from the definitions that if $\{f_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ is a family having $x$ as a uniformly isolated critical point, and $\{g_s\}_{s\in[a,b]}$ is a family having $y$ as a non-degenerate critical point, then $\{f_s\oplus g_s\}$ has $(x,y)$ as a uniformly isolated critical point and $$\label{diagram_commutes_continuation_1}
\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_*(f_a,x) \ar[r]^{\Theta} & {{\rm HM}}_*(f_b,x) \\
{{\rm HM}}_{*+\mu}(f_a\oplus g_a,(x,y)) \ar[u]^{\Xi} \ar[r]^{\Theta} & {{\rm HM}}_{*+\mu}(f_b\oplus g_b,(x,y)) \ar[u]^{\Xi}
}$$ commutes, where $\Theta$ are continuation maps. In the presence of symmetry there is a symmetric version of the above commutative diagram $$\label{diagram_commutes_continuation_2}
\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_*(f_a,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[r]^{\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}} & {{\rm HM}}_*(f_b,x)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
{{\rm HM}}_{*+\mu}(f_a\oplus g_a,(x,y))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[u]^{\Xi^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}} \ar[r]^{\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}} & {{\rm HM}}_{*+\mu}(f_b\oplus g_b,(x,y))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[u]^{\Xi^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}}
}$$ provided that the generator of the induced linear ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on $T_yY$ preserves the orientation on the negative space of the Hessian of $g_s$ at $y$, for all $s$.
Isolated periodic points and their local invariants
---------------------------------------------------
The link between local Hamiltonian dynamics and local Morse theory can be achieved through generating functions. This is a classical subject that goes back to Poincaré [@poincare].
### Generating functions {#sssec_gen_functions}
Let $\varphi$ be a germ of symplectic diffeomorphism defined near the fixed point $0$ in $({\mathbb{R}}^{2m},\omega_0)$. We use $(x,y)$ to indicate the Lagrangian splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2m} = ({\mathbb{R}}^m\times0)\oplus (0\times {\mathbb{R}}^m) \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^m\times{\mathbb{R}}^m$. If
- ${\mathbb{R}}^{2m} = ({\mathbb{R}}^m\times 0) \oplus d\varphi(0)(0\times {\mathbb{R}}^m)$
holds then, denoting $(\bar x,\bar y) = \varphi(x,y)$, the map $(x,y) \mapsto (x,\bar y)$ defines a diffeomorphism near the origin. Hence we can use $(x,{\bar y})$ as independent coordinates, and consider the $1$-form $\eta := (y-{\bar y})dx + (\bar x-x)d{\bar y}$ in $(x,{\bar y})$-space. It is closed because $\varphi$ is symplectic. Hence there is a primitive $S=S(x,{\bar y})$ near the origin. Such a germ of function $S$ is called a generating function for $\varphi$ and
- For all $(X,Y),(x,y)$ near the origin $$\varphi(x,y) = (X,Y) \ \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ \ \left\{ \begin{aligned} X-x &= \nabla_2S(x,Y) \\ y-Y &= \nabla_1S(x,Y) \end{aligned} \right.\ .$$
Note that $S$ is determined up to an additive constant. There are many other types of generating functions, see [@McDSal chapter 9]. In this work the term [*generating function*]{} refers to those defined as above.
\[lemma\_formula\_hessian\] Suppose that the germ $\varphi$ satisfies (Gen1). If $S$ is the generating function as in (Gen2) then $D^2S(0)$ and $d\varphi(0)$ are related by $$d\varphi(0)-I = -J_0 \ D^2S(0) \ dT(0)$$ where $T$ is the map $T(x,y)=(x,Y)$ with $Y$ defined by $(X,Y)=\varphi(x,y)$, and $J_0$ is the matrix $$J_0 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -I \\ I & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus, $dT(0)$ provides a linear isomorphism between $\ker (d\varphi(0)-I)$ and $\ker D^2S(0)$.
Using (Gen2) we get $$\begin{aligned}
d\varphi(0)-I &=
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla_xX-I & \nabla_yX \\
\nabla_xY & \nabla_yY-I
\end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix}
\nabla_{21}S+\nabla_{22}S\nabla_xY & \nabla_{22}S\nabla_yY \\
-\nabla_{11}S-\nabla_{12}S\nabla_xY & -\nabla_{12}S\nabla_yY
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ where partial derivatives of $S$, $X$ and $Y$ are evaluated at the origin. Simple inspection shows that the last matrix is equal precisely to $-J_0D^2S(0)dT(0)$.
### Discrete action functionals as generating functions
Consider a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian $H_t$ defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH_t(0)=0$, and choose $N$ large enough such that the local diffeomorphisms $\psi_i$ defined in are $C^1$-small and hence satisfy (Gen1). Note that $\psi_i$ is $N$-periodic in $i$. There is a unique $N$-periodic sequence of germs $S_i$ as in (Gen2) normalized by $S_i(0)=0$.
Consider the discrete action functional ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ defined as in and the symplectic diffeomorphism $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ defined near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ by $$\label{maps_big_Phi}
\begin{aligned}
& \Phi_{H,k,N}(z_1,\dots,z_{kN}) = (Z_1,\dots,Z_{kN}) \\
& Z_1 = \psi_{kN}(z_{kN}), \ Z_i = \psi_{i-1}(z_{i-1}) \ \forall i=2,\dots,kN .
\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma\_action\_as\_gen\_function\] $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ satisfies (Gen1) and ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ is a generating function for $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ as in (Gen2). Moreover, the nullity of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ is equal to $\nu(H,k) = \dim \ker d\varphi_H^k(0)-I$. In particular, the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ is a non-degenerate critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ if, and only if, $d\varphi_H^k(0)-I$ is invertible.
Consider $x_i,y_i,X_i,Y_i \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ defined by $z_i=(x_i,y_i)$, $Z_i=(X_i,Y_i)$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
& x=(x_1,\dots,x_N), \ y=(y_1,\dots,y_N) \\
& X=(X_1,\dots,X_N), \ Y=(Y_1,\dots,Y_N) .
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\label{formula_differential_big_phi}
\begin{aligned}
&d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0,\dots,0)\cdot(\delta z_1,\dots,\delta z_{kN}) = (\delta Z_1,\dots,\delta Z_{kN}) \ \ \text{and} \\
&\delta Z_i = d\psi_{i-1}(0)\cdot\delta z_{i-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ satisfies (Gen1) since so does each $\psi_i$ by our choice of $N$.
With these formulas we see that $1$ is an eigenvalue of $d\Phi_{H,k,N}$ if, and only if, it is an eigenvalue of $d\varphi^k_H(0)$, in which case their geometric multiplicities coincide.
Now we wish to show that $$\label{big_gen_func_identities}
( X, Y) = \Phi_{H,k,N}( x, y) \ \Leftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{aligned} & X - x = \nabla_2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}( x, Y) \\ & y - Y = \nabla_1{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}( x, Y) \end{aligned} \right.$$ holds for all $( x, y),( X, Y)$ close enough to the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$. But $( X, Y) = \Phi_{H,k,N}( x, y)$ if, and only if, $Z_i=\psi_{i-1}(z_{i-1})$, which happens precisely when $$\begin{aligned}
X_i - x_{i-1} &= \nabla_2S_{i-1}(x_{i-1},Y_i) \\
y_{i-1} - Y_i &= \nabla_1S_{i-1}(x_{i-1},Y_i).
\end{aligned}$$ Using the first of these equations we get $$\label{X_i-x_i}
\begin{aligned}
X_i-x_i
&= X_i - x_{i-1} + x_{i-1} - x_i \\
&= x_{i-1} - x_i + \nabla_2S_{i-1}(x_{i-1},Y_i).
\end{aligned}$$ Now since $${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}( x, Y) = \sum_{i=1}^{kN} x_i(Y_{i+1}-Y_i) + S_i(x_i,Y_{i+1})$$ where the index $kN+1$ is to be replaced by $1$, we get $$\label{nablaY_iA_H,k,N(vec x,vec Y)}
\nabla_{Y_i}{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}( x, Y) = x_{i-1} - x_i + \nabla_2S_{i-1}(x_{i-1},Y_i).$$ Combining and for every $i$ we obtain the first equation in the right hand side of . The second equation in the right hand side of is obtained analogously. We have proved the first assertion in the statement of the lemma.
To prove the other assertions one uses Lemma \[lemma\_formula\_hessian\] to identify the kernel of the Hessian of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ at the origin with the $1$-eigenspace of $d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)$, and then one uses the above mentioned fact that this eigenspace is linearly isomorphic to $\ker d\varphi^k_H(0)-I$.
### Definition of local invariants, with or without symmetry
As above, consider a germ $H=H_t$ of a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian near $0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH_t(0)=0$ for all $t$, and denote $\varphi = \varphi_H^1$. We say that $N\geq1$ is [*adapted to $H$*]{} if $$\label{N_adapted}
t_0<t_1, \ t_1-t_0 \leq (2N)^{-1} \ \Rightarrow \ \varphi_H^{t_1} \circ (\varphi_H^{t_0})^{-1} \ \text{satisfies (Gen1).}$$ Assuming , the sequence of germs $\psi_i = \varphi_H^{i/N}\circ(\varphi_H^{(i-1)/N})^{-1}$ satisfies (Gen1) and we find generating functions $S_i$ for $\psi_i$ as in (Gen2), normalized by $S_i(0)=0$. The sequences $\psi_i$ and $S_i$ are $N$-periodic in $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Fix $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and consider the discrete action functional ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ defined in . As observed before, the function ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ is invariant under the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action generated by the shift map .
Assume that $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^k$. Thus $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ is an isolated critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ and with the use of Theorem \[main1\] we can define the local ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant Morse homology groups ${{\rm HM}}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ as explained in Section \[sssec\_inv\_MH\]. One may also consider the usual non-invariant local Morse homology ${{\rm HM}}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)$.
\[lemma\_inflation\] If $N$ is adapted to $H$ as in then there exists an isomorphism $$\label{inflation_map_non_symmetric}
\mathscr{I}_N : {{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+1},0) \\$$ and an isomorphism $$\label{inflation_map_symmetric}
\mathscr{I}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}_N: {{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+2},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.$$
We only prove since is analogous and easier. The functional ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ is defined near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} \simeq ({\mathbb{R}}^{2n})^{Nk}$, where a typical point is $(z_1,\dots,z_{kN})$, $z_i = (x_i,y_i)$. It was constructed using the $N$-periodic sequence $S_i$ of generating functions near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$. Now consider the $(N+2)$-periodic sequence obtained by inserting the germ $0$ twice between positions $\lambda N$ and $\lambda N+1$, $\lambda\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. This gives $$(\dots S_{N-1},S_N,0,0,S_1,S_2,\dots,S_{N-1},S_N,0,0,S_1,S_2 \dots) .$$ For each $\lambda=1,\dots,k$ consider two extra variables $w^1_\lambda = (u^1_\lambda,v^1_\lambda)$ and $w^2_\lambda = (u^2_\lambda,v^2_\lambda)$. Now we have $k(N+2)$ variables belonging to ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ and we can consider the function ${\mathbb{A}}^+$ near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk(N+2)}$ of the form ${\mathbb{A}}^+ = {\mathbb{A}}' + {\mathbb{A}}''$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{A}}' = \sum_{\lambda=1}^k \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} x_{(\lambda-1)N+i}(&y_{(\lambda-1)N+i+1}-y_{(\lambda-1)N+i}) \\
&+ S_i(x_{(\lambda-1)N+i},y_{(\lambda-1)N+i+1})
\end{aligned}$$ and $${\mathbb{A}}'' = \sum_{\lambda=1}^k x_{\lambda N} (v^1_\lambda-y_{\lambda N}) + S_N(x_{\lambda N},v^1_\lambda) + u^1_\lambda(v^2_\lambda-v^1_\lambda) + u^2_\lambda(y_{\lambda N+1}-v^2_\lambda)
$$ where $kN+1$ is to be identified with $1$.
We claim that $$\label{inflation_homology}
\begin{aligned}
& {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}^+,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} .\end{aligned}$$ To this end consider new variables $$\begin{aligned}
& \zeta^1_\lambda := v^2_\lambda - v^1_\lambda \\
& \xi^1_\lambda := x_{\lambda N} - u^1_\lambda \\
& \zeta^2_\lambda := y_{\lambda N+1} - v^2_\lambda \\
& \xi^2_\lambda := u^1_\lambda - u^2_\lambda \\
& (\lambda=1,\dots,k) \\
\end{aligned}$$ where $kN+1$ is to be replaced by $1$. This gives a new set of independent variables $$(x_1,\dots,x_{kN},y_1,\dots,y_{kN},\xi^1_1,\dots,\xi^1_k,\xi^2_1,\dots,\xi^2_k,\zeta^1_1,\dots,\zeta^1_k,\zeta^2_1,\dots,\zeta^2_k)$$ with respect to which ${\mathbb{A}}'$ keeps the same form, and ${\mathbb{A}}''$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{A}}'' = \\
&= \sum_{\lambda=1}^k \left( \begin{aligned} & x_{\lambda N}(y_{\lambda N+1}-\zeta^1_\lambda-\zeta^2_\lambda-y_{\lambda N}) + S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-\zeta^1_\lambda-\zeta^2_\lambda) \\ & + (x_{\lambda N}-\xi^1_\lambda)\zeta^1_\lambda + (x_{\lambda N}-\xi^1_\lambda-\xi^2_\lambda)\zeta^2_\lambda \end{aligned} \right) \\
&= \sum_{\lambda=1}^k - \xi^1_\lambda\zeta^1_\lambda - \xi^2_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda - \xi^1_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda + x_{\lambda N}(y_{\lambda N+1}-y_{\lambda N}) + S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-\zeta^1_\lambda-\zeta^2_\lambda).
\end{aligned}$$ For $s\in[0,1]$ define a family ${\mathbb{A}}^+_s = {\mathbb{A}}' + {\mathbb{A}}''_s$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{A}}''_s = \\
&= \sum_{\lambda=1}^k - \xi^1_\lambda\zeta^1_\lambda - \xi^2_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda - s\xi^1_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda + x_{\lambda N}(y_{\lambda N+1}-y_{\lambda N}) + S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-s\zeta^1_\lambda-s\zeta^2_\lambda).
\end{aligned}$$
We claim that the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk(N+2)}$ is a uniformly isolated critical point of the family ${\mathbb{A}}^+_s$. To see this first compute partial derivatives with respect to $x$ $$\label{partial_x_1}
\begin{aligned}
& i\in \{1,\dots,N-1\} \Rightarrow \\
& \nabla_{x_{(\lambda-1)N+i}}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s = \nabla_{x_{(\lambda-1)N+i}} {\mathbb{A}}' \\
& = y_{(\lambda-1)N+i+1}-y_{(\lambda-1)N+i} + \nabla_1S_i(x_{(\lambda-1)N+i},y_{(\lambda-1)N+i+1})
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{partial_x_2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nabla_{x_{\lambda N}}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s = \nabla_{x_{\lambda N}}{\mathbb{A}}''_s \\
& = y_{\lambda N+1} - y_{\lambda N} + \nabla_1S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-s\zeta^1_\lambda -s\zeta^2_\lambda)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda \in \{1,\dots,k\}$. Now we compute partial derivatives with respect to $y$-variables $$\label{partial_y_1}
\begin{aligned}
& i\in \{2,\dots,N\} \Rightarrow \\
& \nabla_{y_{(\lambda-1)N+i}}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s \\
&= x_{(\lambda-1)N+i-1}-x_{(\lambda-1)N+i} + \nabla_2S_{i-1}(x_{(\lambda-1)N+i-1},y_{(\lambda-1)N+i})
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{partial_y_2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nabla_{y_{(\lambda-1) N+1}}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s \\
& = x_{(\lambda-1)N} - x_{(\lambda-1)N+1} + \nabla_2S_N(x_{(\lambda-1)N},y_{(\lambda-1)N+1}-s\zeta^1_{\lambda-1}-s\zeta^2_{\lambda-1})
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is to be taken modulo $k$. Finally we compute partial derivatives with respect to $\xi^1_\lambda,\zeta^1_\lambda,\xi^2_\lambda,\zeta^2_\lambda$ $$\label{partial_xi_zeta}
\begin{aligned}
& \nabla_{\xi^1_\lambda}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s = -\zeta^1_\lambda -s\zeta^2_\lambda \\
& \nabla_{\xi^2_\lambda}{\mathbb{A}}^+_s = -\zeta^2_\lambda \\
& \nabla_{\zeta^1_\lambda}{\mathbb{A}}_s^+ = -\xi^1_\lambda - s\nabla_2S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-s\zeta^1_\lambda-s\zeta^2_\lambda) \\
& \nabla_{\zeta^2_\lambda}{\mathbb{A}}_s^+ = -\xi^2_\lambda -s\xi^1_\lambda - s\nabla_2S_N(x_{\lambda N},y_{\lambda N+1}-s\zeta^1_\lambda-s\zeta^2_\lambda).
\end{aligned}$$ In formulas - all indices appearing as subscripts of $x,y$ are to be taken modulo $kN$, and the index $\lambda$ is to be taken modulo $k$. Let $U$ be a neighborhood of the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ satisfying $$z \in U, \ \nabla{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(z)=0 \ \Rightarrow \ z=0.$$ We claim that $U\times{\mathbb{R}}^{4nk}$ is a uniformly isolating neighborhood for the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk(N+2)}$ with respect to the family $\{{\mathbb{A}}^+_s\}$. At a critical point in $U\times {\mathbb{R}}^{4nk}$, the first two identities in give $\zeta^1_\lambda = \zeta^2_\lambda=0$ for all $\lambda$. Substituting into -, we find that $(z_1,\dots,z_{kN})$ is a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ in $U$. Hence $z_1=\dots=z_{kN}=0$. Since $\nabla S_i(0,0)=0$ for all $i$ we obtain $\xi_\lambda=0$ for all $\lambda$ from the last two identities in . Finally note that the family ${\mathbb{A}}^+_s$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant under the corresponding shift map which takes the block $(z_{(\lambda-1)N+1},\dots,z_{\lambda N},(\xi^1_\lambda,\zeta^1_\lambda),(\xi^2_\lambda,\zeta^2_\lambda))$ to $(z_{\lambda N+1},\dots,z_{(\lambda+1)N},(\xi^1_{\lambda+1},\zeta^1_{\lambda+1}),(\xi^2_{\lambda+1},\zeta^2_{\lambda+1}))$. Moreover, ${\mathbb{A}}^+_1 = {\mathbb{A}}^+$ and $$\label{intermediate_action}
{\mathbb{A}}^+_0 = {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N} - \sum_{\lambda=1}^k (\xi^1_\lambda\zeta^1_\lambda+\xi^2_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda).$$ Note that the quadratic form in the right hand side of the equation above has $2nk$ positive and $2nk$ negative eigenvalues, its negative space is the diagonal $$\{\xi_\lambda^1=\zeta_\lambda^1, \ \ \xi_\lambda^2=\zeta_\lambda^2; \ \ \lambda=1,\dots,k\}$$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^{4nk} = {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk}$, which is a $2nk$-dimensional vector space since it is the product of $k$ diagonals in ${\mathbb{R}}^{4n}$. In general, if $V$ is an $m$-dimensional space the cyclic shift on $V^k$ is orientation preserving when $m$ is even. In our case we get that the shift on the negative eigenspace of the quadratic form $- \sum_{\lambda=1}^k (\xi^1_\lambda\zeta^1_\lambda+\xi^2_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda)$ is orientation preserving. Thus Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\] and the considerations leading to together imply . Our claim is proved.
Next we claim that there is a continuation isomorphism $$\label{second_step_inflation}
{{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}^+,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+2},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.$$ To see this, consider a smooth function $\beta:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ satisfying:
- $\beta'\geq0$
- $\beta(t)=\frac{(N+2)t}{N}$ on $[0,\frac{N-1}{N+2}]$
- $\beta\equiv 1$ on $[\frac{N}{N+2},1]$.
Now consider $\beta_\tau(t)=(1-\tau)t+\tau\beta(t)$ and $H^\tau_t = \beta_\tau'(t)H_{\beta_\tau(t)}$. Note that $H=H^0$ and ${\mathbb{A}}^+ = {\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N+2}$. It follows from that there is a well-defined smooth family of discrete action functionals ${\mathbb{A}}_{H^\tau,k,N+2}$, $\tau\in[0,1]$. Since critical points of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H^\tau,k,N+1}$ are in 1-1 correspondence with fixed points of the ($\tau$-independent) local diffeomorphism $\varphi^k$, we conclude that the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk(N+2)}$ is a uniformly isolated critical point of the family ${\mathbb{A}}_{H^\tau,k,N+2}$. Hence follows from Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\] because ${\mathbb{A}}_{H^\tau,k,N+2}$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant family. This provides the desired isomorphisms between corresponding ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant local Morse homologies. For the non-invariant version of this argument one uses Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\] instead of Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\].
The proof is complete, but we end by noting that both in the invariant and non-invariant case, the corresponding inflation map is a composition of continuation maps and a direct sum map.
\[rmk:symmetric x non\_symmetric inflation map\] Note that in the symmetric inflation map it is crucial to take $N+2$ instead of $N+1$ for the non-symmetric map . The point here is that the quadratic form $ \sum_{\lambda=1}^k (\xi^1_\lambda\zeta^1_\lambda+\xi^2_\lambda\zeta^2_\lambda)$ in the right hand side of is defined on ${\mathbb{R}}^{4nk}$ with negative eigenspace isomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk}$. This ensures that the cyclic shift is orientation preserving for every $k$ and $n$. If we took $N+1$, the quadratic form in the right hand side of would be defined on ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk}$ and given by $\sum_{\lambda=1}^k \xi_\lambda\zeta_\lambda$ (the extra variables would be $\xi_\lambda,\zeta_\lambda$ instead of $\xi^1_\lambda,\zeta^1_\lambda,\xi^2_\lambda,\zeta^2_\lambda$). The negative eigenspace of this quadratic form is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^{nk}$ and therefore the cyclic shift would be orientation reversing if $n$ is odd and $k$ is even.
The inflation isomorphisms from Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\] allow us to consider the directed system of graded groups $\{{{\rm HM}}_{*+nkN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)\}$ indexed by the positive integers $N\geq 1$ which are adapted to $H$ as in . The homomorphism $${{\rm HM}}_{*+nkN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk(N+j)}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,(N+j)},0)$$ is, by definition, the grading preserving isomorphism $\mathscr{I}_{N+j-1} \circ \dots \circ \mathscr{I}_{N}$. In the presence of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry, the directed system is $\{{{\rm HM}}_{*+nk2N}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}\}$ indexed by the integers $N\geq1$ such that $2N$ is adapted to $H$. The homomorphism $${{\rm HM}}_{*+nk2N}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk2(N+j)}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2(N+j)},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ is now given by $\mathscr{I}_{2(N+j-1)} \circ \dots \circ \mathscr{I}_{2(N+1)} \circ \mathscr{I}_{2N}$ ($j$ factors).
\[def\_local\_invariants\] The direct limits $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_*(H,k,0) &= \lim_{N \to \infty} {{\rm HM}}_{*+nkN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) \\
{\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H,k,0) &= \lim_{N \to \infty} {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk2N}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}
\end{aligned}$$ are called the [*non-invariant*]{} and [*invariant local homologies of $(H,k,0)$*]{}, respectively, which are always well-defined provided $0$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi_H^k$.
Before moving on, we note that the isomorphisms $\mathscr{I}_N$ and $\mathscr{I}_N^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ are compositions of a direct sum map with two continuation maps, according to the nomenclature established in Section \[ssec\_invariant\]. For instance, inspecting the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\] in the symmetric case, we find a non-degenerate quadratic form $Q$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^{4nk}$ with $2nk$ negative eigenvalues, and a family of functions $\{{\mathbb{A}}^+_s\}_{s\in[0,1]}$ having $(0,0) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk(N+2)} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{4nk}$ as a uniformly isolated critical point such that ${\mathbb{A}}^+_0 = {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N} \oplus Q$, see , and ${\mathbb{A}}^+_1={\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N+2}$. Here $H^1$ is the final point of a family of Hamiltonians $\{H^\tau\}_{\tau\in[0,1]}$ such that $H^0=H$, the germ $\varphi^k_{H^\tau}$ is independent of $\tau$, and the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action preserves orientations on the negative space of $Q$. Hence $\mathscr{I}_N^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is a composition $$\label{diagram_description_inflation}
\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[r] & {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}\oplus Q,(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[d] \\
& {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N+2},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \ar[d] \\
& {{\rm HM}}_{*+2nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+2},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}
}$$ where the horizontal arrow is a direct sum map, while the vertical arrows are continuation maps. The non-invariant version of $\mathscr{I}_N$ has an analogous description.
### Grading {#sssec_grading}
As before, $H_t$ is a smooth $1$-periodic family of germs of real-valued functions defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $dH_t(0)=0$ for all $t$. Assume that $0$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^k_H$. The following important statement can be found in [@mazz_SDM Proposition 2.5].
\[prop\_mazz\_grading\] Let the family of germs $K_t$ be uniformly $C^2$-close to $H_t$. Then the Morse index of a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,N}$ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ is equal to ${{\rm CZ}}+nkN$, where ${{\rm CZ}}$ denotes the Conley-Zehnder index of the corresponding $k$-periodic orbit of $\varphi^t_K$.
We also need the following general Morse-theoretical fact.
\[lem\_general\_Morse\_theo\_fact\] Let the smooth function $f$ have an isolated critical point $p$ with Morse index $\mu_p$ and nullity $\nu_p$. Fix a relatively compact isolating neighborhood $U$ for $(f,p)$. If $f'$ is $C^2$-close enough to $f$ and all critical points of $f'$ in $U$ are non-degenerate, then all critical points of $f'$ in $U$ have Morse indices in $[\mu_p,\mu_p+\nu_p]$.
The Hessians at critical points of $f'$ in $U$ are close to the Hessian of $f$ at $p$. Hence they have at least $\mu_p$ negative directions, and no more than $\mu_p+\nu_p$ negative directions.
\[lemma\_gradings\] If $j\not\in [{{\rm CZ}}(H,k),{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)]$ then ${\mathscr{H}}_j(H,k,0)$ and ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_j(H,k,0)$ are trivial.
Let $N$ be adapted to $H$ as in . It is well-known that there exists a $1$-periodic $C^\infty$-small perturbation $K=K_t$ of $H$ such that all $k$-periodic orbits of $\varphi^t_K$ which bifurcate from $0$ are non-degenerate. These $k$-periodic orbits correspond to non-degenerate critical points of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,N}$ that are close to $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$. By Proposition \[prop\_mazz\_grading\] and Lemma \[lemma\_action\_as\_gen\_function\], the Morse index and the nullity of $0$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ are equal to ${{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+nkN$ and $\nu(H,k)$, respectively. Lemma \[lem\_general\_Morse\_theo\_fact\] implies that critical points of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,N}$ close to the origin have Morse indices in $$[{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+nkN,{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)+nkN].$$ Hence ${\mathscr{H}}_j(H,k,0)=0$ if $j \not\in [{{\rm CZ}}(H,k),{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+\nu(H,k)]$. Since ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}$ is a quotient of ${\mathscr{H}}$ the same conclusion must hold for ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H,k,0)$.
\[lemma\_grading\_tot\_deg\] If ${\mathscr{H}}_{\Delta_{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)\pm n}(H,k,0)\neq 0$ then $0$ is a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^k_H$. The same holds replacing ${\mathscr{H}}$ by ${\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}$.
We only need to prove the lemma for ${\mathscr{H}}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_gradings\], consider $1$-periodic and $C^\infty$-small perturbations $K$ of $H$ such that the $k$-periodic orbits of $\varphi^t_K$ which bifurcate from $0$ are non-degenerate. If ${\mathscr{H}}_{\Delta_{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)+n}(H,k,0)\neq 0$ then for any such $K$, and large $N$, we find at least one critical point $z$ of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,N}$ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ with Morse index equal to $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,K)+n+nkN$. Such a critical point corresponds to a $k$-periodic orbit of $\varphi^t_K$ whose Conley-Zehnder index we denote by ${{\rm CZ}}(z)$. By Proposition \[prop\_mazz\_grading\] the Morse index of $z$ is ${{\rm CZ}}(z)+nkN$. Thus ${{\rm CZ}}(z)=\Delta_{}(H,k)+n$. Now results from [@SZ] imply that $0$ is a totally degenerate fixed point of $\varphi^k_H$. The case ${\mathscr{H}}_{\Delta_{{\rm CZ}}(H,k)-n}(H,k,0)\neq 0$ is identical.
### Good and admissible iterations {#sssec_good_adm}
The notion of good and bad iterations is not only defined for periodic orbits, but also for symplectic matrices. We start this section with the following
Let $\ell$ be the number of eigenvalues of $M\in Sp(2n)$ in $(-1,0)$. If $\ell$ is even then all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ are [*good*]{} iterations of $M$. If $\ell$ is odd then only the odd iterations are good, the even ones are not and will be called [*bad*]{}.
The following material is rather standard and included here for completeness as these results play a crucial role in this paper.
\[lem\_good\_ite\_paths\] Let the continuous path $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}\to Sp(2n)$ satisfy $\phi(t+1)=\phi(t)\phi(1)$, $\phi(0)=I$. If $k$ is a good and admissible iteration for $\phi(1)$ then ${{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,k]\mapsto \phi(t))$ and ${{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \phi(t))$ have the same parity.
This is well-known if $\det \phi(1)-I\neq 0$. If $\det \phi(1)-I= 0$ then the proof follows from the fact that there is a small perturbation $\tilde\phi$ of $\phi$, still satisfying $\tilde\phi(0)=I$, $\tilde\phi(t+1)=\tilde\phi(t)\tilde\phi(1)$, such that $\det( \tilde\phi(1)-I)\neq 0$, $k$ is good and admissible for $\tilde\phi(1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,k]\mapsto \tilde\phi(t)) = {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,k]\mapsto \phi(t)) \\
& {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \tilde\phi(t)) = {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,1]\mapsto \phi(t)).
\end{aligned}$$ The conclusion follows from the non-degenerate case applied to $\tilde\phi$.
Now we can consider the case of periodic orbits. Let $H_t$ be a $1$-periodic germ of Hamiltonian near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH_t(0)=0$.
Fix $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The number $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is an [*admissible iteration*]{} for $\varphi_H^m$ if it is admissible for $d\varphi_H^m(0)$. It is a [*good iteration*]{} for $\varphi_H^m$ if it is a good iteration for $d\varphi_H^m(0)$.
\[lemma\_preserves\_orient\_Delta\_perp\] Assume that $k$ is a good and admissible iteration for $\varphi_H^m$. Let $\Delta$ denote the $k$-diagonal in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}= ({\mathbb{R}}^{2nm2N})^k$. Then $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,mk,2N}(0)$, with $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}$, preserves the splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}=\Delta\oplus \Delta^\bot$. Let $E_-\subset \Delta^\bot$ be the negative eigenspace of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,mk,2N}(0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$. Then the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action on ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}=({\mathbb{R}}^{2n2N})^{mk}$ (by cyclic shift to the right) preserves orientations on $E_-$.
$D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,mk,2N}(0)$, $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}$, splits as a quadratic form into $Q\oplus Q^\bot$ according to the orthogonal splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N} = \Delta\oplus \Delta^\bot$. This, as usual, just follows from the fact that the Euclidean gradient of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,mk,2N}$ is tangent to $\Delta$ at points of $\Delta$. It remains to show that the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action preserves orientations on the negative eigenspace $E_-$ of $Q^\bot$. Obviously $E_-$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-invariant because ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,km,2N}$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-invariant. Note that the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action fixes no non-zero vector in $\Delta^\bot$. This follows from the fact that the fixed point set of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action induced by $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$ is precisely $\Delta$. Hence, the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action fixes no non-zero vector in $E_-$. The proof will be finished if we can show that $\dim E_-$ is even.
Let $\mu_{km}$ be the Morse index of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nmk2N}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,km,2N}$, and $\mu_m$ be the Morse index of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nm2N}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,m,2N}$. Let ${{\rm CZ}}^{(km)}$ be the Conley-Zehnder index of the path $t\in[0,km]\mapsto d\varphi^t_{H}(0)$, and ${{\rm CZ}}^{(m)}$ be the Conley-Zehnder index of the path $t\in[0,m]\mapsto d\varphi^t_{H}(0)$. Note that these paths might be degenerate, and we take the lower semi-continuous extension of the Conley-Zehnder index. The diagonal inclusion ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nm2N} \to\Delta$ identifies the negative eigenspace of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,m,2N}(0)$ at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nm2N}$ with the negative eigenspace of $Q$. Using [@mazz_SDM Proposition 2.5] we get $$\dim E_- = \mu_{km} - \mu_m = {{\rm CZ}}^{(km)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(m)} + nm(k-1)2N$$ which is even precisely when ${{\rm CZ}}^{(km)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(m)}$ is even. But the latter is even because $k$ is good and admissible (Lemma \[lem\_good\_ite\_paths\]).
\[rmk\_dim\_E\_-\] We point out that the proof above reveals the following formula for $\dim E_-$: $$\dim E_- = {{\rm CZ}}^{(km)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(m)} + nm(k-1)2N$$ where ${{\rm CZ}}^{(km)}$ is the Conley-Zehnder index of the path $t\in[0,mk]\mapsto d\varphi^t_{H}(0)$, and ${{\rm CZ}}^{(m)}$ is the Conley-Zehnder index of the path $t\in[0,m]\mapsto d\varphi^t_{H}(0)$.
### Effect of changing the Hamiltonian isotopy {#sssec_isotopy}
Let $H^s_t$, $s\in[0,1]$, be a smooth family of $1$-periodic Hamiltonians defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH^s_t(0)=0$ for all $s,t$. We will say that $N$ is [*adapted to the family $H^s$*]{} if $$\label{N_adapted_family}
\begin{aligned}
& s\in[0,1], \ t_0<t_1, \ t_1-t_0 \leq (2N)^{-1} \\
&\Rightarrow \ \varphi_{H^s}^{t_1} \circ (\varphi_{H^s}^{t_0})^{-1} \ \text{satisfies (Gen1).}
\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma\_isomorphism\_deformation\] Let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and assume that $\varphi_{H^s}^k$ has $0$ as a uniformly (in $s$) isolated fixed point. Then there are isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_*(H^0,k,0) &\to {\mathscr{H}}_*(H^1,k,0) \\
{\mathscr{H}}_*^{\rm inv}(H^0,k,0) &\to {\mathscr{H}}_*^{\rm inv}(H^1,k,0).
\end{aligned}$$
Let $N$ be adapted to the family $H^s$ as in . We claim that there are continuation isomorphisms $$\label{continuation_isom_pre}
\begin{aligned}
\Theta : {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H^0,k,N},0) &\to {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N},0) \\
\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} : {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H^0,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} &\to {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}.
\end{aligned}$$ We only work out $\Theta$, the map $\Theta^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is handled in a similar way. Denote $\Phi_s=\Phi_{H^s,k,N}$ and ${\mathbb{A}}_s = {\mathbb{A}}_{H^s,k,N}$. By Lemma \[lemma\_action\_as\_gen\_function\], (Gen1) holds for all $\Phi_s$ and ${\mathbb{A}}_s$ is generating function for the germ $\Phi_s$ in the sense of (Gen2). Our assumptions imply that the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ is a uniformly isolated fixed point for $\Phi_s$ and consequently a uniformly isolated critical point for ${\mathbb{A}}_s$. Hence, by Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\], we have ${{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_0,0) \simeq {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_1,0)$ via a continuation map $\Theta$.
To conclude the proof in the non-invariant case we need to show that the first isomorphism makes the diagram $$\xymatrixcolsep{6pc}\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H^0,k,N},0) \ar[d]^{\Theta} \ar[r]^{\mathscr{I}_N} &{{\rm HM}}_{*+nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H^0,k,N+1},0) \ar[d]^{\Theta} \\
{{\rm HM}}_{*}({\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N},0) \ar[r]^{\mathscr{I}_N} & {{\rm HM}}_{*+nk}({\mathbb{A}}_{H^1,k,N+1},0)
}$$ commutative, where $\mathscr{I}_N$ are inflation maps given by Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\]. This follows from the fact that $\mathscr{I}_N$ is a composition of direct sum maps and continuation maps as described in . These two kinds of isomorphisms commute with continuation maps, as explained in diagram .
The version of this argument with symmetries follows from applying Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\] instead of Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_non\_invariant\], noting that the corresponding family of action functionals preserve ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry, and the version of diagram with symmetries combined with diagram .
Suppose now that we are given two $1$-periodic Hamiltonians $H_t,K_t$ near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, satisfying $dH_t(0)=dK_t(0)=0$ for all $t$, and assume that the time-$1$ germs coincide $$\varphi_H^1 = \varphi = \varphi_K^1.$$ Then we find $G_t$ such that $\varphi_G^t \circ \varphi_H^t = \varphi_K^t$ and $\varphi_G^1=id$, i.e. $\{\varphi_G^t\}_{t\in[0,1]}$ is a loop of germs based at the identity. Normalizing Hamiltonians to vanish at $0$ we find $K = G\# H$ where $$(G\#H)_t = G_t + H_t \circ (\varphi_G^t)^{-1}.$$
\[lemma\_maslov\_loop\_deformation\] Fix $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and suppose that the Maslov index of $t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi_G^t(0)$ vanishes. Then there exists a smooth family $G^\tau$, $\tau\in[0,1]$, of $1$-periodic Hamiltonians satisfying $dG_\tau^t(0)=0$ for all $(\tau,t)$, $G^0=G$, $G^1=0$ and $\varphi_{G^\tau}^1=id$ for all $\tau$.
For $\tau\in[0,1/2]$ consider the family of germs $\psi_{\tau,t}$ given by $$\psi_{\tau,t}(z) =
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{1-2\tau}\varphi_G^t((1-2\tau)z) \ \ \ \text{if $\tau\in[0,1/2)$} \\
& d\varphi_G^t(0) \cdot z \ \ \ \text{if $\tau=1/2$}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Note that $\psi_{\tau,t}$ is $1$-periodic in $t$ because so is $\varphi_G^t$. If $m$ is the Maslov index of $t\in[0,1] \mapsto d\varphi_{G}^t(0)$ then $km=0 \Rightarrow m=0$, by assumption. Hence we can continue $\psi_{\tau,t}$ to all $\tau\in[0,1]$ keeping $1$-periodicity in $t$ in such a way that $\psi_{1,t} = id$ for all $t$. Since we work locally, we can find smooth family of $1$-periodic (in $t$) Hamiltonians $G^\tau_t$ such that $dG^\tau_t(0)=0$, $\varphi_{G^\tau}^t = \psi_{\tau,t}$ and $G^1=0$, as desired.
\[lemma\_change\_of\_isotopy\] Suppose that $0$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^k$, for some $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_*(K,k,0) &\simeq {\mathscr{H}}_{*-2m}(H,k,0) \\
{\mathscr{H}}_*^{\rm inv}(K,k,0) &\simeq {\mathscr{H}}_{*-2m}^{\rm inv}(H,k,0)
\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is the Maslov index of the loop $t\in{\mathbb{R}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}\mapsto d\varphi_G^t(0)$ and the Hamiltonians $H,K$ and $G$ are related via $K=G\# H$.
We only work out the invariant case. The non-invariant case is simpler since it does not make use of the notion of good iterations; see the end of this proof.
We claim that there are isomorphisms $$\label{before_inflation}
{{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*-2m}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ provided $N$ is large enough, and these commute with inflation maps. First consider $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$ large enough such that $2N$ is adapted to both $H$ and $K$ in the sense of .
Let us first assume that the spectrum of the symplectic matrix $d\varphi_H^1(0)=d\varphi_K^1(0)$ consists of eigenvalues of the form $e^{i2\pi\alpha}$, $\alpha\not\in{\mathbb{Q}}$. By Lemma \[lemma\_action\_as\_gen\_function\], the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk2N}$ is a non-degenerate critical point of both ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N}$ and ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N}$. According to [@RSpath Theorem 4.1], see also [@mazz_SDM Proposition 2.5], the Morse index of the origin as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N}$ is $${{\rm CZ}}\left(t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi_H^t(0)\right) + nk2N$$ while the Morse index of the origin as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N}$ is $${{\rm CZ}}\left(t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi_K^t(0)\right) + nk2N$$ where ${{\rm CZ}}$ denotes the Conley-Zehnder index of a path in $Sp(2n)$ starting at the identity and ending away from the Maslov cycle. By the properties of the Conley-Zehnder index we have $${{\rm CZ}}\left(t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi_K^t(0)\right) = {{\rm CZ}}\left(t\in[0,k] \mapsto d\varphi_H^t(0)\right) + 2m$$ which would immediately give the desired conclusion in this case when group symmetries are not present. For the symmetric case we need to argue a bit more, because we still need to show that the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ actions on the negative eigenspaces of the Hessians of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N}$ and of ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N}$ at the origin both preserve orientations. But this follows as a consequence of Lemma \[lemma\_preserves\_orient\_Delta\_perp\].
To handle the general case, consider a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian $h_t$ defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ satisfying $dh_t(0)=0 $ for all $t$, such that $\varphi_h^1$ is an irrational rotation. In particular, $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is totally non-degenerate and all iterations are good and admissible. The integer $m$ is divisible by $k$ because $m/k$ is the Maslov index of the loop $t\in[0,1] \mapsto d\varphi^t_G(0)$ (recall that $\varphi_G^1=id$). Let $g_t$ be a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian, again defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, satisfying $dg_t(0)=0 $ for all $t$, $\varphi_g^1=id$ and the Maslov index of $t\in[0,1]\mapsto d\varphi_g^t(0)$ is $m/k$. Then the $1$-periodic Hamiltonians defined near $(0,0) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ as $$\begin{array}{ccc}
(g\#h) \oplus H & \text{ and } & h \oplus (G\#H) = h\oplus K
\end{array}$$ have the same time-$1$ germ. It follows from the properties of the Maslov index that the Maslov index of the loop $$\begin{aligned}
t \in [0,1] &\mapsto d\varphi_{h\oplus(G\#H)}^t(0) \ \left( d\varphi_{(g\#h)\oplus H}^t(0)\right)^{-1} \\
&= [d\varphi_{h}^t(0) d\varphi_{h}^t(0)^{-1} d\varphi_{g}^t(0)^{-1}] \oplus [d\varphi_{G}^t(0) d\varphi_{H}^t(0) d\varphi_{H}^t(0)^{-1}] \\
&= d\varphi_g^t(0)^{-1} \oplus d\varphi_G^t(0)
\end{aligned}$$ is equal to $(-m/k)+(m/k)=0$. By Lemma \[lemma\_maslov\_loop\_deformation\], there exists a family $\{\Lambda^\tau_t\}_{\tau\in[0,1]}$ of $1$-periodic Hamiltonians defined near $(0,0) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $d\Lambda^\tau_t(0,0)=0$ for all $(\tau,t)$, satisfying $\Lambda^0 = h\oplus (G\#H)$ and $\Lambda^1 = (g\#h)\oplus H$ and, moreover, such that the family of germs $\varphi_{\Lambda^\tau}^1$ is independent of $\tau$.
Increasing $N$, we can assume that it is adapted to the family $\Lambda^\tau$ as in . Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\] implies that there is a continuation isomorphism $${{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^0,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^1,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ where $0$ denotes the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)k2N}$. But $\Lambda^0,\Lambda^1$ are direct sums of Hamiltonians, from where it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^0,k,2N} = {\mathbb{A}}_{h,k,2N} \oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N} \\
& {\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^1,k,2N} = {\mathbb{A}}_{g\#h,k,2N} \oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N}.
\end{aligned}$$ The summand ${\mathbb{A}}_{h,k,2N}$ has the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2k2N}$ as a non-degenerate critical point whose Morse index we denote by $i$. Then the same point is a non-degenerate critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{g\#h,k,2N}$ of Morse index $i+2m$. This is seen as in the first part of the proof for the totally non-degenerate case; it follows as a consequence of [@RSpath Theorem 4.1]. We can finally compute, using direct sum maps and continuation maps as explained in Section \[ssec\_invariant\], $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} &\simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*+i}({\mathbb{A}}_{h,k,2N}\oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,2N},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&= {{\rm HM}}_{*+i}({\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^0,k,2N},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&\simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*+i}({\mathbb{A}}_{\Lambda^1,k,2N},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&= {{\rm HM}}_{*+i}({\mathbb{A}}_{g\#h,k,2N} \oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&\simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*+i-(i+2m)}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&= {{\rm HM}}_{*-2m}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}
\end{aligned}$$ where $0$ in each line denotes the origin in the appropriate space. This proves . Note that Lemma \[lemma\_preserves\_orient\_Delta\_perp\] and the properties of $h$ were strongly used to conclude that we can actually use the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant versions of direct sum maps.
To conclude the proof we only need to show that the above chain of isomorphisms commutes with inflation maps, so we can take direct limits. This follows from diagram and complementary analogous diagrams stating that two kinds of direct sum maps commute with each other.
Iteration map and Persistence Theorems {#sec_shifting_lemma}
======================================
We outline the content of this section. In Section \[ssec\_equiv\_GM\_lemma\] we prove an equivariant version of the celebrated Gromoll-Meyer splitting lemma [@GM] which is crucial to our analysis of finite cyclic actions. In Section \[ssec\_persistence\_no\_symmetries\] we prove the Persistence Theorem without symmetries, which is our discrete version of that of Ginzburg-Gürel [@GG] for local Floer homology. In Section \[ssec\_persistence\_symmetries\] we prove the invariant version of the Persistence Theorem which is the discrete version of a conjectural persistence theorem for local contact homology.
Equivariant Gromoll-Meyer splitting lemma, and refinements {#ssec_equiv_GM_lemma}
----------------------------------------------------------
First we review the proof of the classical splitting lemma when no group symmetries are present.
\[lem\_GM\_non\_equiv\] Let $f: {\mathbb{R}}^n = {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n_2} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function such that $(0,0)$ is an isolated critical point. Assume that $D^2f(0,0)$ preserves the splitting, and that $\ker D^2f(0,0) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$. Then there is a neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$ and an embedding $\Psi: U \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ fixing $(0,0)$ such that $D\Psi(0,0)=I$ and $$f\circ \Psi(z_1,z_2) = g(z_1)+h(z_2),$$ where $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$ is a non-degenerate critical point of $h$. In particular, we must have $D^2g(0)=D^2f(0,0)|_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times \{0\}}$ and $D^2h(0) = D^2f(0,0)|_{\{0\}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}}$. Moreover, if $\nabla f$ is tangent to ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$ at points of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$ then $\Psi$ can be arranged so that $$\begin{array}{ccc}
g(z_1)=f(z_1,0) & \text{and} & h(z_2) = \frac{1}{2} \left< D^2f(0,0)\cdot (0,z_2),(0,z_2) \right>
\end{array}$$ and $\Psi(z_1,0)=(z_1,0) $ for all $(z_1,0)\in U$.
One difference with the splitting lemma from [@GM] is that we do not assume ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$ to be equal to the kernel of the Hessian, but only that it contains the kernel. Then, of course, the Hessian of $g$ at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ might not vanish.
Before handling the general statement we prove a\
[**Preliminary step.**]{} There is a smooth family of embeddings $\Upsilon_s: V \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $s \in [0,1]$, defined on some neighborhood $V$ of $(0,0)$ satisfying $\Upsilon_0 = id$, $D\Upsilon_s(0,0)=I $ for all $s$, and such that for every $z_1$ close enough to $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ the function $z_2 \mapsto f\circ\Upsilon_1(z_1,z_2)$ has a non-degenerate critical point at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$.\
[*Proof of the preliminary step.*]{} Since $\ker D^2f(0,0) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$ and $D^2f(0,0)$ respects the splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$, we know that $D_{22}f(0,0)$ is non-singular. Thus the equation $D_2f=0$ defines implicitly a smooth ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$-valued function $\phi$ on a neighborhood of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ with the following property: a point $(z_1,z_2)$ near $(0,0)$ satisfies $D_2f(z_1,z_2)=0$ if, and only if, $z_2=\phi(z_1)$. Hence $\phi(0)=0$. Differentiating $D_2f(z_1,\phi(z_1))=0$ at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ we get $D_{21}f(0,0) + D_{22}f(0,0)D\phi(0)=0$. Since $D^2f(0,0)$ splits we have $D_{21}f(0,0)=0$, so $D\phi(0)=0$. This fact implies that we can take $\Upsilon_s(z_1,z_2) = (z_1,z_2+s\phi(z_1))$.\
[*Remark on the proof of the preliminary step.*]{} If $\nabla f$ is tangent to ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$ at points of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$, in other words $D_2f(z_1,0)\equiv0$ for $z_1\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ close to $0$, then the above argument gives the trivial family $\Upsilon_s\equiv id$.\
After the above preliminary step there is no loss of generality to assume, in addition to the hypothesis of the lemma, that for all $z_1$ close enough to $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$ the point $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$ is a non-degenerate critical point of $z_2 \mapsto f(z_1,z_2)$. In fact, this can be done after replacing $f$ by $f\circ\Upsilon_1$. And, as just observed, this leaves $f$ unchanged in the case $\nabla f$ is tangent to ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times\{0\}$.
The rest of the argument follows Gromoll and Meyer in [@GM] closely. For $(z_1,z_2)$ close to $(0,0)$ we find, using Taylor’s formula, a smooth symmetric $n_2\times n_2$ matrix $H(z_1,z_2)$ such that $f(z_1,z_2) = g(z_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)z_2,z_2\right>$ where $g(z_1)=f(z_1,0)$ and $H$ satisfies $2H(z_1,0) = D_{22}f(z_1,0)$.
Set $B(z_1,z_2)=H(z_1,z_2)^{-1}H(0,0)$, which is also smooth. Then using the symmetry of $H$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
B(z_1,z_2)^TH(z_1,z_2) &= H(0,0)^T(H(z_1,z_2)^{-1})^TH(z_1,z_2) \\
&= H(0,0) \\ &= H(z_1,z_2)B(z_1,z_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\{c_k\}_{k\geq0}$ satisfy $\sqrt{1+x}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty c_kx^k$ for $x\sim 0$. Since $B(0,0)$ is the identity matrix of order $n_2$, on a neighborhood of $(0,0)$ the power series $$C(z_1,z_2) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k(B(z_1,z_2)-I)^k$$ converges uniformly, together with all its derivatives, to a smooth function $C(z_1,z_2)$ satisfying $C^2=B$. Note that $C(0,0)=I$. As proved above $B^TH=HB$, so the same holds for every polynomial in $B$, and hence also for $C$ since it is a uniform limit of polynomials in $B$.
Setting $C_s = (1-s)I+sC$ we have $C_s(0,0)=I$ for all $s$, and $C_s(z_1,z_2)$ is invertible for all $s\in[0,1]$ and $(z_1,z_2)$ on a fixed small neighborhood of $(0,0)$. Now define $$\Phi_s(z_1,z_2)=(z_1,C_s(z_1,z_2)^{-1}z_2).$$ Here, as above, $s\in[0,1]$ and $(z_1,z_2)$ lies on a small neighborhood of $(0,0)$. For every $s$, $D\Phi_s(0,0)$ is the identity, so by the implicit function theorem there is a neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$ and a smooth family of embeddings $\Phi_s^{-1}:U \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ which invert $\Phi_s$ near $(0,0)$. Finally define $\Psi_s := \Phi_s^{-1}$ and $\Psi := \Psi_1$. We claim that $\Psi$ is our desired embedding. Indeed, $$f_1(\zeta_1,\zeta_2) := f \circ \Phi_1^{-1}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2) = g(z_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)z_2,z_2\right>$$ where $\Phi_1(z_1,z_2)=(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$. This means that $\zeta_1=z_1$ and $z_2=C(z_1,z_2)\zeta_2$, so substituting we get $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(\zeta_1,\zeta_2) &= g(\zeta_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)C(z_1,z_2)\zeta_2,C(z_1,z_2)\zeta_2\right> \\
&= g(\zeta_1) + \left<C(z_1,z_2)^TH(z_1,z_2)C(z_1,z_2)\zeta_2,\zeta_2\right> \\
&= g(\zeta_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)C(z_1,z_2)^2\zeta_2,\zeta_2\right> \\
&= g(\zeta_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)B(z_1,z_2)\zeta_2,\zeta_2\right> \\
&= g(\zeta_1) + \left<H(0,0)\zeta_2,\zeta_2\right>
\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
The next result shows that the embedding $\Psi$ can be chosen equivariant with respect to a linear isometric ${\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$-action if the function $f$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$-invariant. This fact is well known to experts but, since it will be crucial in this work, we provide a detailed proof.
\[lemma\_invariant\_GM\_splitting\] In the same setting of Lemma \[lem\_GM\_non\_equiv\], let $A = (A_1,A_2) \in O(n_1)\times O(n_2) \subset O(n_1+n_2)$ be an Euclidean isometry of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n_2} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1+n_2}$, and assume that $f$ is $A$-invariant. Then all the conclusions of Lemma \[lem\_GM\_non\_equiv\] hold with an embedding $\Psi$ which commutes with $A$.
We show that in each step of the above proof we can obtain $A$-equivariance. First we check the preliminary step: The splitting is respected by the isomorphism $A$ by assumption and we write $A(z_1, z_2)=(A_1z_1, A_2z_2)$. From $(Df\circ A)A=Df$ evaluated at the point $(z_1,\phi(z_1))$ we get $$D_2f(A_1z_1,A_2\phi(z_1))A_2 = D_2f(z_1,\phi(z_1)) = 0.$$ By the uniqueness statement of the implicit function theorem we conclude that $$\label{equiv_phi}
A_2\phi(z_1) = \phi(A_1z_1)$$ holds for all $z_1$ close enough to $0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$. This is equivalent to the embeddings $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto (z_1,z_2+s\phi(z_1))$ being $A$-equivariant, and we are done showing that the [*preliminary step*]{} in the proof of Lemma \[lem\_GM\_non\_equiv\] can be done equivariantly. This means, as before, that we can assume $D_2f(z_1,0)\equiv0$ for $z_1$ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}$.
It is easy to see that in the formula $f(z_1,z_2) = g(z_1) + \left<H(z_1,z_2)z_2,z_2\right>$, the function $g$ is $A_1$-invariant. From this it follows that the second term must be $A$-invariant. The explicit form of $H(z_1,z_2)$ given by $$H(z_1,z_2) = \int_0^1\int_0^1 \tau D_{22}f(z_1,\lambda\tau z_2) \, d\lambda \, d\tau$$ shows that, in fact, $$A_2^TH(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)A_2 = A_2^{-1}H(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)A_2 = H(z_1,z_2).$$ This follows simply from $A_2^T(D_{22}f\circ A)A_2 = D_{22}f$, which in turn follows from $A^T(D^2f\circ A)A=D^2f$. The same property holds for $B$ as can be seen by the following computation: $$\begin{aligned}
A_2^{-1}B(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)A_2 &= A_2^{-1}H(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)^{-1}H(0,0)A_2 \\
&= A_2^{-1}H(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)^{-1}A_2H(0,0) \\
&= (A_2^{-1}H(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)A_2)^{-1}H(0,0) \\
&= H(z_1,z_2)^{-1}H(0,0) \\
&= B(z_1,z_2).
\end{aligned}$$ By construction, the same properties also hold for $C$ and $C_s$.
Now consider the function $\Phi_s(z_1,z_2)=(z_1,C_s(z_1,z_2)^{-1}z_2)$. This function is $A$-equivariant, since $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_s(A_1z_1,A_2z_2) &= (A_1z_1,C_s(A_1z_1,A_2z_2)^{-1}A_2z_2) \\
&= (A_1z_1,A_2C_s(z_1,z_2)^{-1}z_2) \\
&= A(z_1,C_s(z_1,z_2)^{-1}z_2) \\
&= A\Phi_s(z_1,z_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\Psi_s := \Phi_s^{-1}$ is also $A$-equivariant.
\[lemma\_local\_MH\_tangent\_submfd\] Let $f$ be a smooth real-valued function defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with an isolated critical point at $0$, and let $\Delta\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a linear subspace. Using the Euclidean metric to compute gradients, suppose that $p\in \Delta\Rightarrow \nabla f(p)\in \Delta$ and that $D^2f(0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$ is non-degenerate. Let us write $(x,y)$ for Euclidean coordinates with respect to the orthogonal splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^n = \Delta\oplus \Delta^\bot$. Then there exists a local diffeomorphism $\Phi$ fixing points in $\Delta$ near the origin such that $$\label{quite_explict}
f\circ \Phi(x,y) = f(x,0) + \frac{1}{2} \left< D^2f(0,0)\cdot(0,y),(0,y) \right>$$ for all $(x,y)$ close enough to zero. In particular, if $D^2f(0,0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$ has signature $(p,q)$ then there is an isomorphism $${{\rm HM}}_*(f|_\Delta,0) \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_{*+q}(f,0)$$ of local Morse homologies. Moreover, if $A\in O(n)$ leaves $\Delta$ and $f$ invariant and generates a ${\mathbb{Z}}_\ell$-action, $\ell\in{\mathbb{N}}$, then $\Phi$ can be taken ${\mathbb{Z}}_\ell$-equivariant. Clearly $A$ leaves the negative space $E_-$ of $D^2f(0,0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$ invariant, and if $A|_{E_-}$ preserves orientations then there is an isomorphism of invariant local Morse homologies $${{\rm HM}}_{*}(f|_\Delta,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_\ell} \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_{*+q}(f,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_\ell}.$$
\[rmk\_explicit\] The isomorphisms of local Morse homologies in Corollary \[lemma\_local\_MH\_tangent\_submfd\], non-invariant or invariant, are given by composing direct sum isomorphisms - with the isomorphisms induced by changing $f\circ \Phi$ to $f$. Using the quite explicit form of $f\circ \Phi$, these maps on homology can be given obvious and explicit descriptions at the chain level using chain complexes of certain preferred perturbations.
The particular case of the above corollary which is relevant for us is as follows. We consider two germs of smooth real-valued functions in different spaces. Let $f$ be such a germ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{nm}$ with isolated critical point at the origin, and let $h$ be such a germ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{nmk}$, again with an isolated critical point at the origin.
Equip both spaces with the corresponding Euclidean metrics. Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{nmk}=({\mathbb{R}}^{nm})^k$, let $\Delta$ be the $k$-diagonal linear subspace. Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{nmk}=({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{mk}$ we can consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{mk}$-action generated by the cyclic shift to the right, which is in $O(nmk)$. Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{nm} = ({\mathbb{R}}^n)^m$ we can consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}_m$-action generated by the cyclic shift to the right, which is in $O(nm)$. Assume that $f$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_m$-invariant and that $h$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_{mk}$-invariant. In particular, $\nabla h$ is tangent to $\Delta$ at points in $\Delta$, and obviously so is $\nabla (\oplus^k f)=\oplus^k \nabla f$. Assume further that $h$ coincides with $\oplus^kf$ on $\Delta$, and that $D^2h(0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$ is non-degenerate; let $E_-\subset\Delta^\bot$ be its negative space and denote $q=\dim E_-$.
Let us use $(x,y)$ as Euclidean coordinates according to the splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{nmk} = \Delta\oplus\Delta^\bot$. We claim that if the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action preserves orientations on $E_-$ then Corollary \[lemma\_local\_MH\_tangent\_submfd\] provides an isomorphism $$\label{abstract_isom_inv_iterations}
{{\rm HM}}_*(h,(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*-q}(f,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_m}.$$ On the right-hand side $0$ denotes the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{nm}$. In fact, Corollary \[lemma\_local\_MH\_tangent\_submfd\] provides a germ of diffeomorphism $\Phi$ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{nmk}$ satisfying $\Phi|_\Delta=id|_\Delta$, $\Phi$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-equivariant, $D\Phi(0,0)=I$ and $$h\circ \Phi(x,y) = h(x,0) + \frac{1}{2} \left< D^2h(0,0)\cdot(0,y),(0,y) \right>$$ near the origin. The quadratic form in the variable $y$ on the right-hand side is ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-invariant and, by assumption, the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action preserves orientations on its negative space $E_-$. Hence there is an isomorphism as in $$\label{first_equiv_isom}
{{\rm HM}}_*(h\circ\Phi,(0,0))^{{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*-q}(h\circ \Phi|_{\Delta},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}}.$$ But the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action restricted to $\Delta$ is not faithful, in fact, it is the $k$-th iteration of a ${\mathbb{Z}}_m$-action: the element $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$ generates the identity on $\Delta$. Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{nm} = \Delta$ via the diagonal inclusion, it corresponds to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_m$-action on ${\mathbb{R}}^{nm}$. Note also that $h\circ\Phi|_\Delta = h|_\Delta = \oplus^k f|_\Delta$ and again the diagonal inclusion allows us to identify $\oplus^k f|_\Delta$ with $kf$. Hence we have isomorphisms $${{\rm HM}}_{*-q}(h\circ \Phi|_{\Delta},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}} \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*-q}(h\circ \Phi|_{\Delta},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_m} \simeq H_{*-q}(f,0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_m}.$$ Composing these isomorphisms with the isomorphism and the obvious isomorphism given by changing $h$ to $h\circ \Phi$, we obtain .
In the absence of cyclic group actions, a simpler argument provides an isomorphism $$\label{abstract_isom_noninv_iterations}
{{\rm HM}}_*(h,(0,0)) \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*-q}(f,0).$$
The proofs of the Persistence Theorem, with or without symmetries, will be given by showing that discrete action functionals fit into the above abstract framework.
Persistence Theorem without symmetries {#ssec_persistence_no_symmetries}
--------------------------------------
Now let us go back to Hamiltonian dynamics and prove Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\]. Associated to a $1$-periodic germ $H=\{H_t\}$ near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH_t(0)=0$, $H_{t+1}=H_t$ for all $t$, we have a local Hamiltonian isotopy $\varphi_H^t$ defined by $d\varphi_H^t/dt=X_{H_t} \circ \varphi_H^t$, $\varphi_H^0=id$. This data defines the action functionals ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ for all $k\geq 1$, as in . Denote $\varphi = \varphi_H^1$. Let $N$ be adapted to $H$ in the sense of . Now consider maps $\Phi_{H,1,N}$ and $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ defined as in . The first is defined near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}$ while the second is defined near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$. Let $\Delta \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ be the $k$-diagonal, where we identify ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} \simeq ({\mathbb{R}}^{2nN})^k$. We have a standard Lagrangian splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{nkN} \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{nkN}$ with respect to which we write $\Phi_{H,k,N}(x,y)=(X,Y)$. Define $T(x,y)=(x,Y)$. By Lemma \[lemma\_action\_as\_gen\_function\] this map satisfies (Gen1), i.e., $T$ is a local diffeomorphism fixing the origin.
The subspace $\Delta$ is invariant under $\Phi_{H,k,N}$ and $T$.
A point $(z_1,\dots,z_{kN}) \in \Delta$ is a sequence such that $(z_{(\lambda-1)N+1},\dots,z_{\lambda N})$ is independent of $\lambda \in \{1,\dots,k\}$. Denoting $\Phi_{H,k,N}(z_1,\dots,z_{kN}) = (Z_1,\dots,Z_{kN})$, it follows from that $\Phi_{H,k,N}(\Delta) = \Delta$ locally near the origin. Denoting $z_i=(x_i,y_i)$ and $Z_i=(X_i,Y_i)$ we get that $(x_{(\lambda-1)N+1},\dots,x_{\lambda N})$ and $(Y_{(\lambda-1)N+1},\dots,Y_{\lambda N})$ are both independent of $\lambda$. Hence $T$ also preserves $\Delta$.
$\Delta$ is invariant under the Euclidean gradient flow of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$.
The Euclidean gradient of ${\mathbb{A}}_{}$ has components $$\begin{aligned}
& \nabla_{x_i}{\mathbb{A}}= y_{i+1}-y_i+D_1S_i(x_i,y_{i+1}) \\
& \nabla_{y_i}{\mathbb{A}}= x_{i-1}-x_i+D_2S_{i-1}(x_{i-1},y_i)
\end{aligned}$$ where here the index $i$ runs from $1$ to $kN$ with the convention that $0$ is to be identified with $kN$, while $kN+1$ is to be identified with $1$. From these formulas we see that $((\nabla_{x_{(\lambda-1)N+1}}{\mathbb{A}},\nabla_{y_{(\lambda-1)N+1}}{\mathbb{A}}),\dots,(\nabla_{x_{\lambda N}}{\mathbb{A}},\nabla_{y_{\lambda N}}{\mathbb{A}}))$ is independent of $\lambda \in \{1,\dots,k\}$ when computed at points of $\Delta$. In other words, the gradient of ${\mathbb{A}}$ is tangent to $\Delta$ at points of $\Delta$.
The subspaces $\Delta$ and $\Delta^\bot$ are orthogonal with respect to the symmetric matrix $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)$.
If $(u,v)$ are coordinates associated to the splitting $\Delta \oplus \Delta^\bot$ then from the previous lemma we get $\nabla_v{\mathbb{A}}(u,0) \equiv 0$. Thus $\nabla^2_{vu}{\mathbb{A}}$ vanishes along $\Delta$, and the conclusion follows from the symmetry of the Hessian.
From now on, we assume that $k$ is an admissible iteration. The diagonal map $d:{\mathbb{R}}^{2nN} \to \Delta$ defined by $d(z)= (z,\dots,z)$ determines a map from $\ker d\Phi_{H,1,N}(0)-I$ to $\ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I$ which is, in principle, only injective (even with no assumptions on $k$). Note that the image of $\ker d\Phi_{H,1,N}(0)-I$ under the map $d$ is contained in $\Delta$ since, obviously, $d$ takes values in $\Delta$. There are isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\ker d\varphi(0)-I &\simeq \ker d\Phi_{H,1,N}(0)-I \\
\ker d\varphi^k(0)-I &\simeq \ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I
\end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta z \mapsto (\delta z,d\varphi^H_{1/N}\cdot \delta z,\dots,d\varphi^H_{(N-1)/N}(0)\cdot \delta z) \\
&\delta z \mapsto (\delta z,d\varphi^H_{1/N}\cdot \delta z,\dots,d\varphi^H_{(kN-1)/N}(0)\cdot \delta z)
\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Since $k$ is admissible, $\ker d\varphi(0)-I = \ker d\varphi^k(0)-I$. Hence the subspaces $\ker d\Phi_{H,1,N}(0)-I$ and $\ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I$ have the same dimension. It follows that the image of $\ker d\Phi_{H,1,N}(0)-I$ under $d$ coincides precisely with $\ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I$, in particular, $\ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I$ is contained in $\Delta$. Now, the formula $$d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I = -J_0 \ D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0) \ dT(0)$$ given by Lemma \[lemma\_formula\_hessian\] tells us that the kernel of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)$ is contained in $\Delta$. In fact, consider $V \in \ker D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)$. By the above formula one gets $dT(0)^{-1}V\in \ker d\Phi_{H,k,N}(0)-I \subset \Delta$. Thus $V\in\Delta$ since $dT(0)(\Delta)=\Delta$. We can finally conclude that $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)|_{\Delta^\bot}$ is an isomorphism of $\Delta^\bot$.
Combining the above arguments with the fact that $\Delta$ is invariant under the Euclidean gradient flow of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ and that ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ coincides with $\oplus^k{\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N}$ along $\Delta$, we conclude that there is an isomorphism as in $$\mathcal{I} : {{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N},0) \to {{\rm HM}}_{*+q}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0)$$ for $k\geq 1$ admissible. It is called the [*iteration map*]{}. Here, the index shift $q$ is the algebraic number of negative eigenvalues of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)$ on $\Delta^\bot$. The Hessian $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)$ respects the splitting $\Delta \oplus \Delta^\bot$, and the diagonal isomorphism ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nN} \to \Delta$ identifies the negative space of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N}(0)$ with the negative space of $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}(0)|_\Delta$. It follows that $q$ is precisely the difference between the Morse index of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ and the Morse index of $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}$ as a critical point of ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N}$. By [@mazz_SDM Proposition 2.5] we get $$q = {{\rm CZ}}^{(k)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(1)} + n(k-1)N$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& {{\rm CZ}}^{(k)} = {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,k]\mapsto d\varphi^t_H(0)) \\
& {{\rm CZ}}^{(1)} = {{\rm CZ}}(t\in[0,1]\mapsto d\varphi^t_H(0))
\end{aligned}$$ and ${{\rm CZ}}$ stands for the lower semi-continuous extension of the Conley-Zehnder index to degenerate paths.
The maps $\mathcal{I}$ above commute with the inflation maps constructed in Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\]. More precisely, there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrixcolsep{6pc}\xymatrix{
{{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N},0) \ar[d]^{\mathcal{I}} \ar[r]^{\mathscr{I}^{(1)}_N} & {{\rm HM}}_{*+nN}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,1,N+1},0) \ar[d]^{\mathcal{I}} \\
{{\rm HM}}_{*+q}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0) \ar[r]^{\mathscr{I}^{(k)}_N} & {{\rm HM}}_{*+nN+q}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N+1},0)
}$$ This follows since the various direct sum maps and continuation maps involved in the definitions of $\mathscr{I}_N^{(1)},\mathscr{I}^{(k)}_N$ and $\mathcal{I}$ commute with each other; see the end of Section \[ssec\_invariant\] and Remark \[rmk\_explicit\]. These diagrams and the formula above for $q$ (which depends on $N$!) in terms of Conley-Zehnder indices yield an iteration map $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{I} : {\mathscr{H}}_*(H,1,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{*+s_k}(H,k,0) & \text{ with } & s_k = {{\rm CZ}}^{(k)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(1)}.
\end{array}$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_non\_invariant\].
Persistence Theorem with symmetries {#ssec_persistence_symmetries}
-----------------------------------
As before we study a $1$-periodic germ $H=\{H_t\}$ defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ satisfying $dH_t(0)=0$ for all $t$. We fix $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi_H^m$ has an isolated fixed point at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$. Let $N\gg1$ be adapted to $H$. Assume that $k$ is admissible and good for $\varphi^m_H$. Hence $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ is an isolated fixed point of $\varphi^{km}_H$. Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkm2N} = ({\mathbb{R}}^{2nm2N})^k$, let $\Delta$ be the $k$-diagonal. Since the Euclidean gradient $\nabla{\mathbb{A}}_{H,km,2N}$ is tangent to $\Delta$ at points of $\Delta$, the Hessian $D^2{\mathbb{A}}_{H,km,2N}(0)$ at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nkm2N}$ splits as a quadratic form as $Q\oplus Q^\bot$ according to the splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkm2N} = \Delta\oplus\Delta^\bot$. Moreover $Q^\bot$ is non-degenerate because $k$ is admissible (see the non-invariant case above). By Lemma \[lemma\_preserves\_orient\_Delta\_perp\] the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{km}$-action preserves orientations on the negative space $E_-\subset \Delta^\bot$ of $Q^\bot$. Note that (Remark \[rmk\_dim\_E\_-\]) the dimension of $E_-$ is $$\dim E_- = {{\rm CZ}}^{(km)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(m)} + n(k-1)m2N$$ where ${{\rm CZ}}^{(km)}$ and ${{\rm CZ}}^{(m)}$ are the (lower semi-continuous extensions of the) Conley-Zehnder indices of the paths $t\in[0,km]\mapsto d\varphi^t_H(0)$ and $t\in[0,m]\mapsto d\varphi^t_H(0)$, respectively. Set $$s_{k,m} = {{\rm CZ}}^{(km)} - {{\rm CZ}}^{(m)}.$$ We have checked all the prerequisites for applying the discussion following Corollary \[lemma\_local\_MH\_tangent\_submfd\] to conclude that we have an iteration map $${{\rm HM}}_*({\mathbb{A}}_{H,m,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_m} \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_{*+s_{k,m}+n(k-1)m2N}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,km,2N},0)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_{km}}$$ as in , which is an isomorphism. As in the non-invariant case, such isomorphisms (note the dependence on $N$) commute with inflation maps of Lemma \[lemma\_inflation\]. Hence we obtain the iteration map as an isomorphism $$\mathcal{I} : {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_*(H,m,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}^{\rm inv}_{*+s_{k,m}}(H,km,0).$$ Summarizing, we have proved Theorem \[thm\_persistence\_invariant\].
Discrete Chas-Sullivan product {#sec_chas_sullivan}
==============================
Here we construct a loop product of Chas-Sullivan type on non-invariant local homologies of discrete action functionals. In the analogy with local Floer homology this is to be thought of as the pair-of-pants product.
Abstract products in local Morse homologies {#sec_products_local_Morse}
-------------------------------------------
Let $(f_1,x_1),\dots,(f_k,x_k)$ be pairs consisting of functions and isolated critical points. This means we are given smooth manifolds without boundary $X_1,\dots,X_k$, smooth functions $f_i:X_i\to {\mathbb{R}}$, and isolated critical points $x_i\in X_i$ of $f_i$. For what follows there is no loss of generality to assume that $f_i(x_i)=0$ for all $i$. Let $h:X_1\times\dots\times X_k\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be smooth and such that $(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ is an isolated critical point of $h$. Finally, assume that $Z\subset X_1\times\dots\times X_k$ is a properly embedded co-oriented submanifold of codimension $r$ such that $(x_1,\dots,x_k) \in Z$ and $h|_Z = f_1\oplus \dots\oplus f_k|_Z$. From this data we would like to construct a map $$\label{product_local_Morse}
\bullet^{(k)} : {{\rm HM}}_{i_1}(f_1,x_1) \otimes\dots\otimes {{\rm HM}}_{i_k}(f_k,x_k) \to {{\rm HM}}_{i_1+\dots+i_k-r}(h,(x_1,\dots,x_k)).$$
For each $i$ let $U_i$ be an open, relatively compact, isolating neighborhood for $(f_i,x_i)$. Choose small open neighborhoods $D_i$ and $D_i'$ of $X_i\setminus U_i$ satisfying $\overline D_i \subset D'_i$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
F = D_1 &\times X_2\times\dots\times X_k \cup X_1 \times D_2\times X_3\dots\times X_k \\
&\cup \dots \cup X_1\times\dots\times X_{k-1}\times D_k
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F' = D_1' &\times X_2\times\dots\times X_k \cup X_1 \times D_2'\times X_3\dots\times X_k \\
&\cup \dots \cup X_1\times\dots\times X_{k-1}\times D_k'
\end{aligned}$$ are small open neighborhoods of $X_1\times\dots\times X_k \setminus U_1\times\dots\times U_k$ satisfying $\overline F\subset F'$.
With $\epsilon>0$ small set $$W_i = \{ f_i < \epsilon \} \cap U_i, \ \ \ \ W_{i,-} = (\{ f_i < -k\epsilon \} \cap U_i) \cup (W_i \cap D_i)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
C &= \{ f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k < k\epsilon \} \cap U_1\times\dots\times U_k \\
C_- &= (\{ f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k < -\epsilon \} \cap U_1\times\dots\times U_k) \cup (C \cap F) \\
C'_- &= (\{f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k <-\epsilon/2\}\cap U_1\times\dots\times U_k) \cup (C \cap F').
\end{aligned}$$ The closure of $C_-$ with respect to $C$ is contained in $C'_-$. Finally, set $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &= \{h<k\epsilon\}\cap U_1\times \dots\times U_k \\
\Lambda_- &= (\{h<-\epsilon/2\}\cap U_1\times\dots\times U_k) \cup (F' \cap \Lambda)
\end{aligned}$$
Our constructions require a technical statement.
Let $X$ be a smooth manifold without boundary, $f:X\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function, $x\in X$ be an isolated critical point of $f$ such that $f(x)=0$, $U$ be an open relatively compact isolating neighborhood for $(f,x)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}$ be a small open neighborhood of $X\setminus U$. With $a,b>0$ consider $$W = \{ f<a \} \cap U \qquad W_- = (\{ f<-b \} \cap U) \cup (W\cap {\mathcal{O}}).$$ Define $E=\{f\leq a\}\cap U$. If $a+b$ is small enough then there exist $E^1_-,E^0_-$ closed subsets of $U$ satisfying
- Their interiors $\dot E^1_-,\dot E^0_-$ satisfy $\dot E^1_- \subset W_- \subset \dot E^0_-$.
- Both $(E,E^0_-)$ and $(E,E^1_-)$ are Gromoll-Meyer pairs for $(f,x)$ in $U$.
- The inclusions of pairs $(\dot E,\dot E^j_-)\subset (E,E^j_-)$ induce isomorphisms on homology $H_*(\dot E,\dot E^j_-) \simeq H_*(E,E^j_-)$, for $j=0,1$.
In particular the inclusions $(\dot E,\dot E^1_-) \subset (W,W_-)$, $(W,W_-) \subset (\dot E,\dot E^0_-)$ induce maps $$\label{rough_maps_nbds}
{{\rm HM}}(f,x) \to H_*(W,W_-) \qquad H_*(W,W_-) \to {{\rm HM}}(f,x).$$
Simple examples show that both maps in might not be isomorphisms. But the sets $E^0_-,E^1_-$ may be constructed in such a way that the first map is injective, and the second map is surjective.
In Appendix \[app\_invariance\] a Gromoll-Meyer pair in $U$ for $(f,x)$ is exhibited as follows. Choose a smooth bump function $\phi:X\to[0,1]$ such that $\phi\equiv0$ near $x$ and $1-\phi$ is compactly supported in $U$. Then the sets $\{f\leq a\} \cap U$, $\{ f-(a+b)\phi\leq-b\} \cap U$ form a Gromoll-Meyer pair provided $a,b>0$ are small enough. How small the numbers $a,b$ need to be depends on $f,x,U,\phi$.
We repeat this construction with two bump functions $\phi_0,\phi_1$ as above such that ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(1-\phi_1) \subset U\setminus{\mathcal{O}}$, and $\phi_0=0$ near $U\setminus{\mathcal{O}}$. Set $$E^1_- = \{ f-(a+b)\phi_1\leq-b\} \cap U \qquad E^0_- = \{ f-(a+b)\phi_0\leq-b\} \cap U$$ Assertion b) follows from the construction in Appendix \[app\_invariance\]. Note that when $a+b$ is small enough then $a$ is a regular value of $f$ on $U$, and $-b$ is a regular value of both $f-(a+b)\phi_j$ on $U$, $j=0,1$.
It is simple to check that if $a+b$ is small enough then $E,E^1_-,E^0_-$ are smooth top dimensional (domains) with boundary of $U$. Their interiors are $$\begin{aligned}
& \dot E = \{f<a\}\cap U, \\
& \dot E^1_- = \{ f-(a+b)\phi_1<-b\} \cap U, \\
& \dot E^0_- = \{ f-(a+b)\phi_0<-b\} \cap U.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that assertion c) holds. Note that the sets $E,E^1_-,E^0_-$ coincide outside of of ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(1-\phi_0)$.
Let $z\in W_-$. If $z\in{\mathcal{O}}$ then $z\in W\cap {\mathcal{O}}$ because $W_-\cap{\mathcal{O}}= W\cap{\mathcal{O}}$. In particular $f(z)<a$. But since $\phi_1(z)=1$, $f(z)<a$ is the same as $f(z)-(a+b)\phi_1(z)<-b$, so we get $z\in \dot E^1_-$. If $z\in U\setminus{\mathcal{O}}$ then $f(z)-(a+b)\phi_1(z) \leq f(z)<-b$. We proved that $W_- \subset \dot E^1_-$.
Let $z\in \dot E^0_-$. If $z\in U\setminus{\mathcal{O}}$ then $\phi_0(z)=0$, so that $-b>f(z)-(a+b)\phi_0(z) = f(z)$, and $z\in W_-$ in this case. If $z\in {\mathcal{O}}$ then we use that $a\geq(a+b)\phi_0(z)-b$ to conclude that the inequality $-b>f(z)-(a+b)\phi_0(z)$ implies $f(z)<a$. Then $z\in W\cap{\mathcal{O}}\subset W_-$ in this case. We proved that $E^0_- \subset W_-$. Assertion a) is proved.
Existence of the maps follows from a), b) and c) since the vector spaces $H_*(E,E^j_-)$ are canonically isomorphic to ${{\rm HM}}(f,x)$, see Definition \[def\_GM\_pairs\].
By the above lemma, we can find maps $$\label{rough_maps_tau_i}
\tau_i : {{\rm HM}}_*(f_i,x_i) \to H_*(W_i,W_{i,-})$$ and a map $$\label{rough_map_Theta}
\Theta : H_*(\Lambda,\Lambda_-) \to {{\rm HM}}_*(h,(x_1,\dots,x_k))$$ provided $\epsilon$ is small enough.
The product of pairs $(W_i,W_{i,-})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&\prod_i (W_i,W_{i,-}) \\ &= (W_1\times\dots\times W_k,W_{1,-}\times W_2\times\dots\times W_k \cup W_1\times W_{2,-}\times\dots\times W_k \cup \dots)
\end{aligned}$$ and hence there are inclusions $$\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-}) \hookrightarrow (C,C_-) \hookrightarrow (C,C_-\cup(C\setminus Z)).$$ We get a composite of two inclusions $$\iota: \prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-}) \hookrightarrow (C,C_-\cup(C\setminus Z)).$$ Composing with the cross-product $\times$ we get a map $$\iota \circ \times^k : H_{i_1}(W_1,W_{1,-}) \otimes \dots \otimes H_{i_k}(W_k,W_{k,-}) \to H_{i_1+\dots+i_k}(C,C_-\cup(C\setminus Z)).$$
Note that $Z\cap C$ is a properly embedded submanifold of the open set $C$, and we consider an open tubular neighborhood $N$ of $Z \cap C$ in $C$. This means that if $\nu$ denotes the normal bundle of $Z\cap C$ then there exists a diffeomorphism $N \simeq \nu$ which identifies the inclusion $Z\cap C \subset N$ with the inclusion of the zero section into $\nu$. This equips $N$ with the structure of an oriented rank $r$ vector bundle $\pi:N \to Z\cap C$. The set $C\setminus N$ is closed in $C$ and is contained in the open subset $C_- \cup (C\setminus Z)$ of $C$. Excision yields an isomorphism $${\rm exc}: H_*(C,C_-\cup(C\setminus Z)) \to H_*(N,(N\cap C_-)\cup(N\setminus Z)).$$
Consider the vertical saturation $\pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-)) \supset N\cap C_-$ and let $j$ denote the inclusion $$j: H_*(N,(N\cap C_-)\cup(N\setminus Z)) \to H_*(N,\pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-))\cup(N\setminus Z)).$$ The relative Thom isomorphism theorem provides an isomorphism $$u \cap : H_*(N, \pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-)) \cup (N\setminus Z)) \to H_{*-r}(N,\pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-)))$$ where $u \in H^r(N, \pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-)) \cup (N\setminus Z))$ is the Thom class. Obviously $$\pi : H_{*}(N,\pi^{-1}(\pi(N\cap C_-))) \to H_*(Z\cap C,\pi(N\cap C_-))$$ is an isomorphism. If $N$ is small enough then $\pi(N\cap C_-) \subset Z\cap C'_-$. From this and from our crucial assumption $f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k|_Z = h|_Z$ it follows that there is an inclusion $$k : H_*(Z\cap C,\pi(N\cap C_-)) \hookrightarrow H_* \left( \Lambda,\Lambda_- \right). $$ The map is finally defined as the composition $$\bullet^{(k)}(a_1,\dots,a_k) = \Theta \circ k \circ \pi\circ (u\cap) \circ j \circ {\rm exc} \circ \iota (\tau_1(a_1) \times \dots \times \tau_k(a_k)).$$ It follows from this formula that $\bullet^{(k)}$ is $k$-multilinear.
This construction for $k=2$ yields a product $$\bullet : {{\rm HM}}_{i_1}(f_1,x_1) \otimes {{\rm HM}}_{i_2}(f_2,x_2) \to {{\rm HM}}_{i_1+i_2-r}(h,(x_1,x_2))$$ defined by $$a_1 \bullet a_2 = \bullet^{(2)}(a_1,a_2).$$ Let $M:X_1\times X_2 \to X_2\times X_1$ be the diffeomorphism $(q_1,q_2) \mapsto (q_2,q_1)$. Following the above construction with $f_1\oplus f_2,h,Z$ replaced by $f_2\oplus f_1,M_*h,M(Z)$ one defines a product $$\bullet' : {{\rm HM}}_{i_2}(f_2,x_2) \otimes {{\rm HM}}_{i_1}(f_1,x_1) \to {{\rm HM}}_{i_1+i_2-r}(M_*h,(x_2,x_1)).$$ There is an obvious map $M_*:{{\rm HM}}(h,(x,y)) \to {{\rm HM}}(M_*h,(y,x))$. From functoriality properties given by the Eilenberg-Zilber theorem we get $$M_*(a\bullet b)=(-1)^{|a||b|} \ b\bullet'a .$$
Products for discrete action functionals {#sec_products_local_action}
----------------------------------------
Fix a (germ of) $1$-periodic Hamiltonian $H$ near $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $dH_t(0)=0 \ \forall t \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. For $k_1,\dots,k_m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ fixed we assume that the constant trajectory $z(t) \equiv 0$ is isolated when seen as a $k_i$-periodic solution of Hamilton’s equation $\dot z(t)=X_{H_t}(z(t))$ for all $i$, and also when seen as a $(k_1+\dots+k_m)$-periodic solution.
Take $N$ large and for each $1\leq i\leq N$ consider the generating function $S_i$ for the germ $\psi_i$ as in normalized by $S_i(0)=0$. Extend the family $\{S_i\}$ to a family $\{S_i\,;\, i\in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$ by $N$-periodicity. Consider discrete action functionals ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_i,N}$ and ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$ where $k=k_1+\dots+k_m$, as defined in . It is important to note the drastic difference between ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1,N} \oplus\dots\oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_m,N}$ and ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$, where both are defined near the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$: at a first glance their formulas look the same, but these functionals are, in fact, very different because indices are taken with different periodicity conventions.
Identifying ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk_iN} \simeq ({\mathbb{R}}^{2n})^{k_iN}$, we think of a point $(z_1,\dots,z_{k_iN})$ as a discrete loop with $z_1$ as the base point. Consider the linear manifold $$Z = \{ y_1 = y_{k_1N+1} = y_{(k_1+k_2)N+1} = \dots = y_{(k_1+\dots+k_{m-1})N+1} \} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2nkN}$$ where $z_i=(x_i,y_i)$ denotes the standard Lagrangian splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n} = {\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Hence $Z$ has codimension $(m-1)n$ and its Euclidean orthogonal complement is $$Z^\bot = \left\{ \begin{aligned} & x_i=0 \ \forall i \\ & y_i=0 \ \forall i\not\in\{1,k_1N+1,(k_1+k_2)N+1,\dots,(k_1+\dots+k_{m-1})N+1\} \\ & y_1 + y_{k_1N+1} + y_{(k_1+k_2)N+1} + \dots + y_{(k_1+\dots+k_{m-1})N+1}=0 \end{aligned} \right\}.$$ We co-orient $Z$ by identifying $Z^\bot \simeq ({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{m-1}$ via the isomorphism induced by projecting onto $(y_1,y_{k_1N+1},\dots,y_{k_{m-2}N+1})$ and pulling back the canonical orientation. The important observation is that $$\label{identity_action_functionals_product}
{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1,N} \oplus \dots \oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_m,N}|_Z = {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}|_Z.$$
Set $\lambda_1=0$ and $\lambda_l = k_1+\dots+k_{l-1}$ when $2\leq l\leq m+1$. The formula for ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1,N} \oplus \dots \oplus {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_m,N}$ is $$\sum_{l=1}^m \left( \begin{aligned} &\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{k_lN-1} x_{\lambda_lN+i}(y_{\lambda_lN+i+1}-y_{\lambda_lN_i}) + S_{\lambda_lN+i}(x_{\lambda_lN+i},y_{\lambda_lN+i+1}) \right\} \\ & + x_{\lambda_{l+1}N}(y_{\lambda_lN+1}-y_{\lambda_{l+1}N}) + S_{\lambda_{l+1}N}(x_{\lambda_{l+1}N},y_{\lambda_lN+1})\end{aligned} \right)$$ If the point lies in $Z$ then in the second term of each term inside the parenthesis we can replace $y_{\lambda_lN+1}$ by $y_{\lambda_{l+1}N+1}$ (identifying indices $\lambda_{m+1}N+1=kN+1$ and $1$). This gives exactly the formula for ${\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N}$.
Thus we can apply the construction of the previous section, and the map yields a multilinear map $$\bullet^{(m)}: {{\rm HM}}_{i_1}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1,N},0) \otimes\dots\otimes {{\rm HM}}_{i_m}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_m,N},0) \to {{\rm HM}}_{i_1+\dots+i_m-(m-1)n}({\mathbb{A}}_{H,k,N},0).$$ These operations interact in the right manner with direct sum maps and continuation maps from Section \[sec\_properties\]. We get a multilinear map $$\bullet^{(m)}: {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1}(H,k_1,0) \otimes\dots\otimes {\mathscr{H}}_{i_m}(H,k_m,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1+\dots+i_m-(m-1)n}(H,k,0).$$
As observed before, the case $m=2$ yields a product $$\label{product_action_asymmetric}
{\mathscr{H}}_{i_1}(H,k_1,0) \otimes {\mathscr{H}}_{i_2}(H,k_2,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1+i_2-n}(H,k_1+k_2,0)$$ defined by $$a\bullet b = \bullet^{(2)}(a,b).$$ It is also important to notice that if we set $M$ to be the linear isomorphism of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n(k_1+k_2)N}$ defined by $$M(z_1,\dots,z_{(k_1+k_2)N}) = (z_{k_1N+1},\dots,z_{(k_1+k_2)N},z_1,\dots,z_{k_1N})$$ then $$\label{symmetry_coord_discrete_action}
{\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1+k_2,N} \circ M = {\mathbb{A}}_{H,k_1+k_2,N}.$$ Let us still denote by $\bullet$ the product $${\mathscr{H}}_{i_1}(H,k_2,0) \otimes {\mathscr{H}}_{i_2}(H,k_1,0) \to {\mathscr{H}}_{i_1+i_2-n}(H,k_1+k_2,0)$$ which, as the reader will notice, happens to be defined using the submanifold $M(Z)=Z$. Super-commutativity $$b \bullet a = (-1)^{|a||b|} a\bullet b$$ follows from the discussion at the end of Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\], in analogy with loop space homology.
It remains to address associativity, which is a standard property in usual loop space homology and is also true in our context. Identify $$V = {\mathbb{R}}^{2n(k_1+k_2+k_3)N} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk_1N} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk_2N} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk_3N}$$ with the normal bundle of each of the linear subspaces $$\begin{aligned}
& Z'=\{y_1=y_{k_1N+1}\} \\
& Z''=\{y_{k_1N+1}=y_{(k_1+k_2)N+1}\}.
\end{aligned}$$ These subspaces intersect transversely and both have codimension $n$. We get Thom classes $u' \in H^{n}(V,V\setminus Z')$, $u''\in H^{n}(V,V\setminus Z'')$. Associativity of the product will follow from the formula $$a_1 \bullet (a_2\bullet a_3) = \bullet^{(3)}(a_1,a_2,a_3) = (a_1\bullet a_2)\bullet a_3$$ which, in turn, follows basically from the fact that $u' \cup u''$ is the Thom class of $Z'\cap Z''$ and from associativity of the cross-product.
The product plays the role of the pair-of-pants product in local Floer homology. In fact, in [@HHM_prep] we will show that there are isomorphisms between ${\rm HF}(\varphi_H^k,0)$ and ${\mathscr{H}}(H,k,0)$ which intertwine the above product and the local pair-of-pants product.
Calculation of a special case {#ssec_special_case_prod}
-----------------------------
Our goal here is to prove Proposition \[prop\_prod\_SDM\]. In the same set-up as in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\] above, consider the case where
- $X_i={\mathbb{R}}^{d_i}$, $x_i=0$ is the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d_i}$ and ${{\rm HM}}_{d_i}(f_i,0)\neq 0$ for all $i$.
- $Z\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}\times\dots\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d_k}$ is a linear subspace (of codimension $r$).
- There is a linear complement $L$ of $Z$ such that ${\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}\times\dots\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d_k} = Z \oplus L$, such that $h|_L$ has a local minimum at $(0,\dots,0)$.
It is a standard fact, shown in [@Gi], that ${{\rm HM}}_j(f_i,0)=0$ if $j\neq d_i$, ${{\rm HM}}_{d_i}(f_i,0)={\mathbb{Q}}$. Moreover, each $f_i$ has a strict local maximum at $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d_i}$. We use this information and follow the notation in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\].
The pairs $(W_i,W_{i,-})$ can be chosen so that $W_i=U_i$ is a small open ball centered at the origin and $W_{i,-}$ is the complement in $W_i$ of an open ball centered at the origin of a smaller radius. The homology $H_*(W_i,W_{i,-})$ already computes local Morse homology in this case.
Let $B_1\supset B_2$ be small open balls in $Z$ centered at the origin of different radii, and let $B_1^\bot\supset B_2^\bot$ be small open balls in $Z^\bot$ centered at the origin of different radii. Since $(0,\dots,0)$ is a strict local maximum of $f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k$, we can use instead the pair $(C,C_-)$ defined as $$(C,C_-) = (B_1,B_1\setminus B_2)\times(B_1^\bot,B_1^\bot\setminus B_2^\bot). $$ The homology of this pair computes local Morse homology of $(f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k,(0,\dots,0))$. Then both pairs $\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-})$ and $(C,C_-)$ have the exact same form: they are homeomorphic to a pair $(Q,Q_-)$ where $Q$ is an open ball centered at the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d_1}\times\dots\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d_k}$ and $Q_-$ is the complement in $Q$ of an open ball centered at the origin with smaller radius. Since the critical points in question are strict local maxima, there are direct identifications $$\begin{aligned}
& {{\rm HM}}(f_i,0) = H(W_i,W_{i,-}) \\
& {{\rm HM}}(f_1\oplus\dots\oplus f_k,(0,\dots,0)) = H(\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-})) = H(C,C_-)
\end{aligned}$$ with no need to consider the maps $\tau_i$ and $\Theta$ of Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\]. The generators are clear from these descriptions. For instance, $H_{d_i}(W_i,W_{i,-})$ is generated by the class $e_i$ represented by a closed $d_i$-cell containing the origin in its interior and having boundary in $W_{i,_-}$. The same picture holds for the generators of $H(\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-}))$ and $H(C,C_-)$ in degree $d_1+\dots+d_k$.
The tubular neighborhood $N$ in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\] can be taken as $B_1\times B_3^\bot$ where $B_3^\bot$ is an open ball in $Z^\bot$ centered at the origin with radius much smaller than the radius of $B_2^\bot$. Then $Z\cap C = B_1$ and $\pi:N\to Z\cap C$ is the projection onto the first factor $B_1\times B_3^\bot \to B_1$. Since $N\cap C_-$ is already $\pi$-saturated, the map $j$ in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\] is the identity. Let $e$ be a generator in $H_{d_1+\dots+d_k}(\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-}))$. By the properties of the Thom class we get that $$\pi \circ (u\cap) \circ j \circ {\rm exc} \circ \iota : H_*(\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-})) \to H_{*-r}(Z\cap C,\pi(N\cap C_-)) = H_{*-r}(B_1,B_1\setminus B_2)$$ maps $e$ to a generator of $H_{d_1+\dots+d_k-r}(B_1,B_1\setminus B_2)$. Now, it follows from condition (c) that the map $k$ in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_Morse\] satisfies $k(e)\neq 0$.
Let $e_i$ be a generator in ${{\rm HM}}_{d_i}(f_i,0)={\mathbb{Q}}$. Identifying ${{\rm HM}}(f_i,0) = H(W_i,W_{i,-})$ we know that $e_1\times\dots\times e_k$ is a generator of $H_{d_1+\dots+d_k}(\prod_i(W_i,W_{i,-}))={\mathbb{Q}}$. Summarizing, we have proved
\[lemma\_non\_zero\_product\] If (a), (b) and (c) hold then $\bullet^{(k)}(e_1,\dots,e_k)\neq0$.
Now we apply this lemma to action functionals.
\[lemma\_non\_zero\_prod\_action\] Let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $K_t$ be a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $dK_t(0)=0$ for all $t$, $0$ is an isolated fixed point for $\varphi^1_K$ and $k$ is admissible for $\varphi^1_K$. If $K$ is $C^2$-small enough and ${\mathscr{H}}_n(K,1,0)\neq 0$ then the following hold.
- ${\mathscr{H}}(K,1,0)$ is supported in degree $n$ and ${\mathscr{H}}_n(K,1,0)={\mathbb{Q}}$.
- If $e$ generates ${\mathscr{H}}_n(K,1,0)$ then $\bullet^{(k)}(e,\dots,e)\neq 0$ in ${\mathscr{H}}_n(K,k,0)$.
Since $K$ is $C^2$-small we know that $N=1$ is adapted to $K$ in the sense of . If $S$ is a generating function for $\varphi^1_K$ then ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,1,1}=S$ and ${\mathscr{H}}_*(K,1,0) \simeq {{\rm HM}}_{*+n}(S,0)$ by definition. Note that $S$ is $C^2$-small. We get ${{\rm HM}}_{2n}(S,0)\neq 0$ by definition. Thus, the repeated pairs $(f_i,x_i) = (S,0)$ satisfy (a). Moreover, (i) holds. For the subspace $Z\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2nk}$ we take $$Z = \{ y_1=\dots=y_k \}$$ where a point in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk} \simeq ({\mathbb{R}}^{2n})^k$ is $(z_1,\dots,z_k)$ with $z_i=(x_i,y_i)$. For the function $h$ we take ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1}$ and note that ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1}|_Z = S\oplus\dots\oplus S|_Z$ ($k$ factors). Finally, for the complement $L$ we take $$L = \{ x_i = y_{i+1}-y_i \ (i\ {\rm mod}\ k), \ y_1+\dots+y_k=0 \}.$$ From the formula ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1} = \sum_{i\mod k} x_i(y_{i+1}-y_i)+S(x_i,y_{i+1})$ we get $${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1}|_L = \sum_{i\mod k} |x_i|^2+S(x_i,y_{i+1}).$$ Hence ${\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1}|_L$ has a local minimum at the origin because $S$ is $C^2$-small. We have checked (a), (b) and (c) for the pairs $({\mathbb{A}}_{K,1,1},0)$, $({\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1},(0,\dots,0))$ and the splitting ${\mathbb{R}}^{2nk}=Z\oplus L$. It follows from Lemma \[lemma\_non\_zero\_product\] that if $e$ is the generator of ${{\rm HM}}_{2n}({\mathbb{A}}_{K,1,1},0)$ then $\bullet^{(k)}(e,\dots,e)\neq 0$ in ${{\rm HM}}_{n+kn}({\mathbb{A}}_{K,k,1},0)$. The proof is complete in view of the easily checked compatibility between the products defined in Section \[sec\_products\_local\_action\] and continuation and direct-sum maps defined in Section \[sec\_properties\].
To prove this, first we claim that if $0$ is an SDM for $H$ then $1$ is the only Floquet multiplier of $\varphi^1_H$. This follows because, as proved in [@SZ], the Conley-Zehnder indices of the $1$-periodic orbits which bifurcate from $0$ as we perturb $H$ to a generic $H'$ lie on the interval $[\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)+n]$, but they must lie on the open interval $(\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)-n,\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)+n)$ if some Floquet multiplier is not equal to $1$. Since ${\mathscr{H}}_n(H,1,0)\neq0$ by assumption, it must be the case that all such generic perturbations produce $1$-periodic orbits with Conley-Zehnder index $n$. This fact combined with $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$ proves the claim. In particular, every $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is admissible for $\varphi^1_H$.
Now, any symplectic matrix having $1$ as the only eigenvalue is linearly symplectically conjugated to a matrix arbitrarily close to the identity; this is proved by Ginzburg in [@Gi Lemma 5.5]. Hence, up to a linear symplectic change of coordinates, we may assume that $\varphi^1_H$ is arbitrarily $C^1$-close to $id$. In particular, we find an arbitrarily $C^2$-small germ $K$ of a $1$-periodic Hamiltonian defined near $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ such that $\varphi^1_K=\varphi^1_H$. Apply Lemma \[lemma\_change\_of\_isotopy\] to get $${\mathscr{H}}_*(K,1,0) = {\mathscr{H}}_{*-2m}(H,1,0)$$ where $m$ is the Maslov index of the loop $M:t\in{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\mapsto d\varphi^t_K(0)(d\varphi^t_H(0))^{-1}$. Note that $M(t)^{-1} d\varphi^t_K(0)= d\varphi^t_H(0)$. Since $K$ is $C^2$-small it follows that $-2m$ is close to $\Delta_{{{\rm CZ}}}(H,1)=0$, but $m$ is an integer and we conclude that $m=0$. In particular, ${\mathscr{H}}_n(K,1,0)\neq0$. The desired conclusion now follows from a direct application of Lemma \[lemma\_non\_zero\_prod\_action\].
Preliminaries to transversality statements {#sec_prelim_transv}
==========================================
Finite cyclic group actions and invariant functions {#subsec_props}
---------------------------------------------------
Let $(M,\theta)$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary, possibly not compact. Let $k\geq 1$, and let $a$ be a $k$-periodic isometry of $(M,\theta)$ generating an action of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$.
For each $p\in M$ one may consider $r=\min\{j \in \{1,\dots,k\} \mid a^j(p)=p\}$. Then $r$ divides $k$ and the isotropy at $p$ is isomorphic to a copy of ${\mathbb{Z}}_\ell$, $\ell = k/r$, embedded inside ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ as $\{0,r,2r,\dots,(\ell-1)r\}$. Let $N$ denote the dimension of $M$. The ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action is linearizable in the sense that one finds a diffeomorphism between a ${\mathbb{Z}}_\ell$-invariant open neighborhood of $p$ and a Euclidean ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ centered at the origin, mapping $p$ to the origin, that conjugates $a^r$ to some $A\in O(N)$ satisfying $A^\ell=I$.
For all $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ set $$\label{set_F}
F_m = {{\rm Fix}}(a^m).$$ Since ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-actions are linearizable as explained above, each $F_m$ is a smooth submanifold and $$T_xF_m = \ker (da^m|_x-I) \ \ \forall x\in F_m.$$
\[lemma\_intersection\] $F_i \cap F_j = F_{\gcd(i,j)}$ for all $i,j\geq 1$.
If $l$ divides $h$ then $F_h \supset F_l$. Thus $F_i \cap F_j \supset F_{\gcd(i,j)}$. Denote $m=\gcd(i,j)$, so that $i=pm$ and $j=qm$ for integers $p,q\geq 1$ satisfying $\gcd(p,q)=1$. Hence we can find $r,s\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $pr + qs = 1$. Let $x\in F_i\cap F_j$ be arbitrary. Denoting $g = a^{m}$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
x &= a^{ir}\circ a^{js}(x) \\
&= a^{mpr} \circ a^{mqs}(x) \\
&= g^{pr} \circ g^{qs}(x) = g^{pr+qs}(x) = g(x)= a^{m}(x).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $x \in {{\rm Fix}}(g) = F_{m}$.
\[coro\_description\_F\_j\] For all $j\geq 1$ we have $F_j = F_{\gcd(j,k)}$.
The isotropy set ${{\rm Iso}}\subset M$ is the set of points $x$ for which the isotropy group $${{\rm Iso}}(x) = \{ j\in {\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}\mid a^j(x) = x \}$$ is non-trivial.
This immediately implies
The isotropy set can be written as ${{\rm Iso}}= \bigcup_{d\in {{\rm Div}}(k), d<k} F_d$.
Now we construct invariant cutoff functions near compact invariant sets.
\[lemma\_invariant\_nbds\] Let $K\subset M$ be any invariant compact set and $V$ be any neighborhood of $K$. Then there exists an invariant smooth function $\phi:M\to [0,1]$ such that ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi) \subset V$ and $\phi \equiv 1$ near $K$.
By compactness of $K$, for every open neighborhood $\mathcal U$ of $K$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $K$ such that all $j\cdot U$, $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$ are contained in a compact subset of $\mathcal U$. Hence $\cup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}} j\cdot U$ is an open invariant neighborhood of $K$ contained in a compact subset of $\mathcal U$.
Hence we find $W,W'$ invariant open neighborhoods of $K$ such that $$\overline{W'}\subset W\subset \overline{W} \subset V.$$ Take $h:M\to[0,1]$ any smooth function satisfying ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(h)\subset W$ and $h\equiv 1$ on $W'$. The average $\phi$ of $h$ over the group satisfies $\phi|_{W'}\equiv 1$ and ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi) \subset W$.
In particular, we have
\[cor\_inv\_smooth\_nbd\] Any invariant compact subset $K\subset M$ has an arbitrarily small invariant, compact and smooth neighborhood. By a smooth neighborhood we mean a neighborhood with smooth boundary.
Take $\phi$ as given in Lemma \[lemma\_invariant\_nbds\] and consider $\phi^{-1}([c,1])$ where $c\in(0,1)$ is a regular value of $\phi$.
Now we can also study the gradient of invariant functions near isotropy points.
\[lemma\_grad\_tang\] If $f:V\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is an invariant smooth function then $\nabla^\theta f$ is tangent to $F_j$ for all $j$. In particular ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f) \cap F_j = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f|_{F_j})$ for all $j$.
Fix $x\in F_j$. Since $da^j|_x$ is a linear isometry of $(T_xM,\theta_x)$ we compute for any $u\in T_xM$ $$\theta(\nabla f_x,u) = df_x\cdot u = df_{x} \cdot (da^j|_x)^{-1} \cdot u = \theta(da^j|_x \cdot \nabla f_x, u) .$$ Since $u$ is arbitrary we conclude that $\nabla f_x \in \ker (da^j|_x-I) = T_xF_j$.
\[lemma\_invariant\_normal\_decreasing\] Let $f\colon F_j\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a given smooth invariant function. Then there exists an open invariant neighborhood $V$ of $F_j$ in $M$ and an invariant function $\tilde f\colon V\to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying
- $\tilde f \equiv f$ on $F_j$.
- ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(\tilde f) = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f) \subset F_j$ and $W^s(x;\tilde f,\theta) \subset F_j$ for all $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(\tilde f)$.
- If $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$ is non-degenerate as a critical point of $f$, then $x$ is also non-degenerate as a critical point of $\tilde f$.
In the second property the stable manifold is taken with respect to $V$.
By Corollary \[coro\_description\_F\_j\], there is no loss of generality to assume that $j \in {{\rm Div}}(k)$. Let $k=jm$ and write $t^k-1 = (t^j-1)Q(t)$ where $$Q(t) = 1+t^j+t^{2j}+\dots+ t^{(m-1)j}$$ is relatively prime with $t^j-1$.
Observe that $T_xM = \ker (da^k|_x-I)$ for all $x\in M$, and $T_xF_j = \ker (da^j|_x-I)$ for all $x\in F_j$. The smooth vector bundle $N_j$ over $F_j$ with fiber $N_j|_x = \ker Q(da|_x)$ over $x\in F_j$, satisfies $TF_j \oplus N_j = TM|_{F_j}$. Moreover, $N_j$ is $da$-invariant. Let $\exp$ be the exponential map associated to the $a$-invariant metric $\theta$. Then $\exp$ is well-defined on some open neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_j$ of the zero section of $N_j$. By perhaps shrinking $\mathcal{N}_j$, the map $\exp$ defines a diffeomorphism between $\mathcal{N}_j$ and an open neighborhood ${\mathcal{O}}_j$ of $F_j$ in $M$. Note that ${\mathcal{O}}_j$ is an invariant neighborhood, in fact, $a \circ \exp = \exp \circ da$ on $\mathcal{N}_j$ because $a$ is a $\theta$-isometry. Now define $V:={\mathcal{O}}_j$ and consider the projection $\pi:N_j\to F_j$ onto the base point to define $\tilde f$ by $$\tilde f(\exp(v)) = f(\pi(v)) - \|v\|^2$$ for all $v\in \mathcal{N}_j$. This function is smooth and invariant, and has all the desired properties.
Technical lemmas
----------------
The main goal of this section is to establish some properties of stable and unstable manifolds of invariant functions.
\[lemma\_crucial1\] Let $(X,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary, and $h$ be a Morse function on $X$. Let $Y\subset X$ be a submanifold without boundary such that $\nabla^g h$ is tangent to $Y$. If $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(h) \cap Y$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$ in $X$ such that $U \cap W^s(x;h,g) \subset Y$, then $W^s(x;h,g) \subset Y$.
Denote by $\phi^t$ the flow of $-\nabla^g h$. By Definition \[def\_stable\_unstable\_mfds\], the stable manifold $W^s(x;h,g)$ is the set of points $p\in X$ such that $\phi^t(p)$ is defined for all $t\in[0,+\infty)$ and $\phi^t(p) \to x$ as $t\to+\infty$. For all such $p$ there exists $t_0>0$ such that for all $t\geq t_0$, we have $\phi^t(p) \in U \cap W^s(x;h,g) \subset Y$. Since $\nabla^g h$ is tangent to $Y$ we conclude that $\phi^t(p) \in Y$ for all $t\in[0,t_0]$ by uniqueness of solutions of ODEs.
\[lemma\_crucial4\] Let $(X,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary, $Y\subset X$ be a submanifold without boundary, and $f:X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function such that $\nabla^g f$ is tangent to $Y$. Let $x_0,x_1\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\cap Y$ be non-degenerate, and let $c:{\mathbb{R}}\to X$ be an anti-gradient trajectory of $f$ from $x_0$ to $x_1$ contained in $Y$.
- Assume that $W^s(x_1;f,g) \subset Y$. If points of $c({\mathbb{R}})$ are transverse intersection points of $W^s(x_1;f,g)$ with $W^u(x_0;f,g)$ in $X$, then they must also be transverse intersection points of $W^s(x_1;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ with $W^u(x_0;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ in $Y$.
- Assume that $W^s(x_i;f,g) \subset Y$, $i=0,1$. If points of $c({\mathbb{R}})$ are transverse intersection points of $W^s(x_1;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ with $W^u(x_0;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ in $Y$, then they are also transverse intersection points of $W^s(x_1;f,g)$ with $W^u(x_0;f,g)$ in $X$.
- Assume that $D^2f(x_0)$ is negative definite on the $g$-orthogonal complement $(T_{x_0}Y)^g$ of $T_{x_0}Y$. Then $W^s(x_0;f,g) \subset Y$.
Let $p\in c({\mathbb{R}})$. Note that $\nabla^gf$ is tangent to $Y$ and therefore, we have $W^*(x_i;f|_Y,g|_Y) = W^*(x_i;f,g)\cap Y$, for $i\in\{0,1\}$ and $*=u$ or $*=s$. Consider $$\begin{array}{cccc}
E^u=T_pW^u(x_0;f,g), & E^s=T_pW^s(x_1;f,g) & \text{and} & F=T_pY
\end{array}$$ which are all linear subspaces of $T_pX$.
First we prove (i). Since $$W^s(x_1;f|_Y,g|_Y) = W^s(x_1;f,g) \cap Y = W^s(x_1;f,g)$$ we have $T_pX = E^s+E^u$ and $E^s\subset F$. Let $w\in F$ and write $w=e^s+e^u$ with $e^s\in E^s$, $e^u\in E^u$. Then $e^u=w-e^s \in F$ and $$w\in (F\cap E^u) + E^s = (F\cap E^u) + (F\cap E^s).$$ This shows that $F \subset (F\cap E^u) + (F\cap E^s)$. In other words, $p$ is a transverse intersection point of $W^s(x_1;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ with $W^u(x_0;f|_Y,g|_Y)$ in $Y$, and i) is proved.
Now we prove (ii). The important observation is that, in this case, $x_0$ is a transverse intersection point of $W^u(x_0;f,g)$ with $Y$ because $W^s(x_0;f,g) \subset Y$. By continuity of tangent spaces, $c(t)$ is a transverse intersection point of $W^u(x_0;f,g)$ with $Y$ provided $t\sim-\infty$. Hence the same is true for every $t$. In particular this holds at $p$. Consequently $T_pX = F+E^u$, and by assumption $F = (F\cap E^u) + E^s$, hence $T_pX = E^u+E^s$ as desired.
Item (iii) follows from uniqueness of the stable manifold at $x_0$ since $Y$ is invariant under the flow of $-\nabla^gf$ by Lemma \[lemma\_crucial1\].
A transversality lemma {#ssec_transv_lemma}
----------------------
The following is one of the main technical tools in our constructions. It is a transversality statement which keeps track of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry.
\[lemma\_crucial3\] Let ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ act smoothly by isometries on the smooth Riemannian manifold $(X,\theta_0)$ without boundary. Let ${{\rm Iso}}\subset X$ denote the isotropy set, and let $f$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant smooth Morse function on $X$. Let $V_1$ be an open neighborhood of ${{\rm Iso}}$ such that ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\cap V_1\subset{{\rm Iso}}$, and let $V_0\subset X\setminus {{\rm Iso}}$ be an open neighborhood of ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\setminus {{\rm Iso}}$. Assume that:
- $x\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\cap {{\rm Iso}}\Rightarrow W^s(x;f,\theta_0) \subset{{\rm Iso}}$.
- $\{x,y\}\subset{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f) \cap {{\rm Iso}}\Rightarrow W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\pitchfork W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$.
Then for every $\ell\geq1$ there exists a residual subset $\mathcal{R}$ of the set ${\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(V_0,\theta_0)$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant metrics of class $C^\ell$ coinciding with $\theta_0$ on $X\setminus V_0$, equipped with the $C^\ell$-topology, with the following property: $$\theta\in\mathcal{R}\Rightarrow W^u(x;f,\theta)\pitchfork W^s(y;f,\theta) \text{ for all } (x,y)\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\times{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f) .$$
Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\] will be proved as a consequence of the following statement. See Section \[sssec\_lem\_crucial\_3\] for the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\].
\[lemma\_transversality\_step\] Let $(X,\theta_0)$ be a smooth Riemannian manifold without boundary where ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ acts smoothly by isometries. Let $f:X\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant smooth Morse function, $\{x,y\}\subset{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$, $y\not\in{{\rm Iso}}$, and let $V_0$ be an open neighborhood of $y$. Consider the set ${\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(V_0,\theta_0)$ of $C^{\ell}$ metrics ($\ell\geq1$) which are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant and agree with $\theta_0$ on $X\setminus V_0$, equipped with the $C^\ell$-topology.
There exists a residual subset $\mathcal{R}_{x,y}\subset {\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(V_0,\theta_0)$ with the following property: if $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$ then $W^s(y;f,\theta)$ and $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ intersect transversely. An analogous statement holds if $x\not\in{{\rm Iso}}$, with $V_0$ replaced by a neighborhood of $x$.
In the following we work towards the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_transversality\_step\], which is given in Section \[sssec\_trans\_symmetry\]. Assume that $X,\theta_0,f,x,y,V_0$ are as in the statement of this lemma. We can assume $x\neq y$, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
### Functional analytic set-up
From now on we fix an exponential map $\exp$ associated to a choice of smooth background metric $g$. The dimension of $X$ is denoted by $n$. Let ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ denote the set of $W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}$ functions $c:{\mathbb{R}}\to M$ satisfying
- $\lim_{t\to+\infty}c(t)=y$, $\lim_{t\to-\infty}c(t)=x$.
- If we define $v_+:[a,+\infty)\to T_yX$ and $v_-:(-\infty,-a]\to T_xX$, with $a\gg1$, by $$\begin{aligned}
& c(t)=\exp(v^+(t)) \ \ t\in[a,+\infty) \\
& c(t)=\exp(v^-(t)) \ \ t\in(-\infty,-a]
\end{aligned}$$ then $v^+$ is $W^{1,2}$ on $[a,+\infty)$, and $v^-$ is $W^{1,2}$ on $(-\infty,-a]$, where we choose arbitrary identifications $T_xX\simeq{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $T_yX\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
The set ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ so defined is independent of the choice of $g$.
\[thm\_diff\_structure\] ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ admits the structure of a smooth, separable and Hausdorff Hilbert manifold, modeled on $W^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
We do not provide all the analytical details of the proof of this standard theorem, see [@schwarz_book Proposition 2.7] where the trajectory space is given an alternative but equivalent definition. However, we do describe the differentiable structure of ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$. The first step is to describe its topology. A sequence $c_j\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ is said to converge to $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ if
- $c_j\to c$ in $C^0_s({\mathbb{R}},X)$ and in $W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}},X)$, where $C^0_s$ means strong $C^0$-topology.
- Choosing $a\gg1$, if we define $$\begin{array}{ccc} v^+_j,v^+:[a,+\infty)\to T_yX & \text{and} & v^-_j,v^-:(-\infty,-a]\to T_xX \end{array}$$ by $$\begin{aligned}
& \exp(v^+_j(t))=c_j(t), \ \exp(v^+(t))=c(t) \ \ \ \ t\in[a,+\infty) \\
& \exp(v^-_j(t))=c_j(t), \ \exp(v^-(t))=c(t) \ \ \ \ t\in(-\infty,-a]
\end{aligned}$$ then $v^+_j \to v^+$ in $W^{1,2}$ and $v^-_j\to v^-$ in $W^{1,2}$.
A set $\mathcal O \subset{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ is defined to be open if for every $c\in\mathcal O$ and every sequence $c_j\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ which converges to $c$ as above one finds $j_0$ such that $c_j\in\mathcal O$ for all $j\geq j_0$. It is not hard to check that this is a topology which is metrizable and independent of $g$, and that ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \cap C^\infty({\mathbb{R}},X)$ is dense in ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$.
Now we turn to the description of the charts. Let $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$. Then $c^*TX$ is a vector bundle of class $W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}$. A trivialization $\Psi:c^*TX \to {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be [*admissible*]{} if one finds $U^x$ and $U^y$ open neighborhoods of $x,y\in X$ and smooth trivializations $\Phi^x:TU^x\to U^x\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $\Phi^y:TU^y\to U^y\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that
- If $t\gg1$ then $\Psi|_t$ and $\Phi^y|_{c(t)}$ coincide as linear isomorphisms $T_{c(t)}X\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
- If $t\ll-1$ then $\Psi|_t$ and $\Phi^x|_{c(t)}$ coincide as linear isomorphisms $T_{c(t)}X\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Using admissible trivializations one identifies $W^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with a space of sections of $c^*TX$, denoted by $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$. Also, one obtains a Hilbert structure on $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ by pulling back that of $W^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ via one of these identifications. The resulting Banachable space does not depend on the choice of admissible trivialization. The same procedure can be used to define $L^{2}(c^*TX)$, for $c\in {\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$. One can show that if $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\cap C^\infty$ then the map $$\label{local_chart_pathspace}
\zeta \mapsto \exp(\zeta)$$ is a homeomorphism between a neighborhood of the origin in $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ and a neighborhood of $c$ in ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$. This is a chart of the $C^\infty$-differentiable structure given by Theorem \[thm\_diff\_structure\]. Using that ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\cap C^\infty$ is dense in ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ one proves that the images of such charts cover ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$. Moreover, the arguments from [@eliasson] adapted to the non-compact domain ${\mathbb{R}}$ show that changes of coordinates are smooth. If $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \cap C^{r}$, with $r\geq1$, then is a chart of the unique $C^r$-differentiable structure containing the above described $C^\infty$-differentiable structure.
The next step is to define a smooth Hilbert bundle $\mathcal E$ over ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ with fibers modeled on $L^{2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. With $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$, we define $$\begin{array}{ccccc} \mathcal{E}_c = L^{2}(c^*TX) & \text{ and } & \Pi: \mathcal{E} = \bigsqcup_{c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)} \mathcal{E}_c \to {\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \end{array}$$ with $\Pi^{-1}(c) := \mathcal{E}_c$.
$\Pi:\mathcal{E}\to {\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ admits the structure of a smooth Hilbert bundle with fibers modeled on $L^{2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
Again we do not provide full analytical details of the proof, see [@schwarz_book Chapter 2] for the description of this Hilbert bundle; analytic details of the construction can be found in [@schwarz_book appendix A]. But we do describe the trivializations of $\mathcal{E}$. We use some of the constructions in [@eliasson]. Let us denote by $K:TTX\to TX$ the connection map associated to $g$. In a local trivialization of $TTX$ induced by a chart of $X$ we have $$K(x,v,\delta x,\delta v) = (x,\delta v+\Gamma(x)(\delta x,v))$$ where $\Gamma (x)(\delta x,v)^k= \sum_{ij}\Gamma^k_{ij}(x)(\delta x)^iv^j$; here $(\delta x)^i,v^j$ are local coordinates of tangent vectors and $\Gamma^k_{ij}$ are the Christoffel symbols of the Levi-Civita connection associated to $g$. Denoting by $\pi:TX\to X$ and $\tau :TTX\to TX$ the bundle projections, we have an isomorphism $$(\tau,d\pi,K) : TTX \to TX \oplus TX \oplus TX$$ which turns out to be a vector bundle isomorphism if we see $TX \oplus TX \oplus TX$ as a vector bundle over the first component $TX$. Let $\mathcal{O}$ denote a neighborhood of the zero section of $TX$ where the map $\exp$ is defined, which will eventually be made smaller below. The derivative $d\exp:\tau^{-1}(\mathcal{O}) \to TX$ of $\exp:\mathcal{O}\to X$ conjugates under the above diffeomorphism to a map $$\nabla \exp :\mathcal{O} \oplus TX \oplus TX \to TX$$ which is linear in the second and third components. In fact, $\nabla\exp(v,u,w) = J(1)$ where $J$ is the Jacobi field along $t\mapsto \exp(tv)$ satisfying $J(0)=u$ and $\frac{DJ}{dt}(0)=w$. We denote by $\nabla_1\exp$ and $\nabla_2\exp$ the maps $$\begin{array}{ccc} \nabla_1\exp(v) u = \nabla\exp(v,u,0) &\text{ and } & \nabla_2\exp(v) w = \nabla\exp(v,0,w) .\end{array}$$ These are linear maps $\nabla_i\exp(v):T_{\pi(v)}X \to T_{\exp(v)}X$. We take $\mathcal{O}$ small enough in such a way that these maps are linear isomorphisms.
Fixing $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\cap C^\infty$ and the exponential chart $\zeta \mapsto \exp(\zeta)$ defined on a neighborhood of the origin in $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$, we define a linear isomorphism $$\label{trivialization}
\begin{array}{ccc} \mathcal{E}_c = L^{2}(c^*TX) \to \mathcal{E}_{\exp(\zeta)} = L^{2}(\exp(\zeta)^*TX), & & \eta \mapsto \nabla_2\exp(\zeta)\eta .\end{array}$$ Of course, here one has to prove that this indeed defines a linear isomorphism between the corresponding Hilbert spaces. This trivializes $\mathcal{E}$ on the domain of the chart, and one can show that the transition maps between such trivializations are smooth. The trivializations constructed in such a way over exponential charts centered at points in ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \cap C^{r}$ will be of class $C^r$, $r\geq1$.
In the following we denote ${\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(V_0,\theta_0)$ by ${\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell$, for simplicity. With the $C^\ell$-topology this becomes a smooth Banach manifold. In fact, it is identified with an open set on the Banach space of symmetric $(2,0)$-tensors of class $C^\ell$ which vanish on $X\setminus V_0$, equipped with the $C^\ell$ norm. The projection $${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\times {\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell \to {\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$$ is smooth, and one can pull $\mathcal{E}$ back to a smooth bundle $$\mathcal{E}^{\rm univ} \to {\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\times{\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell$$ with fiber over $(c,\theta)$ given by $\mathcal{E}^{\rm univ}_{(c,\theta)} = \mathcal{E}_c$.
### Differential equation
We shall now define a section $$\begin{array}{ccc} s:{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\times{\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell \to \mathcal{E}^{\rm univ} & \text{by the equation} & s(c,\theta) = \dot c + \nabla^\theta f\circ c \end{array}.$$ We provide a precise description of this section. Fix $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\cap C^r$, for some $r\geq1$. A neighborhood of $c$ is parametrized by a neighborhood of the origin in $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ via the chart $\zeta\mapsto \exp(\zeta)$ of class $C^r$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\exp(\zeta) &= \nabla \exp(\zeta,\dot c,\nabla_t\zeta) \\
&= \nabla_1\exp(\zeta)\dot c + \nabla_2\exp(\zeta)\nabla_t\zeta \\
&= \nabla_2\exp(\zeta) (\nabla_t\zeta + \Theta(\zeta) \dot c)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_t\zeta$ is the covariant derivative of $\zeta$ along $c$ and $\Theta:\mathcal{O} \to \mathcal{L}(TX)$ is defined by $$\label{map_Theta}
\Theta(v) = \nabla_2\exp(v)^{-1} \circ \nabla_1\exp(v):T_{\pi(v)}X\to T_{\pi(v)}X.$$ Consider the map $$\label{map_Z}
\begin{array}{ccc} Z:\mathcal{O}\times {\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \to TX, & & Z(v,\theta)=\nabla_2\exp(v)^{-1}\nabla^\theta f(\exp(v)). \end{array}$$ One can show that $Z$ is smooth. Note that $Z(\cdot,\theta)$ denotes a smooth non-linear fiber-preserving map $\mathcal{O}\to TX$. Using the trivialization of $\mathcal{E}^{\rm univ}$ explained before, the section $s$ is represented by the map $$\label{local_formula_of_section}
F(\zeta,\theta) = \nabla_t\zeta + \Theta(\zeta)\dot c + Z(\zeta,\theta) .$$ It can be proved that for some open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of the origin in $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$, $F$ defines a $C^r$-map $$F: \mathcal{U}\times{\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell \to L^{2}(c^*TX).$$ It follows that $s$ is a smooth section since we can take $r=\infty$ and cover ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ by charts centered at points in ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \cap C^\infty$.
In order to study the differential of $F$ we introduce some notation taken from [@eliasson]. Let $p:E\to M$ and $p':E'\to M$ be smooth vector bundles over the same base, let $U\subset E$ be open, and let $h:U\to E'$ be a smooth map which is fiber-preserving in the sense that $p'\circ h=p$ on $U$. The fiber-derivative of $h$ is the smooth fiber-preserving map $Dh:U\to\mathcal{L}(E,E')$ characterized by $$Dh(e)u = \lim_{t\to0} \frac{h(e+tu)-h(e)}{t} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{where} \ e\in U, \ u\in p^{-1}(p(e)).$$ The limit in the right hand side is taken in the vector space $p'^{-1}(p(e))$.
Using the above remark and some straightforward estimates one shows that the differential of the map $F$ is given by $$\label{full_derivative_of_section}
DF(\zeta,\theta):(\eta,\xi) \mapsto \nabla_t\eta + (D\Theta(\zeta)\eta)\dot c + D_1Z(\zeta,\theta)\eta + D_2Z(\zeta,\theta)\xi$$ Here $D\Theta$ denotes the derivative of $\Theta$ in the fiber-direction, $D_1Z$ denotes the derivative of $Z$ in the fiber-direction with respect to the first variable, and $D_2Z$ the derivative of $Z$ in directions tangent to ${\rm Met}_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}^\ell$. The partial derivative $D_1F$ in the $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$-direction is the bounded linear map $$D_1F(\zeta,\theta):W^{1,2}(c^*TX) \to L^{2}(c^*TX)$$ given by $$D_1F(\zeta,\theta)\eta=\nabla_t\eta+(D\Theta(\zeta)\eta)\dot c + D_1Z(\zeta,\theta)\eta.$$
The following result is fundamental, but we state it here without a proof.
\[thm\_Fredholm\_op\] The operator $D_1F(0,\theta)$ is a Fredholm operator. Its Fredholm index is ${\rm ind}(x)-{\rm ind}(y)$, where ${\rm ind}$ denotes the Morse index.
For a proof we refer to Schwarz [@schwarz_book].
### Transversality with ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry {#sssec_trans_symmetry}
We start by investigating $D_2Z$ in more detail. Given $p\in X$ we have $Z(0_p,\theta)=\nabla^\theta f(p)$ where $0_p$ is the origin in $T_pX$ and $\nabla^\theta f$ is the $\theta$-gradient of $f$. Consider the space ${\rm Met}^\ell$ of $C^\ell$-metrics on $X$ which coincide with $\theta_0$ on $X\setminus V_0$. Then $T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell$ is just the space of $(2,0)$-tensors of class $C^\ell$ which vanish on $X\setminus V_0$, and $T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is the space of those which are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. Moreover, the map $(v,\theta) \mapsto Z(v,\theta)$ is actually defined on the whole of $\mathcal{O}\times {\rm Met}^\ell$. The map $\xi \in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell \mapsto D_2Z(0,\theta)\xi$ assigns a vector field on $X$ to each $\xi$.
\[lemma\_Cinfty\_linearity\] The equation $D_2Z(0,\theta)\phi\xi=\phi D_2Z(0,\theta)\xi$ holds for all $\xi\in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell$ and all $\phi\in C^\infty(X,{\mathbb{R}})$.
This follows trivially from local representations. In fact, the vector field $q\in X \mapsto Z(0_q,\theta) \in T_qX$ is nothing but the $\theta$-gradient of $f$. Here we denoted by $0_q$ the origin in $T_qX$. Choose local coordinates $x_1,\dots,x_n$ defined on some open subset of $X$. Use them to locally identify the metric with a field of symmetric matrices $\theta=[\theta_{ij}]$ of class $C^\ell$. Setting $\nabla f=(f_{x_1},\dots,f_{x_n})$, the vector field $q\mapsto Z(0_q,\theta)$ is represented as $\theta^{-1}\nabla f$ in these local coordinates. Any $\xi$ can be represented locally as a field $M$ of symmetric matrices, and the vector field $q\mapsto D_2Z(0_q,\theta)\xi$ is locally represented as $-\theta^{-1}M\theta^{-1}\nabla f$. From this the desired $C^\infty(X,{\mathbb{R}})$ -linearity is obvious, since $\phi\xi$ is represented as $\phi M$ and $-\theta^{-1}(\phi M)\theta^{-1}\nabla f = -\phi \ \theta^{-1}M\theta^{-1}\nabla f$.
Given $p\in V_0\setminus ({{\rm Iso}}\cup{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f))$, $v\in T_pX$, $v\neq0$ and $\theta\in{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$, there exists $\xi\in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ such that $g_{p}(D_2Z(0_p,\theta)\xi,v)\neq0$.
As before, here $0_p$ denotes the origin in $T_pX$.
As in the proof of the previous lemma, we can choose coordinates $x_1,\dots,x_n$ near $p\simeq(0,\dots,0)$ to write locally $Z(0,\theta)=\theta^{-1}\nabla f$. Here $\theta = [\theta_{ij}]$ is the local representation of the metric $\theta$ as a field of symmetric $n\times n$ matrix, and $\nabla f$ is the vector field $(f_{x_1},\dots,f_{x_n})$.
Let $v\in T_pX$ be a non-zero vector, represented as $w\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus 0$ via the local coordinates. Denote $u=\nabla f(p)\neq0$. We claim that there is a symmetric $n\times n$ matrix $H$ satisfying $Hu=w$. This is obvious if $u=e_1:=(1,0,\dots,0)$, but if $u\neq e_1$ then we choose $R\in SO(n)$ satisfying $Ru=e_1$, $K$ symmetric satisfying $Ke_1=Rw$, and set $H=R^TKR$. Hence there is a field $M$ of symmetric matrices defined near $0$ satisfying $-\theta(0)^{-1}M(0)\theta(0)^{-1}u=w$. Cutting $M$ off with a cut-off function supported near zero, we get a vector $\xi_0 \in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell$ satisfying $D_2Z(0_p,\theta)\xi_0=v$, and which vanishes at other points of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-orbit of $p$. Hence $g_p(D_2Z(0,\theta)\xi_0,v)=g_p(v,v)\neq0$. The desired $\xi$ is obtained by taking the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-average of $\xi_0$. It is crucial here that non-trivial elements of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ move $p$ to a different point where $\xi_0$ vanishes. We have $g_p(D_2Z(0,\theta)\xi_0,v) = \frac{1}{k} g_p(D_2Z(0,\theta)\xi,v) \neq 0$ because $p\not\in {{\rm Iso}}$ and the support of $\xi_0$ is a small neighborhood of $p$.
\[lemma\_transv\_technical\] Let $x,y\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$, $\theta\in {\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$, $c\in {\mathscr{P}}(x,y)\cap C^1$ and $\eta\in C^0(c^*TX)$ be given. Assume that there exists $t_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $c(t_0)\in V_0\setminus({\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)\cup{{\rm Iso}})$, $\dot c(t_0)\neq 0$ and $$\{ t\in {\mathbb{R}}\mid \text{$c(t)$ belongs to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-orbit of $c(t_0)$} \} = \{t_0\}.$$ Assume also that $\eta(t_0)\neq0$. Then there exists $\xi\in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ such that the function $$t\in{\mathbb{R}}\mapsto g_{c(t)}(D_2Z(0_{c(t)},\theta)\xi,\eta(t)) \in {\mathbb{R}}$$ is everywhere non-negative, and positive at $t_0$.
By the previous lemma we find $\xi_1\in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ such that $$g_{c(t_0)}(D_2Z(0_{c(t_0)},\theta)\xi_1,\eta(t_0))> 0.$$ In particular we find $\epsilon>0$ such that $g_{c(t)}(D_2Z(0_{c(t)},\theta)\xi_1,\eta(t))> 0$ for every $t\in (t_0-\epsilon,t_0+\epsilon)$. If $\phi$ is a smooth, non-negative, ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant, real-valued function on $X$ supported very near the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-orbit of $c(t_0)$ and satisfying $\phi(c(t_0))>0$, then the assumptions on $c$ imply that $\phi\circ c$ is a non-negative function with compact support contained in $(t_0-\epsilon,t_0+\epsilon)$. We choose such a $\phi$. Applying the $C^\infty$-linearity given by Lemma \[lemma\_Cinfty\_linearity\], we get the formula $$g_{c(t)}(D_2Z(0_{c(t)},\theta)\phi\xi_1,\eta(t)) = (\phi\circ c)(t) \ g_{c(t)}(D_2Z(0_{c(t)},\theta)\xi_1,\eta(t)).$$ The right hand side is a product of two functions, the first being non-negative and supported in the interval $(t_0-\epsilon,t_0+\epsilon)$, the second being positive in this interval. Setting $\xi=\phi\xi_1$ we get the desired conclusion.
\[prop\_surjectivity\_universal\] If $s(c,\theta)=0$ then $DF(0,\theta)$ is surjective.
Let $(c,\theta)$ be a zero of $s$. Then $c$ is of class $C^{\ell+1}$ since the identity $s(c,\theta)=0$ is equivalent to $\dot c+\nabla^\theta f(c)=0$ and $\nabla^\theta f$ is a vector field of class $C^\ell$.
The first is to show that $c(t)$ satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma\_transv\_technical\]. Clearly, for every $t$ we have $c(t) \not\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$. Using the standing assumption that $y\not\in{{\rm Iso}}$ we know that $c(t_0)\not\in{{\rm Iso}}$ when $t_0\sim+\infty$. Since $x\neq y$, $c(t)$ is a non-constant trajectory of the flow of $-\nabla^\theta f$. In particular $\dot c(t)$ is continuous and does not vanish. We claim that if $t_0$ is close enough to $+\infty$ then $$\label{crucial_assumption_previous_lemma}
\{ t\in {\mathbb{R}}\mid \text{$c(t)$ belongs to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-orbit of $c(t_0)$} \} = \{t_0\}.$$ If not we find $t_1\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $j\in {\mathbb{Z}}_k$ such that $t_1\neq t_0$ and $j \cdot c(t_0) = c(t_1)$. Necessarily we must have $j\neq0$. It follows from uniqueness of solutions of ODEs that the identity $j\cdot c(t+t_0) = c(t+t_1)$ holds identically in $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. The ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry of the vector field $\nabla^\theta f$ was used. This can be rewritten as $j\cdot c(t) = c(t+t_1-t_0)$ for all $t$. Consider the sequence $(mj)\cdot c(0)$ with $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Since $mj$ varies in ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ we find that $\{(mj)\cdot c(0)\}_{m\geq1}$ is a finite set of points. However, it follows from $t_1-t_0\neq0$ that $\{c(m(t_1-t_0))\}_{m\geq1}$ is an infinite set of points. We get a contradiction from the identity $(mj)\cdot c(0)=c(m(t_1-t_0))$ established above. This proves .
In the local chart the point $(c,\theta)$ gets represented as $(0,\theta)$ where $0$ denotes the zero section of $c^*TX$, and $s$ gets represented by a map $F$ given by the formula . For simplicity, we write in this proof $W^{1,2}$ and $L^{2}$ instead of $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ and $L^{2}(c^*TX)$, respectively.
The pairing $$\left< \eta_1,\eta_2 \right> = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g_{c(t)}(\eta_1(t),\eta_2(t)) \ dt$$ is non-degenerate in $L^{2}$. The operator $D_1F(0,\theta):W^{1,2}\to L^{2}$ is Fredholm by Theorem \[thm\_Fredholm\_op\]. It follows that $DF(0,\theta)$ has a closed image. In view of the Hahn-Banach theorem, to show that $DF(0,\theta)$ is onto it suffices to prove that if $\eta\in L^{2}$ satisfies $\left<DF(0,\theta)(\zeta,\xi),\eta\right>=0$ for all $(\zeta,\xi)\in W^{1,2}\times T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$, then $\eta=0$.
We proceed with this goal in mind. Let $\eta\in L^{2}$ be such a section. In particular $\left<D_1F(0,\theta)\zeta,\eta\right>=0$ for all $ \zeta\in W^{1,2}$. Let $D^*$ be the formal adjoint operator of $D_1F(0,\theta)$ with respect to the pairing $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$. In a trivialization of $c^*TX$, the operator $D^*$ has the form $\frac{d}{dt}+A(t)$ for some path of matrices $A(t)$ of class $C^\ell$. It follows that $\eta$ is a weak solution of $\eta'+A\eta=0$. Hence $\eta$ is $C^{\ell+1}$ and $\eta=0$ if, and only if, $\eta(t_0)=0$ for some $t_0$. It also follows that $\eta\in W^{1,2}$ but we do not need this fact in our particularly simple set-up. From now on we proceed indirectly assuming that $\eta\neq 0$. Then $\eta$ is smooth and $\eta(t)\neq 0$ for all $t$. Since $y\not\in{{\rm Iso}}$ we can apply Lemma \[lemma\_transv\_technical\] with some $t_0$ such that $t_0\gg1$ (note that $c$ is smooth and $\dot c$ is nowhere vanishing) to find $\xi\in T_\theta{\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ satisfying $\left<D_2F(0,\theta)\xi,\eta\right>>0$. Here we have used that $D_2F(0,\theta)\xi = \{t\mapsto D_2Z(0_{c(t)},\theta)\xi\}$ is a section of $c^*TX$. This contradiction shows that $\eta=0$, as desired.
Note that $F$ is the local representative of $s$ near a zero $(c,\theta)$. Since $DF(0,\theta)$ is the direct sum of the Fredholm operator $D_1F(0,\theta)$ with the bounded operator $D_2F(0,\theta)$ one concludes from [@Jcurves Lemma A.3.6] that $DF(0,\theta)$ has a right inverse. By the implicit function theorem, the set $$\mathcal{M}^{\rm univ}(x,y) = \{\text{vanishing locus of }s\} \subset {\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \times {\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ is a smooth separable Banach manifold. Again by [@Jcurves Lemma A.3.6], the projection $${\rm pr}_2: \mathcal{M}^{\rm univ}(x,y) \to {\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ is a (smooth) Fredholm map. We define $$\mathcal{R}_{x,y} = \{ \text{regular values of ${\rm pr}_2$} \}$$ and apply the Sard-Smale theorem to conclude that $\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$ is residual in ${\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$, see [@Jcurves Theorem A.5.1]. Yet another application of [@Jcurves Lemma A.3.6] tells us that if $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$ then $$\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y) = \{ c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y) \mid \dot c+\nabla^\theta f\circ c=0\}$$ is a smooth manifold of dimension ${\mathrm{ind}}(x)-{\mathrm{ind}}(y)$. To see this, just note that $\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y) \times \{\theta\} = {\rm pr_2}^{-1}(\theta)$.
\[lemma\_vanishing\_props\_section\] If $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$, $c\in\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)$ and $\zeta\in T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)$, then $\zeta$ is $C^{\ell+1}$ and $\zeta=0$ if, and only if, $\zeta(t_0)=0$ for some $t_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
Obviously $c$ is $C^{\ell+1}$ and $\zeta\in T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)$ if, and only if, $\zeta\in \ker D_1F(0,\theta)$. In an admissible trivialization of $c^*TX$ the operator $D_1F(0,\theta)$ gets represented as $\frac{d}{dt}+S(t)$ for some path of matrices $S(t)$ of class $C^{\ell}$. In particular, $\zeta(t)$ solves a linear ODE weakly. Consequently, it is $C^{\ell+1}$, and it vanishes identically if, and only if, it vanishes at some point.
Before proving Lemma \[lemma\_transversality\_step\] we review some basic facts of asymptotic analysis. In the next two lemmas, $\varphi^t$ denotes the flow of $-\nabla^\theta f$ and $\theta$ is an arbitrary metric of class $C^\ell$. Consider $\sigma>0$ defined by $$\label{sigma_spectrum}
\sigma = \min \{ |\lambda| : \lambda \in {\rm spec}({\rm Hess}_x(f)) \cup {\rm spec}({\rm Hess}_y(f)) \}$$ and fix $0<\delta<\sigma$ arbitrarily.
\[lemma\_asymptotic\_1\] If $p\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$ then, with $a\gg1$, the map $v:[a,+\infty)\to T_yX$ defined by $\varphi^t(p)=\exp(v(t))$ satisfies $e^{\delta t}|\partial^jv(t)|\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$, for all $0\leq j\leq \ell-3$. If $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)$ then an analogous statement holds for $t\to-\infty$.
We work in a local coordinate system around $y$, where $y$ corresponds to $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. We denote by $Y$ the local representation of $-\nabla^\theta f$. Then $Y(0)=0$ and for $t\gg1$, the curve $\varphi^t(p)$ is represented as $z(t)$ satisfying $\dot z=Y\circ z$, $z(t)\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$. If $p=y$, there is nothing to prove, so assume $p\neq y$. Thus $z(t)$ does not vanish.
Let $A=DY(0)$, $g=\frac{1}{2}|z|^2$, $$M(t) = \int_0^1 DY(\tau z(t))-A \ d\tau$$ and $\Lambda(t)$ be the $t$-dependent symmetric bilinear form $$\Lambda(t) = \int_0^1\int_0^1 D^2Y(s\tau z(t))\tau \ dsd\tau.$$ Note that $A^T=A$ and $$M(t)u = \Lambda(t)(z(t),u) \ \ \ \ \forall u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ Then $\dot z=Y(z)$ is rewritten as $$\label{ODE_coord}
\dot z(t)=Az(t)+ M(t)z(t) = Az(t) + \Lambda(t)(z(t),z(t)).$$ Note that from the above assumptions and equations we get: $$\label{conclusions}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \text{($\sup_t|\Lambda(t)|<\infty$ and $\lim_{t\to+\infty}\dot\Lambda(t) = 0$) \ $\Rightarrow$ \ $\lim_{t\to+\infty}\left(|M(t)|+|\dot M(t)|\right)=0$} \\
& \text{$|\dot z|\leq C|z|$ for some $C>0$ \ $\Rightarrow$ \ $\lim_{t\to+\infty}|\dot z(t)|=0$}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
Differentiating, we obtain $$\dot g = \left<z,\dot z\right> = \left< z,(A+M)z \right>$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot g &= \left< \dot z,(A+M)z \right> + \left< z,\dot Mz \right> + \left< z,(A+M)\dot z \right> \\
&= |Az|^2 + 2\left< Az,Mz \right> + |Mz|^2 + \left< z,\dot Mz\right> + |Az|^2 + \left< Az,M^Tz \right> \\
&+ \left< Mz,Az \right> + \left< Mz,M^Tz \right> .
\end{aligned}$$ Using we conclude that for all $\epsilon\in(0,\sigma)$ one finds $t_0$ such that if $t\geq t_0$ then the right hand side of the above equation is estimated from below as follows $$\ddot g(t) \geq 4(\sigma-\epsilon)^2 g(t) \text{ for all } t\geq t_0.$$ Here $\sigma$ is the number defined in .
We claim that $\dot g(t)<0$ provided $t$ is large enough. To see this consider $h(t) = g+\frac{\dot g}{2(\sigma-\epsilon)}$. Then for $t\geq t_0$ we estimate $$\dot h = \dot g+ \frac{\ddot g}{2(\sigma-\epsilon)} \geq \dot g + 2(\sigma-\epsilon)g = 2(\sigma-\epsilon)h.$$ Suppose $t_*>t_0$ satisfies $\dot g(t_*)\geq 0$. This implies that $h(t_*)>0$. If $h>0$ on $[t_*,T]$, then the inequality $\dot h\geq 2(\sigma-\epsilon)h$ implies that $$h(T)\geq h(t_*)e^{2(\sigma-\epsilon)(T-t_*)}\geq h(t_*).$$ This shows that $h>0$ on $[t_*,+\infty)$, and $h(t)\geq h(t_*)e^{2(\sigma-\epsilon)(t-t_*)}$ for all $t\geq t_*$. Since $g(t)\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$, we must have $\dot g(t)\to+\infty$ as $t\to+\infty$, which then contradicts $\lim_{t\to+\infty}g(t)=0$. We have proved that $\dot g<0$ provided $t$ is large enough. With this in mind, we consider the function $$a = g - \frac{\dot g}{2(\sigma-\epsilon)}$$ which is positive if $t$ is large enough. We estimate $$\dot a = \dot g - \frac{\ddot g}{2(\sigma-\epsilon)} \leq \dot g - 2(\sigma-\epsilon)g = -2(\sigma-\epsilon)a.$$ Since $a$ is positive for $t$ large, we find $t_1\gg1$ such that $$t\geq t_1 \ \Rightarrow \ g(t) < a(t) \leq a(t_1)e^{-2(\sigma-\epsilon)(t-t_1)}.$$ In other words, for some $B_0>0$ we have $|z(t)| \leq B_0e^{-(\sigma-\epsilon)t}$ for $t\gg1$. Taking $\epsilon$ small enough so that $\delta < \sigma-\epsilon$ we get $$|z(t)| \leq B_0e^{-\delta t} \text{ for all } t\geq t_1.$$ Using and the above estimate, we get $|\dot z(t)|\leq B_1e^{-\delta t}$ for $t$ large enough, with some $B_1>0$. Differentiating and proceeding inductively, we get estimates $|\partial^jz(t)|\leq B_je^{-\delta t}$ for $t$ large enough, with some $B_j>0$. This concludes the proof in case $p\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$. The case $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)$ is entirely analogous.
If $p\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$ and $c(t) = \varphi^t(p)$, $t\in[0,+\infty)$, then we say that a trivialization $\Psi:c^*TX\to[0,+\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is [*admissible*]{} if on over some neighborhood $U$ of $y$ there exists a trivialization $\Phi:TU\to U\times{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $\Psi_t$ and $\Phi_{c(t)}$ give the same linear isomorphism $T_{c(t)}X\simeq{\mathbb{R}}^n$ whenever $t$ is large enough. If $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)$ then we could consider $c(t) = \varphi^t(p)$, $t\in(-\infty,0]$, and define admissible trivializations analogously.
\[lemma\_asymptotic\_2\] If $p\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$, $v\in T_pW^s(y;f,\theta)$ and $\eta(t)=d\varphi^t(p)v$ then, setting $c(t)=\varphi^t(p)$ and identifying $c^*TX\simeq [0,+\infty)\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ via an admissible trivialization, the section $\eta$ gets represented as a map $u:[0,+\infty)\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfying $e^{\delta t}|\partial^ju(t)|\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$, for all $0\leq j\leq \ell-3$. An analogous statement holds for $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)$ and $v\in T_pW^u(x;f,\theta)$.
The estimates are analogous to the previous lemma. We outline the argument. It suffices to look at a point $p\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$ which lies on a small coordinate neighborhood of $y\simeq 0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Writing $Y=-\nabla^\theta f$ and $z(t) = \varphi^t(p)$ locally, a solution $u(t)$ of the linearized flow along $z$ satisfies $\dot u=DY(z)u$. Note that such a coordinate system induces an admissible trivialization of $c^*TX$ along the positive end of $c$. Since $u$ is tangent to $W^s(y;f,\theta)$, we obtain $u(t)\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$. By the previous lemma, the matrix $D(t) = DY(z(t))$ satisfies $e^{t\delta}|\partial^j(D(t)-A)|\to0$ as $t\to+\infty$ for every $0\leq j\leq\ell-3$, where $A=DY(0)$. Plugging into the linear ODE satisfied by $u$ we obtain the desired conclusions.
Choose $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$ and consider the (smooth) evaluation map $$\label{ev_map}
\begin{array}{ccc} {\rm ev}:\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y) \to X & & {\rm ev}(c)=c(0). \end{array}$$ The two lemmas above have the following consequence.
If $\ell\geq3$ and $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$ then the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm ev}(\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)) &= W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta) \\
d\,{\rm ev}(c)(T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)) &= T_{{\rm ev}(c)}W^u(x;f,\theta) \cap T_{{\rm ev}(c)}W^s(y;f,\theta).
\end{aligned}$$ The second identity holds for every $c\in\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)$.
The inclusion ${\rm ev}(\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)) \subset W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta)$ is clear. For the other inclusion, consider $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta)$. Setting $c(t) = \varphi^t(p)$ we obtain $c\in{\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ since the exponential decay given by Lemma \[lemma\_asymptotic\_1\] immediately implies that the vector fields $v_\pm$ as in the definition of ${\mathscr{P}}(x,y)$ are of class $W^{1,2}$ on their respective domains. Hence $${\rm ev}(\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)) \supset W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta)$$ since obviously $s(c,\theta)=0$. The first claim is proved.
For the second claim, the inclusion $\supset$ is again clear. For the other direction, note that $p={\rm ev}(c)$. Let $v\in T_pW^u(x;f,\theta) \cap T_pW^s(y;f,\theta)$. Then $\eta(t) = d\varphi^t(p)v$ is a section of $c^*TX$. The exponential decay given by Lemma \[lemma\_asymptotic\_2\] implies that $\eta\in W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$. Here we used that a norm on $W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ is defined by identifying this space with $W^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ via admissible trivializations.
Let $\gamma(s)$ be a smooth curve defined for $|s|$ small such that $\gamma(0)=p$, $\dot\gamma(0)=v$. For every $L>0$ there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that if $|s|<\epsilon$ then there is a unique vector field $\zeta(s,t) \in T_{c(t)}X$ for $t\in[-L,L]$ satisfying $\varphi^t(\gamma(s))=\exp(\zeta(s,t))$. We claim that $\eta(t)=\frac{d}{ds}\zeta(s,t)|_{s=0}$ for all $ t\in[-L,L]$, where we see $s\mapsto \zeta(s,t)$ as a curve in the vector space $T_{c(t)}X$. To see this we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(t) &= d\varphi^t(p)\dot\gamma(0) = \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0} \varphi^t(\gamma(s)) = \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0} \exp(\zeta(s,t)) \\
&= d\exp \ \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0} \zeta(s,t) = \nabla\exp \left( 0,0, \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0} \zeta(s,t) \right) = \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right|_{s=0} \zeta(s,t)
\end{aligned}$$ where we use that the base point of $\zeta(s,t)$ is $c(t)$ independent of $s$, and that $\zeta(0,t)$ vanishes.
The equation $\frac{d}{dt}\varphi^t(\gamma(s))+\nabla^\theta f(\varphi^t(\gamma(s)))=0$ for $t\in[-L,L]$, is equivalent to the equation $\nabla_t\zeta+\Theta(\zeta)\dot c + Z(\zeta,\theta)=0$ in view of the definition of the maps $\Theta$ and $Z$, see -. Differentiating with respect to $s$ and evaluating at $s=0$ we get $$\nabla_t\eta+D_1Z(0,\theta)\eta=0$$ since $D\Theta(0)$ vanishes. Since $L$ can be taken arbitrarily large, we conclude that $\eta\in W^{1,2}(c^*TX)$ is a solution of $D_1F(0,\theta)\eta=0$, in other words, $\eta\in T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)$. Since $v = \eta(0) = d{\rm ev}(c)\eta$ we get $$d\,{\rm ev}(c)(T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y)) \supset T_{{\rm ev}(c)}W^u(x;f,\theta) \cap T_{{\rm ev}(c)}W^s(y;f,\theta)$$ which completes the proof.
Using these lemmas, we can now prove the main results of this section.
Choose $\theta\in\mathcal{R}_{x,y}$. By Lemma \[lemma\_vanishing\_props\_section\] the map $$d{\rm ev}(c):T_c\mathcal{M}_\theta(x,y) \to T_{c(0)}X$$ is injective. By the above corollary the following holds for all $p\in W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta)$: $$\dim \ T_pW^u(x;f,\theta) \cap T_pW^s(y;f,\theta) = {\mathrm{ind}}(x)-{\mathrm{ind}}(y).$$ Hence $T_pX = T_pW^u(x;f,\theta) + T_pW^s(y;f,\theta)$, as desired.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\] {#sssec_lem_crucial_3}
We can now finally prove the transversality lemma. Define the desired set as $$\mathcal{R} = \bigcap \left\{ \mathcal{R}_{x,y} \mid \{x,y\}\subset{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f),\ \{x,y\}\not\subset{{\rm Iso}}\right\}.$$ By Lemma \[lemma\_transversality\_step\], this is a residual subset of ${\rm Met}^\ell_{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(V_0,\theta_0)$. From now on we choose $\theta\in\mathcal{R}$ arbitrarily and fix $x,y\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f)$. We consider two different cases.\
[*Case 1.*]{} $\{x,y\} \not\subset{{\rm Iso}}$.
In this case, Lemma \[lemma\_transversality\_step\] implies directly that $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ intersects $W^s(y;f,\theta)$ transversely.\
[*Case 2.*]{} $\{x,y\}\subset{{\rm Iso}}$.
As $\theta_0$ and $\theta$ coincide near $\{x,y\}$, there are neighborhoods $U^x,U^y$ such that $$\label{nbds_Ux_Uy}
\begin{aligned}
W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\cap U^x &= W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap U^x \\
W^s(y;f,\theta_0)\cap U^y &= W^s(y;f,\theta)\cap U^y.
\end{aligned}$$
We first show that $W^s(y;f,\theta_0) = W^s(y;f,\theta)$. The inclusion $W^s(y;f,\theta_0) \subset W^s(y;f,\theta)$ is obvious because $W^s(y;f,\theta_0) \subset{{\rm Iso}}\subset V_1$ and $\theta$ coincides with $\theta_0$ on $V_1$, by assumption. Choose $q\in W^s(y;f,\theta)$. For large positive times the $\theta$-antigradient flow maps $q$ to $W^s(y;f,\theta)\cap U^y \subset W^s(y;f,\theta_0) \subset{{\rm Iso}}$. By uniqueness of solutions of ODEs we conclude $q\in W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$.
Now we claim that $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$ and $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ coincide in a neighborhood of $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$. Consider any point $p_0$ in $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$. Then $\phi^t_{f,\theta}(p_0)=\phi^t_{f,\theta_0}(p_0)$ for all $ t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. One finds $T\gg1$ such that $\phi^{-T}_{f,\theta}(p_0) \in U^x$. By continuity of the flow, there is a neighborhood $N$ of $p_0$ in $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ such that $\phi^{-T}_{f,\theta}(q) \in U^x\cap W^u(x;f,\theta)$ and $\{\phi^t_{f,\theta}(q)\}_{t\in[-T,0]} \subset V_1$ for all $ q\in N$. By we get $\phi^{-T}_{f,\theta}(q) \in U^x\cap W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$. Since $\theta$ and $\theta_0$ coincide on $V_1$ we obtain $$\phi^t_{f,\theta}(\phi^{-T}_{f,\theta}(q)) = \phi^t_{f,\theta_0}(\phi^{-T}_{f,\theta}(q)) \in W^u(x;f,\theta_0) \ \ \text{ for all } t\in[0,T].$$ Evaluating at $t=T$ yields $q\in W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$. We have proved that $N\subset W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$. The desired claim follows because both $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$ and $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ are embedded submanifolds of the same dimension.
A point $$p_0\in W^u(x;f,\theta)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta)$$ belongs to $W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$ since we already proved that $W^s(y;f,\theta_0) = W^s(y;f,\theta)$. By assumption, $\phi^t_{f,\theta_0}(p_0) \in {{\rm Iso}}$ for all $t$. Hence $\phi^t_{f,\theta}(p_0) = \phi^t_{f,\theta_0}(p_0)$ for all $t$ and $p_0 \in W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$. This shows that $$p_0 \in W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta_0).$$ But, by assumption, $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$ intersects $W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$ transversely. It follows that $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ intersects $W^s(y;f,\theta)$ transversely at $p_0$ since we proved before that $W^s(y;f,\theta_0) = W^s(y;f,\theta)$ and that $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)$ coincides with $W^u(x;f,\theta)$ in a neighborhood of $W^u(x;f,\theta_0)\cap W^s(y;f,\theta_0)$. Case 2 is complete.
Local invariant Morse-Smale pairs for finite-cyclic group actions {#sec:MS_local}
=================================================================
In this section we apply the transversality results from the previous section to prove Theorem \[main1\]. We start with some preliminaries, and then as a first step we reduce the problem to the case of totally degenerate critical points. These are then handled using an inductive construction on the strata of the isotropy set.
Preliminaries
-------------
Let $(M,\theta)$ be a smooth Riemannian manifold without boundary endowed with an action of a finite cyclic group of order $m$ generated by the isometry $$a: M \to M.$$ There is no loss of generality to assume that it is a faithful action.
Let $p\in M$ and consider $h$ the minimal positive integer such that $a^h(p)=p$. Set $k=m/h \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Thus $a^h$ generates a ${\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$ action of which $p$ is a fixed point. Using the exponential map, one finds an $a^h$-invariant neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $a^h|_U$ is conjugated to the restriction of $da^h|_p: T_pM \to T_pM$ to a sufficiently small $\theta|_p$-ball around of the origin. Thus, since our analysis can be localized around $p$, we may assume that $$(M,p)=({\mathbb{R}}^N,0),$$ that the inner-product $\theta|_0$ is the Euclidean inner product $\theta_0$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, and that the action is generated by a matrix $$A=da^h|_0\in O(N)$$ satisfying $A^k=I$.
Let $D$ be a closed Euclidean ball centered at $0$. The interior of $D$ will be denoted by $\dot D$. Consider a smooth $A$-invariant function $$f:D\to {\mathbb{R}}$$ having $0$ as its unique critical point.
As in Subsection \[subsec\_props\] we write $$F_j = \ker (A^j-I).$$ These subspaces will be referred to as the [*linear isotropy manifolds*]{}. Before proceeding we make some simple but important remarks about them. Considering the real Jordan decomposition of $A$, we have a splitting $${\mathbb{R}}^N = \bigoplus_{\lambda^k=1} E_\lambda$$ where $E_\lambda$ is the real generalized eigenspace of $\lambda$ if $\lambda$ is in the spectrum of $A$, or the trivial vector space if not. Since $A \in O(N)$ this is a $\theta_0$-orthogonal decomposition into $A$-invariant subspaces, where each $E_\lambda$ can be further orthogonally decomposed into $A$-invariant subspaces $E_\lambda = \oplus W$ as follows:
- If $\lambda \not\in {\mathbb{R}}$ then each $W$ satisfies $\dim W=2$, the $A$-action on $W$ is linearly conjugated to the action on ${\mathbb{C}}$ by multiplication by $\lambda$.
- If $\lambda \in \{1,-1\}$ then each $W$ satisfies $\dim W=1$, and either $A|_W$ is the identity or $A|_W$ is minus the identity.
In other words, the decomposition into the $E_\lambda$’s is the decomposition into [*isotypical components*]{}. For $j\in{{\rm Div}}(k)$ note that $$F_j = \bigoplus_{\lambda^j=1} E_\lambda$$ from where we recover Lemma \[lemma\_intersection\]: $F_j \cap F_i = F_{\gcd(i,j)}$. This can be used to prove
\[lemma\_relposition\_istropy\] Let $i,j\in {{\rm Div}}(k)$ and let $H$ be the $\theta_0$-orthogonal of $F_{\gcd(i,j)}$ inside $F_i$. Then $H \subset F_j^\bot$.
Setting $d=\gcd(i,j)$ this follows from formula $H=\bigoplus_{\lambda^i=1,\lambda^d\neq1} E_\lambda$.
Reduction to the totally degenerate case
----------------------------------------
We explain why is it sufficient to prove Theorem \[main1\] in the case $p$ is a totally degenerate critical point.
Notice that, since $f$ is $A$-invariant and $A$ is a Euclidean isometry, the splitting $${\mathbb{R}}^N = \ker D^2f(0) \oplus (\ker D^2f(0))^\perp$$ is preserved by both $D^2f(0)$ and $A$. Here $(\ker D^2f(0))^\perp$ denotes the orthogonal complement of $\ker D^2f(0)$ with respect to the Euclidean metric.
Up to a transformation in $O(N)$ we may assume, without any loss of generality, that $N=N_1+N_2$, ${\mathbb{R}}^N \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{N_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{N_2}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{R}}^{N_1} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{N_1} \times 0 &= \ker D^2f(0,0) \\
{\mathbb{R}}^{N_2} \simeq 0 \times {\mathbb{R}}^{N_2} &= (\ker D^2f(0,0))^\perp
\end{aligned}$$ By our prior arguments, $A$ assumes the form $$A = {\mathrm{diag\,}}(A_1,A_2) \qquad A_j \in O(N_j)$$ In particular, $A_j^k$ is the identity in ${\mathbb{R}}^{N_j}$, i.e. $A_j$ generates a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on ${\mathbb{R}}^{N_j}$ by Euclidean isometries. By Lemma \[lemma\_invariant\_GM\_splitting\] we find an embedding $$\Psi:U \to {\mathbb{R}}^{N_1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{N_2}$$ defined on some $A$-invariant neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$ such that:
- $\Psi$ is $A$-equivariant.
- $\Psi(0,0)=(0,0)$ and $D\Psi(0,0)=I$.
- $f\circ\Psi(z_1,z_2) = g(z_1) + h(z_2)$ where $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N_1}$ is a totally degenerate critical point of the $A_1$-invariant function $g$, and $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N_2}$ is a non-degenerate critical point of the $A_2$-invariant function $h$.
Thus, it suffices to prove Theorem \[main1\] for the isolated critical point $0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{N_1}$ of $g$.
The totally degenerate case
---------------------------
Total degeneracy means that $D^2f(0)=0$. In this subsection we proceed assuming total degeneracy. With $d\in{{\rm Div}}(k)$ we set $$\label{set_G_d}
G_d := \bigcup_{j\in{{\rm Div}}(k),j\leq d} F_j.$$ We will prove inductively the following family of claims indexed by $d\in{{\rm Div}}(k)$:
- For every $\epsilon>0$ there is an $A$-invariant open neighborhood $V_d$ of $G_d$ and an $A$-invariant pair $(f_d,\theta_d)$ defined on $D$ with the following properties:
- $f_d|_{V_d \cap D}$ is Morse and ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d \subset G_d \cap \dot D$.
- $j\in {{\rm Div}}(k), \ j\leq d, \ x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap F_j \Rightarrow W^s(x;f_d,\theta_d) \subset F_j \cap \dot D$.
- $x,y\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d \Rightarrow W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d) \pitchfork W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$.
- $(f_d,\theta_d)$ is $\epsilon$-close to $(f,\theta)$ in $C^2(D)$.
In (ii) and (iii) stable and unstable manifolds are taken with respect to the open manifold $\dot D$. The desired conclusion follows from ($C_k$).
Before we give the details of the proof, let us give an outline. The initial step is to obtain the Morse-Smale condition on the fixed point set near the critical point. Since the action is trivial there, standard arguments ensure transversality; this is the content of Lemma \[lemma\_auxiliary\_inital\_step\]. Using the total degenericity, the argument explained immediately after Lemma \[lemma\_auxiliary\_inital\_step\] shows that we can create the necessary perturbation on the fixed point set of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action in such a way that the Hessian is negative definite (and small) in normal directions. Hence stable manifolds of critical points in the fixed point set are contained in the fixed point set.
The induction to prove claims $(C_d)$, where $d$ ranges over the divisors of $k$, is as follows. Let $d'<d$ be consecutive divisors of $k$. One does not touch the pair $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ on the neighborhood $V_{d'}$ of $G_{d'}$. The induced ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$ action on $F_d$ has isotropy set $F_d \cap G_{d'}$, so we can achieve the Morse-Smale condition on $F_d$ by a small perturbation supported on the free part $F_d\setminus G_{d'}$ of this action. Here is where the analysis of Subsection \[ssec\_transv\_lemma\] plays a role. This does not modify what we already have on $V_{d'}$. Regularized distance functions now come into play to keep the perturbation on $F_d$ obtained so far and simultaneously create negative Hessian in directions normal to $F_d$ at critical points in $F_d\setminus G_{d'}$. Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\] plays a key role to compare transversality in $F_d$ with transversality in $\dot D$, and to ensure that stable manifolds of critical points in $F_d\setminus G_{d'}$ are contained in $F_d$. This concludes the idea of the proof.
Now we give the details of the proof. Throughout the argument below, norms of vectors and tensors, as well as distances between points and sets are measured with respect to the Euclidean metric, not to be confused with the Riemannian metric $\theta$ on $D$. We use the notation $\bot$ to denote Euclidean orthogonal complements of subspaces. We denote by $P_j:{\mathbb{R}}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}^N$ the Euclidean orthogonal linear projection onto $F_j$, and by $\iota_j:F_j \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^N$ the inclusion. Note that $$\label{projections_commute_with_A}
P_jA=AP_j, \qquad \qquad \iota_jA=A\iota_j.$$
### Starting the induction
Here we prove ($C_1$). Let $c_1>0$ be fixed arbitrarily.
\[lemma\_auxiliary\_inital\_step\] For every $\delta_1>0$ we find a smooth function $h_1:F_1 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and a smooth symmetric tensor $\lambda_1:F_1 \to F_1^* \otimes F_1^*$ with the following properties.
- The data $(h_1,\lambda_1)$ is compactly supported in $F_1 \cap \dot D$ and is $\delta_1$-close to $(0,0)$ in the $C^2(F_1\cap D)$-topology.
- The pair $(\iota_1^*f+h_1,\iota_1^*\theta+\lambda_1)$ is Morse-Smale on $F_1 \cap \dot D$.
- Any critical point $x$ of $f+h_1\circ P_1$ belongs to $\frac{1}{2}D$ and satisfies $$|D^2(f+h_1\circ P_1)(x)|\leq \frac{c_1}{10}.$$
Properties I and II follow from the usual construction of local Morse homology explained in Section \[sec\_properties\]. The necessary transversality results are, in fact, contained as a special case of the results in Section \[sec\_prelim\_transv\] for the trivial group action (empty isotropy). Let us give more details.
Consider the smooth compact manifold with boundary $F_1 \cap D$ equipped with the pair $(\iota_1^*f,\iota_1^*\theta)$. Since the $\theta$-gradient of $f$ is tangent to $F_1 \cap D$, the origin is the unique critical point of $\iota_1^*f$. It follows that we can choose $h_1$ $C^2$-small and supported near the origin in such a way that $\iota_1^*f+h_1$ is Morse in $F_1\cap D$ and all its critical points are very close to the origin. Using the results from Section \[sec\_prelim\_transv\], with a trivial group action, we find $\lambda_1$ compactly supported in $F_1\cap\dot D$ and arbitrarily $C^2$-small, such that the Morse-Smale condition (Definition \[def\_MS\]) is satisfied by the pair $(\iota_1^*f+h_1,\iota_1^*\theta+\lambda_1)$ in the smooth manifold without boundary $F_1\cap\dot D$.
As was remarked above, by the $C^2$-smallness of $h_1$ we can be sure that all critical points of $f+P_1^*h_1$ are contained in $\dot D$ and lie very close to the origin. Moreover, by the total degeneracy assumption on the unperturbed data, we can be sure that the Hessian of $f+P_1^*h_1$ at its critical points is very small, and can be made arbitrarily small if $\delta_1$ are small enough. Thus, property III can be achieved if $\delta_1$ is small enough.
We now show the claim of ($C_1$). Consider the $A$-invariant pair $(f_1,\theta_1)$ defined by $$\label{defining_f_1}
\begin{array}{ccc}
f_1(x) = f(x) + h_1\circ P_1(x) - \frac{c_1}{2}|(I-P_1)x|^2 & & \theta_1 = \theta + P_1^*\lambda_1
\end{array}.$$ Note that ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(\iota_1^*f+h_1) = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_1) \cap F_1$ because both $f+h_1\circ P_1$ and $f_1$ are $A$-invariant, their gradients with respect to $A$-invariant Riemannian metrics must be tangent to $F_1$ at points of $F_1$, and coincide over $F_1$; see Lemma \[lemma\_grad\_tang\]. The bilinear form $D^2f_1(x)$ is negative definite on $F_1^\bot$ whenever $x\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_1)\cap F_1$, in fact, at such a critical point we have an estimate $$\label{estimate_normal_hessian_C_1}
\begin{aligned}
D^2f_1(x)(u,u) &= D^2(f+h_1\circ P_1)(x)(u,u) - c_1|u|^2 \\
& \leq \frac{c_1}{10}|u|^2 - c_1|u|^2 = -\frac{9}{10}c_1|u|^2 \ \ \ \forall u \in F_1^\bot.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus every $x\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_1) \cap F_1$ is a non-degenerate critical point of $f_1$ and $$W^s(x;f_1,\theta_1) \subset F_1 \cap \dot D$$ in view of (iii) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\]. We have shown that (ii) in ($C_1$) holds for every $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_1) \cap F_1$.
Obviously the $C^2(D)$-norm of the difference between $(f,\theta)$ and $(f_1,\theta_1)$ is bounded from above in terms of $\delta_1,c_1$, and hence it can be made smaller than any $\epsilon$ because $\delta_1$ and $c_1$ can be taken arbitrarily small. In other words (iv) in ($C_1$) holds.
For $r>0$ consider $V_1 = \{x : |(I-P_1)x|<r\}$. Since all critical points in ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_1) \cap F_1$ are non-degenerate, they must be finite in number because they are contained in $\frac{1}{2}D$. Hence if $r$ is small enough then $V_1$ is a neighborhood of $F_1$ for which (i) in ($C_1$) holds. Finally, (iii) in ($C_1$) holds in view of II above and of item (ii) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\].
### The inductive step
Let $d'<d$ be two consecutive divisors of $k$. We assume by induction that ($C_{d'}$) holds, i.e., for all $\epsilon'>0$, there exist $V_{d'}$ and $(f_{d'},g_{d'})$ satisfying (i)-(iv) in ($C_{d'}$), where $\epsilon'$ is the quantifier in (iv): $(f_{d'},g_{d'})$ is $\epsilon'$-close to $(f,g)$ in the $C^2(D)$-topology. We always consider $\epsilon'$ small enough so that ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \subset \dot D$.
\[rmk\_tangencies\_isotropy\_strata\] Throughout it is important to keep in mind that the gradient of any $A$-invariant pair on $D$ or $\dot D$ is necessarily tangent to $F_j$, for all $j\in{{\rm Div}}(k)$.
By (i) in ($C_{d'}$) we have ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \setminus G_{d'} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus V_{d'}$. The set $$\Omega := (F_d \cap \dot D) \setminus G_{d'}$$ is an $A$-invariant open subset of $F_d$, and ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap \Omega$ is a compact subset of $F_d \setminus V_{d'}$. Note that $A$ induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$-action on $F_d \cap \dot D$ which is free on $\Omega$ because the isotropy set of this action is precisely $G_{d'}\cap F_d \cap\dot D$.
On the quotient $\Omega/{\mathbb{Z}}_d$ the function $f_{d'}$ induces a smooth function $\widehat f_{d'}$ which has a compact critical set $({\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap \Omega)/{\mathbb{Z}}_d$. Here we used that the gradient of $f_{d'}$ with respect to an $A$-invariant metric must be tangent to $F_j$, see Remark \[rmk\_tangencies\_isotropy\_strata\]. In particular it follows that ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap \Omega={\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{\Omega})$. Hence there exists an arbitrarily $C^2$-small function $\widehat\alpha:\Omega/{\mathbb{Z}}_d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ supported on an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the compact set $({\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap \Omega)/{\mathbb{Z}}_d$ such that $\widehat f_{d'} + \widehat\alpha$ is Morse on $\Omega/{\mathbb{Z}}_d$ and has finitely many critical points there. Pulling $\widehat\alpha$ back to $\Omega$ we obtain an $A$-invariant function $\alpha:F_d \cap \dot D\to{\mathbb{R}}$ supported near ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap \Omega$ such that $$\label{Morse_perturbation_1}
f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap \dot D}+\alpha$$ is a Morse function on $\Omega$.
The function is Morse on $V_{d'}\cap F_d\cap\dot D$ because $f_{d'}$ is assumed to be Morse on $V_{d'}\cap\dot D$ and the $\theta_{d'}$-gradient of $f_{d'}$ is tangent to $F_d$, see Remark \[rmk\_tangencies\_isotropy\_strata\]. Moreover, $F_d\cap\dot D$ can be covered by two relatively open sets $$F_d \cap \dot D = \Omega \cup (V_{d'} \cap F_d \cap \dot D).$$ It follows that is Morse on $F_d \cap \dot D$ with finitely many critical points, all of which lie close to the origin. Shrinking $V_{d'}$ we may also assume that $\alpha$ vanishes on $\overline{V_{d'}} \cap F_d\cap D$. Hence $$\label{nice_critical_position}
\overline{V_{d'}} \cap F_d \cap \dot D \cap {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap\dot D}+\alpha) \subset G_{d'} \cap F_d \cap \dot D.$$ Once again we used $A$-invariance and Remark \[rmk\_tangencies\_isotropy\_strata\].
The next and important step is to apply the Transversality Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\] to the open Riemannian manifold $(F_d \cap \dot D,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ equipped with the ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$-action by isometries induced by $A|_{F_d}$, and the ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$-invariant Morse function . Note that $A$ generates a ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$-action on $F_d\cap\dot D$ with isotropy set $G_{d'}\cap F_d\cap\dot D$. Note also that $\alpha$ vanishes on $\overline{V_{d'}} \cap F_d\cap D$. Note that $f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap \dot D}+\alpha$ has finitely many critical points because this is a Morse function with a compact critical set.
Consider any $$x \in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha) \cap F_j \cap F_d \cap\dot D = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}) \cap F_j \cap F_d \cap\dot D$$ where $j\leq d'$ is some divisor of $k$. To simplify the notation we write $$\begin{aligned}
& W^s(x) = W^s(x;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D},\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}) \\
& W^s_\alpha(x) = W^s(x;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})
\end{aligned}$$ where stable manifolds are taken with respect to the open manifold $F_d \cap\dot D$.
We need to check conditions (i) and (ii) of Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\]. To check (i) it suffices to prove that $$W^s_\alpha(x) \subset F_j\cap F_d\cap \dot D.$$ Let $$\text{$\phi_\alpha^t$ be the anti-gradient flow of $(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ on $F_d\cap \dot D$}$$ and $$\text{$\phi^t$ be the anti-gradient flow of $(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D},\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ on $F_d\cap \dot D$.}$$ Let $y\in W^s_\alpha(x)$. This means that $\phi_\alpha^t(y)$ is defined for $t\in[0,+\infty)$ and $\phi_\alpha^t(y) \to x$ as $t\to+\infty$. Since $\alpha$ vanishes on a neighborhood of $x$, we get that $W^s(x)$ coincides with $W^s_\alpha(x)$ near $x$. Hence there exists $\tau$ large such that $$\phi_\alpha^\tau(y) \in W^s(x) \subset W^s(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) \subset F_j \cap F_d \cap\dot D.$$ But $(f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap \dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ is $A$-invariant, in particular, the flow $\phi_\alpha^t$ leaves $F_j\cap F_d\cap \dot D$ invariant. Thus $y = \phi_\alpha^{-\tau} (\phi_\alpha^\tau(y)) \in F_j \cap F_d \cap \dot D$. We are done checking (i) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\].
We next check the condition (ii). Let $$\begin{aligned}
x,y \in & \ {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap \dot D}+\alpha)\cap G_{d'}\cap F_d\cap \dot D \\
& = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap \dot D})\cap G_{d'}\cap F_d\cap \dot D \\
& \subset {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}) \cap V_{d'} .
\end{aligned}$$ The last inclusion uses tangency to $F_d$ of the gradient of $f_{d'}$ with respect to invariant metrics, see Remark \[rmk\_tangencies\_isotropy\_strata\]. We simplify notation by writing $$\begin{aligned}
& W^s(y) = W^s(y;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D},\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}) \\
& W^s_\alpha(y) = W^s(y;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}) \\
& W^u(x) = W^u(x;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D},\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}) \\
& W^u_\alpha(x) = W^u(x;f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})
\end{aligned}$$ and again we let $\phi_\alpha^t$ denote the anti-gradient flow of $f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}+\alpha$ on $F_d\cap \dot D$, and $\phi^t$ denote the anti-gradient flow of $f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap\dot D}$ on $F_d\cap \dot D$, both taken with respect to the metric $\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}$.
We claim that $$\label{stable_alpha_coincide}
W^s(y) = W^s_\alpha(y).$$ Note $W^s(y) \subset W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})\subset F_m$ for some $m\leq d'$. Hence $W^s(y) \subset W^s_\alpha(y)$ since $\alpha$ vanishes near $F_m$. To prove the other inclusion, let $q\in W^s_\alpha(y)$. Taking $T$ large enough, $\phi^{T}_\alpha(q)$ gets very close to $y$. The manifolds $W^s_\alpha(y)$ and $W^s(y)$ coincide near $y$ since $\alpha$ vanishes near $y$. Hence $\phi^{T}_\alpha(q) \in W^s(y)$ if $T\gg1$. Then also $\phi^t(\phi^{T}_\alpha(q)) \in W^s(y) \subset F_m$ for all $t$ for which this is well-defined. But by uniqueness this coincides with $\phi^t_\alpha(\phi^{T}_\alpha(q))$ since $\alpha$ vanishes on $F_m$, hence this curve is defined for $t\in[-T,0]$. Plugging $t=-T$ we obtain $q\in W^s(y)$. This proves .
Now we claim that $$\label{unstable_alpha_coincide_locally}
\begin{aligned}
& W^u(x) \cap U = W^u_\alpha(x) \cap U \\
& \text{for some neighborhood $U$ of $W^u(x)\cap W^s(y)$ in $F_d\cap \dot D$.}
\end{aligned}$$ In fact, let $p\in W^u(x) \cap W^s(y)$. There exists a neighborhood $U^x$ of $x$ in $F_d\cap \dot D$ such that $W^u(x) \cap U^x = W^u_\alpha(x) \cap U^x$, since $\alpha$ vanishes near $x$. By continuity of the flow there exists $T\gg1$ and a neighborhood $W$ of $p$ in $W^u(x)$ such that $\phi^{-T}(W)\subset U^x$. Hence $\phi^{-T}(W)\subset W^u_\alpha(x)$. The trajectory $\phi^t(p)$, which is well-defined for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, is contained in $G_{d'}$ since $W^s(y) \subset W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})\subset F_m$ for some $m\leq d'$; this follows from (ii) in ($C_{d'}$). Since $\alpha$ vanishes on $V_{d'}$ we can invoke uniqueness to conclude that $\phi^t(p)=\phi^t_\alpha(p)$ for all $t$. Thus, after further shrinking $W$, we may assume that for all $t\in[0,T]$ $\phi^t_\alpha$ is well-defined on $\phi^{-T}(W)$ and $\phi^t_\alpha(\phi^{-T}(W))\subset V_{d'}$. Since $\alpha$ vanishes on $V_{d'}$ we see that $\phi^t(z)=\phi^t_\alpha(z)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $z\in \phi^{-T}(W)$, by uniqueness of solutions. Plugging $t=T$ we get $$W = \phi^T(\phi^{-T}(W)) = \phi^T_\alpha(\phi^{-T}(W))\subset W^u_\alpha(x).$$ This concludes the proof of .
Finally we note that $$\label{unstable_stable_transverse_F_d}
W^u(x) \pitchfork W^s(y)$$ follows from (iii) in ($C_{d'}$) together with (i) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\].
Now we can finally explain why (ii) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\] follows from , and . Namely, we claim that $$W^u_\alpha(x) \pitchfork W^s_\alpha(y).$$ To see this consider a point $p$ in $W^u_\alpha(x) \cap W^s_\alpha(y)$. By the latter set is equal to $W^u_\alpha(x) \cap W^s(y)$. The trajectory of $p$ is contained in $G_{d'}$ since $W^s(y) \subset G_{d'}$. It follows that $\phi^t(p)=\phi^t_\alpha(p)$ for all $t$. Hence $p\in W^u(x)$. We have shown that $p\in W^u(x) \cap W^s(y)$. It follows from that locally near $p$ the manifolds $W^u(x)$ and $W^u_\alpha(x)$ coincide. From we conclude that $p$ is a point where $W^u_\alpha(x)$ and $W^s_\alpha(y)$ meet transversely.
As we have now verified the conditions of Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\], we can now use it to find an $A$-invariant symmetric smooth tensor $\lambda:F_d\cap D \to F_d^* \otimes F_d^*$, compactly supported on $F_d\cap\dot D$ and with an arbitrarily small $C^2$-norm, such that the pair $$(f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap\dot D}+\alpha,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}+\lambda)$$ is Morse-Smale on $F_d \cap \dot D$. In other words, the [*preliminary pair*]{} $$\label{preliminary_MS_pair}
(f_{d'}+P_d^*\alpha,\theta_{d'}+P_d^*\lambda)$$ is $A$-invariant and restricts to a Morse-Smale pair on $F_d\cap \dot D$. Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\] allows us to pick $\lambda$ in such a way that its support does not intersect $\overline{V_{d'}} \cap F_d \cap \dot D$.
One crucial remark that needs to be made at this point is that keeps all properties (i)-(iv) of ($C_{d'}$). This is because it coincides with the pair $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ on $V_{d'}$, perhaps after shrinking $V_{d'}$. In fact, $z\in G_{d'} \cap \dot D \Rightarrow P_dz\in G_{d'}\cap F_d\cap \dot D$ by Lemma \[lemma\_relposition\_istropy\].
By Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] we can find $A$-invariant regularized distance functions: $$\begin{aligned}
& \delta_0 \ \text{ the $A$-invariant regularized distance to } \ \overline{V_{d'}} \\
& \delta_1 \ \text{ the $A$-invariant regularized distance to } \ \overline{V_{d'}} \cup F_d.\end{aligned}$$ These functions are continuous and defined on all of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, however $\delta_0$ is smooth on ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus \overline{V_{d'}}$ and $\delta_1$ is smooth on ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus(\overline{V_{d'}} \cup F_d)$. In fact, Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] provides these distance functions without any mention to $A$-invariance, but then we can average over the group to obtain $A$-invariance. By the properties of regularized distance functions described in Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\], there exists $M>0$ depending only on $N$ such that $$\label{ineq_derivatives_delta_01}
\begin{aligned}
& |\nabla\delta_0(x)| \leq M, \ |\nabla^2\delta_0(x)| \leq M/\delta_0(x) \ \ \forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus \overline{V_{d'}} \\
& |\nabla\delta_1(x)| \leq M, \ |\nabla^2\delta_1(x)| \leq M/\delta_1(x) \ \ \forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus (\overline{V_{d'}}\cup F_d). \\
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the equations $$\label{ineq_derivatives_delta_01_square}
\begin{aligned}
& |\nabla(\delta_i^2)|=|2\delta_i\nabla\delta_i| \leq 2M \delta_i \\
& |\nabla^2(\delta_i^2)|=|2\nabla\delta_i\otimes\nabla\delta_i+2\delta_i\nabla^2\delta_i| \leq 2M^2+2M
\end{aligned}$$ hold pointwise in the respective domains. Moreover we have $$\label{ineq_delta_0_delta_1}
\delta_1 \leq c \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,\overline{V_{d'}} \cup F_d) \leq c \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,\overline{V_{d'}}) \leq c' \delta_0$$ with suitable constants $c,c'>0$ depending only on $N$. In Appendix \[app\_reg\_dist\_functions\] we prove Proposition \[prop\_refinement\_thm\_reg\_function\] which states that we can assume that $$\label{property_delta_1}
\delta_1 \ \text{ agrees with } \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,F_d) \ \text{ on a neighborhood of } \ F_d \setminus \overline{V_{d'}}.$$
Now let us consider $\phi_\delta(s)=\phi(s/\delta)$ where $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,1]$ vanishes identically near $(-\infty,0]$ and takes the constant value $1$ near $[1,+\infty)$. Consider the family of functions $$g_\delta = \phi_\delta(\delta_0^2)\delta_1^2.$$ Note that $g_\delta$ defines a smooth function on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ in view of and . Here smoothness of ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,F_d)^2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ was used.
We claim that on points of $D$ all derivatives of $g_\delta$ of order at most $2$ can be bounded uniformly and independently of $\delta$. Let us prove this claim. Setting $$B := \max_{i=0,1} \{\|\delta_i\|_{L^\infty(D)}\}$$ we compute derivatives of $g_\delta$ using and . Note that $\phi_\delta'(\delta_0^2)\neq0 \Rightarrow \delta_0\leq \sqrt{\delta}$ since the support of $\phi'_\delta$ is contained in $[0,\delta]$. Using this and the previous estimates, for the first order derivatives we get $$\nabla g_\delta = \phi'_\delta(\delta_0^2) [\nabla (\delta_0^2)] \delta_1^2 + \phi_\delta(\delta_0^2)\nabla(\delta_1^2),$$ which, combined with , implies that $$\|\nabla g_\delta\|_{L^\infty(D)} \leq \delta^{-1}\|\phi'\|_{L^\infty}2BM (c'\delta_0)^2 + 2BM \leq 2BM(1+|c'|^2\|\phi'\|_{L^\infty}).
$$ For second derivatives, we estimate similarly $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^2g_\delta &= \phi''_\delta(\delta_0^2)[\nabla(\delta_0^2) \otimes \nabla(\delta_0^2)] \delta_1^2 \\
&+ \phi'_\delta(\delta_0^2) [\nabla^2(\delta_0^2)] \delta_1^2 + \phi'_\delta(\delta_0^2) \nabla(\delta_1^2)\otimes\nabla(\delta_0^2) \\
&+ \phi'_\delta(\delta_0^2) \nabla(\delta_0^2) \otimes \nabla(\delta_1^2) + \phi_\delta(\delta_0^2) \nabla^2(\delta_1^2) .
\end{aligned}$$ Again this implies $$\begin{aligned}\|\nabla^2g_\delta\|_{L^\infty(D)} &\leq \|\phi''\|_{L^\infty}\delta^{-2} 2M\sqrt{\delta}2M\sqrt{\delta} (c')^2\delta + \|\phi'\|_{L^\infty}\delta^{-1}(2M^2+2M) (c')^2\delta \\
&+ \|\phi'\|_{L^\infty}\delta^{-1}2M\sqrt{\delta}\ 2Mc' \sqrt{\delta} + \|\phi'\|_{L^\infty}\delta^{-1}2M\sqrt{\delta}\ 2Mc'\sqrt{\delta} \\
&+ 2M^2+2M.
\end{aligned}$$ Since powers of $\delta$ cancel in the estimate, we get the desired conclusion.
We are finally ready to conclude our induction step. Let $c_d>0$ and $\nu \in (0,1)$ be fixed arbitrarily. Then the pair with all the properties established so far can be taken $C^2$-close enough to $(f_0,\theta_0)$ in such a way that all critical points $x$ lie very close to the origin, and the hessian of $f_{d'}+P_d^*\alpha$ at these points satisfies $$\begin{array}{ccc} |D^2(f_{d'}+P_d^*\alpha)(x)| \leq \nu c_d & & \|\lambda\|_{L^\infty} \leq\nu \end{array}.$$ The choice of $(\alpha,\lambda)$ for this to be true depends on $(c_d,\nu)$. Now define the pair $(f_d,\theta_d)$ by $$\label{final_pair_f_d_theta_d}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\theta_d := \theta_{d'} + P_d^*\lambda & & f_d := f_{d'}+P_d^*\alpha - \frac{c_d}{2} g_\delta
\end{array}$$ where $\delta>0$ is chosen in such a way that $\phi_\delta(\delta_0^2)$ is equal to $1$ near critical points of $f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap \dot D}+\alpha$ belonging to $(F_d\cap \dot D)\setminus\overline{V_{d'}}$. Such a $\delta$ exists in view of . Note that the ratio $\nu/c_d$ can be chosen arbitrarily small.\
This completes the construction of the inductive step and it remains to check the claimed properties that there exists an open $A$-invariant neighborhood $V_d$ of $G_d$ such that $V_d$ and the pair $(f_d,\theta_d)$ satisfy all properties (i)-(iv) of ($C_d$), with $\epsilon$ arbitrarily small. Let us verify these properties.
### Property (iv) of claim ($C_d$) {#property-iv-of-claim-c_d .unnumbered}
Note that (iv) in $(C_d)$ is clear since $\nu$ and $c_d$ can be chosen arbitrarily small as a consequence of our estimates on the $C^2$-norm of $g_\delta$ (derivatives up to second order of $c_dg_\delta$ can be bounded in terms of $c_d$ independently of $\delta$).
### Property (i) of claim ($C_d$) {#property-i-of-claim-c_d .unnumbered}
Note that $(f_d,\theta_d)$ coincides with $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ near $G_{d'}$. In fact, $g_\delta$ vanishes on ${\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$, so $f_d$ coincides with $f_{d'}+P_d^*\alpha$ near $G_{d'}$. Let $z\in D$, and let $w\in G_{d'}$ satisfy ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,G_{d'})=|z-w|$. There exists $j\leq d'$ such that $w\in F_j$. Since $P_d$ commutes with $A^j$ we conclude that $P_dw\in F_j\cap F_d$. Since $$|P_dz-P_dw|\leq |z-w|={\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,G_{d'})$$ we conclude that if ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,G_{d'})$ is small enough then $P_dz\in {\overline{{V_{d'}}}} \cap F_d \cap D$. It follows that $P_d^*\alpha$ and $P_d^*\lambda$ vanish at $z$, as we wanted to show.
If $\nu/c_d$ is small enough and $x$ is a critical point of $f_d$ in $(F_d\cap \dot D) \setminus \overline{V_{d'}}$ then the Hessian $D^2f_d(x)$ is negative-definite along the $\theta_d(x)$-orthogonal of $F_d$ at $x$: $$\label{neg_def_along_orthogonal}
\begin{aligned}
&x \in ({\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap F_d\cap \dot D) \setminus \overline{V_{d'}} = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap \dot D}+\alpha) \setminus \overline{V_{d'}}, \ u \bot F_d, \ u\neq0 \\
&\Rightarrow \ D^2f_d(x)(u,u) <0 .\end{aligned}$$ Here we strongly used that $\delta_1^2$ coincides with ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,F_d)^2$ near $F_d\setminus \overline{V_{d'}}$. It also follows that critical points on $F_d \setminus \overline{V_{d'}}$ are non-degenerate. We can take $$V_d := V_{d'} \cup \{y\in{\mathbb{R}}^N : |(I-P_d)y|<r\}$$ with some $r>0$ small so that critical points on $V_d\setminus \overline{V_{d'}}$ must lie on $F_d$. Critical points of $f_d$ which lie on ${\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$ actually lie on $G_{d'}$ by construction since, as shown above, $f_d$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ near $G_{d'}$. This proves that (i) in ($C_d$) holds.
### Property (ii) of claim ($C_d$) {#property-ii-of-claim-c_d .unnumbered}
In the following, we will denote by $\phi_{d'}^t$ and $\phi^t_d$ the antigradient flows of $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ and $(f_d,\theta_d)$, respectively. By (iii) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\] and $W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)\subset F_d$ for all critical points $y$ in $(F_d\cap \dot D)\setminus {\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$. These are precisely the critical points in $V_d\setminus {\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$.
Now let $y$ be a critical point of $f_d$ in ${\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$. Then $y\in F_j$ for some $j\leq d'$ since $f_d$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ near $G_{d'}$ and (i) in ($C_{d'}$) holds. The inclusion $$W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) \subset W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$$ holds because if $p\in W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ then $\phi^t_{d'}(p) \in F_j$ for all $t\geq 0$ by (ii) in ($C_{d'}$). Hence by uniqueness $\phi^t_{d'}(p)=\phi^t_d(p)$ for all $t\geq 0$, so $p\in W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$. Now let $p\in W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$. Then, since $W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$ coincides with $W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ near $y$, we get that $\phi^T_d(p) \in W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ if $T\gg1$. By (ii) in ($C_{d'}$), we have $\phi^t_{d'}(\phi^T_d(p)) \in F_j$ for all $t$ for which this is well-defined. Since $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ and $(f_d,\theta_d)$ coincide near $F_j$, we get $\phi^t_{d'}(\phi^T_d(p)) = \phi^t_d(\phi^T(p))$ for all $t\in [-T,0]$. Setting $t=-T$ we obtain $p\in W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$. We have shown that $$\label{coincidence_some_stable_mfds}
y\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap {\overline{{V_{d'}}}} \ \Rightarrow \ W^s(y;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) = W^s(y;f_{d},\theta_{d})$$ holds. Summarizing we have shown that (ii) in ($C_d$) follows.
### Property (iii) of claim ($C_d$) {#property-iii-of-claim-c_d .unnumbered}
We next prove Property (iii) in the claim ($C_d$). Let $\{x,y\} \subset {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d)\cap V_d$. Denote ${\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y) = W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d) \cap W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$ and assume that ${\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y) \neq \emptyset$. As in the induction start, we consider two cases.
Let us first analyze the case $\{x,y\} \subset V_{d'}$. In particular, $\{x,y\}\subset G_{d'}$ and we find that ${\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y)\subset G_{d'}$ by what was proved above. We claim that there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y)$ in $\dot D$ such that $$W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d) \cap \mathcal{N} = W^u(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) \cap \mathcal{N}.$$ In fact, take $p\in {\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y)$. Since $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ and $(f_d,\theta_d)$ coincide near $x$, we know that $W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ and $W^u(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ coincide near $x$. By continuity of the flow, we find a neighborhood $V_1$ of $p$ in $W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ and $T_1\gg1$ such that $$\phi^{-T_1}_d(V_1)\subset W^u(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}).$$ Again by continuity, there exists a neighborhood $V_2\subset V_1$ of $p$ in $W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ such that $\phi_d^{[-T_1,0]}(V_2)$ is contained on a neighborhood of $G_{d'}$ where $(f_d,\theta_d)$ and $(f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$ coincide. $V_2$ exists because $\phi_d^{[-T_1,0]}(p) \subset G_{d'}$. By uniqueness of solutions $\phi^t_{d'}(\phi^{-T_1}_d(q)) = \phi^t_d(\phi^{-T_1}_d(q))$ for all $q\in V_2$ and $t\in[0,T_1]$. Setting $t=T_1$ we get $V_2\subset W^u(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'})$. It follows that the neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ as required exists. Hence, if $\{x,y\} \subset V_{d'}$, then (iii) in ($C_{d'}$) implies that $W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ intersects $W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$ transversely.
Now we analyze the case $\{x,y\}\not\subset V_{d'}$. Then $y\not\in {\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$ because if $y\in {\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$ then $\{x,y\}\in G_{d'}$ since ${\mathcal{M}}_d(x,y)\neq\emptyset$ and $G_{d'}$ is closed and invariant under the flow. This shows that $y\in V_d\setminus {\overline{{V_{d'}}}}$ and, hence, $y\in F_d\cap \dot D$. By the properties of the preliminary pair and (ii) in Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\] we conclude that $W^u(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ intersects $W^s(y;f_d,\theta_d)$ transversely. Summing up we proved (iii) in ($C_d$).
The induction step is complete and therefore also the proof of Theorem \[main1\].
Global invariant Morse-Smale pair for finite-cyclic group actions {#sec:MS_global}
=================================================================
In this section we will show the existence of an invariant global Morse-Smale pair for any closed manifold endowed with a ${\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$-action. The proof is by induction and similar to the local one. It is actually simpler, since it is not a perturbative argument where we have to care about the $C^2$-norm of the perturbation. In particular, we do not have to deal with regularized distance functions.
As in the previous sections, let $F_j = \{x \in M \mid a^j(x)=x\}$, $\iota_j: F_j \to M$ be the inclusion and given $d \in {{\rm Div}}(k)$ define $$\label{sets_G_d}
G_d = \bigcup_{j\in{{\rm Div}}(k),j\leq d} F_j.$$ Consider also for each $x\in M$ the integer $i_x\geq 1$ defined by $$i_x = \min \{ i\geq 1 \mid x\in F_i \}.$$ Clearly $i_x<k$ if, and only if, $x$ is a point with non-trivial isotropy group. Moreover, if $x\in F_d$ then $i_x$ divides $d$.
Similarly to the argument in the local case, consider the following family of claims indexed by $d\in{{\rm Div}}(k)$:
- There exists an arbitrarily small invariant open neighborhood $V_d$ of $G_d$, a metric $\theta_d$ on $M$ and a smooth function $f_d:V_d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying the following properties:
- $(f_d,\theta_d|_{V_d})$ is invariant, and $W^s_{V_d}(x;f_d,\theta_d)$ intersects $W^u_{V_d}(y;f_d,\theta_d)$ transversely, for all $x,y \in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d)$.
- ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \subset G_d$.
- $W^s_{V_d}(x;f_d,\theta_d) \subset F_{i_x}$ for all $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d)$.
Above we wrote $W^s_{V_d},W^u_{V_d}$ with subscript $V_d$ to emphasize that these stable/unstable manifolds are taken with respect to the open set $V_d$. In what follows we shall carry out an inductive construction proving the claims $(C_d)$. Notice that $(C_k)$ gives our desired Morse-Smale invariant pair.
### Starting the induction {#starting-the-induction-1 .unnumbered}
Consider a metric $\theta$ on $F_1$ and a function $f: F_1 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $(f,\theta)$ is Morse-Smale on $F_1$. The existence of $(f,\theta)$ follows from standard arguments. Consider a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant extension of $\theta$ to a metric $\theta_1$ on $M$. Applying Lemmas \[lemma\_invariant\_normal\_decreasing\] and \[lemma\_crucial4\] (ii) we get an invariant neighborhood $V_1$ of $G_1=F_1$ and an invariant function $f_1: V_1 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying the desired properties.
### The inductive step {#the-inductive-step-1 .unnumbered}
Fix two consecutive integers $d'<d$ in ${{\rm Div}}(k)$ and assume that $(C_{d'})$ holds. The action on $M$ induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}$ action on $F_d$ which is generated by $a|_{F_d}$. Using Lemma \[lemma\_intersection\], we compute its isotropy set $$\label{isotropy_locus_F_d}
\begin{aligned}
F_d \cap \left( \bigcup_{l\in{{\rm Div}}(k),l<d} F_l \right) = F_d \cap \left( \bigcup_{l\in{{\rm Div}}(k),l\leq d'} F_l \right) = F_d \cap G_{d'}.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $F_d\cap V_{d'}$ is an invariant open neighborhood of $F_d \cap G_{d'}$ in $F_d$ and $f_{d'}|_{F_d\cap V_{d'}}$ is an invariant smooth function there.
Let $h:F_d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be any smooth $a|_{F_d}$-invariant function coinciding with $f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap V_{d'}}$ near $F_d \cap G_{d'}$. This can be obtained by taking any smooth function on $F_d$ coinciding with $f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap V_{d'}}$ near $F_d \cap G_{d'}$ and averaging it over the ${\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}$ action. After shrinking $V_{d'}$ we can assume that $h$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ on $F_d \cap V_{d'}$.
We claim that, possibly after perturbing $h$ on a compact subset of $F_d \setminus G_{d'}$, we may assume in addition that $h$ is Morse. As a matter of fact, by the properties of $f_{d'}$, the function $h$ has no critical points in the $a|_{F_d}$-invariant open set $(F_d \cap V_{d'})\setminus G_{d'}$. This is true because $h$ and $f_{d'}$ coincide on $F_d \cap V_{d'}$, the $\theta_{d'}$-gradient of $f_{d'}$ is tangent to $F_d$ at points in this set, and the critical set of $f_{d'}$ is contained in $G_{d'}$.
The ${\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}$ action on $F_d \setminus G_{d'}$ is free in view of the description of its isotropy locus. So we obtain a smooth manifold $X_d$ by the quotient of $F_d \setminus G_{d'}$ by the ${\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}$ action. Let $\Pi : F_d \setminus G_{d'} \to X_d$ denote the quotient map. The function $h|_{F_d \setminus G_{d'}}$ descends to a smooth function $h'\colon X_d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ with no critical points on the open subset $$\mathcal O_d := \Pi((F_d \cap V_{d'})\setminus G_{d'}).$$ Clearly $\mathcal{O}_d$ is an end of $X_d$, and $X_d \setminus \mathcal O_d$ is a compact set containing the critical points of $h'$. Consequently we can $C^\infty$-slightly perturb $h'$ so that it becomes a Morse function on $X_d$ and, perhaps after shrinking $V_{d'}$ we may also assume that $h'$ remains unchanged in $\mathcal O_d$. As a consequence, the lift $h$ of $h'$ to $F_d\setminus G_{d'}$ has the desired properties.
Now we note that unstable and stable manifolds (taken in $F_d$ with respect to the metric $\iota_d^*\theta_{d'}$) of critical points of $h$ in $F_d \cap V_{d'}$ intersect transversely (in $F_d$). Namely, consider critical points $x_0$ and $x_1$ of $h$ on $F_d \cap V_{d'}$ which are connected by an anti-gradient trajectory $c$ of $h$ from $x_0$ to $x_1$ in $F_d$. Since $h$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ on $F_d\cap V_{d'}$ and the $\theta_{d'}$-gradient of $f_{d'}$ is tangent to $F_d$, we conclude that $x_0$ and $x_1$ are also critical points of $f_{d'}$, in particular, they belong to $G_{d'}$.
By (iii) in ($C_{d'}$), and uniqueness of solutions of ODEs, we know that the stable manifold of $x_1$ on $F_d$ with respect to the pair $(h,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ is equal to $W^s_{V_{d'}}(x_1;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) \subset F_{i_{x_1}}$. Since $F_{i_x}$ is compact, we get $x_0 \in F_{i_{x_1}}$. By (i) in ($C_{d'}$) we can apply Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\] item i) to conclude that $W^u(x_0;h,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ intersects $W^s(x_1;h,\iota_d^*\theta_{d'})$ transversally along $c$, as desired.
By Lemma \[lemma\_crucial3\], the metric $\theta_{d'}$ can be slightly $C^\infty$-perturbed into an invariant metric $\theta_d$ such that $\theta_d-\theta_{d'}$ is compactly supported in a neighborhood of ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(h|_{F_d \setminus V_{d'}})$ and $(h,\iota_d^*\theta_d)$ is Morse-Smale on $F_d$.
Now we are ready to define $f_d$ and $V_d$ with the properties claimed in $(C_d)$. In order to do this, consider the extension $\bar h$ of $h$ to a small neighborhood of $F_d$ given by an application of Lemma \[lemma\_invariant\_normal\_decreasing\] to $h$ and $F_d$. We need the following
\[lemma\_consecutive\_bumps\] Let $V'$ be an open neighborhood of $G_{d'}$ and $V$ a neighborhood of $F_d$. There are smooth invariant functions $\phi_0,\phi_1:M\to[0,1]$ satisfying
- ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi_0)\subset V'$ and ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi_1) \subset V$,
- $\phi_0+\phi_1 \equiv 1$ on a neighborhood of $G_d = G_{d'} \cup F_d$,
- ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi_1) \cap G_{d'} = \emptyset$.
Define $\phi_0$ to be the average over the action of any function which is equal to one on a small neighborhood of $G_{d'}$ and supported in $V'$. Then define $\phi_1$ by $1-\phi_0$ and use an invariant cutoff function to achieve ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi_1)\subset V$. As the submanifold $F_d$ is compact, such an invariant cutoff function can be constructed using the shell between two invariant neighborhoods as given by Corollary \[cor\_inv\_smooth\_nbd\].
By the previous lemma, we have bump functions $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ such that ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\phi_0)\subset V_{d'}$ which implies that $\phi_1\equiv 1$ on a neighborhood of $F_d \setminus V_{d'}$. Define $$f_d = \phi_0 f_{d'} + \phi_1 \bar h.$$
It remains to check (i), (ii) and (iii) and we begin with (ii). Clearly, $f_d$ is invariant since so are $\phi_0$, $\phi_1$, $f_{d'}$ and $\bar h$. Moreover $f_d|_{F_d} \equiv h$, and $f_d$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ near $G_{d'}$ by item c) in Lemma \[lemma\_consecutive\_bumps\].
We claim that if $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap G_d$ then one of the following holds:
- If $x \in G_{d'}$ then there exists an open neighborhood $U_x$ in $M$ such that $f_d|_{U_x} \equiv f_{d'}|_{U_x}$.
- If $x \in F_d \setminus G_{d'}$ then there exists an open neighborhood $U_x$ in $M$ such that $f_d|_{U_x} \equiv \bar h|_{U_x}$.
To see this we start by noting that if $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap G_d$ then either $x\in G_{d'}$ or $x\in F_d\setminus G_{d'}$ because $G_d = F_d \cup G_{d'}$. Note that A) holds since $f_d$ coincides with $f_{d'}$ near $G_{d'}$. Let us check B). If $x\in F_d\setminus G_{d'}$ then $x \in F_d\setminus V_{d'}$ because $f_d$ coincides with $h|_{F_d \cap V_{d'}} = f_{d'}|_{F_d \cap V_{d'}}$ on $F_d\cap V_{d'}$ and $f_{d'}$ has no critical points in $(F_d \setminus G_{d'}) \cap V_{d'}$. Thus $\phi_1$ is identically equal to $1$ near $x$, so that $f_d\equiv\bar h$ near $x$.
In particular, all critical points in ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap G_d$ are non-degenerate. This is obviously true in case A) since $f_{d'}$ is Morse. In case B), this follows from the construction in the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_invariant\_normal\_decreasing\] because $h$ is Morse and $x$ is non-degenerate as a critical point of $\bar h$. As a consequence we find a small invariant open neighborhood $V_d$ of $G_d$ where $$\label{crit_f_d}
{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d \subset G_d.$$ This proves condition (ii) of the Claim $(C_d)$.
Next, we prove condition (iii). Let $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d$. By , either $x$ falls into case A) or into case B). In case A) we can apply Lemma \[lemma\_crucial1\] to find $$W^s_{V_d}(x;f_d,\theta_d) = W^s_{V_{d'}}(x;f_{d'},\theta_{d'}) \subset F_{i_x} \subset G_{d'}.$$ In case B), since $f_d|_{U_x}=\bar h|_{U_x}$, we can again apply Lemma \[lemma\_crucial1\] to conclude that $$W^s_{V_d}(x;f_d,\theta_d) \subset F_d,$$ but note that $F_{i_x}=F_d$ in this case. Thus, in either case we find $$W^s_{V_d}(x;f_d,\theta_d) \subset F_{i_x} \subset G_d$$ for every $x\in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d$.
To conclude the proof that $(f_d|_{V_d},\theta_d)$ satisfies $(C_d)$, it remains to establish condition (i). Consider two critical point $x_0$ and $x_1$ in ${\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f_d) \cap V_d$ and let $c$ be an anti-gradient trajectory of $f_d$ from $x_0$ to $x_1$. Again we consider different cases, analogous to cases A) and B) above. If $x_1 \in G_{d'}$, then we find that also $x_0 \in G_{d'}$ since $$x_0 \in \overline{W^s_{V_d}(x_1;f_d,\theta_d)} \subset \overline{F_{i_{x_1}}} = F_{i_{x_1}} \subset G_{d'}$$ and we can apply $(C_{d'})$. Moreover, $c$ is an anti-gradient trajectory of $f_{d'}|_{V_{d'}}$. By (iii) in ($C_{d'}$) (notice that, by construction, we have $\theta_d|_{V_{d'}}=\theta_{d'}|_{V_{d'}}$) we get that $W^u_{V_d}(x_0;f_d,\theta_d)$ intersects $W^s_{V_d}(x_1;f_d,\theta_d)$ transversely along $c$.
In the second case, i.e., if $x_1 \in F_d\setminus G_{d'}$, we also have $x_0\in F_d$ since $$x_0 \in {\overline{{W^s_{V_d}(x_1;f_d,\theta_d)}}} \subset F_{i_{x_1}} = F_d.$$ Thus $W^s_{V_d}(x_0;f_d,\theta_d) \subset F_{i_{x_0}} \subset F_d$ and $c$ is an anti-gradient of $f_d|_{F_d} = h$. Since $(h,\iota_d^*\theta)$ is Morse-Smale we apply Lemma \[lemma\_crucial4\] item ii) to find that $W^u_{V_d}(x_0;f_d,\theta_d)$ intersects $W^s_{V_d}(x_1;f_d,\theta_d)$ transversely along $c$. This completes the proof of the induction step and thus the Claims $(C_d)$ are established for all $d$.
Regularized distance functions {#app_reg_dist_functions}
==============================
The statement below is found in chapter VI of Stein’s book [@stein].
\[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] Let $X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ be any closed set. Then there exists a function $\delta_X:{\mathbb{R}}^N\to[0,+\infty)$ with the following properties.
- $\delta_X$ is continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, and is smooth on ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus X$.
- $c_1 \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \leq \delta_X(x) \leq c_2 \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, with constants $c_1,c_2>0$ independent of $X$.
- $|D^\alpha\delta_X(x)| \leq B_\alpha {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\alpha|}$ for all $x\not\in X$, with constants $B_\alpha>0$ independent of $X$.
The purpose of this appendix is to prove the following refinement.
\[prop\_refinement\_thm\_reg\_function\] Let $Y\subset{\mathbb{R}}^N$ be closed and $E\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ be a linear subspace, both invariant under a linear map $A\in O(N)$ satisfying $A^k=I$ for some $k\geq 1$. Setting $X=Y\cup E$, there exists a function $\delta_X:{\mathbb{R}}^N\to[0,+\infty)$ that satisfies all the properties of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] and is, in addition, $A$-invariant and coincides with ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)$ on a neighborhood of $E\setminus Y$.
To prove this proposition we follow the proof of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] from [@stein] closely. By a cube in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ with side $l>0$ we mean a product of half-open intervals $Q = \prod_{i=1}^N [a_i,b_i)$ where $l=b_i-a_i$ for all $i$. Sets of the form ${\overline{{Q}}}$ and ${{\rm int}}(Q)$ will be referred to as closed and open cubes. Cubes $Q$ also have a center, the unique point $x$ with the following property: if $Q$ has side $l$ then $\overline Q$ is the closed ball with radius $l/2$ centered at $x$ with respect to the $\|\cdot\|_\infty$-norm.
We will say that a cube $Q$ touches another cube $Q'$ if ${\overline{{Q}}} \cap {\overline{{Q'}}} \neq \emptyset$. We might use the same terminology for open or closed cubes. If $Q$ is a (possibly open or closed) cube with center $x$ then we denote by $Q^*$ the cube $$Q^* := x + \frac{9}{8}(Q-x).$$ It follows that $$\label{ineq_distQ_Q*}
{\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Q) \leq \frac{1}{16}{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q \ \ \forall x\in Q^*$$ and $$\label{ineq_diam_Q*}
{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q^* = \frac{9}{8} {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q.$$
We start by recalling the following theorem also proved in [@stein chapter VI].
\[thm\_covering\] Let $X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ be a closed set. There exists a countable collection of cubes ${\mathcal{F}}= \{Q_1,Q_2,\dots\}$ such that
- ${\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus X = \cup_k Q_k$.
- Cubes in ${\mathcal{F}}$ are pairwise disjoint.
- ${\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \leq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(Q_k,X) \leq 4\ {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k$ for all $k$.
- If $Q\in {\mathcal{F}}$ touches $Q'\in{\mathcal{F}}$ then $\frac{1}{4} {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q \leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q' \leq 4{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q$.
- If $Q\in{\mathcal{F}}$ then at most $(12)^N$ cubes in ${\mathcal{F}}$ touch $Q$.
- Every $x\not\in X$ has a neighborhood which intersects at most $(12)^N$ cubes in ${\mathcal{F}}^* = \{Q^* \mid Q\in {\mathcal{F}}\}$.
Let ${\mathcal{F}}=\{Q_k\}$ be a covering of ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus X$ given by Theorem \[thm\_covering\].
Let $C_0$ be the unit cube centered at the origin, and choose a smooth function $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}^N \to [0,1]$ satisfying ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\varphi) \subset {{\rm int}}(C_0^*)$ and $\varphi|_{\overline{C_0}}\equiv1$. For each $k$ consider $\varphi_k(x) = \varphi((x-x_k)/l_k)$ where $x_k$ and $l_k$ are the center and the side of $Q_k$ respectively. Then ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\varphi_k)\subset {{\rm int}}(Q^*_k)$ and $\varphi_k|_{\overline{Q_k}} \equiv 1$. Note that $$\label{ineq_derivatives_varphi_k}
|D^\alpha \varphi_k(x)| \leq A_\alpha ({\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k)^{-|\alpha|}$$ where $A_\alpha$ depends only on $\varphi$. The function $$\Phi(x) := \sum_k \varphi_k(x)$$ is smooth on ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus X$. By f) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\], $\Phi$ satisfies the uniform pointwise estimate $$\label{ineq_bounds_big_phi}
1 \leq \Phi(x) \leq (12)^N$$ for all $x\not\in X$.
We claim that $$\label{ineq_dist_diam_above_below}
\frac{3}{4} \ {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \leq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \leq 6 \ {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \ \ \ \forall x\in Q_k^*.$$ To see this choose any $x\in Q_k^*$. The second inequality follows from considering $p\in X$ and $q\in \overline Q_k$ satisfying $|p-q| = {\mathrm{dist\,}}(Q_k,X)$, and using and c) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] to estimate $${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \leq |x-p| \leq |x-q|+|q-p| \leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k^* + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(Q_k,X) \leq 6 \ {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k.$$ The first inequality in follows from taking $p\in X$ such that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)=|x-p|$ and $q\in \overline Q_k$ such that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Q_k)=|x-q|$, and estimating with the help of c) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] and of as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k &\leq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(Q_k,X) = {\mathrm{dist\,}}(\overline Q_k,X) \leq |q-p| \leq |q-x|+|x-p| \\
&= {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Q_k) + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \\
&\leq \frac{1}{16}{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X).
\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
We now set $$U = \{ x\in {\mathbb{R}}^N \mid {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) < {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Y) \}.$$ This is an open neighborhood of $E\setminus Y$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus Y$. Now consider $${\mathcal{F}}_U = \{ Q\in {\mathcal{F}}\mid Q^* \subset U \}, \ \ \ \ {\mathcal{F}}'_U = {\mathcal{F}}\setminus {\mathcal{F}}_U.$$
We claim that with these choices, there exists $c>0$ such that $$\label{ineq_comp_E}
x\in Q^*,Q\in {\mathcal{F}}'_U \Rightarrow {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Y) \leq c\ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E).$$ In fact, let us fix $x\in Q^*$, so with $z\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ arbitrary and $e\in E$ such that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)=|x-e|$ we can estimate $${\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,E) \leq |z-e| \leq |z-x|+|x-e| = |z-x| + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E).$$ Assuming $Q\in {\mathcal{F}}'_U$ there exists $z\in Q^*$ such that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,Y)\leq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,E)$, and we can choose $p\in Y$ such that $|z-p|={\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,Y)$. Plugging this into the above inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Y) &\leq |x-p| \leq |x-z|+|z-p| \\
&\leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q^* + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,Y) \\
&\leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q^* + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,E) \\
&\leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q^* + |z-x| + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \\
&\leq 2{\mathrm{diam\,}}Q^* + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \\
&\leq \frac{9}{4} {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q + {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \\
&\leq 4\ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)
\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Here we used .
Analogously to [@stein] we define a function $\Delta:{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus X \to (0,+\infty)$ by $$\label{defn_Delta}
\Delta(x) := \left( \sum_{Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}'_U} {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \ \varphi_k(x) \right) + \left( \sum_{Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_U} {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \ \varphi_k(x) \right).$$ We claim that $$\label{ineq_Delta_below}
\Delta(x) \geq \frac{1}{6} {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \ \ \ \forall x\not\in X.$$ If $x\in Q_k$ then $\varphi_k(x)=1$ and there are two possibilities: either $Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}'_U$ and in this case we get $\Delta(x) \geq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \geq (1/6) {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$ in view of , or $Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_U$ and in this case $\Delta(x) \geq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \geq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$. Thus is proved. Now we show that $$\label{ineq_Delta_above}
\Delta(x) \leq (12)^N (4/3) {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \ \ \ \forall x\not\in X.$$ Fix $x\not\in X$ and consider the collection ${\mathcal{F}}_x = \{Q\in{\mathcal{F}}\mid x\in Q^*\}$. According to f) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] we have $\#{\mathcal{F}}_x \leq (12)^N$. If $Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_x \cap {\mathcal{F}}_U$ then the corresponding term in the sum is $\varphi_k(x) {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \leq {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) \leq{\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$. Now note that if $Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_x \cap {\mathcal{F}}'_U$ then the corresponding term in the sum is $$\varphi_k(x) {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \leq {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \leq (4/3){\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$$ by . We have shown that all of the terms in which do not vanish at $x$ are at most $(4/3){\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$. Since there are at most $(12)^N$ such terms, is proved.
Let $c>0$ be the constant in . The set $$W = \{ x\in {\mathbb{R}}^N \mid c\ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E) < {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,Y) \} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus Y$$ is an open neighborhood of $E\setminus Y$. We note that can be rewritten as $$Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}'_U \Rightarrow Q_k^* \cap W = \emptyset.$$ Thus we have $x\in W\setminus X \ \Rightarrow \ \Delta(x) = \Phi(x) {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)$. Finally we consider $${\widehat{\delta}_X}(x) = \frac{\Delta(x)}{\Phi(x)}.$$ We claim that $\widehat\delta_X$ would be our desired function if we were not interested in $A$-invariance. By , and we get constants $c_1,c_2>0$ independent of $Y$ and $E$ such that $$c_1 \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X) \leq {\widehat{\delta}_X}(x) \leq c_2 \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$$ for all $x\not\in X$. It follows from this that ${\widehat{\delta}_X}$ can be continuously extended to ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ by setting it equal to zero on $X$. Moreover, a) and b) of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] are true for $\widehat{\delta}_X$. Note that $$\label{values_delta_hat_near_E}
x\in W \ \Rightarrow \ {\widehat{\delta}_X}(x) = {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E).$$
Let us prove that $\widehat\delta_X$ satisfies c) in Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\]. For this we need to investigate the derivatives of $\Phi$ and $\Delta$. By and f) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] we get $$|\alpha|\geq 1 \ \Rightarrow \ |D^\alpha\Phi(x)| \leq (12)^N A_\alpha \max \{ ({\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k)^{-|\alpha|} \mid x\in Q_k^* \}.$$ By we get $$|\alpha| \geq 1 \ \Rightarrow \ |D^\alpha\Phi(x)| \leq (12)^NA_\alpha 6^{|\alpha|} \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{-|\alpha|}$$ from where it follows that $$|\alpha| \geq 1 \ \Rightarrow \ |D^\alpha(1/\Phi)(x)| \leq M_\alpha \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{-|\alpha|}$$ for suitable constants $M_{\alpha}>0$ independent of $X$. Here we strongly used the bounds . We now turn to derivatives of $\Delta$. $$\label{derivatives_Delta}
\begin{aligned}
&D^\alpha\Delta(x) \\
&= \left( \sum_{Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}'_U} {\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k \ D^\alpha\varphi_k(x) \right) + \left( \sum_{Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_U} D^\alpha[{\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,E)\varphi_k](x) \right) \\
&= T_1 + T_2.
\end{aligned}$$ With $x\not\in X$ fixed, the first term is bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 &\leq (12)^NA_\alpha\max\{({\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k)^{1-|\alpha|} \mid x\in Q_k^*\} \\
&\leq (12)^NA_\alpha 6^{|\alpha|-1} {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\alpha|}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here f) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] was strongly used. The general estimate $$|D^\beta({\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,E))(z)| \leq C_\beta {\mathrm{dist\,}}(z,E)^{1-|\beta|}$$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus E$ together with the product rule and the estimates implies that the second term in is bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned}
T_2 &\leq \Gamma_\alpha \sum_{\beta_1+\beta_2=\alpha} |D^{\beta_1}({\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,E))(x)||D^{\beta_2}\varphi_k(x)| \\
&\leq \Gamma'_\alpha \sum_{\beta_1+\beta_2=\alpha} {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)^{1-|\beta_1|}({\mathrm{diam\,}}Q_k)^{-|\beta_2|} \\
&\leq \Gamma''_\alpha \sum_{\beta_1+\beta_2=\alpha} {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\beta_1|}{\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{-|\beta_2|} \\
&= \Gamma'''_\alpha \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\alpha|}.
\end{aligned}$$ The third inequality used and that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,E)={\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)$ for a point $x\in Q_k \in {\mathcal{F}}_U$. Also f) in Theorem \[thm\_covering\] was used. The conclusion is that $$|D^\alpha\Delta(x)| \leq H_\alpha \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\alpha|}$$ for all $ x\not\in X$ with a suitable constant $H_\alpha$ independent of $X$. Using these estimates and the estimates for the derivatives of $1/\Phi$ obtained above, it follows again from the product rule that there exist constants $B_\alpha>0$ independent of $X$ such that $$|D^\alpha{\widehat{\delta}_X}(x)| \leq B_\alpha \ {\mathrm{dist\,}}(x,X)^{1-|\alpha|}$$ as desired.
To obtain $A$-invariance we finally define $$\delta_X(x) = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \widehat\delta_X(A^ix).$$ Note that $Y,E,X$ are $A$-invariant sets, and consequently a) and b) of Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] continue to hold since ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,X)$ is an $A$-invariant function. By the same token continues to hold on $W$ (note that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,E)$ and $W$ are $A$-invariant). Again by $A$-invariance of $X$ and ${\mathrm{dist\,}}(\cdot,X)$ estimates like c) in Theorem \[thm\_existence\_regularized\_distance\] hold for $\delta_X$. The proof is complete.
Invariance of local Morse homology with symmetries {#app_invariance}
==================================================
Here we prove Proposition \[prop\_GM\_pairs\]. Let $\theta,f,x,U$ be as in the statement: $(f,\theta)$ is a pair consisting of a smooth function and a smooth metric on a manifold without boundary, $x$ is an isolated critical point of $f$ and $U$ is an open relatively compact isolating neighborhood for $(f,x)$, all of which are invariant under a smooth action of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$.
We need to find a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant Gromoll-Meyer pair $(W,W_-)$ in $U$ and some $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_1$ of $(f,\theta)$ with the following properties: if $(f',\theta') \in \mathcal{N}_1$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant and Morse-Smale on $U$ then the map $$\tilde\Psi_{(f',\theta',U)} : H_*(W,W_-) \stackrel{\sim}{\to} {{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U)$$ in Definition \[def\_GM\_pairs\] is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant.
Choose an open ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant neighborhood ${\mathcal{O}}$ of $X\setminus U$ such that $x\not\in {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}$. First we need two preliminary lemmas.
\[lemma\_crossing\_energy\] For every pair $(V_1,V)$ of open neighborhoods of $x$ satisfying ${\overline{{V_1}}}\subset V \subset {\overline{{V}}} \subset U$ we can find a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of $(f,\theta)$ and $\epsilon>0$ with the following property: $$\label{time_delays_pre}
\begin{aligned}
&(f',\theta') \in \mathcal N, \ p \in {\overline{{V_1}}}, \ t > 0, \ \phi'_t(p) \not\in V, \ \phi'_{[0,t]}(p) \subset U \\
&\Rightarrow \ f'(p) - f'(\phi'_t(p)) > \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\phi'_\cdot$ stands for the negative gradient flow of $(f',\theta')$.
There exists a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ and $L>0$ such that $(f',\theta') \in \mathcal N $ implies that $ |\nabla^{\theta'}f'|_{\theta'} \leq L$ holds pointwise on ${\overline{{U}}}$. Further shrinking $\mathcal N$ and increasing $L$ we may assume that ${\mathrm{dist\,}}_{\theta'}({\overline{{V_1}}},X\setminus V) > 1/L$ and $|\nabla^{\theta'}f'|_{\theta'} \geq 1/L$ pointwise on ${\overline{{U}}} \setminus V_1$ whenever $(f',\theta') \in \mathcal N$. Since $\phi'_t(p) \not\in V$, there exists $0\leq t'<t$ such that $\phi'_{t'}(p) \in {\overline{{V_1}}}$ and $\phi'_{\tau}(p) \not\in {\overline{{V_1}}} $ for all $\tau \in (t',t]$. Thus $$\frac{1}{L}
< {\mathrm{dist\,}}_{\theta'}({\overline{{V_1}}},X\setminus V) \leq \int_{t'}^t |\nabla^{\theta'}f'(\phi'_\tau(p))|_{\theta'} \ d\tau \leq (t-t')L$$ which implies that $$t-t' > \frac{1}{L^2}.$$ We then compute $$\begin{aligned}
f'(p) - f'(\phi'_t(p))
&\geq f'(\phi'_{t'}(p)) - f'(\phi'_t(p)) = \int_{t'}^t |\nabla^{\theta'}f'(\phi'_\tau(p))|^2_{\theta'} \ d\tau \\
&\geq \frac{t-t'}{L^2} > \frac{1}{L^4}.
\end{aligned}$$ Setting $\epsilon = L^{-4}$ finishes the proof.
\[lemma\_local\_pairs\_support\] Let $V_1,V$ be ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant open neighborhoods of $x$ satisfying ${\overline{{V_1}}}\subset V\subset{\overline{{V}}} \subset U$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be a $C^2$-neighborhood of $(f,\theta)$. There exists a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_1\subset \mathcal{N}$ with the following properties:
1. If $(f_1,\theta_1) \in \mathcal{N}_1$ then all critical points of $f_1|_U$ and all $\theta_1$-gradient trajectories of $f_1$ connecting them are contained in $V_1$.
2. If $(f_1,\theta_1) \in \mathcal{N}_1$ then there exists $(f',\theta') \in \mathcal{N}$ such that all critical points of $f'|_U$ and all $\theta'$-gradient trajectories of $f'$ connecting them are contained in $V_1$, $(f',\theta')$ coincides with $(f_1,\theta_1)$ on $V_1$ and coincides with $(f,\theta)$ on $X\setminus {\overline{{V}}}$. Moreover, if $(f_1,\theta_1)$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant then $(f',\theta')$ can be taken ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariantly.
Choose a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant bump function $\beta:X\to[0,1]$ such that $\beta|_{{\overline{{V_1}}}}\equiv1$ and ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(\beta) \subset V$. There exists a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_0\subset\mathcal{N}$ of $(f,\theta)$ such that if $(f_0,\theta_0) \in \mathcal{N}_0$ then all critical points of $f_0|_U$ and all $\theta_0$-gradient trajectories of $f_0$ connecting them are contained in $V_1$. This follows from Lemma \[lemma\_crossing\_energy\] applied to $V_1$ and a small open neighborhood $V_2$ of $x$ satisfying ${\overline{{V_2}}}\subset V_1$. Indeed, if $\mathcal{N}_0$ is small enough, the difference between critical values of $f_0|_U$ is smaller than any positive constant fixed [*a priori*]{}.
There exists $\mathcal{N}_1 \subset \mathcal{N}_0$ such that if $(f_1,\theta_1) \in \mathcal{N}_1$ then $$(f',\theta') := (f+\beta(f_1-f),\theta+\beta(\theta_1-\theta)) \in \mathcal{N}_0$$ satisfies the required properties, by the properties of $\mathcal N_0$ and by the fact that $\beta$ is identically $1$ on $V_1$.
Let us get started with the proof of Proposition \[prop\_GM\_pairs\]. Suppose that $f(x)=0$, without loss of generality. Fix an open neighborhood $V_0$ of $x$ satisfying ${\overline{{V_0}}} \subset U\setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}$. Choose a smooth ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant function $\beta_0:X\to [0,1]$ such that $\beta_0$ vanishes identically on a neighborhood of $X\setminus {\mathcal{O}}$ and ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(1-\beta_0)$ is a compact subset of $U$. In particular, ${\mathrm{supp\,}}(d\beta_0) \subset {\mathcal{O}}\cap U$ is compact. Note that $\beta_0$ can be chosen ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariantly since $U$ and ${\mathcal{O}}$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant.
Applying Lemma \[lemma\_crossing\_energy\] to the pair $(V_0,U\setminus{\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}})$ we find a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_0$ of $(f,\theta)$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that $$\label{time_delays}
\begin{aligned}
&(f',\theta') \in \mathcal N_0, \ p \in {\overline{{V_0}}}, \ t > 0, \ \phi'_t(p) \in {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}, \ \phi'_{[0,t]}(p) \subset U \\
&\Rightarrow \ f'(p) - f'(\phi'_t(p)) > \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ Perhaps after further shrinking $\mathcal{N}_0$, we can further assume that for all $(f_0,\theta_0) \in \mathcal N_0$ we have $$\label{first_aux_estimate-f_0}
2|df|_{\theta} > |df_0|_{\theta_0} > \frac{1}{2} |df|_{\theta} > 0 \ \ \text{ pointwise on} \ \ {\overline{{U}}} \cap {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}.$$ Select $a,b>0$ such that $a+b<\epsilon$, and for all $(f_0,\theta_0) \in \mathcal N_0$ the estimate $$\label{second_aux_estimate-f_0}
(a+b)|d\beta_0|_{\theta_0} < \frac{1}{2} |df_0|_{\theta_0} \ \ \text{holds pointwise on} \ \ {\overline{{U}}} \cap {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}.$$ We shall complete the proof of the proposition by showing that $$\begin{array}{ccc} W = \{ f\leq a \} \cap U & & W_- = \{ f-(a+b)\beta_0 \leq -b \} \cap U \end{array}$$ is the desired pair.
Choose a compact neighborhood $K$ of $x$ satisfying $$K \subset V_0 \cap \{-b/2 \leq f \leq a/2\}$$ and a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal N\subset\mathcal N_0$ of $(f,\theta)$ such that $$(f',\theta') \in \mathcal N \Rightarrow f'(K) \subset \left[ -\frac{2b}{3},\frac{2a}{3} \right].$$ Finally choose ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant open neighborhoods $V_1,V$ of $x$ such that $${\overline{{V_1}}}\subset V \subset {\overline{{V}}} \subset K .$$ We obtain a $C^2$-neighborhood $\mathcal N_1 \subset \mathcal N$ by applying Lemma \[lemma\_local\_pairs\_support\] to these choices of $V_1,V,\mathcal{N}$.
Let $(f_1,\theta_1) \in \mathcal N_1$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant pair which is Morse-Smale on $U$. Such a pair exists by Theorem \[main1\]. We derive some consequences of our previous constructions. All critical points of $f_1|_U$ are contained in $V_1$, as well as all $\theta_1$-gradient trajectories connecting them. Moreover, there is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant pair $(f',\theta')\in\mathcal N$ coinciding with $(f_1,\theta_1)$ on $V_1$ such that all critical points of $f'|_U$ are contained in $V_1$, as well as all $\theta'$-gradient trajectories connecting them. Furthermore, $(f',\theta')$ coincides with $(f,\theta)$ on $X\setminus {\overline{{V}}}$ and $f'(K) \subset [-2b/3,2a/3]$. In particular $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\{f=a\} \cap U = \{f'=a\} \cap U & \text{and} & \{f=-b\} \cap U = \{f'=-b\} \cap U.
\end{array}$$ It follows that $(f',\theta')$ is Morse-Smale on $U$ and $$({{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U),\partial^{\rm Morse}) = ({{\rm CM}}(f_1,\theta_1,U),\partial^{\rm Morse}).$$
For $p$ and $q$ critical points of $f'|_U$ consider the sets $$W_p = W^u(p) \cap \{f\geq -b\}, \ \ \ \ \ M(p,q)=W^u(p) \cap W^s(q).$$ Unstable and stable manifolds here are taken with respect to the negative gradient flow $\phi'_t$ of $(f',\theta')$ and the open set $U$ (Definition \[def\_stable\_unstable\_mfds\]). Since $a+b<\epsilon$, $p\in{\overline{{V_0}}}$, $f'(p) \in [-2b/3,2a/3]$ for all $p\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f'|_U) = {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f') \cap U$, it follows from that $W_p\cap\{f>-b\}\subset U$ is a smoothly embedded copy of a open ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)$-cell. By the Morse-Smale condition the $M(p,q)$ are smooth submanifolds of $U$. Standard compactness results for Morse trajectories tell us that for all $0\leq i\leq j\leq n=\dim X$ the set $$M_{ij} := \bigcup \ \{ M(p,q) \mid p,q \in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f'|_U), \ i\leq{\mathrm{ind}}(q)\leq{\mathrm{ind}}(p)\leq j\}$$ is a compact subset of $\{z\in U \mid f'(z) \in(-b,a)\}$. Here we strongly used (iii) in Definition \[def\_MS\]. Consider also $$M_{-1j} := \bigcup \ \{ W_p \mid p \in {\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f'|_U), \ {\mathrm{ind}}(p)\leq j\}$$ for every $0\leq j\leq d$. Similarly, $M_{-1j}$ are compact subsets of $(f')^{-1}([-b,a))$. All $M_{ij}$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant.
Each $M_{ij}$ is dynamically isolated in the sense that there exist arbitrarily small open neighborhoods $B_{ij}\subset U$ of $M_{ij}$ such that for all $z\in B_{ij}\setminus M_{ij}$, there exists some $t_z\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\phi'_{t_z}(z)\not\in B_{ij}$. To see this in the case $0\leq i\leq j$, choose a small compact neighborhood $C\subset U$ of $M_{ij}$ such that no critical point of index $\mu\not\in[i,j]$ belongs to $C$. If $z \in C$ and $\phi'_t(z)\in C$ for all $ t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ then there are critical points $q,p\in K$ of $f'$ such that $\phi'_t(z)$ converges to $q,p$ when $t\to+\infty,t\to-\infty$ respectively. By our choice of $K$, the critical points $q,p$ have indices in $[i,j]$, from where it follows that $z \in M_{ij}$, which is a contradiction. The case $i=-1$ is handled similarly.
Now we follow the non-trivial, yet elementary, arguments of Conley [@conley] with obvious modifications, keeping track of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry. Define $$\begin{aligned}
& N_{-1} = \{f\leq -b\} \cap U.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that there exist subsets $N_0,\dots,N_n$ of $U$ satisfying (a)-(e) below:
- $N_{-1} \subset N_0 \subset \dots \subset N_{n-1} \subset N_n$, $N_n\setminus N_{-1} \subset U\setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}$, each $N_i$ is closed in $U$.
- Each $N_i$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. For every $y$ in the boundary $E_i$ of $N_i$ in $U$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $\phi'_t(y) \in {{\rm int}}(N_i)$ for all $ t\in (0,\delta]$ and $\phi'_t(y) \not\in N_i$ for all $t\in [-\delta,0)$.
- All $N_i$ are positive invariant under $\phi'$. Moreover, for all $0\leq i\leq j\leq n$ we have $M_{ij} \subset {{\rm int}}(N_j\setminus N_{i-1})$, for all $ z\in N_j \setminus (N_{i-1}\cup M_{ij})$ there is some $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\phi'_t(z) \in N_{i-1}$ or $\phi'_t(z) \not\in N_j$, and for all $ z\in N_j\setminus N_{i-1}$ there exists $ t>0$ such that $\phi'_{[0,t]}(z) \subset N_j$.
- $N_i$ is homotopy equivalent to $N_{i-1}\cup (\cup_pW^u(p))$ where the union is taken over all critical points $p$ of $f'|_U$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)=i$.
Before stating (e) we explore some consequences of these first four conditions. First of all, condition (c) tells us that $(N_j,N_{i-1})$ is some kind of index pair for $M_{ij}$; more details about index pairs can be found in [@salamon_index_theory; @salamon]. Again (c) implies that $N_i$ contains no critical points $p$ of ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)>i$.
Consider groups $$\mathscr{C}_j = H_j(N_j,N_{j-1}).$$ Given a critical point $p$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)=i$, trajectories in $W^u(p)\setminus(\{p\}\cup N_{i-1})$ will hit $N_{i-1}$ before they can hit ${\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}$. This follows from $p\in V_0$, $f'(p)\in[a,b]$, $a+b<\epsilon$ and . Hence, using the topological transversality of the flow at $E_i$ described in (b), ${\overline{{W^u(p)\setminus N_{i-1}}}}$ is a compact topological disk of dimension ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)$ in $W^u(p)$, denoted by $D_p$, and $D_p \cup N_{i-1} = W^u(p) \cup N_{i-1}$. Orient $D_p$ from the orientation of $W^u(p)$ that one chooses in the definition of the differential of the Morse complex $({{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U),\partial^{\rm Morse})$. Then $D_p$ induces a homology class $\mathscr{D}_p\in \mathscr{C}_i$.
By conditions (a)-(d), the set $\{\mathscr{D}_p \mid {\mathrm{ind}}(p)=i\}$ is a basis for $\mathscr{C}_i$. Note also that $H_s(N_j,N_{i-1}) = 0$ if $s\not\in[i,j]$. This follows from an induction argument using exact sequences of appropriate triples. $\mathscr{C}_*$ is a chain complex with differential $$\Delta : \mathscr{C}_j \to \mathscr{C}_{j-1}$$ given by the connecting homomorphism of the long exact sequence of the triple $(N_j,N_{j-1},N_{j-2})$. The obvious ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on $\mathscr{C}_*$ is an action by chain maps. There is an isomorphism of groups $$T : ({{\rm CM}}_*(f',\theta',U),\partial^{\rm Morse}) \to (\mathscr{C}_*,\Delta)$$ defined on generators by $T:p\mapsto\mathscr{D}_p$. This is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant by construction. We can now state property (e) which reads
- $T$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant chain map.
We now construct the sets $N_i$ for $i\geq 0$ as in [@conley] keeping track of the group action, see also [@salamon Theorem 3.1]. The construction of $\{N_i\}$ is done inductively. For each $j$ such that the $N_0,\dots,N_j$ have been constructed satisfying (a)-(d) up to index $j$, we shall need to consider the subcomplex ${{\rm CM}}^{\leq j}$ generated by critical points of ${\mathrm{ind}}\leq j$ and their connecting trajectories, and the subcomplex $\mathscr{C}^{\leq j}$ defined as above using indices up to $j$. Then there is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant homomorphism $T^{\leq j}$ between these complexes as before, and we may consider the property
- $T^{\leq j}$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant chain map.
Let us start the induction argument. For each $p\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f'|_U)$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)=0$, denote by $B_p$ the connected component of the set $\{f'\leq f'(p)+r\}$ containing $p$. If $r>0$ is sufficiently small then the $B_p$ are disjoint, do not intersect $N_{-1}$ and are diffeomorphic to $d$-dimensional Euclidean balls. Define $N_0= N_{-1} \cup (\cup_pB_p)$. Clearly (a)-(d) hold up to index $0$, and ($e_0$) also holds trivially.
Assume that $N_0,\dots,N_j$ have been constructed such that (a)-(d) hold up to index $j$ and also that ($e_j$) holds. For each $p\in{\mathrm{Crit}\,}(f'|_U)$ with ${\mathrm{ind}}(p)=j+1$, we can choose a small Conley pair $(Q_p,Q_p^-)$ for the isolated invariant set $\{p\}$ given by a compact thickening of the pair consisting of a small smooth compact ($j+1$)-dimensional disk in $W^u(p)$ around $p$ and its boundary. The crucial point here is the obvious fact that we can choose $(Q_p,Q_p^-)$ to be invariant under the isotropy group of $p$. This property will be used as follows. Let $a$ be the diffeomorphism inducing the action of $1\in {\mathbb{Z}}_k$. We can select these small pairs in such a way that $$\label{equivariance_of_pairs}
(Q_{a^s(p)},Q^-_{a^s(p)}) = (a^s(Q_p),a^s(Q_p^-))$$ for all $s\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k$.
To this end, we first choose a base point $p_*$ in each ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-orbit of critical points of $f'|_U$ with index $j+1$, choose a small pair for $p_*$ as explained above which is invariant under the isotropy group of $p_*$, and move this pair by the group action. Now we use the forward flow to expand the pairs $(Q_{p},Q^-_{p})$ and obtain longer pairs $(\hat Q_{p},\hat Q^-_{p})$ satisfying $\hat Q_p \cap {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}=\emptyset$ and $\hat Q^-_{p} \subset {{\rm int}}(N_j)$. Define $N_{j+1} = N_j \cup(\cup_{p}\hat Q_{p})$. This is a closed (in $U$) ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant neighborhood of $N_j \cup(\cup_pW^u(p))$. Moreover, using the transversality in (b) for $N_j$, one shows that $N_j \cup(\cup_pW^u(p))$ is a deformation retract of $N_{j+1}$, that $N_{j+1}$ is an attractor, and that the transversality in (b) holds for $N_{j+1}$. Hence $N_0,\dots,N_{j+1}$ satisfy (a)-(d) up to index $j+1$. By the arguments from [@conley] without symmetry, the map $T^{\leq j+1}$ is a chain map. Since it is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant by construction, we get property $(e_{j+1})$. This completes the induction step.
So far we know that $(\mathscr{C}_*,\Delta)$ computes ${{\rm HM}}(f,x)$, and that the subcomplex of $(\mathscr{C}_*,\Delta)$ consisting of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains computes the homology of the subcomplex of $({{\rm CM}}(f',\theta',U),\partial^{\rm Morse})$ consisting of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains.
It follows from a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetric version of the arguments in [@milnor_book_ch appendix A] that the subcomplex of $(\mathscr{C}_*,\Delta)$ consisting of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains computes the homology of the subcomplex of $C_*(N_n,N_{-1})$ consisting of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains.
By and , if $(f_0,\theta_0) \in \mathcal N_0$ then $$\label{aux_estimate_h}
\begin{aligned}
d(f_0 - (a+b)\beta_0) \cdot \nabla^{\theta_0}f_0 &= df_0 \cdot \nabla^{\theta_0} f_0 - (a+b) d\beta_0 \cdot \nabla^{\theta_0} f_0 \\
&\geq |df_0|_{\theta_0}^2 -(a+b) |d\beta_0|_{\theta_0}|\nabla^{\theta_0} f_0|_{\theta_0} \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2} |df_0|_{\theta_0}^2 > 0 \ \ \text{ on } \ \ {\overline{{U}}} \cap {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $f_0$ is a Lyapunov function for the negative $\theta_0$-gradient flow of $f_0 - (a+b)\beta_0$ whenever $(f_0,\theta_0) \in \mathcal N_0$. Consider $h = f' - (a+b)\beta_0$ and the pair $(\tilde N_n,\tilde N_{-1})$ defined by $$\begin{array}{ccc} \tilde N_{-1} = \{h\leq -b\} \cap U & & \tilde N_n = \tilde N_{-1} \cup (N_n\setminus N_{-1}) .\end{array}$$ Note that $W_- = \tilde N_{-1}$. By the definition of $\beta_0$, and (a), the number $-b$ is a regular value of $h$ on $U$, and $$\tilde N_n \setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}} = N_n \setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}, \qquad \tilde N_{-1} \setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}} = N_{-1} \setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}.$$ Simple excision arguments show that the inclusion $(N_n,N_{-1}) \to (\tilde N_n,\tilde N_{-1})$ induces an isomorphism on relative singular homology. Now the transversality condition in (b) and the fact that the functions $h$ and $f'$ coincide on $U\setminus {\overline{{{\mathcal{O}}}}}$ imply that we can use the negative $\theta'$-gradient of $f'$ to construct a deformation retraction of $W = \{f\leq a\}\cap U$ onto $\tilde N_n$ which is stationary on $W_- = \tilde N_{-1}$. By ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariance of this flow, we find the last arrow in a sequence of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant isomorphisms $${{\rm HM}}_*(f',\theta',U) \to H_*(\mathscr{C},\Delta) \to H_*(N_n,N_{-1}) \to H_*(\tilde N_n,\tilde N_{-1}) \to H_*(W,W_-)$$ as desired.
Comparing with the Borel construction {#app_Borel}
=====================================
Our goal here is to explain how the Borel construction in Morse homology, first implemented by Viterbo [@viterbo], can be used to define ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant local Morse homology. These groups turn out to be isomorphic to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant local Morse homology groups defined in Section \[sec\_properties\].
Let $(M,\theta)$ be a Riemannian manifold without boundary, equipped with an action of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ by isometries. Let $f:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be smooth and let $p\in M$ be an isolated critical point of $f$ which is also a fixed point of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action. For the arguments to be given below there is no loss of generality to assume that the anti-gradient vector field of $(f,\theta)$ is complete.
The group ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$ acts on $S^{2N+1}\subset{\mathbb{C}}^{N+1}$ as $$m\cdot (z_0,\dots,z_N)=(e^{i2\pi\frac{m}{k}}z_0,\dots,e^{i2\pi\frac{m}{k}}z_N), \qquad m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_k.$$ This action is free, the orbit space is a lens space. Let $\theta_N$ denote the Euclidean metric on ${\mathbb{C}}^{N+1}$ pulled back to $S^{2N+1}$ by the inclusion map.
One can find a sequence of smooth functions $h_N:S^{2N+1}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ with the following properties:
- Each pair $(h_N,\theta_N)$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant and Morse-Smale.
- $S^{2N-1}$ is a normally hyperbolic invariant manifold for the anti-gradient flow of $(h_N,\theta_N)$ such that the $\theta_N$-Hessian of $h_N$ has only positive eigenvalues in directions transverse to $S^{2N-1}$.
- Morse indices of critical points of $h_N$ in $S^{2N+1} \setminus S^{2N-1}$ are equal to $2N$ or to $2N+1$.
The pair $(h_N,\theta_N)$ descends to a Morse-Smale pair $(\bar h_N,\bar\theta_N)$ on $S^{2N+1}/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$. It follows from (ii) and (iii) that inclusions of critical points induce chain maps $$({{\rm CM}}(\bar h_N),\partial^{(\bar h_N,\bar\theta_N)}) \to ({{\rm CM}}(\bar h_{N+1}),\partial^{(\bar h_{N+1},\bar\theta_{N+1})})$$ on the associated Morse complexes. We use ${\mathbb{Q}}$-coefficients throughout this discussion. The associated maps on homology fit into a directed system, with respect to which we can take a limit $$\lim_{N\to\infty} {{\rm HM}}(\bar h_N,\bar\theta_N).$$ One checks that this limit is isomorphic to the singular homology of $B{\mathbb{Z}}_k$.
The diagonal ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action on $M\times S^{2N+1}$ is free. The pair $(f+h_N,g\oplus \theta_N)$ on the product $M\times S^{2N+1}$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant. It descends to a pair $(\overline{f+h_N},\overline{g\oplus \theta_N})$ on $(M\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$. The submanifold $(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ is an isolated invariant set[^1] for the anti-gradient flow of $(\overline{f+h_N},\overline{g\oplus \theta_N})$. The homology of the associated Conley index is just the “local” Morse homology associated to the data consisting of $\overline{f+h_N}$, $\overline{g\oplus \theta_N}$ and $(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$, which we denote by $$\label{local_homology_ndbtimessphere_quotient}
{{\rm HM}}(\overline{f+h_N},\overline{g\oplus \theta_N},(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k).$$ Here we made use of a construction which is simple but maybe not too well-known, let us explain. A small (even in $C^\infty$) perturbation of the pair will make all critical points near $(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$ non-degenerate, and all connections between them transversely cut-out. Compactness for spaces of connecting trajectories between these critical points comes from the fact that $p$ is an isolated critical point of $f$. The homology of the associated Morse complex is independent of the small perturbation, since we can also achieve transversality and compactness for local continuation maps. These provide canonical isomorphisms at the level of homology. In Section \[sec\_properties\] we explained this construction in more detail for an isolated critical point.
The properties of $(h_N,\theta_N)$ allow to fit the homology groups into a directed system, with maps induced by inclusions $(\{p\}\times S^{2N-1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k \subset (\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k$. We finally define the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant local homology of $f$ at $p$ by $$\label{defn_local_equiv_Morse_homology}
{{\rm HM}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(f,p) = \lim_{N\to\infty} {{\rm HM}}(\overline{f+h_N},\overline{g\oplus \theta_N},(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k).$$ As the notation suggests, this turns out to be independent of the metric $g$ and of the data $\{(h_N,\theta_N)\}_{N\geq1}$. One could prove at this point, without referring to any isomorphism with our invariants, continuation properties identical to those stated in Proposition \[prop\_invariance\_with\_symmetries\].
Now we move on to describe an isomorphism with our ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant Morse homology groups. More precisely, we would like to build a canonical isomorphism $$\label{iso_equiv_inv}
{{\rm HM}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(f,p) \simeq {{\rm HM}}(f,p)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$$ in the sense that it commutes with continuation maps. We will merely provide a description, technical details of proofs will be omitted. We follow closely the case of closed manifolds explained in [@GHHM appendix].
Let $U$ be an isolating neighborhood for $(f,p)$. Let $(f',g')$ be a $C^2$-small perturbation of $(f,g)$ which is ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant, and Morse-Smale on $U$ in the sense of Definition \[def\_MS\]. The local Morse homology of $(f,p)$ was defined as the homology of the chain complex $$({{\rm CM}}(f',g',U),\partial^{(f',g',U)})$$ generated by the critical points of $f'$ in $U$. The differential counts rigid anti-gradient trajectories connecting them. This complex inherits a ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps, and ${{\rm HM}}(f,p)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is defined as the homology of the subcomplex of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains.
Similarly one considers a chain complex $$\label{local_Morse_ndbtimessphere}
({{\rm CM}}(f'+h_n,g'\oplus \theta_N,U\times S^{2N+1}),\partial^{(f'+h_N,g'\oplus\theta_N,U\times S^{2N+1})})$$ generated by critical points in $U\times S^{2N+1}$, with a differential that counts rigid anti-gradient trajectories of $(f'+h_n,g'\oplus \theta_N)$ between them. We need two important facts which can be checked by following definitions.\
[*Fact 1.*]{} There is a natural identification of chain complexes $$\label{identification_tensor}
\begin{aligned}
& ({{\rm CM}}(f'+h_n,g'\oplus \theta_N,U\times S^{2N+1}),\partial^{(f'+h_N,g'\oplus\theta_N,U\times S^{2N+1})}) \\
&\simeq ({{\rm CM}}(f',g',U),\partial^{(f',g',U)}) \otimes ({{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N),\partial^{(h_N,\theta_N)})
\end{aligned}$$ This identification intertwines the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps on with the diagonal ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-action by chain maps on the tensor product.\
[*Fact 2.*]{} The homology groups coincide with the homology of the subcomplex of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains of the complex .\
We can write a direct sum of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant subcomplexes $${{\rm CM}}(f',g',U) = {{\rm CM}}(f',g',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \oplus \bigoplus_\sigma V_\sigma$$ where ${{\rm CM}}(f',g',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ denotes the set of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains, i.e. the isotypical component associated to the trivial action, and the $V_\sigma$ denote the subcomplexes associated to the other isotypical components. Similarly we can write $${{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N) = {{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \oplus \bigoplus_\eta W_\eta^N.$$ It follows that the subcomplex of ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant chains of the tensor product in is $$\label{decomp_isotypical_comps}
\begin{aligned}
& \left( ({{\rm CM}}(f',g',U),\partial^{(f',g',U)}) \otimes ({{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N),\partial^{(h_N,\theta_N)}) \right)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \\
&= \left( {{\rm CM}}(f',g',U)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \otimes {{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \right) \ \oplus \ \bigoplus_{\sigma,\eta} \left( V_\sigma\otimes W_\eta^N \right)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}
\end{aligned}$$
The complexes $W_\eta^N$ have trivial homology. This is so because ${{\rm HM}}(h_N,\theta_N)$ (no symmetry) turns out to be the homology of the subcomplex ${{\rm CM}}(h_N,\theta_N)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$: one generator in degree zero and another in degree $2N+1$, both represented by ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-invariant cycles. It follows that all $W^N_\eta$ are acyclic. Hence so are all $V_\sigma\otimes W_\eta^N$.
Putting these remarks together with [*Fact 1*]{} and [*Fact 2*]{}, we can pass to homology in and obtain $$\label{prefinal_identification}
\begin{aligned}
& {{\rm HM}}(\overline{f+h_N},\overline{g\oplus \theta_N},(\{p\}\times S^{2N+1})/{\mathbb{Z}}_k) \simeq {{\rm HM}}(f,p)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k} \otimes H(S^{2N+1}/{\mathbb{Z}}_k;{\mathbb{Q}})
\end{aligned}$$ Finally it is possible to check that, in the above isomorphism, the chain maps on Morse homologies induced by the inclusions $S^{2N-1} \subset S^{2N+1}$ commute with corresponding chain maps on singular homology of lens spaces on the right-hand side of . Taking limits on both sides, and noting that only one generator in degree zero survives in $\lim_{N\to\infty}H(S^{2N+1}/{\mathbb{Z}}_k;{\mathbb{Q}})$, we get the isomorphism .
We hope that the recipes described here, which are needed to implement Viterbo’s construction at a local level, will convince the reader of two facts. Firstly, it is quite hard to work with the ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-symmetry at the chain level using definition of local ${\mathbb{Z}}_k$-equivariant homology. Secondly, when applying definition to discrete action functionals, it will be quite hard to prove iteration properties. Not to mention that the definition of ${{\rm HM}}(f,p)^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}$ is a lot simpler and more geometrically transparent than that of ${{\rm HM}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}_k}(f,p)$.
[BEHWZ]{}
F. Bourgeois and A. Oancea. [*$S^1$-Equivariant Symplectic Homology and Linearized Contact Homology.*]{} Int. Math. Res. Notices., doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw029.
M. Chaperon. [*Une idée du type “géodésiques brisées” pour les systèmes hamiltoniens.*]{} C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 298(13), 293–296 (1984).
M. Chaperon. [*An elementary proof of the Conley-Zehnder theorem in symplectic geometry.*]{} Dynamical systems and bifurcations (Groningen, 1984). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1125, Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–8 (1985).
C. C. Conley. [*Isolated invariant sets and the Morse index.*]{} CBMS Regional Conf. Ser. Math. 38 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1978).
Y. Deng and Z. Xia, [*Conley-Zehnder index and bifurcation of fixed points of Hamiltonian maps*]{}, preprint. To appear in Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems.
H. Eliasson. [*Geometry of manifolds of maps.*]{} J. Differential Geometry [**1**]{} 1967 169–194.
V. Ginzburg [*The Conley conjecture.*]{} Ann. of Math. (2) [**172**]{} (2010), no. 2, 1127–1180.
V.L. Ginzburg, D. Hein, U.L. Hryniewicz, L. Macarini. [*Closed Reeb orbits on the sphere and symplectically degenerate maxima*]{}, Acta Math. Vietnam, **38** (2013), 55-78.
V. L. Ginzburg and Y. Gören. [*Iterated index and the mean Euler characteristic.*]{} J. Topol. Anal., 7, no. 3, pp. 453–481 (2015).
V. Ginzburg and B. Gürel, [*Local Floer homology and the action gap.*]{} J. Symplectic Geom. [**8**]{} (2010), no. 3, 323–357.
V. Ginzburg and B. Gürel, [*Lusternik-Schnirelmann Theory and Closed Reeb Orbits.*]{} Preprint arXiv:1601.03092, 2016.
M. Goresky and N. Hingston, [*Loop products and closed geodesics.*]{} Duke Math. J. 150 (2009), 117–209.
D. Gromoll, W. Meyer. [*On differentiable functions with isolated critical points*]{}, Topology, vol 8 (1969), 361-369.
D. Gromoll and W. Meyer. *Periodic geodesics on compact Riemannian manifolds.* J. Differential Geometry **3** (1969), 493–510.
D. Hein, U. Hryniewicz and L. Macarini. In preparation.
N. Hingston. *Subharmonic solutions of Hamiltonian equations on tori.* Ann. of Math. (2) **170** (2009), no. 2, 529–560.
U. Hryniewicz and L. Macarini. [*Local contact homology and applications.*]{} J. Topol. Anal., 7 (2015), 167–238.
H. Hofer. [*Polyfolds and Fredholm Theory.*]{} arXiv:1412.4255.
H. Hofer, K. Wysocki and E. Zehnder, [*A general Fredholm theory. I. A splicing-based differential geometry.*]{} J. Eur. Math. Soc. [**9**]{} (2007), 841–876.
H. Hofer, K. Wysocki and E. Zehnder, [*A general Fredholm theory. II. Implicit function theorems.*]{} Geom. Funct. Anal. [**19**]{} (2009), 206–293.
H. Hofer, K. Wysocki and E. Zehnder, [*A general Fredholm theory. III. Fredholm functors and polyfolds.*]{} Geom. Topol. [**13**]{} (2009), 2279–2387.
N. Hingston. [*On the growth of the number of closed geodesics on the two-sphere.*]{} Internat. Math. Res. Notices 9 (1993), 253–262.
N. Hingston. [*On the lengths of closed geodesics on a two-sphere.*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 10, 3099–3106.
M. Hutchings. Blog, https://floerhomology.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/an-alternate-definition-of-local-contact-homology/
C. Liu and Y. Long. [*An optimal increasing estimate of the iterated Maslov-type indices.*]{} Chin. Sci. Bull. [**43**]{} (1998), 1063–1066.
C. Liu and Y. Long. [*Iteration inequalities of the Maslov-type index theory with applications.*]{} J. Differ. Equ. [**165**]{} (2000), 355–376.
Y. Long. [Index Theory for Symplectic Paths with Applications.]{} Birkhäuser, Basel, 2002.
M. Mazzucchelli. [*Symplectic degenerate maxima via generating functions.*]{} Math. Z. [**275**]{} (2013), 715–739.
D. McDuff and D. Salamon, [*Introduction to Symplectic Topology*]{}, Oxford Math. Monogr., The Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998).
D. McDuff and D. Salamon. *$J$-holomorphic curves and symplectic topology.* Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. [**52**]{} (2004).
J. W. Milnor, [*Morse Theory*]{}, Annals of Mathematical Studies, [**51**]{}, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1963.
J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff, [*Characteristic Classes*]{}, Annals of Mathematical Studies, [**76**]{}, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1974.
H. Poincaré. *Sur un théorème de géométrie.* Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, [**33**]{} (1912), 375–407.
J. Robbin and D. Salamon. [*The Maslov index for paths.*]{} Topology, Vol. 32, [**4**]{} (1993), 827–844.
J. Robbin and D. Salamon. [*Phase functions and path integrals, symplectic geometry.*]{} London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 192, pp. 203–226, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993).
D. Salamon, [*Connected Simple Systems and the Conley Index of Isolated Invariant Sets.*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 291, No. 1 (Sep., 1985), pp. 1–41.
D. Salamon, [*Morse theory, the Conley index and Floer homology*]{}. Bull. London Math. Soc. 22 (1990) 113–140.
D. Salamon and E. Zehnder, [*Morse theory for periodic solutions of Hamiltonian systems and the Maslov index*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 45 (1992), no. 10, 1303–1360.
M. Schwarz, [*Morse homology.*]{} Progr. Math. [**111**]{}, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1993.
E. Spanier, [*Algebraic Topology.*]{} McGraw-Hill, 1966 (reprinted by Springer-Verlag).
E. Stein. [*Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions*]{}, Princeton University Press, 1970.
C. Viterbo. [*Functors and computations in Floer homology with applications. I.*]{} Geometric and Functional Analysis 9, no. 5 (1999): 985–1033.
[^1]: Given a flow $\phi^t$, a compact invariant set $K$ is called isolated if it admits an open neighborhood $U$ such that $K = \{ p\in U \mid \phi^t(p) \in U \ \forall t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a free group $F_k$ of rank $k\ge 2$ with a fixed set of free generators we associate to any homomorphism $\phi$ from $F_k$ to a group $G$ with a left-invariant semi-norm a generic stretching factor, $\lambda(\phi)$, which is a non-commutative generalization of the translation number. We concentrate on the situation when $\phi:F_k\to Aut(X)$ corresponds to a free action of $F_k$ on a simplicial tree $X$, in particular, when $\phi$ corresponds to the action of $F_k$ on its Cayley graph via an automorphism of $F_k$. In this case we are able to obtain some detailed “arithmetic” information about the possible values of $\lambda=\lambda(\phi)$. We show that $\lambda \ge 1$ and is a rational number with $2k\lambda\in \mathbb Z\left[ \frac{1}{2k-1} \right]$ for every $\phi\in Aut(F_k)$. We also prove that the set of all $\lambda(\phi)$, where $\phi$ varies over $Aut(F_k)$, has a gap between $1$ and $1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k}$, and the value $1$ is attained only for “trivial” reasons. Furthermore, there is an algorithm which, when given $\phi$, calculates $\lambda( \phi)$.'
address:
- 'IRMAR, Université Rennes-1, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042, Rennes Cedex, France;'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1409 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA http://www.math.uiuc.edu/\~kapovich/'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1409 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA http://www.math.uiuc.edu/People/schupp.html'
author:
- Vadim Kaimanovich
- Ilya Kapovich
- Paul Schupp
title: The Subadditive Ergodic Theorem and generic stretching factors for free group automorphisms
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
Random subgroup distortion and growth of random automorphisms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a finitely generated group with a word metric $d_S$ determined by a finite generating set $S$ and write $|g|_S:=d_S(1,g)$ for $g\in G$. Recall that if $H=\langle T\rangle$ is a subgroup of $G$ generated by a finite set $T$, then a function $f$ is said to be a *distortion function* of $H$ in $G$ if for every $h\in H$ we have $|h|_T\le f(|h|_S)$. The subgroup $H$ is *quasi-isometrically embedded* in $G$ if and only if for some (and hence for all) choices of $S,T$ there is a linear distortion function for $H$ in $G$, that is if the ratio $\frac{|h|_T}{|h|_S}$ is bounded on $H\setminus\{1\}$.
The *translation number* of an element $g\in G$ is defined as $$\lambda(g) = \lambda_S(g) =\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|g^n|_S}{n}$$ and the limit exists by the subadditivity of the sequence $|g^n|_S$. If $g$ has infinite order, then the cyclic subgroup $\langle g\rangle$ is quasi-isometrically embedded in $G$ if and only if $\lambda_S(g)>0$ for some (and hence for any) finite generating set $S$ of $G$.
The study of “random” or “generic” behavior is currently an increasingly active area of investigation in many different group-theoretic contexts. (See, for example, [@Grom1; @Ol92; @Grom2; @Ch94; @Ch95; @Ch00; @Che96; @Che98; @A1; @A2; @A3; @AO; @Z; @KMSS; @KMSS1; @KS; @Gh; @Oliv] ). In this paper we concentrate on algebraic and geometric consequences of subadditivity, specifically of Kingman’s Subadditive Ergodic Theorem.
We investigate a “noncommutative analogue” of translation number which is defined for a “mapped-in” subgroup $H=\phi(F)$, where $\phi:F\to G$ is a homomorphism of a free nonabelian group $F=F(A)$ of finite rank into a group $G$ with generating set $S$. Namely, there is a number $\lambda=\lambda(\phi,A,S)\ge 0$ such that for long “random” freely reduced words $w\in F(A)$ we have $\frac{|\phi(w)|_S}{|w|_A}\approx \lambda$. (Instead of the word metric $d_S$ one could actually take an arbitrary semi-norm on $G$.)
Throughout this paper we fix the notation that $F=F(A)$ is the free group with basis $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$ where $k\ge 2$. For any $w\in
F$ let $|w|$ denote the length of the unique freely reduced word over $A^{\pm 1}$ representing $w$. We identify the hyperbolic boundary $\partial F$ with the set of all *geodesic rays* from $1\in F$ in the Cayley graph $\Gamma(F,A)$ of $F$, that is, $\partial F$ is the set of all semi-infinite freely reduced words over $A^{\pm 1}$ endowed with the standard topology. The space $\partial F$ can be identified with the *space of ends* or the *hyperbolic boundary* of $F$.
The Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal F$ on $\partial F$ is generated by the *cylinder sets* $Cyl_A(v),\,v\in F$, where $Cyl_A(v)$ consists of all infinite rays $\omega\in \partial F$ that begin with $v$. The *uniform* Borel probability measure ${\mu_A}$ on $\partial
F$ corresponding to $A$ is defined by assigning equal weights to all cylinders based on the words on the same length. That is, $${\mu_A}(Cyl_A(v))=\frac{1}{2k(2k-1)^{|v|-1}} \qquad\forall\, v\in
F\setminus\{1\} .$$ Note that although the boundary $\partial F$ could be defined without referring to a particular generating set $A$, the uniformity of the measure ${\mu_A}$ *does* depend on the choice of $A$. The fact that the uniform measures corresponding to two different free generating sets may well be singular respect to each other is actually the cornerstone of our approach. (See [@Fur] for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon in the general context of word-hyperbolic groups and of the Patterson-Sullivan measures corresponding to geometric actions of such groups on Gromov-hyperbolic spaces.)
A ray $\omega\in\partial F$ can be thought of as a *non-backtracking edge-path* in $\Gamma(F,A)$ starting from the identity $1$. We denote by $\omega_n$ the vertex on $\omega$ at distance $n$ from $1$. The measure space $(\partial F,{\mu_A})$ then becomes the *space of sample paths* of the *non-backtracking simple random walk* (NBSRW) on the Cayley graph of $F$. This is the Markov chain on $F$ whose transition probabilities $\pi_w,\,w\in F$ are equidistributed among the neighbors of $w$ which are strictly further from the group identity. By choosing a random ${\mu_A}$-distributed point $\omega\in\partial F$ we may think about $\omega_n$ as a “random” (with respect to the NBSRW) freely reduced word of length $n$ in $F$.
In Section 2 we prove:
\[thm:stretch\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ with $k\ge 1$, and let ${\mu_A}$ be the uniform Borel probability measure on $\partial F$ corresponding to the basis $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$.
Let $\phi:F\to G$ be a homomorphism to a group $G$ endowed with a semi-norm, that is, a nonnegative function $|\cdot|_G$ on $G$ satisfying $|gh|_G\le |g|_G+|h|_G$ for all $g,h\in H$.
Then:
1. There exists a real number $\lambda\ge 0$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\phi(\omega_n)|_G}{n}=\lambda$$ ${\mu_A}$-a.e. and in $L^1(\partial F,{\mu_A})$.
2. Suppose further that the image group $\phi(F)$ is non-amenable, and that the sequence $b_n=\#\{ g\in \phi(F): |g|_G\le n\}$ grows at most exponentially. Then $\lambda>0$.
Note that the requirement of at most exponential growth of the $b_n$ is automatically satisfied if the group $G$ is finitely generated, and $|\cdot|_G$ is the word metric on $G$ determined by a finite generating set.
Theorem \[thm:stretch\] says that for a long “random” freely reduced element $w\in F$ we have $\frac{|\phi(w)|_G}{|w|}\approx
\lambda$. For this reason we shall call the number $\lambda=\lambda(\phi, A,|\cdot|_G)$, whose existence is provided by part (1) of Theorem \[thm:stretch\], the *generic stretching factor* of $\phi$ with respect to the free basis $A$ of $F$ and the semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$.
We deduce Theorem \[thm:stretch\] from the fact that the sample paths of the usual simple random walk on the group $F$ asymptotically follow geodesics and the well-known results on the linear rate of escape of random walks on groups [@KV], [@K]. We also give an alternative direct argument proof of part (1) of Theorem \[thm:stretch\] applying Kingman’s Subadditive Ergodic Theorem [@King]. Part (2) of Theorem \[thm:stretch\] can also be proved using the results of Cohen [@Cohen], Grigorchuck [@Gri] and Woess [@Woess83] on co-growth in groups.
\[exmp:metric\] A typical example of a semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$ comes from isometric group actions on metric spaces. Namely, let $X$ be a metric space with basepoint $x\in X$. For an isometry $g$ of $X$ define $|g|_x:=d(x,gx)$. The triangle inequality implies that $|g_1g_2|_x\le |g_1|_x+|g_2|_x$, so that $|\cdot|_x$ is a semi-norm on $G=Isom(X)$. Suppose $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ acts by isometries on $X$ by a homomorphism $\phi: F\to G$. It is easy to see that in this case $\lambda(\phi, A, |\cdot|_x)$ does not depend on the choice of a base-point $x\in X$ and is determined by the action $\phi$ and the choice of the basis $A$ of $F$. In this case we shall denote $\lambda(\phi, A, |\cdot|_x)$ by $\lambda(\phi,A)$, or just by $\lambda(\phi)$ if the choice of $A$ is fixed.
Let $H\le G$ be finitely generated groups with finite generating sets $A\subset H$ and $S\subset G$, respectively. Denote the associated length functions by $|\cdot|_G$ and $|\cdot|_H$. Now $H$ is a quotient of $F=F(A)$. Let $\phi:F(A)\to G$ be composition of this quotient map with the inclusion of $H$ into $G$. Then $|\phi(w)|_H\le |w|$ for any $w\in F$. If the group $H$ is non-amenable then by Theorem \[thm:stretch\] for a long “random” freely reduced word $w$ in $F(A)$
$$\frac{|\phi(w)|_H}{|w|}\approx \lambda_1>0, \quad \text{ and } \quad
\frac{|\phi(w)|_G}{|w|}\approx \lambda_2>0,$$ and therefore $$\frac{|\phi(w)|_H}{|\phi(w)|_G}\approx \frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_2},$$ where the constants $\lambda_1,\lambda_2>0$ do not depend on $w$. Thus, informally speaking, Theorem \[thm:stretch\] implies that any nonamenable finitely generated subgroup $H$ of a finitely generated group $G$ has “generic-case” linear distortion in $G$.
Let $G$ be a nonamenable group with a finite generating set $A$ and the associated length function $|\cdot|_G$. We will denote by $\overline w$ the element of $G$ represented by a word $w$ in the alphabet $A\cup A^{-1}$.
Let $L\subseteq (A\cup A^{-1})^{\ast}$ be a set of *normal forms* (not necessarily unique) for elements of $G$, that is $\overline L=G$. Consider, for instance, the case where $L$ is an automatic language for $G$. By Theorem \[thm:stretch\] there is $\lambda>0$ such that for a random long freely reduced word $w\in
F(A)$ we have $\frac{|\overline{w}|_G}{|w|}\approx \lambda$. Let $w_L\in L$ be a word representing the same element of $G$ as $w$. Then $$|w_L|\ge |\overline{w}|_G$$ and hence $$\frac{|w_L|}{|w|}\ge \frac{|\overline{w}|_G}{|w|}\approx \lambda>0.$$
Thus for a long random word $w\in F(S)$ when we take $\overline w$ to a normal form $w_L\in L$, the ratio $\frac{|w_L|}{|w|}$ is separated from zero. This conclusion applies to a number of experimental observations, such as those obtained by Dehornoy [@Deh] in the case of braid groups.
Theorem \[thm:stretch\] has implications regarding the growth of *random automorphisms*. Let $G$ be a finitely generated group with a fixed word metric corresponding to a finite generating set $S$. Let $\phi\in Aut(G)$ be an automorphism. We define the *norm* of $\phi$ with respect to $S$ as $$||\phi||=||\phi||_S:=\max_{s\in S} |\phi(s)|_S.$$
Then for any $g\in G$ we have $|\phi(g)|_S\le ||\phi||_S |g|_S$ and hence $$||\phi||=\sup_{g\in G, g\ne 1} \frac{|\phi(g)|_S}{|g|_S}.$$
For an individual $\phi$ the sequence $\log ||\phi^n||$ is subadditive and therefore the following limit (sometimes called the *growth entropy of $\phi$*) exists: $$\nu(\phi):=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log ||\phi^n||}{n}.$$
It turns out that this notion has a generalization for an arbitrary finitely generated subgroup of $Aut(G)$:
\[aut\] Let $G$ be a nontrivial finitely generated group with a word-metric $d_S$ corresponding to a finite generating set $S$. Let $H\le
Aut(G)$ be a noncyclic subgroup with a finite generating set $T$. Then:
1. There is $\nu=\nu(H)=\nu(H,T,S)\ge 0$ such that for a non-backtracking simple random walk $\phi_n$ on the Cayley graph of $H$ with respect to $T$ we have
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log ||\phi_n||_S}{n}=\nu$$ almost surely and in $L^1$.
2. If $G$ has polynomial growth and $H$ is non-amenable then $\nu(H,T,S)>0$.
Note that $\nu(H,T,S)>0$ means that $||\phi_n||_S$ grows exponentially with $n$ for a “random” automorphism $\phi_n$.
\[cor:aut\] Let $F$ be a free group of finite rank $k\ge 2$ and let $H\le
Aut(F)$ be a finitely generated group of automorphisms of $F$ such that the image $H'$ of $H$ in $Aut(F_{ab})\cong GL(k,{\mathbb Z})$ is non-amenable. Then for any finite generating set $S$ of $F$ and for any finite generating set $T$ of $H$ we have $\nu(H,T,S)>0$.
By the Tits alternative a subgroup of $GL(k,{\mathbb Z})$ is either virtually solvable (and hence amenable) or it contains a free subgroup of rank two (and hence is nonamenable). Thus in the above corollary we could replace the assumption that $H'$ is nonamenable by the requirement that $H'$ is not virtually solvable.
Free actions on trees: Two interpretation of stretching factors
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of free and discrete isometric actions of free groups on $\mathbb R$-trees (cf. Example \[exmp:metric\]). generic stretching factors are related to Bonahon’s notion [@Bo86; @Bo88] of the intersection number between geodesic currents on hyperbolic surfaces. If $G$ is a non-elementary word-hyperbolic group, a *geodesic current* on $G$ is a $G$-invariant positive Borel measure on $\partial^2G:=\{(x,y)|x,y\in \partial G, x\ne y\}$. The space of all geodesic currents on $G$, endowed with the weak-$\ast$-topology, is denoted by $Curr(G)$. (See [@Bo91; @Ka1] for a detailed discussion on the subject.)
Every nontrivial conjugacy class $[g]$ in $G$ defines an associated “counting” current $\eta_{[g]}$ on $G$. When $S$ is a closed surface of negative Euler characteristic and $G=\pi_1(S)$, Bonahon proved that the notion of geometric intersection number between free homotopy classes of essential closed curves on $S$ (that is, between nontrivial conjugacy classes of $G$) extends to a bilinear continuous “intersection form” $$i:Curr(G)\times Curr(G)\to \mathbb R.$$ Note that in this case $\partial G=\partial \mathbb H^2=\mathbb S^1$. For every hyperbolic structure $\rho$ on $S$ there is an associated *Liouville current* $L_{\rho}\in Curr(G)$ (see [@Bo86]). Bonahon’s construction has the following natural property: if $\rho$ is as above and $[g]$ is a nontrivial conjugacy class in $G$ then $i(L_{\rho}, \eta_{[g]})=\ell_{\rho}(g)$. Here $\ell_{\rho}: G\to
\mathbb R$ is the *length spectrum* of $\rho$. Thus $\ell_{\rho}(g)$ is equal to the translation length of $g$ as an isometry of $\mathbb H^2=\widetilde{(S,\rho)}$ and it is also equal to the $\rho$-length of the shortest curve of the free homotopy class of closed curves on $S$ corresponding to $[g]$. It turns out that the intersection number $i(L_\rho,L_{\rho'})$ between Liouville currents corresponding to two hyperbolic structures $\rho,\rho'$ can be interpreted as the generic stretching factor of a long random closed geodesic on $(S,\rho)$ with respect to $\rho'$. Namely, let $p\in S$ and let $v$ be a random unit tangent vector at $p$ on $(S,\rho)$. For every $n\ge 1$ let $\alpha_n$ be the geodesic of length $n$ on $(S,\rho)$ with origin $p$ and with the tangent vector $v$ at $p$. Let $\beta_n$ be a geodesic from the terminus of $\alpha_n$ to $p$ of length $\le Diam(S,\rho)$. Then $\gamma_n=\alpha_n\beta_n$ is a closed curve on $S$. Bonahon’s results imply that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{\ell_{\rho'}([\gamma_n])}{\ell_{\rho}([\gamma_n])}=\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{\ell_{\rho'}([\gamma_n)])}{n}=\frac{i(\rho,\rho')}{\pi^2|\chi(S)|}.$$
It turns out that a version of this interpretation applies in the context of free groups acting on trees. Let $F$ be a free group of finite rank $k\ge 2$ In [@Ka; @Ka1] Kapovich investigated a natural “intersection form” $I: FLen(F)\times Curr(F)\to \mathbb F$, where $FLen(F)$ is the space of hyperbolic length functions corresponding to free and discrete isometric actions of $F$ on $\mathbb R$-trees. This form still has the natural property that for any nontrivial conjugacy class $[g]$ in $F$ and any $\ell\in FLen(F)$ we have $I(\ell,
\eta_{[g]}=\ell(g)$. Let $A$ be a free basis of $F$ and let $\ell\in
FLen(F)$ be realized by a free and discrete isometric action $\phi:F\to Isom(X)$ of $F$ on an $\mathbb R$-tree $X$. Let $\mu_A$ be the uniform measure on $\partial F$ corresponding to $A$. The measure $\mu_A$ on $\partial F$ determines a *uniform* current $\nu_A\in
Curr(F)$ that is analogous to the Liouville current corresponding to a hyperbolic structure on a surface. As shown in [@Ka1], similarly to Bonahon’s situation, we have $$I(\ell, \nu_A)=\lambda_A(\phi).$$
Generic stretching factors are also related to the notion of the Hausdorff dimension of a measure with respect to a metric. If $\mu$ is a measure on a metric space $(M,d)$, the *Hausdorff dimension of $\mu$ with respect to $d$*, denoted ${\bf HD}_d(\mu)$ (or just ${\bf HD}(\mu)$), is defined as the infimum of Hausdorff dimensions of subsets of $(M,d)$ of full measure $\mu$.
In [@Kaim98] Kaimanovich proved that for the harmonic measure $\nu$ on $\partial T$ associated to a regular Markov operator $P$ with a positive rate of escape on a tree $T$ with uniformly bounded vertex degrees we have $${\bf HD}(\nu)=\frac{h}{c}$$ where $c$ is the rate of escape and $h$ is the asymptotic entropy of $P$.
This result is relevant in our context. Indeed, let $A$ be a free basis of $F$ and let $\phi: F\to Isom(X)$ be a free, discrete and minimal isometric action of $F$ on an $\mathbb R$-tree $X$. Then $X/F$ is a finite metric graph and $X$ is the universal cover of this graph. Let $\Gamma(F,A)$ denote the Cayley graph of $F$ with respect to $A$. The orbit map $w\mapsto wp$ (where $p\in X$ is a base-point) gives a quasi-isometry between the trees $\Gamma(F,A)$ and $X$ which extends to a homeomorphism $\hat\phi:\partial \Gamma(F,A)\to \partial X$ where $\partial X$ is metrized in the standard $CAT(-1)$ way: $d(\zeta,\xi)=e^{-d(p, [\zeta,\xi])}$ for $\zeta,\xi\in \partial X$. Let $\mu_A$ be the uniform probability measure on $\partial
\Gamma(F,A)=\partial F$ corresponding to $A$ and let $\mu_A'$ denote the push-forward of $\mu_A$ via $\hat\phi$ to $\partial X$.
Then the result of Kaimanovich [@Kaim98] mentioned above implies that $${\bf HD}_d(\mu_A')=\frac{\log (2k-1)}{\lambda_A(\phi)},$$ where $k\ge 2$ is the rank of $F$.
Main results about actions on trees
-----------------------------------
$ $
Our first main result is:
\[free\] Let $F=F(A)$ be a free group of rank $k\ge 2$. Let $\phi:F\to
Aut(X)$ be a free simplicial action without inversion of $F$ on a simplicial tree $X$.
Then the following hold:
1. The generic stretching factor $\lambda=\lambda(\phi)$ is a rational number $\ge 1$ with $$2k\lambda\in {\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2k-1}\right].$$
2. The number $\lambda(\phi)$ is algorithmically computable in terms of $\phi$, provided $X$ is the universal cover of a finite connected graph and $\phi$ is given by an isomorphism between $F$ and the fundamental group of that graph.
The most interesting case of the above theorem is when $X$ is the Cayley graph of $F=F(A)$ determined by an endomorphism of $F$.
Let $F=F(A)$ where $k\ge 2$ and $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$. Let $\phi:F\to F$ be an endomorphism of $F$. Let $X=\Gamma(F,A)$ be the Cayley graph of $F$ and consider the action $\theta:F\to Isom(X)$ given by $\theta(w)x:=\phi(w)x$, where $w\in F,x\in X$. The generic stretching factor $\lambda_A(\theta)$ corresponding to this action is called the *generic stretching factor of $\phi$ with respect to $A$* and is denoted $\lambda_A(\phi)$ or just $\lambda(\phi)$ if $A$ is fixed.
Thus $\lambda(\phi)$ approximates the distortion $|\phi(w)|_A/|w|_A$ for a long random freely reduced word $w$ in $A^{\pm 1}$. For instance, for the Nielsen automorphism $\phi\in Aut(F(a,b))$, $\phi(a)=ab, \phi(b)=b$ it turns out that $\lambda(\phi)=\frac{7}{6}$. If $\phi$ is an automorphism of $F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$, then the precise relationship between $\lambda(\phi)$ and the traditionally studied dynamical properties of $\phi$ is not very clear. Nevertheless, we are able to estimate the growth of $\lambda(\phi^n)$ for hyperbolic automorphisms. Recall that $\phi\in Aut(F)$ is *hyperbolic* if there exist $s >1$ and $m\ge 1$ such that for any $w\in F$ $$s ||w||\le \max\{||\phi^m(w)||, ||\phi^{-m}(w)||\}.$$ By a result of Brinkmann [@Br] an automorphism $\phi\in Aut(F)$ is hyperbolic if and only if $\phi$ does not have any nontrivial periodic conjugacy classes in $F$. We prove:
\[hyp\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ and let $\phi\in Aut(F)$ be a hyperbolic automorphism with parameters $s >1$ and $m\ge 1$ as above. Then $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\phi^n)} \ge s^{1/m}>1.$$
It is obvious that any automorphism of a finitely generated group $G$ equipped with a word metric, is a quasi-isometry and indeed a bi-Lipschitz equivalence. However, from the geometric point of view, especially in light of various versions of the Marked Length Spectrum Rigidity Conjecture, it is natural to study finer features of quasi-isometries. Recall that a map $f:(X,d)\to (X',d')$ is called a *rough isometry* if there is $D>0$ such that for any $x,y\in X$ we have $|d'(f(x),f(y))-d(x,y)|\le D$. A map $f:(X,d)\to (X',d')$ is called a *rough similarity* if there are $\lambda >0$ and $D>0$ such that for any $x,y\in X$ we have $|d'(f(x),f(y))-\lambda
d(x,y)|\le D$. It is interesting and natural to ask when an automorphism is a rough similarity or a rough isometry.
An automorphism $\phi$ of $F=F(A)$ is called a *relabelling automorphism* if it is induced by a permutation of the set $A =
\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}^{\pm 1}$. We say that $\phi \in Aut(F)$ is *simple* if it is equivalent to a relabeling automorphism in $Out(F)$, that is, if $\phi$ is the composition of a relabeling automorphism and a conjugation. Note that being a simple automorphism has a nice geometric meaning. Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ be realized as the fundamental group of the metric graph $\Gamma$ which is a bouquet of $k$ circles of length $1$ corresponding to the generators $a_1,\dots, a_k$. An automorphism $\phi$ is simple if and only if, after possibly a composition with an inner automorphism , $\phi$ is induced by an *isometry* of the graph $\Gamma$.
Let $P_n$ be the uniform probability measure on the set of all elements of $F$ of length $n$. A set $W\subseteq F$ is said to be *exponentially $F$-generic* if $\lim_{n\to\infty} P_n(W)=1$ and convergence to this limit is exponentially fast. Similarly, a subset $C \subseteq \mathcal{CR}$ of the set $\mathcal{CR}$ of all cyclically reduced words is *exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic* if $\lim_{n\to\infty} P_n'(C)=1$ with exponentially fast convergence, where $P_n'$ is the uniform discrete probability measure on the set of cyclically reduced words of length $n$.
Obviously, any simple automorphism is a rough isometry and a rough similarity. The converse is also true, that is, any automorphism which is a rough similarity must be simple. (This follows, for example, from Theorem 2 of [@Fur] together with some standard results about Culler-Vogtmann outer space). Here we obtain a strengthened “random rigidity” version of this fact:
\[rigid\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ be a free group of rank $k\ge 2$ with the standard word metric $d$ corresponding to the free basis $\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$. Put $d_0:=1+\frac{2k-3}{4k^2-2k}$. There exists an exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic set $C \subseteq
\mathcal{CR}$ with the following property.
For any $\phi\in Aut(F)$ the following conditions are equivalent:
1. The automorphism $\phi$ is simple.
2. We have $\lambda(\phi)=1$.
3. We have $\lambda(\phi)< 1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k}$.
4. The map $\phi: (F,d)\to (F,d)$ is a rough isometry.
5. The map $\phi: (F,d)\to (F,d)$ is a rough similarity.
6. For some $w\in C$ we have $||\phi(w)||=||w||$.
7. For every $w\in C$ we have $||\phi(w)||=||w||$.
8. For some $w\in C$ we have $||\phi(w)||\le d_0 ||w||$.
9. For every $w\in C$ we have $||\phi(w)||\le d_0 ||w||$.
This result shows, in particular, that the set of all possible values of $\lambda(\phi)$ (where $\phi\in Aut(F)$) has a *gap*, namely the interval $(1, 1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k})$. Moreover, in the above theorem we can choose $d_0$ to be any number such that $1<d_0<1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k}$.
Theorem \[rigid\] introduces a new dimension for rigidity results related to Marked Length Spectra on hyperbolic groups. Indeed, it is well-known that if $\phi\in Aut(F)$ fixes the lengths of all conjugacy classes (that is of all cyclic words), then $\phi$ is a rough isometry of $F$. Theorem \[rigid\] shows that even if $\phi\in Aut(F)$ preserves the length of a single “random” cyclically reduced word $w$ then $\phi$ is a rough isometry and indeed a simple automorphism. To prove Theorem \[rigid\] we need some rather different tools and ideas, both algebraic and probabilistic. The key ingredient there is the work of Kapovich-Schupp-Shpilrain [@KSS] about the behavior of Whitehead’s algorithm and the action of $Aut(F)$ on “random” elements of $F$.
Using Theorem \[rigid\] it is not hard to show that the set of generic stretching factors taken over *all* free actions of $F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ on simplicial trees also has a gap. Thus we obtain:
\[rigid1\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ where $k\ge 2$. Let $\phi: F\to Aut(X)$ be a free minimal action on $F$ on a simplicial tree $X$ without inversions.
Then exactly one of the following occurs:
1. There is a simple automorphism $\alpha$ of $F$ such that $X$ is $\phi\circ \alpha$-equivariantly isomorphic to the Cayley graph of $F$ with respect to $\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$. In this case $\lambda(\phi)=1$.
2. We have $\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}$.
For an automorphism $\phi\in Aut(F)$ the *conjugacy distortion spectrum* of $\phi$ is $$I(\phi):=\left\{ \frac{||\phi(w)||}{||w||}: w\in F-\{1\} \right\}.$$ Kapovich proved in [@Ka] that $I(\phi)$ is always a $\mathbb
Q$-convex subinterval of $\mathbb Q$ (that is, a set closed under taking rational convex combinations) with rational endpoints. Here we obtain:
Let $\phi\in Aut(F)$ be an arbitrary automorphism. Then the following hold.
1. Either $\phi$ is simple and $I(\phi)=1$ or, else, $1$ belongs to the interior of $\overline{I(\phi)}$.
2. There exists $w\in F, w\ne 1$ such that $||\phi(w)||=||w||$.
Part (1) obviously implies part (2) since, by the above mentioned result of [@Ka] $I(\phi)$ is a $\mathbb Q$-convex subset of $\mathbb Q$.
To see that (2) holds, assume that $\phi$ is not simple. Hence $\phi^{-1}$ is not simple either. By Theorem \[rigid\] we have $\lambda(\phi)>1$ and $\lambda(\phi^{-1})>1$. Part (2b) of Theorem \[free\] now implies that there exists $w_1, w_2\in F,
w_1\ne 1, w_2\ne 1$ such that $x:=\frac{||\phi(w_1)||}{||w_1||}>1$ and $y:=\frac{||\phi^{-1}(w_2)||}{||w_2||}>1$. By definition of $I(\phi)$ we have $x\in I(\phi)$. Also, with $u=\phi^{-1}(w_2)$ we have $y=\frac{||u||}{||\phi(u)||}>1$ and so $1/y\in I(\phi)$. Since $x>1$ and $1/y<1$, the $\mathbb Q$-convexity of $I(\phi)$ implies that $1$ belongs to the interior of $\overline{I(\phi)}$, as claimed.
We also obtain an application of Theorem \[rigid\] concerning the notion of the *flux* of an automorphism that was introduced and studied by Myasnikov and Shpilrain in [@MS1].
[@MS1] Let $G$ be a finitely generated group with a fixed word metric. Let $\phi\in Aut(G)$.
For each $n\ge 0$ define $$flux_{\phi}(n):=\# \{ g\in G : |g|\le n, |\phi(g)|>n\}$$
and $$flux(\phi):=\limsup \sqrt[n]{\frac{flux_{\phi}(n)}{\# \{g\in G: |g|\le
n\}}}$$
The sequence $flux_{\phi}(n)$ and the number $flux(\phi)$ provide a certain dynamical “measure of activity” of an automorphism $\phi$. As a corollary of our results in this paper we obtain:
\[cor:flux\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ be a free group of rank $k\ge 2$, equipped with the standard metric.
Then for any $\phi\in Aut(F)$ we have:
$$flux(\phi)=\begin{cases} 0, \text{ if } \phi \text{ is a
relabeling automorphism}\\
1, \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Random elements in regular languages
------------------------------------
By definition, a language $L$ over the alphabet $A $ is regular if and only if there is a deterministic finite automaton which accepts the language $L$. It is a basic fact of formal language theory that the class of languages accepted by nondeterministic finite automata (NDFA) is also the class of regular languages. (See Hopcroft and Ullman [@HU].) Nondeterministic automata are very useful because a NDFA accepting a language $L$ may be much smaller than any deterministic automaton accepting $L$. Such an automaton is not unique and choosing some finite automaton accepting $L$ is like choosing a presentation for a group. One can choose a “random” element in the regular language $L$ is via a random walk in the transition graph of any “suitable” finite state automaton $M$ accepting the language $L$. We make this precise in Section \[sect:lang\], where we associate to $M$ a finite state Markov process $M'$ with the set of states being the set of directed edges in the transition graph $\Gamma(M)$ of $M$. The sample space $\Omega$ of $M'$ is the set of semi-infinite edge-paths in $\Gamma(M)$. Each path in $\Gamma(M)$ (finite or infinite) has a label that is a word (finite or infinite) over $A$. If $\omega\in \Omega$ is such an infinite path, we denote by $w_n=w_n(\omega)$ the label of the initial segment of length $n$ of $\omega$. Any initial probability distribution $\mu$ on the edge-set $E(\Gamma(M))$ defines a probability measure $P_{\mu}$ on $\Omega$. We need to impose a natural assumption on $M$ in order to guarantee that the Markov process $M'$ is irreducible. This technical assumption, which is frequently satisfied in practice, is made precise in the definition of a *normal* automaton in Section \[sect:lang\]. Again applying the Subadditive Ergodic Theorem, we have:
\[lang\] Let $M$ be a normal automaton over a finite alphabet $A$ and let $L=L(M)$ be the language accepted by $M$.
Let $\phi: A^*\to G$ be a monoid homomorphism, where $G$ is a group with a left-invariant semi-metric $d_G$. Then there exists a number $\lambda=\lambda (M,\phi, d_G)\ge 0$ such that for any initial distribution $\mu$ on $E(\Gamma(M))$ we have $$\frac{|\phi(w_n)|_G}{n} \to \lambda \text{ almost surely and in } L^1
\text{ with respect to } P_{\mu}.$$
If the initial distribution $\mu$ is supported on the edges of $\Gamma(M)$ originating at the start states of $M$ then the word $w_n$ can be extended by a word of uniformly bounded length to get a word $w_n'\in L$. We can think of $w_n'$ as a “random” element of $L$ with respect to $M$ and $\mu$. Theorem \[lang\] then implies that $\frac{|\phi(w_n')|_G}{n} \to \lambda$ as $n\to\infty$ almost surely and in $L^1$ with respect to $\mu$.
Random words and random walks {#sect:erg}
=============================
Let $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$ be a *free generating set* of a *free group* $F=F(A)$ of finite rank $k>1$. For $w\in F$ we denote by $|w|_A$ or simply $|w|$) the *freely reduced length* of $w$ with respect to $A$. Let $d(w_1,w_2)=\left| w_1^{-1} w_2
\right|$ be the associated left-invariant metric on $F$. By $||w||_A=||w||$ we denote the *cyclically reduced length* of $f$ with respect to $A$, that is, the length of any cyclically reduced word in the alphabet $A^{\pm 1}$ conjugate to $f$.
This convention, including the fixed choice of the free basis $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$ of $F$, is adopted for the remainder of the paper, unless specified otherwise.
Recall that a nonnegative function $|\cdot|_G$ on a group $G$ is called a *semi-norm* if for all $g,h\in G$ we have $|gh|_G\le
|g|_G+|h|_G$.
In this Section we shall prove Theorem \[thm:stretch\] from the Introduction:
\[thm:rate of escape\] Let $F=F(A)$, and let ${\mu_A}={\mu_A}(A)$ be the uniform Borel probability measure on $\partial F$ corresponding to the generating set $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$ with $k\ge 2$. Let $\phi:F\to G$ be a homomorphism to a group $G$ endowed with a semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$. Then:
1. There exists a real number $\lambda\ge 0$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\phi(\omega_n)|_G}{n}=\lambda$$ for ${\mu_A}$-a.e. $\omega\in\partial F$ and in the space $L^1(\partial
F,{\mu_A})$.
2. If the group $\phi(F)$ is non-amenable, the sequence $$b_n=\#\{ g\in \phi(F): |g|_G\le n\}$$ grows at most exponentially, then $\lambda>0$.
The condition on $b_n$ in the above theorem is always satisfied if $G$ is a finitely generated group and $|.|_G$ is the word metric corresponding to some finite generating set of $G$.
Any geodesic ray $\omega\in\partial F$ can be identified with the *non-backtracking path* $\omega_0,\omega_1,\dots$ in $F$ starting from the group identity. Then the measure space $(\partial F,{\mu_A})$ becomes the *space of sample paths* of the *non-backtracking simple random walk* (NBSRW) on the Cayley graph of $F$ starting from the identity of the group. This is the Markov chain on $F$ whose transition probabilities $\pi_f,\,f\in F$ are equidistributed among the neighbors of $f$ which are strictly further from the group identity. Therefore, the number $\lambda$ above is the *linear rate of escape* of the $\phi$-image of the non-backtracking simple random walk on $F$. We shall deduce Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\] from well-known analogous properties of the usual random walks on groups by using the fact that the simple random walk on the free group asymptotically follows uniformly distributed geodesic rays.
Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on a group $G$. By definition, the sample paths of the associated *random walk* $(G,\mu)$ are products $g_n=h_1 h_2 \dots h_n$ of independent $\mu$-distributed *increments* $h_n$. In other words, the measure $\mathbf P$ in the space of sample paths which describes the random walk $(G,\mu)$ is the image of the product measure $\mu\otimes\mu\otimes\dots$ in the space of increments under the above product map.
The following statement is known as Kingman’s Subadditive Ergodic Theorem [@King]. (See also [@Der] for a short proof.)
\[thm:set\] Let $(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, \mu)$ be a probability space and let $\mathcal S:\Omega\to\Omega$ be a measure-preserving operator, that is such that for any measurable set $Q\subseteq \Omega$ we have $\mu(Q)=\mu(\mathcal S^{-1}Q)$.
Let $X_n:\Omega\to \mathbb R$ be a sequence of non-negative integrable random variables such that for any $n,m\ge 0$ $$X_{n+m}(\omega) \le X_n(\omega)+ X_m (\mathcal S^n\omega), \quad
\text{ a. e. } \omega\in \Omega.$$ Then there exists a $\mathcal S$-invariant random variable $\lambda:\Omega\to\mathbb R$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{X_n}{n} =\lambda$$ almost surely and in $L^1$ on $\Omega$.
In particular, if $\mathcal S$ is ergodic then $\lambda=const$ on $\Omega$.
A straightforward application of Kingman’s Subadditive Ergodic Theorem gives:
\[prop:rate\] If the measure $\mu$ has a finite first moment $\sum |g| \mu(g)$ with respect to a semi-norm $|\cdot|$ on the group $G$, then there exists a number $c\ge 0$ (called the linear rate of escape of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ with respect to the semi-norm $|\cdot|$) such that $|g_n|/n\to c$ for $\mathbf P$-a.e. sample path $(g_n)$ and in the space $L^1(\mathbf P)$.
The following claim, if slightly more general than the one formulated in [@G], can be obtained in the same way by using the spectral characterization of amenability (or by showing that $c=0$ implies vanishing of the asymptotic entropy of the random walk, and therefore amenability of the group [@KV]):
\[prop:positive rate\] Under the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:rate\], if the group $G$ is non-amenable and the semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$ has exponentially bounded growth and the support of the measure $\mu$ generates the group $G$, then $c >0$.
Let now $\mu_A'$ be the probability measure on the free group $F$ equidistributed on the set $A^{\pm 1}$, so that $\mu_A'\left(a_i^{\pm
1}\right)=1/2k$ for $i=1,2,\dots,k$.
\[prop:asymptotic\] For $\mathbf P$-a.e. sample path $(g_n)$ of the random walk $(F,\mu_A')$
1. There exists a limit $$g_\infty=\lim_n g_n\in\partial F,$$ and its distribution (i.e., the image of the measure $\mathbf P$ under the map $(g_n)\mapsto g_\infty$) coincides with the uniform measure ${\mu_A}$ on $\partial F$.
2. We have $$\lim_n \frac{|g_n|}{n} = \theta = \frac{k-1}{k}.$$ (so that the linear rate of escape of the random walk $(F,\mu_A')$ is $\frac{k-1}{k}$).
3. We have $$d \bigl( g_n, (g_\infty)_{[\theta n]} \bigr) = o(n),$$ where $[x]$ denotes the integer part of a number $x$.
Consider the random walk $(F,\mu_A')$. Its image under the homomorphism $\phi$ is the random walk on the group $\phi(F)$ governed by the measure $\phi(\mu_A')$. Denote its rate of escape with respect to the semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$ by $c$. Then the combination of Proposition \[prop:rate\] and Proposition \[prop:asymptotic\] implies the first part of Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\]. Indeed, for $\mathbf P$-a.e. sample path $(g_n)$ the distance in $F$ between $g_n$ and $(g_\infty)_{[\theta n]}$ is sublinear, whence the distance in $G$ (with respect to the semi-metric determined by the semi-norm $|\cdot|_G$) between the $\phi$-images of these points is also sublinear. Since the distribution of $g_\infty$ is ${\mu_A}$, we arrive at the conclusion that the first part of Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\] holds for the number $\lambda=c/\theta$.
The second part of Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\] is now an immediate corollary of Proposition \[prop:positive rate\].
Here is another argument establishing part (1) of Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\] as a direct consequence of the Subadditive Ergodic Theorem.
Let $\Omega=\partial F$. Recall that for $\omega\in \partial F$ we denote by $\omega_n$ the element of $F$ that is at distance $n$ from $1$ along the geodesic ray $\omega$ in $\Gamma(F,A)$. Let $X_n:\partial F\to\mathbb R$ be defined as $X_n(\omega):=|\phi(\omega_n)|_G$. Also, let $\mathcal S:\partial
F\to \partial F$ be the standard shift operator consisting in erasing the first letter of a semi-infinite freely reduced word representing an element of $\partial F$. It is well-known that $\mathcal S$ is stationary and ergodic.
Note that for any $\omega\in \partial F$ we have $$\omega_{n+m}=\omega_n (\mathcal S^n\omega)_m.$$ Hence $$|\phi(\omega_{n+m})|_G= |\phi(\omega_n) \phi((\mathcal
S^n\omega)_m)|_G\le |\phi(\omega_n)|_G+ |\phi((\mathcal
S^n\omega)_m)|_G.$$ Thus the conditions of the Subadditive Ergodic Theorem are satisfied and part (1) of Theorem \[thm:rate of escape\] follows.
The following is Theorem \[aut\] from the Introduction.
\[auto\] Let $G$ be a nontrivial finitely generated group with a word-metric $d_S$ corresponding to a finite generating set $S$. Let $H \le
Aut(G)$ be a noncyclic finitely generated group with a finite generating set $T$. Then:
1. There is $\nu=\nu(H)=\nu(H,T,S)\ge 0$ such that for a non-backtracking simple random walk $\phi_n$ on the Cayley graph of $H$ with respect to $T$ we have
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log ||\phi_n||_S}{n}=\nu$$ almost surely and in $L^1$.
2. If $G$ has polynomial growth and $H$ is non-amenable then $\nu(H,T,S)>0$.
It is clear from the definition of $||\cdot||_S$ that for any $\phi,\psi\in Aut(G)$ we have $$||\phi\psi||_S\le ||\phi||_S ||\psi||_S$$ and hence $$\log ||\phi\psi||_S\le \log ||\phi||_S +\log ||\psi||_S.$$ Also, for any $\phi\in Aut(G)$ we have $||\phi||_S\ge 1$ and so $\log
||\phi||_S\ge 0$. Thus $\log ||\cdot||_S$ is a semi-norm on $Aut(G)$ that uniquely extends to a left-invariant semi-metric of $Aut(G)$ and thus on $H\le Aut(G)$. Hence part (1) of Theorem \[auto\] follows directly from part (1) of Theorem \[thm:stretch\].
To see that part (2) holds suppose that $H$ is nonamenable and that $G$ has polynomial growth. This implies that $(H, ||\cdot||_S)$ has at most exponential growth. Hence part (2) of Theorem \[auto\] follows from part (2) of Theorem \[thm:stretch\].
The requirement of $G$ having polynomial growth in Theorem \[aut\] is important and cannot be easily dispensed with. If $G$ is a group and $g\in G$, denote by $ad(g)\in Aut(G)$ the inner automorphism of $G$ defined as $ad(g)(x)=gxg^{-1}$ for every $x\in G$. Now let $G=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ and $H= Inn(F)\le Aut(F)$ be the (non-amenable!) group of inner automorphisms of $F$ with the generating set $T=\{ad(a_1), \dots, ad(a_k)\}$. Then for any product $\phi_n$ of $n$ elements of $T$ we have $||\phi_n||\le 2n+1$. Since $\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{\log 2n+1}{n}=0$, we see that $\nu(H,T,S)=0$. Nevertheless, in some instances quotient group considerations still imply that $\nu(A)>0$ even if $G$ does not have polynomial growth, or, equivalently, $G$ is not virtually nilpotent.
We obtain Corollary \[cor:aut\] from the Introduction:
\[cor:auto\] Let $F$ be a free group of finite rank $k>1$ and let $H\le Aut(F)$ be a finitely generated group of automorphisms of $F$ such that the image $H'$ of $H$ in $Aut(F_{ab})\cong GL(k,{\mathbb Z})$ is nonamenable. Then for any finite generating set $S$ of $F$ and for any finite generating set $T$ of $H$ we have $\nu(H,T,S)>0$.
Let $S'$ be the image of $S$ in the abelianization ${\mathbb
Z}^k=F_{ab}$ of $F$. For any $\phi\in Aut(F)$ the automorphism $\phi$ of $F$ factors through to an automorphism $\phi'$ of $F_{ab}$. Clearly $||\phi||_S\ge ||\phi'||_{S'}$. Hence $\nu(H,T,S)\ge \nu(H',T',S')$, where $T'$ is the image of $T$ in $Aut(F_{ab})$. Since $F_{ab}$ has polynomial growth, by Theorem \[aut\] we have $\nu(H',T',S')>0$ and hence $\nu(H,T,S)>0$.
Frequencies and cyclic words {#sect:freq}
============================
The following convention is fixed until the end of the paper unless specified otherwise.
As before, let $k\ge 2$ and let $F=F(A)$ where $A=\{a_1,\dots,
a_k\}$. Let $\widehat{A}=A^{\pm 1}$. We denote by $\mathcal{CR}$ the set of all cyclically reduced words in $F$.
A *cyclic word* is an equivalence class of nontrivial cyclically reduced words, where two nontrivial cyclically reduced words are equivalent if they are cyclic permutations of each other. If $v$ is a cyclically reduced word, we denote by $(v)$ the cyclic word defined by $v$. Recall that if $u$ is a freely reduced word, we denote the length of $u$ by $|u|$ and the length of the cyclically reduced form of $u$ by $||u||$. If $w=(v)$ is a cyclic word then $||w||=||v||$ is the length of $w$.
Note that the set of cyclic words is naturally identified with the set of nontrivial conjugacy classes of elements of $F$.
Let $w$ be a cyclic word.
Let $v$ be a nontrivial freely reduced word. We define $n_w(v)$, *the number of occurrences of $v$ in $w$* as follows. Let $w=(z)$. Take the smallest $p>0$ such that $|z^{p-1}|\ge 2|v|$ and count the number of those $i, 0\le i<||w||$ such that $z^p\equiv
z_1vz_2$ where $|z_1|=i$. This number by definition is $n_w(v)$. If $v=1$, we define $n_w(1):=||w||$.
There is a more graphical way of defining $n_w(v)$ for a nontrivial cyclic word $w$. We will think of $w$ as a cyclically reduced word written on a circle in a clockwise direction without specifying a base-point. Then $n_w(v)$ is the number of positions on the circle, starting from which it is possible to read the word $v$ going clockwise along the circle (and wrapping around more than once, if necessary).
For any freely reduced word $v$ we define *frequency* of $v$ in $w$ as:
$$f_w(v):=\frac{n_w(v)}{||w||}.$$
Also, if $w$ is a nontrivial freely reduced word, and $v$ is another nontrivial freely reduced word, we define $n_w(v)$, *the number of occurrences of $v$ in $w$*, as follows. If $|w|=n>0$ then by definition $n_w(v)$ is the number of those $i, 0\le i<n$ for which $w$ decomposes as a freely reduced product $w=w'vw''$ with $|w'|=i$. Thus if $|v|\le |w|$ then necessarily $n_w(v)=0$ (unlike the situation when $w$ is a cyclic word).
\[red\] Let $w$ be a nontrivial cyclic word. Then:
1. For any $m\ge 0$ and for any freely reduced word $u$ with $|u|=m$ we have: $$n_w(u)=\sum_{x\in \widehat{A},|ux|=|u|+1} n_w(ux)=\sum_{x\in
\widehat{A},|xu|=|u|+1} n_w(xu),$$ and $$f_w(u)=\sum_{x\in \widehat{A},|ux|=|u|+1} f_w(ux) =\sum_{x\in
\widehat{A},|xu|=|u|+1} f_w(xu).$$
2. For any $m\ge 1$ $$\sum_{|u|=m} n_w(u)=||w|| \quad \text{ and } \sum_{|u|=m} f_w(u)=1.$$
3. For any $s>0$ and any $u\in F$ $$n_{w^s}(u)=sn_w(u) \quad \text{ and }\quad f_{w^s}(u)=f_w(u).$$
Parts (1) and (3) are obvious. We establish (2) by induction on $m$. For $m=1$ the statement is clear. Suppose that $m>1$ and that (2) has been established for $m-1$.
We have:
$$\sum_{|u|=m} n_w(u) = \sum_{\overset{|v|=m-1, x\in \widehat{A}:}
{|vx|=m}} n_w(vx) = \sum_{|v|=m-1} n_w(v)=||w||,$$ as required.
A *Nielsen* automorphism of $F$ is an automorphism $\tau$ of one of the following types:
1. There is some $i, 1\le i\le k$ such that $\tau(a_i)=a_i^{-1}$ and $\tau(a_j)=a_j$ for all $j\ne i$.
2. There are some $1\le i<j\le k$ such that $\tau(a_i)=a_j$, $\tau(a_j)=a_i$ and $\tau(a_l)=a_l$ when $l\ne i, l\ne j$.
3. There are some $1\le i<j\le k$ such that $\tau(a_i)=a_ia_j$ and $\tau(a_l)=a_l$ for $l\ne i$.
It is a classical fact that the set of all Nielsen automorphisms generates $Aut(F)$.
The following proposition proved by Kapovich in [@Ka] is crucial for our arguments.
\[phi\] Let $\phi\in Out(F)$ be an outer automorphism and let $p\ge 0$ be such that $\phi$ can be represented, modulo $Inn(F)$, as a product of $p$ Nielsen automorphisms.
Then for any freely reduced word $v\in F$ with $|v|=m$ there exists a collection of computable integers $c(u,v)=c(u,v,\phi)\ge 0$, where $u\in F$, $|u|=8^p m$, such that for any nontrivial cyclic word $w$ we have
$$n_{\phi(w)}(v)=\sum_{|u|=8^p m} c(u,v) n_w(u).$$
\[use’\] Let $\phi$ be an automorphism of $F$ and let $p$ be such that $\phi$ can be written as a product of $p$ Nielsen automorphisms.
There exists a collection of integers $e(v)=e(v,\phi)\ge 0$, where $v\in F, |v|=8^p$, such that for any cyclic word $w$ we have:
$$||\phi(w)||=\sum_{|v|=8^p} e(v) n_w(v)$$ and
$$\frac{||\phi(w)||}{||w||}=\sum_{|v|=8^p} e(v) f_w(v).$$
Moreover, there is an algorithm which, given $\phi$ and $u$, computes the numbers $e(v)$.
Since $\displaystyle ||\phi(w)||=\sum_{x\in \widehat{A}}
n_{\phi(w)}(x)$, the statement follows directly from Proposition \[phi\].
The following well-known fact is a version of the so-called “Bounded Cancellation Lemma” (see [@Coo]):
\[bnd\] Let $\alpha$ be an injective endomorphism of $F$. There is $N=N(\alpha)>0$ such that for any cyclically reduced word $w$ the maximal terminal segment of $\alpha(w)$ that cancels in the product $\alpha(w)\cdot \alpha(w)$ has length at most $N$.
Actions on trees
================
Let $\Gamma$ be a finite connected graph with orientation $E\Gamma=E^+\Gamma\sqcup E^-\Gamma$. For $e\in E$ we use the following notation. The inverse edge of $e$ is denoted by $\overline e$, $o(e)$ denotes the initial vertex of $e$ and $t(e)$ denotes the terminal vertex of $e$.
Let $F$ be a free group and let $\phi:F\to \pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ be an isomorphism between $F$ and the fundamental group of $\Gamma$ with respect to a vertex $p$. Let $T$ be a maximal tree in $\Gamma$. For any vertex $v$, let $[p,v]_T$ denote the path in $T$ from $p$ to $v$. The choice of $T$ define a basis $S_T$ of $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ as follows:
$$S_T:=\{ [p,o(e)]_T~e~[t(e),p]_T: e\in E^+(\Gamma-T)\}$$ The $\phi$-pullback of this basis $B_T:=\phi^{-1}(S_T)$ is a basis of $F$ referred to as the *geometric basis* of $F$ determined by $T$.
Let $s_e:=[p,o(e)]_T~e~[t(e),p]_T$ where $e\in E (\Gamma-T)$, so that $s_{\bar e}=s_e^{-1}$. Let $b_e=\phi^{-1}(s_e)$, where $e\in E
(\Gamma-T)$, so that again $b_{\bar e}=b_e^{-1}$.
The following obvious lemma indicates the explicit correspondence between freely reduced words in $S_T$ (or $B_T$) and reduced edge-paths in $\Gamma$.
\[lem:rewr\]
1. Let $\gamma$ be an edge-path in $\Gamma$ from $p$ to $p$. Let $u$ be a word in $S_T$ constructed from $\gamma$ as follows: delete all the edges of $T$ from $\Gamma$ and replace each edge $e\in E^+
(\Gamma-T)$ in $\gamma$ by $s_e$ and each edge $e\in E^- (\Gamma-T)$ in $\gamma$ by $s_{\bar e}^{-1}$. Then $u=\gamma$ in $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ and $u$ is a reduced word in $S_T$ if and only if $\gamma$ is a reduced path. x
2. Let $u$ be a word in $S_T\cup
S_T^{-1}$, where $\epsilon_i=\pm 1$.
Construct the path $\gamma$ from $p$ to $p$ as follows. First for each $e\in E^+(\Gamma-T)$ replace every $s_e$ in $u$ by $e$ and replace every $s_e^{-1}$ by $\bar e$. Then between every two consecutive $e,e'$ insert the path $[t(e),o(e')]_T$. Finally append the path $[p,o(e)]_T$ in front, for the first edge $e_0\in
E(\Gamma-T)$ of the resulting sequence, and append the path $[t(e_0'),p]_T$ at the end for the last edge $e_0'\in E(\Gamma-T)$ of the sequence.
Then $\gamma$ is a path from $p$ to $p$ that is equal to $u$ in $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ and that is reduced if and only if the word $u$ over $S_T$ is reduced.
3. Let $\gamma$ be a closed edge-path in $\Gamma$. Let $u$ be a word in $S_T^{\pm 1}$ obtained from $\gamma$ as in (1). Then the loop at $p$ corresponding to $u$ in $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ is freely homotopic to $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$ and the word $u$ is cyclically reduced if and only if the path $\gamma$ is cyclically reduced.
4. Let $w$ be a cyclic word in $S_T^{\pm 1}$. Let $\gamma$ be a circuit in $\Gamma$ obtained as follows. Replace each occurrence of $s_e$ in $w$ by $e$ and each occurrence of $s_e^{-1}$ by $\bar e$; after that between each two consecutive (in the cyclic order) edges $e,e'$ insert the path $[t(e),o(e')]_T$. Then $w$ and $\gamma$ represent freely homotopic loops in $\Gamma$ and the cyclic word $w$ is reduced if and only if the circuit $\gamma$ is reduced.
Now suppose that $\Gamma$ is endowed with the structure of a *metric graph*, that is, each edge $e$ of $\Gamma$ is assigned a *length* $\ell(e)>0$ in such a way that $\ell(e)=\ell(\bar e)$ for each edge $e$. Let $X=\widetilde{(\Gamma,p)}$ be the universal cover of $\Gamma$. Then $X$ inherits the structure of a metric tree with an isometric action of $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ and, via $\phi$, an action of $F$ on $X$.
Let $\tilde p$ be a lift of $p$ to $X$. For $g\in \pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ let $|g|_p:=d_X(\tilde p, g \tilde p)$. Also denote by $||g||_X$ the translation length of $g$ when acting on $X$. Similarly, if $w$ is a conjugacy class (or a cyclic word) in $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$, we denote by $||w||_X$ the translation length of $u$ with respect to $X$. For each freely reduced word $z=s_{e}^{\epsilon} s_{e'}^{\delta}$ of length two in $S_T^{\pm 1}$, where $\epsilon, \delta \in \{1,-1\}$, denote by $r_z$ the length of the edge-path $[t({e}^{\epsilon}),
o({e'}^{\delta})]_T$ in $\Gamma$. Let $Z$ be the set of all freely reduced words of length two in $S_T$. For each $a=s_{e}\in S_T$ denote $e(a):=$ and $e(a^{-1}):=\bar e$.
\[lem:compute\] (1) Let $w$ be a reduced cyclic word in $S_T^{\pm 1}$. Then $$||w||_X=\sum_{a\in S_T^{\pm 1}} \ell(e(a))n_w(a) + \sum_{z\in Z} r_z
n_w(z).$$
\(2) Let $u$ be a freely reduced word in $S_T$. Then $$|u|_p=\sum_{a\in S_T^{\pm 1}} \ell(e(a))n_u(a) + \sum_{z\in Z} r_z
n_u(z)+\ell([p,o(e)]_T)+\ell([t(e'),p]_T)$$ where $e$ and $e'$ are the last and the first edges of $\gamma(u)$ accordingly.
The following is Theorem \[free\] from the Introduction:
\[main\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$, where $k\ge 2$, and let $A=\{a_1,\dots,
a_k\}$. Then for any free action $\phi$ of $F$ on a simplicial tree $X$ without inversions the generic stretching factor $\lambda(\phi)=\lambda_A(\phi)$ is a rational number with $$2k\lambda(\phi)\in \mathbb Z[\frac{1}{2k-1}].$$
Moreover, if $X$ is given as the universal cover of a finite connected simplicial graph $\Gamma$ and if the action $\phi$ is given via an explicit isomorphism between $F$ and $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$, then $\lambda(\phi)$ is algorithmically computable in terms of $\phi$.
Recall that the definition of $\lambda(\phi, |\cdot|_x)$ does not depend on the choice of a point $x\in X$. Hence we may assume that $x$ is a vertex of the minimal $F$-invariant subtree of $X$ and therefore, that the action of $F$ on $X$ is minimal. Let $\Gamma=X/F$ be the finite quotient graph. Choose an orientation on $\Gamma$, a maximal tree $T$ in $\Gamma$. Choose a base-vertex $p$ in $\Gamma$ to be the image of $x\in X$ in $\Gamma$. Note that in both $X$ and $\Gamma$ every edge has length $1$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism $\psi:F\to \pi_1(\Gamma,p)$. Let $S_T$ and $B_T$ be the geometric bases corresponding to $T$ for $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$ and $F$ accordingly.
Fix a bijection between $B_T$ and $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$ and an automorphism $\alpha$ of $F$ induced by this bijection of the two free bases of $F$.
Let $g=x_1\dots x_n\in F$ be a freely reduced word of length $n$ in $F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$. Let $g'$ be a cyclically reduced word of length $n$ over $A$ obtained from $g$ by changing the last letter of $g$ if necessary. Thus $|g'g^{-1}|_A\le 2$.
Let $w'$ be the cyclic word over $A$ defined by $g'$. Let $w$ be the result of rewriting $w'$ as the cyclic word in $B_T$. Then there is an integer $M\ge 1$ such that for each freely reduced word $z$ in $B_T$ of length at most $2$ $$n_{w}(z)=\sum_{|u|_A=M} c(u,z) n_{w}(u)$$ where $c(u,z)\ge 0$ are some integers independent of $w$. Let $Z_i$ be the set of freely reduced words of length $i$ in $B_T$, for $i=1,2$.
Then $$\begin{gathered}
||g'||_X=||w||_X=\sum_{a\in Z_1} \ell(e(a))n_w(a) + \sum_{z\in Z_2} r_z n_w(z)=\\
\sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M} \ell(a) c(u,a) n_{w'}(u) + \sum_{z\in
Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z) n_{w'}(u),\end{gathered}$$
It follows from Lemma \[lem:rewr\] and Lemma \[lem:compute\] that if $h\in F$ is cyclically reduced over $B_T$ then $\big|
||h||_X-|h|_x\big|\le N$ where $N=N(x)>0$ is some constant independent of $h$. On the other hand by the Bounded Cancellation Lemma ( Lemma \[bnd\]) there exists a constant $N'>0$ such that for any cyclically reduced word $y$ over $A$, we have $\big|
||y||_{B_T}-|y|_{B_T}\big|\le N'$. By construction $g'$ is cyclically reduced over $A$ and $|g'g^{-1}|_A\le 2$. Hence there exists a constant $L>0$ such that for every $g$ as above and each $u\in F$ with $|u|_A=M$ we have $\big| |g|_x-||g'||_X\big|\le L$ and $|n_g(u)-n_{w'}(u)|\le L$.
Therefore there is another constant $L'>0$ independent of $f$ such that for every freely reduced word $g$ of length $n$ over $A$
$$\left|\sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M} \ell(e(a)) c(u,a) f_{g}(u) +
\sum_{z\in Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z)
f_{g}(u)-\frac{|g|_p}{n}\right|\le \frac{L'}{n} \tag{*}.$$
If $g_n$ is a freely reduced word of length $n$ obtained by a non-backtracking simple random walk of length $n$ on $F(a_1,\dots,
a_k)$ then for each $u\in F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ with $|u|_A=M$ we have
$$\lim_{n\to \infty} f_{g_n}(u)=\frac{1}{2k (2k-1)^{M-1}} \quad \text{
almost surely.}$$
Therefore (\*) implies that
$$\lambda(\phi)= \frac{1}{2k (2k-1)^{M-1}} \big[ \sum_{a\in Z_1}
\sum_{|u|_A=M} \ell(e(a)) c(u,a) + \sum_{z\in Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z
c(u,z) \big] \tag{**}$$ Since $\ell(e(a))=1, c(u,a), c(u,z)$ and $r_z$ are integers, it follows that $\lambda(\phi)$ is rational and, moreover, that $$2k \lambda(\phi) \in {\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2k-1}].$$
Moreover, $\lambda(\phi)$ is computable in terms of an explicit isomorphism between $F$ and $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$.
The formula (\*\*) for $\lambda(\phi)$ holds for an arbitrary structure of a metric graph on $\Gamma$, where the lengths of edges are allowed to be arbitrary positive real numbers and not necessarily $1$. If the length of all edges of $\Gamma$ are rational, then by (\*\*) $\lambda(\phi)$ is also rational. Moreover, if these length of the edges are given to us in some algorithmically describable form then $\lambda(\phi)$ is computable in terms of these lengths and of an an explicit isomorphism between $F$ and $\pi_1(\Gamma,p)$.
Genericity {#sect:gen}
==========
Recall that $\mathcal{CR}$ denotes the set of all cyclically reduced words in $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$. If $S\subseteq F$ and $n\ge 0$ we denote $$\rho(S,n):=\#\{w\in S : |w|\le n\},$$ and $$\gamma(S,n):=\#\{w\in S : |w|= n\},$$ Let $P_n$ be the uniform discrete probability measure on the set of all elements $w\in F$ with $|w|=n$. We extend $P_n$ to $F$ by setting $P_n(w)=0$ for any $w\in F$ with $|w|\ne n$.
Similarly, let $P_n'$ be the uniform discrete probability measure on the set of all cyclically reduced elements $w\in F$ with $||w||=n$. We extend $P_n$ to $\mathcal{CR}$ by setting $P_n'(w)=0$ for any $w\in
\mathcal{CR}$ with $||w||\ne n$.
Thus $\gamma(n,F)=2k(2k-1)^{n-1}$ for $n>0$.
For a number sequence $x_n$ with $\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=x\in \mathbb
R$ we say that the convergence is *exponentially fast* if there exist $0<\sigma<1$ and $D>0$ such that for all $n\ge 1$ we have $|x_n-x|\le D\sigma^n$.
Let $S\subseteq \mathcal{W} \subseteq F$. We say that $S$ is *exponentially $\mathcal{W}$-generic* if $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\gamma(n,S)}{\gamma(n,\mathcal{W})}=1$$ and the convergence is exponentially fast. The complement in $\mathcal{W}$ of an exponentially $\mathcal{W}$-generic set is called *exponentially $\mathcal{W}$-negligible*.
In practice we are only interested in the cases $\mathcal{W} =F$ and $\mathcal{W} =\mathcal{CR}$, the set of all cyclically reduced words in $F$. By definition $S\subseteq F$ is exponentially $F$-generic if and only if $\lim_{n\to\infty} P_n(S)=1$ with exponentially fast convergence in this limit. Similarly $S\subseteq \mathcal{CR}$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic iff $\lim_{n\to\infty} P_n'(S)=1$ with exponentially fast convergence. Here there is a simple criterion of being exponentially negligible [@KSS] in $F$ and $\mathcal{CR}$:
\[genericity\] Let $\mathcal{W} =F$ or $\mathcal{W} =\mathcal{CR}$. Then for a subset $S\subseteq \mathcal{W} $ the following are equivalent:
1. The set $S$ is exponentially $\mathcal{W}$-negligible.
2. We have $$\frac{\gamma(n,S)}{(2k-1)^n} \to_{n\to\infty} 0
\text{ exponentially fast, }$$
3. We have $$\frac{\rho(n,S)}{(2k-1)^n} \to_{n\to\infty} 0
\text{ exponentially fast, }$$
4. We have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{\rho(n,S)} < 2k-1.$$
5. We have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{\gamma(n,S)} < 2k-1.$$
\[ld’\] Let $\epsilon>0$ and let $m>0$ be an integer. Then the set
$$\begin{aligned}
W(m,\epsilon):=\{& w\in F : \text{ for any } u\ne 1 \text{ with }
|u|=m \text{ we have }\\
& \big|f_w(u) - \frac{1}{2k (2k-1)^{m-1}}\big|<\epsilon\}\end{aligned}$$
is exponentially $F$-generic.
This is a straightforward corollary of Large Deviation Theory [@DZ] applied to the finite state Markov chain generating the freely reduced words in $F$. We refer the reader to [@KSS] for a more detailed discussion about large Deviation Theory and how it works in this particular case.
It is not hard to deduce the following from Proposition \[ld’\].
\[ld\] Let $\epsilon>0$ and let $m>0$ be an integer. Then the set
$$\begin{aligned}
C(m,\epsilon ):=\{& w\in \mathcal{CR} : \text{ for any } u\ne 1
\text{ with } |u|=m \text{ and for the cyclic word } (w) \\ &\text{
we have } \big|f_{(w)}(u) -
\frac{1}{2k(2k-1)^{m-1}}\big|<\epsilon\}\end{aligned}$$
is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic.
We now give the definition of an “approximate” stretching factor, which will later be seen to be equivalent to the generic stretching factor of an automorphism introduced earlier.
Let $\phi:F\to Aut(X)$ be a free simplicial action without inversions of $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ on a simplicial tree $X$.
We say that a number $\lambda\ge 0$ is a *approximate stretching factor* of $\phi$ if for every $p\in X$ and for any $\epsilon>0$ the set $$\{w\in F: |\frac{|w|_p}{|w|}-\lambda|\le \epsilon\}$$ is exponentially generic in $F$.
Similarly, we say that a number $\lambda\ge 0$ is a *approximate conjugacy stretching factor* of $\phi$ if for any $\epsilon>0$ the set $$\{w\in \mathcal{CR}: |\frac{||w||_X}{||w||}-\lambda|\le \epsilon\}$$ is exponentially generic in $\mathcal{CR}$.
\[equiv\] Let $\phi:F\to Aut(X)$ be a free simplicial action of $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ on a simplicial tree $X$.
1. There is at most one approximate stretching factor for $\phi$.
2. There is at most one approximate conjugacy stretching factor for $\phi$.
3. If $\lambda$ is an approximate conjugacy stretching factor for $\phi$ then $\lambda$ is also an approximate stretching factor for $\phi$.
4. If $\lambda$ is an approximate stretching factor for $\phi$ then $\lambda$ is also an approximate conjugacy stretching factor for $\phi$.
Parts (1) and (2) are obvious.
We now establish (3). Indeed, suppose that $\lambda$ is an approximate conjugacy stretching factor for $\phi$. Let $\epsilon>0$ and let $S$ be the set of all cyclically reduced words $w$ such that $\big| \frac{||w||_X}{||w||}-\lambda\big|\ge \epsilon/2$. Then $S$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-negligible, so that
$$\frac{\gamma(n,S)}{(2k-1)^n}\to_{n\to\infty} 0$$ exponentially fast. Let $p\in X$. Put $M=\max\{ |a_i|_p: 1\le i\le
k\}$. Let $N>0$ be an integer such that for any cyclically reduced word $u$ we have $\big||u|_p-||u||_X \big|\le N$.
Let $S'$ be the set of all freely reduced words $w$ in $F$ that differ from an element of $S$ in at most the last letter. Then $\gamma(n,S')\le 2k \gamma(n,S)$ and hence $S'$ is exponentially $F$-negligible by Lemma \[genericity\].
Suppose $w\in F-S'$ is such that $\frac{N+2M}{|w|}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$. Let $u$ be a cyclically reduced word obtained from $w$ by changing at most the last letter. Then $|u|=|w|$ and $u\in \mathcal{CR}-S$.
Thus $d_A(w,u)\le 2$ and hence $d_X(wp, up)\le 2M$. Thus $\big||u|_p-|w|_p\big|\le 2M$. Also $\big|||u||_X-|u|_p\big|\le N$. Therefore $\big|||u||_X-|w|_p\big|\le N+2M$. Since $u\in
\mathcal{CR}-S$, we have $\big| ||u||_X -\lambda ||u|| \big|< \epsilon
||u||$. Since $||u||=|u|=|w|$, we have:
$$\begin{gathered}
\big| |w|_p -\lambda |w| \big| < \epsilon |w|+N+2M\\
\left| \frac{|w|_p}{|w|} -\lambda \right| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}
+\frac{N+2M}{|w|}<\epsilon.\end{gathered}$$
The set $\{w\in F : \frac{N+2M}{|w|}\ge \frac{\epsilon}{2}\}$ is finite. Hence $S'\cup \{w\in F : \frac{N+2M}{|w|}\ge
\frac{\epsilon}{2}\}$ is exponentially $F$-negligible and assertion (3) holds.
The proof of (4) is similar to that of (3) and we leave the details to the reader.
\[thm:interm\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ and let $\phi:F\to Aut(X)$ be a free simplicial action of $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ on a simplicial tree $X$.
Then the generic stretching factor $\lambda(\phi)$ is also an approximate conjugacy stretching factor (and thus by Proposition \[equiv\] an approximate stretching factor).
The proof is very similar to that of Theorem \[main\]. Since the minimal $F$-invariant subtree of $X$ contains the axes of all the nontrivial elements of $F$, we may again assume that the action of $F$ on $X$ is minimal.
Choose a vertex $x\in X$. Recall, that, using the notations from the proof of Theorem \[main\], for any $w\in F$ $$\big|\sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M} c(u,a) f_{w}(u) + \sum_{z\in
Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z) f_{w}(u)-\frac{|g|_p}{n}\big|\le
\frac{L'}{n} \tag{!}.$$
It follows from Lemma \[lem:rewr\] and Lemma \[lem:compute\] that if $w\in F$ is cyclically reduced over $B_T$ then $\big|
||w||_X-|w|_x\big|\le N$ where $N=N(x)>0$ is some constant independent of $w$. On the other hand by the Bounded Cancellation Lemma ( Lemma \[bnd\]) there exists a constant $N'>0$ such that for any cyclically reduced word $w$ over $A$, we have $\big|
||w||_{B_T}-|w|_{B_T}\big|\le N'$. Hence for any cyclically reduced word $w$ over $A$ we have $\big| ||w||_X-|w|_x\big|\le
N''$ where $N''=N''(x)>0$ is some constant independent of $w$.
Therefore for any cyclically reduced $w\in F$ over $A$ with $||w||=n$ $$\left| \sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M} c(u,a) f_{w}(u) + \sum_{z\in
Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z) f_{w}(u)-\frac{||w||_X}{n} \right|
\le \frac{L'+N}{n} \tag{*}.$$
Let $\epsilon>0$ We know that the set
$$\begin{aligned}
C(M,\epsilon):=\{& w\in \mathcal{CR} : \text{ for any } u\ne 1
\text{ with } |u|=M \text{ and for the cyclic word } (w) \\ &\text{
we have } \left|f_{(w)}(u) - \frac{1}{2k(2k-1)^{M-1}} \right|
<\epsilon\}\end{aligned}$$
is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic.
Hence (\*) implies that for any $w\in C(M,\epsilon)$
$$\left| \frac{1}{2k(2k-1)^{M-1}} \left( \sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M}
c(u,a) + \sum_{z\in Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z) \right)
-\frac{||w||_X}{n} \right| \le \frac{N_1}{n}+N_1\epsilon.$$ for some constant $N_1>0$ independent of $w$ and $\epsilon$.
Thus by definition the number
$$\frac{1}{2k(2k-1)^{M-1}} \left( \sum_{a\in Z_1} \sum_{|u|_A=M} c(u,a)
+ \sum_{z\in Z_2} \sum_{|u|_A=M} r_z c(u,z) \right)$$ is an approximate conjugacy stretching factor for $\phi$. In the proof of Theorem \[main\] we obtained the same formula for $\lambda(\phi)$.
\[aux\]
Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ and let $\phi:F\to Aut(X)$ be a free simplicial action of $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ on a simplicial tree $X$. Let $\mu\ge 0$.
Suppose there exists an exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic set $S$ such that for any $w\in S$ $$\frac{||w||_X}{||w||}\ge \mu.$$
Then $\lambda(\phi)\ge \mu$.
Suppose, on the contrary, that $\lambda(\phi)< \mu$. Choose $\epsilon>0$ such that $\lambda(\phi)+\epsilon<\mu$.
Then there is an exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic set $R$ of cyclically reduced words such that for any $w\in R$
$$\frac{||w||_X}{||w||} \le \lambda+\epsilon.$$ The intersection $S\cap R$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic and hence nonempty. Take $w\in S\cap R$.
Then
$$\mu \le \frac{||w||_X}{||w||}\le \lambda+\epsilon<\mu,$$ yielding a contradiction.
Whitehead’s Peak Reduction and rigidity of free group automorphisms {#sect:wh}
===================================================================
We need to recall some definitions related to Whitehead’s algorithm for solving the automorphic equivalence problem in a free group. We refer the reader to [@LS; @Wh] for a detailed exposition.
\[defn:moves\] A *Whitehead automorphism* of $F$ is an automorphism $\tau$ of $F$ of one of the following two types:
\(1) There is a permutation $t$ of $\widehat{A}$ such that $\tau|_{\widehat{A}}=t$. In this case $\tau$ is called a *relabeling automorphism* or a *Whitehead automorphism of the first kind*.
\(2) There is an element $a\in \widehat{A}$, the *multiplier*, such that for any $x\in \widehat{A}$ $$\tau(x)\in \{x, xa, a^{-1}x, a^{-1}xa\}.$$
In this case we say that $\tau$ is a *Whitehead automorphism of the second kind*. (Note that we always have $\tau(a)=a$ in this case since $\tau$ is an automorphism of $F$.) To every such $\tau$ we associate a pair $(S,a)$ where $a$ is as above and $S$ consists of all those elements of $\widehat{A}$, including $a$ but excluding $a^{-1}$, such that $\tau(x)\in\{xa, a^{-1}xa\}$. We will say that $(S,a)$ is the *characteristic pair* of $\tau$.
Note that for any $a\in \widehat{A}$ the inner automorphism $ad(a)$ is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind.
The following important result of Whitehead is known as the “peak reduction lemma”:
\[peak\_red\] Let $u,v$ be cyclic words with $||u||\le ||v||$ and let $\phi\in
Aut(F)$ be such that $\phi(u)=v$. Then we can write $\phi$ as a product of Whitehead moves
$$\phi=\tau_p\dots \tau_1$$ so that for each $i=1,\dots, p$ $$||\tau_i\dots \tau_1(u)|| \le ||v||.$$ Moreover, if $||u||<||v||$ then the above inequalities are strict for all $i<p$.
Let $w$ be a nontrivial cyclically reduced word in ${\widehat{A}}^*$. The *weighted Whitehead graph $\Gamma_w$ of $w$* is defined as follows. Let $(w)$ be the cyclic word defined by $w$. The vertex set of $\Gamma_w$ is $\widehat{A}$. For every $x,y\in \widehat{A}$ such that $x\ne y^{-1}$ there is an undirected edge in $\Gamma_w$ from $x^{-1}$ to $y$ labeled by the sum $\hat
n_{w}(xy):=n_{(w)}(xy)+ n_{(w)}(y^{-1}x^{-1})$.
There are $k(2k-1)$ undirected edges in $\Gamma_w$. Edges may have label zero, but there are no edges from $a$ to $a$ for $a\in
\widehat{A}$. It is easy to see that we have $\Gamma_{w}=\Gamma_v$ for any cyclic permutation $v$ of $w$ or $w^{-1}$.
Let $w$ be a fixed nontrivial cyclically reduced word. For two subsets $X,Y\subseteq \widehat{A}$ we denote by $X.Y$ the sum of all edge-labels in the weighted Whitehead graph $\Gamma_w$ of $w$ of edges from elements of $X$ to elements of $Y$. Thus for $x\in
\widehat{A}$ the number $x.\widehat{A}$ is equal to $n_w(x)+n_w(x^{-1})$, the total number of occurrences of $x^{\pm 1}$ in $w$.
The next lemma, which is Proposition 4.16 of Ch. I in [@LS], gives an explicit formula for the difference of the lengths of $w$ and $\tau(w)$, where $\tau$ is a Whitehead automorphism.
\[lem:LS\] Let $w$ be a nontrivial cyclically reduced word and let $\tau$ be a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind with the characteristic pair $(S,a)$. Let $S'=\widehat{A}-S$. Then $$||\tau(w)||-||w||=S.S'-a.\widehat{A}.$$
The following important notion was introduced by Kapovich, Schupp and Shpilrain in [@KSS].
A nontrivial cyclically reduced word $w$ in $F$ is *strictly minimal* if for every non-inner Whitehead automorphism $\tau$ of $F$ of the second kind we have $$||\tau(w)||>||w||.$$ The set of all strictly minimal elements in $F$ is denoted $SM$.
An immediate consequence of the Peak Reduction Lemma is:
[@KSS] Let $w \in F$ be a cyclically reduced strictly minimal element. Then $w$ is of minimal length in its $Aut(F)$-orbit and for any $\phi\in
Aut(F)$ we have:
$$|w|=||w||\le ||\phi(w)||\le |\phi(w)|.$$
\[B\] Put $c_0:=1+\frac{2k-3}{4k^2-2k}$. There exists an exponentially $F$-generic set $W\subseteq F$ with the following property.
For any $\phi\in Aut(F)$ the following conditions are equivalent:
1. The automorphism $\phi$ is simple.
2. We have $\lambda(\phi)=1.$
3. We have $\lambda(\phi)< 1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k}.$
4. For some $w\in W$ we have $||\phi(w)||=||w||$.
5. For every $w\in W$ we have $||\phi(w)||=||w||$.
6. For some $w\in W$ we have $||\phi(w)||\le c_0 ||w||$.
7. For every $w\in W$ we have $||\phi(w)||\le c_0 ||w||$.
It is obvious that (1) implies (2) and that (2) implies (3).
We will now prove that (3) implies (1).
Let $\phi\in Aut(F)$.
Let $\epsilon>0$ be arbitrary. Put $T(\epsilon)$ be the set of all cyclically reduced words $w$ such that:
- For any $x\in \widehat{A} $ $|f_w(x)-\frac{1}{2k}|\le
\epsilon/2$.
- For any $x,y\in \widehat{A} $ with $x\ne y^{-1}$ $|f_w(xy)-\frac{1}{2k(2k-1)}|\le \epsilon/2$
Then $T(\epsilon)$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic [@KSS]. Moreover, every $w\in T(\epsilon)$ is strictly minimal [@KSS], provided that $\epsilon<\frac{2k-3}{k(2k - 1) (4k - 3)}$.
Suppose now that $\epsilon<\epsilon_0:=\frac{2k-3}{k(2k - 1) (4k -
3)}$. Choose an arbitrary element $w\in T(\epsilon)$ and denote $n=||w||$.
By strict minimality of $w$ we have $||w||\le ||\phi(w)||$. Moreover, by Proposition \[peak\_red\] (Peak Reduction Lemma) there is a decomposition $\phi=\tau_p \tau_{p-1}\dots \tau_1$ such that each $\tau_i$ is a Whitehead move and for each $i=1,\dots, p-1$ $$||\tau_i \tau_{i-1}\dots \tau_1(w)||\le ||\phi(w)||$$ with strict inequalities unless $||w||=||\phi(w)||$.
Suppose first that $||w||=||\phi(w)||$. Then all inequalities above are equalities and by strict minimality of $w$ each $\tau_i$ is either inner or a relabeling automorphism. This implies that $\phi=\alpha
\tau$ where $\alpha$ is inner and $\tau$ is a relabeling automorphism and that $\lambda(\phi)=1$.
Suppose now that $||w||< ||\phi(w)||$. Then the preceding argument shows that in fact for any $z\in T(\epsilon)$ we have $||z||<
||\phi(z)||$ (since otherwise $\phi$ would be simple and so $||w||=||\phi(w)||$).
Denote $z_0=z$ and $z_i=\tau_i \tau_{i-1}\dots \tau_1(z)$ for $0<i\le
p$. Thus $z_p=\phi(z)$. Since $||z||< ||\phi(z)||$, there is some $i,
1\le i\le p$ such that $\tau_i$ is a non-inner Whitehead move of the second kind. Let $j$ be the smallest $i$ with this property. Then all $\tau_{i}$ with $i<j$ are either inner or relabeling automorphisms, $||z||=||z_{i}||$ and $z_{i}\in T(\epsilon)$. In particular, $z_{j-1}\in T(\epsilon)$ and $z_{j-1}$ is strictly minimal.
Thus $$n=||z||=||z_{j-1}||\le
||z_j||=||\tau_j(z_{j-1})||<||\phi(z)||.$$
Let $(S,a)$ be the characteristic pair of $\tau_j$ and let $S'=\widehat{A}-S$. Since $\tau_j$ is non-inner, we have both $|S|
\ge 2$, and $|S'| \ge 2$. Hence $|S|\ |S'| \ge 2(2k-2)$ and there are at least $2(2k-2)$ edges between $S$ and $S'$ in the weighted Whitehead graph of $z_{j-1}$. Recall that $a. \widehat{A}$ is the total number of occurrences of $a^{\pm 1}$ in $z$.
By Lemma \[lem:LS\], we have $||\tau_j(z_{j-1})||-||z||=S.S'-a.\widehat{A}$.
By assumption on $z_{j-1}$ we have $a.\widehat{A}\le
n(\frac{1}{k}+\epsilon)$ and so
$$||\tau_j(z_{j-1})||-||z_{j-1}||=S.S'-a.\widehat{A} \ge 2n(2k-2) \left(
\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon \right)- n\left( \frac{1}{k}+\epsilon
\right).$$
Hence
$$||\phi(z)||\ge ||z_j||\ge n+ 2n(2k-2) \left(
\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon \right) - n \left( \frac{1}{k}+\epsilon
\right)$$
and so, since $n=||z||$,
$$\frac{||\phi(z)||}{||z||}\ge 1+ (4k-4) \left(
\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon \right)- \left( \frac{1}{k}+\epsilon
\right)$$
Note that the above inequality holds for any element $z\in
T(\epsilon)$.
Since $T(\epsilon)$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic, this implies by Lemma \[aux\] that $$\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+
(4k-4)(\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon)-(\frac{1}{k}+\epsilon).$$ Since $0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0$ was arbitrary, it follows that
$$\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+
(4k-4)\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\frac{1}{k}=1+\frac{2k-3}{2k^2-k}>1.$$
This proves that (3) implies (1), so that (1), (2) and (3) are equivalent.
Choose $0<\epsilon_1<\epsilon_0$ such that
$$1+ (4k-4) \left( \frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon_1 \right) - \left(
\frac{1}{k}+\epsilon_1 \right) <c_0=1+\frac{2k-3}{4k^2-2k} .$$
Put $W=T(\epsilon_1)$. The above argument shows that if for some $w\in
W$ we have $$\frac{||\phi(z)||}{||z||}< 1+ (4k-4) \left(
\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon_1 \right) - \left( \frac{1}{k}+\epsilon_1
\right)$$ then $\phi$ is simple.
With this $W$ we have proved that (5) implies (1). It is obvious that (1) implies (4)-(7) and that each of (4), (5), (7) implies (6). Thus statements (1), (4), (5), (6), (7) are equivalent.
We already know that (1), (2) and (3) are equivalent. This completes the proof of the theorem.
The following statement, together with Theorem \[B\], implies Theorem \[rigid\] from the Introduction.
\[rough\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots,a_k)$, where $k\ge 2$, and $d$ be the word metric on $F$ corresponding to the generating set $A=\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$. Let $\phi\in Aut(F)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent
1. The automorphism $\phi$ is simple.
2. The map $\phi:(F,d)\to (F,d)$ is a rough isometry.
3. The map $\phi:(F,d)\to (F,d)$ is a rough similarity.
It is obvious that (1) implies (2) and that (2) implies (3).
We will now show that (3) implies (1). Suppose that $\phi$ is a rough similarity, so that there exist $\lambda >0$ and $D>0$ such that for any $w\in F$
$$\lambda |w|-D \le |\phi(w)|\le \lambda |w|+D.$$
Then obviously $\lambda=\lambda(\phi)$. By Theorem \[B\] either $\phi$ is simple or $\lambda(\phi)>1$.
Assume the latter. Put $\lambda_0=\frac{1+\lambda}{2}$. Thus $1<\lambda_0<\lambda$.
Consider the ball $B_n$ of radius $n$ in $F$, where $n>>1$. For any $w\in F$ with $|w|\ge n/\lambda_0$ we have
$$|\phi(w)|\ge \lambda |w|-D \ge \lambda n/\lambda_0 -D> n,$$ so that $\phi(w)\not\in B_n$.
Thus only the elements of length $\le n/\lambda_0$ may be potentially taken to $B_n$ by $\phi$. The number of such elements is smaller than $\# B_n$ since $\lambda_0>1$ and $n/\lambda_0 <n$. This contradicts the fact that $\phi:(F,d)\to (F,d)$ is a bijection. Therefore $\phi$ is simple, as required.
The following is Theorem \[rigid1\] from the Introduction:
\[thm:jump-simpl\] Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ where $k\ge 2$. Let $\phi: F\to X$ be a free minimal action on $F$ on a simplicial tree $X$ without inversions.
Then exactly one of the following occurs:
1. There is a simple automorphism $\alpha$ of $F$ such that $X$ is $\phi\circ \alpha$-equivariantly isomorphic to the Cayley graph of $F$ with respect to $\{a_1,\dots, a_k\}$. In this case $\lambda(\phi)=1$.
2. We have $\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}$.
Let $\Gamma=X/F$ and let $T$ be a maximal tree in $\Gamma$ and let $B=\{b_1,\dots, b_k\}$ be the geometric basis of $F$ corresponding to $T$. Let $\psi\in Aut(F)$ be defined by $\alpha(b_i)=a_i$ for $i=1,\dots, k$.
Note that because of Lemma \[lem:compute\] for any cyclic word $w$ over $B$ we have $||w||_X\ge ||w||_B$. Suppose first that $\alpha$ is not a simple automorphism. Then $\lambda(\alpha)\ge
1+\frac{2k-3}{k(2k-1)}$.
Hence for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists an exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic set $R(\epsilon)\subseteq \mathcal{CR}$ such that for any $w\in R(\epsilon)$
$$\frac{||w||_B}{||w||_A}=\frac{||\alpha(w)||_A}{||w||_A}\ge
1+\frac{2k-3}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon.$$ Since $||w||_X\ge ||w||_B$, it follows that $$\frac{||w||_X}{||w||_A}\ge 1+\frac{2k-3}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon.$$ Since $\epsilon>0$ was arbitrary, it follows by Lemma \[aux\] that $$\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+\frac{2k-3}{k(2k-1)}\ge 1+\frac{1}{k(2k-1)},$$ as required.
Suppose now that $\alpha$ is a simple automorphism. We will assume that $\alpha=Id$, and it will be easily seen that the general case is similar.
If $\Gamma$ is a wedge of $k$ loop-edges then the statement of the theorem holds. Suppose $\Gamma$ is not of this form. Then there exist edges $e,e'\in E(\Gamma-T)$, $e'\ne e^{-1}$, such that $[t(e),
o(e')]_T$ has length at least $1$. Let $z$ be the freely reduced word of length $2$ in $B$ corresponding to the sequence $ee'$. Let $\epsilon>0$ be arbitrary. Let $C(2,\epsilon/2)\subseteq \mathcal{CR}$ be defined as in Proposition \[ld\]. Thus $C(2,\epsilon/2)$ consists of all cyclically reduced words $w'$ such that for the cyclic word $w=(w')$ and for every freely reduced word $xy$ in $A$ $$\big| f_w(xy)-\frac{1}{2k(2k-1)}\big|\le \epsilon/2.$$ Then $C(2,\epsilon/2)$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic. Let $w'\in C(2,\epsilon/2)$ be arbitrary and let $w=(w')$. Note that $||w'||_A=||w'||_B=||w||_A=||w||_B$ and $||w||_X=||w'||_X$.
Then
$$||w||_X\ge ||w||_B+n_w(z)+n_w(z^{-1})=||w||_A+n_w(z)+n_w(z^{-1})$$ and so $$\frac{||w'||_X}{||w'||_A}=\frac{||w||_X}{||w||_A}\ge
1+f_w(z)+f_w(z^{-1})\ge 1+\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}-\epsilon.$$ Since $\epsilon>0$ was arbitrary, Lemma \[aux\] implies that $\lambda(\phi)\ge 1+\frac{1}{k(2k-1)}$, as required.
Application to the geometry of automorphisms {#sect:appl}
============================================
Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$. An automorphism $\phi$ of $F$ is said to be *$(s,m)$-hyperbolic*, where $s>1$ and $m\ge 1$ is an integer, if for every nontrivial cyclic word $w$ we have $$s ||w|| \le \max \{ ||\phi^m(w)||, ||\phi^{-m}(w)||\}.$$ An automorphism is *hyperbolic* if it is $(s,m)$-hyperbolic for some $s>1, m\ge 1$.
The following lemma is an easy consequence of the above definition:
\[gr\] Let $\phi\in Aut(F)$ be $(s,m)$-hyperbolic and let $w$ be a cyclic word of minimal length in its $\langle \phi \rangle$-orbit. Then for any $n\ge 2$ we have $$||\phi^{mn}(w)||\ge s^{n-1}||w||.$$
By definition of hyperbolicity of $\phi$ we have $$||\phi^{-m}(u)||\le ||u|| \Rightarrow s ||u||\le ||\phi^m(u)||
\tag{!}.$$
Note that by the choice of $w$ we have $||w||\le ||\phi^{m}(w)||$. Hence applying (!) with $u=\phi^m(w)$ we get $s ||\phi^m(w)||\le
||\phi^{2m}(w)||$. Then, using (!), by induction on $n$ we see that for any $n\ge 1$ $$||\phi^{m(n+1)}(w)||=||\phi^{mn+m}(w)||\ge s ||\phi^m(w)||.$$ This in turn implies that for any $n\ge 1$ $$||\phi^{m(n+1)}(w)||=||\phi^{mn+m}(w)||\ge s^n ||\phi^m(w)||\ge
s^{n-1} ||w||.$$ This proves Lemma \[gr\].
The following is Theorem \[hyp\] from the Introduction:
\[hyperb\] Let $\phi$ be an $(s,m)$-hyperbolic automorphism of $F$. Then $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\phi^n)}\ge \sqrt[m]{s}>1.$$
Let $t\ge 2$ be an arbitrary integer. Let $w\in SM$ be a strictly minimal element. Since $w$ is minimal in its $Aut(F)$-orbit, it is also minimal in its $\langle \phi \rangle$-orbit. Therefore by Lemma \[gr\] $$||\phi^{tm}(w)||\ge s^{t-1} ||w|| \text{ and }
\frac{||\phi^{tm}(w)||}{||w||}\ge s^{t-1}.$$ Since $SM$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic, Lemma \[aux\] implies that $\lambda(\phi^{tm})\ge s^{t-1}$.
Moreover, there is $D>0$ such that for any cyclically reduced word $u$ we have
$$||\phi^i(u)||\ge D ||u||, \text{ for all } 0\le i <m.$$
Let $n\ge 2m$ be an integer. Then we can write $n$ as $n=mt+i$ where $t\ge 2$ and $0\le i<m$. For any $w\in SM$ we have
$$||\phi^{n}(w)||=||\phi^{mt+i}(w)||\ge D ||\phi^{mt}(w)||\ge D s^{t-1}
||w||$$ and hence $$\frac{||\phi^{tm}(w)||}{||w||}\ge Ds^{t-1}.$$ Since $SM$ is exponentially $\mathcal{CR}$-generic, Lemma \[aux\] again implies that for any $n\ge 2m$ $$\lambda(\phi^n)\ge Ds^{t-1}= \frac{D}{s} s^{\lfloor n/m\rfloor}.$$ This implies $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\phi^n)}\ge s^{1/m}>1,$$ as claimed.
We can now prove Corollary \[cor:flux\] from the Introduction:
Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ be a free group of rank $k\ge 2$, equipped with the standard metric.
Then for any $\phi\in Aut(F)$ we have:
$$flux(\phi)=\begin{cases}
0, \text{ if } \phi \text{ is a relabeling automorphism}\\
1, \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Let $\lambda=\lambda(\phi)$ be the generic stretching factor.
Suppose first that $\lambda>1$. Then the set $$T:=\{ w \in F : \frac{|\phi(w)|}{|w|}> \frac{\lambda+1}{2}$$ is exponentially $F$-generic.
Let $B(n)$ be the ball of radius $n$ in $F$ and let $w \in B(n)\cap T$ be such that $2n/(\lambda+1)\le |w|\le n$. Then
$$|\phi(w)|> |w|\frac{\lambda+1}{2}\ge \frac{2n}{\lambda+1}
\frac{\lambda+1}{2}=n$$ Hence for each $w\in [B(n)\cap T]-B(2n/(\lambda+1))$ we have $|\phi(w)|>n$. The size of $B(2n/(\lambda+1))$ is exponentially smaller than that of $B(n)$ since $2/(\lambda+1)<1$. Hence by exponential genericity of $T$ $$\frac{\#[B(n)\cap T]-\#B(2n/(\lambda+1))}{\#
B(n)}\longrightarrow_{n\to \infty} 1 \text{ exponentially fast}.$$ Hence $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{flux_{\phi}(n)}{\# B(n)}=1$$ and therefore $flux(\phi)=1$.
Suppose now that $\lambda(\phi)=1$. By Theorem \[B\] this implies that $\phi=\alpha \tau$ where $\alpha$ is inner and $\tau$ is a relabeling automorphism.
If $\alpha=1$, then obviously $flux(\phi)=0$. Suppose now that $\alpha$ is nontrivial. Since $\tau$ acts as a permutation on each ball and each sphere in $F$, we can assume that $\tau=1$ and $\phi=\alpha$. Thus there is $u\in F, u\ne 1$ such that for every $w\in F$ $\phi(w)=uwu^{-1}$. There are $\ge c_1 (2k-1)^n$ elements $f$ with $|w|=n$ such that the product $uwu^{-1}$ is freely reduced as written, where $c_1>0$ is a constant independent of $n$ and $u$. For each such element we have $|\phi(w)|>|w|$. Hence there is a constant $c_2\in (0,1)$ independent of $n$ and $u$ such that for any $n>0$
$$1\ge \frac{flux_{\phi}(n)}{\# B(n)}\ge c_2>0.$$ Hence $$1\ge flux(\phi)= \lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt[n]{\frac{flux_{\phi}(n)}{\#
B(n)}} \ge \lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{c_2}=1.$$ Thus $flux(\phi)=1$ and the proof is complete.
Random elements in regular languages {#sect:lang}
====================================
The most reasonable way of choosing a “random” element in the regular language $L$ is via a random walk in the transition graph of an automaton $M$ accepting $L$. It turns out that the natural model of computation here is that of a *non-deterministic finite automaton* or NDFA. Such an automaton $M$ over an alphabet $A$ with *state set* $Q$ is specified by a finite directed graph $\Gamma(M)$. The vertex set of $\Gamma(M)$ is the set $Q$ of states of $M$ and $Q$ comes equipped with a distinguished nonempty subset $I$ of *initial* or *start* states. The directed edges of $\Gamma(M)$ are labelled by elements of $A$ and these edges are treated as transitions of $M$. If $q\in Q$ is a state and $a\in A$ is a letter, we allow multiple edges labelled $a$ with origin $q$ and we also allow the case when there are no such edges. Nondeterministic automata are thus by their nature “partial”. There is a distinguished subset of $Q$ of *accepting* states. A word $w$ over $A$ is said to be *accepted* by $M$ if there exists a directed path with label $w$ in $\Gamma(M)$ from some initial state to an accepting state. The *language*, $L(M)$, accepted by $M$ is the collection of all words accepted by $M$.
We will also use directed graph $\Gamma_1(M)$ defined as follows. The vertex set of of $\Gamma_1(M)$ is the set of directed edges $E(\Gamma(M))$ of $M$. If $e_1,e_2\in E(\Gamma(M))$ the pair $(e_1,e_2)$ defines a directed edge from $e_1$ to $e_2$ in $\Gamma_1(M)$ if the terminus of $e_1$ is the origin of $e_2$, that is, $e_1,e_2$ is a directed edge-path in $\Gamma(M)$.
\[defn:normal\] Let $A$ be a finite alphabet. A *normal* automaton over a finite alphabet $A$ is a nondeterministic finite state automaton $M$ over $A$ such that the following conditions hold:
- the automaton $M$ has a nonempty set of accept states;
- the directed graph $\Gamma(M)$ has at least one edge;
- the directed graph $\Gamma(M)$ is *strongly connected*, that is for any two states $q,q'$ of $M$ there exists a directed edge-path from $q$ to $q'$ in $\Gamma(M)$.
The third condition in the above definition is the most important one as it is responsible for the irreducibility of a Markov chain naturally associated to a normal automaton:
Let $M$ be a normal automaton over a finite alphabet $A$. We define an *associated finite state Markov chain* $M'$ as follows. The set of states of $M'$ is the set $E$ of directed edges of $\Gamma(M)$. If the origin of $f$ is not the terminus of $e$ we put the transition probability $p_{e,f}=0$. If the origin of $f$ is equal to the terminus of $e$ we put $p_{e,f}=1/m$, where $m$ is the total number of outgoing directed edges from the terminus of $e$.
Note that the sample space $\Omega$ for the Markov chain $M'$ defined above consists of all semi-infinite directed edge-paths $$\omega=e_1,e_2,\dots, e_n, \dots$$ in the graph $\Gamma(M)$. Every such path has a label $$w(\omega)=a_1a_2\dots,$$ that is a semi-infinite word over the alphabet $A$. We will denote $w_n=w_n(\omega):=a_1\dots a_n$, the initial segment of length $n$ of $w$. The set $\Omega$ comes equipped with the natural topology, where we think of $\Omega$ as the union of boundaries of rooted trees $(T_e)_e\in E$. The vertices of $T_e$ are finite edge-path in $\Gamma(M)$ beginning with $e$. The Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$ is generated by the following open-closed *cylinder sets* $Cyl(\gamma)$, where $\gamma$ is a nonempty finite edge-path in $\Gamma(M)$: $$Cyl(\gamma):=\{\omega\in \Omega: p \text{ is the initial segment of }
\omega\}.$$
If we put an initial probability distribution $\mu$ on $E$, this defines a Borel probability measure $P_{\mu}$ on $\Omega$. This measure is defined on the cylinder sets by the standard convolution formula. If $\gamma=e_1,\dots, e_n$, where $n>1$, then
$$P_{\mu}(Cyl(\gamma)):=\mu(e_1) p_{e_1,e_2} p_{e_2,e_3}\dots
p_{e_{n-1},e_n}.$$ If $n=1$ then $P_{\mu}(Cyl(e)):=\mu(e)$.
Let $M$ be a normal automaton. Then the associated finite state Markov chain $M'$ is irreducible. In particular, there is a unique stationary initial probability distribution $\mu_0$ on the set of states $E$ of $M'$. This distribution has the property $\mu_0(e)>0$ for each $e\in E$.
To show that $M'$ is irreducible we have two prove that for any two edges $e,f\in E$ there is $n>0$ such that the $n$-step transition probability $p^{(n)}_{e,f}>0$. Since $\Gamma(M)$ is strongly connected, there exists a directed edge-path $\gamma$ in $\Gamma(M)$ from the terminus of $e$ to the origin of $f$. Then $e\gamma f$ is a directed edge-path in $\Gamma(M)$ that starts with $e$ and ends with $f$. Hence $\Gamma_1(M)$ is strongly connected and therefore $M'$ is irreducible.
The irreducibility of $M'$ implies the existence and uniqueness of a positive stationary distribution $\mu_0$ on $E$, as required.
If we fix an initial probability distribution $\mu$ on $E$, this defines a probability measure $P_{\mu}$ on $\Omega$.
\[zero\] Let $M$ be a normal automaton. Let $M'$ be the associated finite state Markov chain and let $\mu_0$ be the stationary initial distribution for $M'$. Let $Z \subseteq \Omega$ be a set such that $P_{\mu_0}(Z)=0$. Then for any other initial distribution $\mu$ on $E$ we have $P_{\mu}(Z)=0$.
Let $\mu$ and $\mu_0$ be as above. Put $$c:=\max\{ \frac{\mu(e)}{\mu_0(e)}: e\in E\}.$$ Note that $0<c<\infty$ since $\mu_0(e)>0$ for each $e\in E$. Consider an arbitrary cylinder set $Cyl(\gamma)\subset \Omega$, where $\gamma=e_1,e_2,\dots e_n$. From the definitions of $P_{\mu}$ and $P_{\mu_0}$ we see that $$P_{\mu}(Cyl(\gamma))=\frac{\mu(e_1)}{\mu_0(e_1)}
P_{\mu_0}(Cyl(\gamma))\le c P_{\mu_0}(Cyl(\gamma)).$$ Hence for an arbitrary Borel set $Z\subseteq \Omega$ we have $P_{\mu}(Z)\le c P_{\mu_0}(Z)$. In particular, if $P_{\mu_0}(Z)=0$ then $P_{\mu}(Z)=0$.
The previous two lemmas depend only on the automaton $M$ being normal. Suppose now that $L = L(M)$. For each state $q$ choose a shortest path from $q$ to an accept state and let $u_q$ be the word in $A^\ast$ labelling that path. This is possible since $\Gamma(M)$ is strongly connected and the set of accept states is nonempty by the assumption on $M$. Note that $u_q$ is the empty word if and only if $q$ is an accept state. The lengths of $u_q$ are bounded above by some constant depending on $M$. For a finite walk $w_n$ denote $w_n'=w_nu_q$ where $q$ is the state in which $w_n$ ends. Note that if $w_n$ begins in a state from $I$ then $w_n'\in L$. Thus if $\mu$ is an distribution supported on the set of edges in $E(M)$ with initial vertices from $I$ and $w_n$ is obtained by performing $n$ steps of the chain $M'$ with initial distribution $\mu$, then $w_n'\in L$ can be thought of as a “random” element of $L$.
We can now prove (a slight generalization of) Theorem \[lang\] from the Introduction:
\[thm:H\] Let $M$ be a normal automaton over the alphabet $A$ and let $L=L(M)$ be the language accepted by $M$.
Let $\phi: A^*\to G$ be a monoid homomorphism, where $G$ is a group with a left-invariant semi-metric $d_G$. Then there exists a number $\lambda=\lambda (M,\phi, d_G)\ge 0$ such that for any initial distribution $\mu$ on $E(M)$ we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\phi(w_n)|_G}{n}= \lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{|\phi(w_n')|_G}{n}=\lambda \text{ almost surely and in } L^1
\text{ with respect to } P_{\mu}.$$
Let $\mu_0$ be the unique stationary initial distribution for $M'$. As before denote by $\mathcal S:\Omega\to \Omega$ the shift operator which erases the first edge of every $\omega=e_1,e_2, \dots \in
\Omega$. Stationarity of $\mu_0$ means that $\mathcal S:(\Omega,
P_{\mu_0})\to (\Omega, P_{\mu_0})$ is a measure-preserving map. Since $M'$ is irreducible and aperiodic, $\mathcal S$ is also ergodic.
As before, define $X_n:\Omega\to \mathbb R$ as $$X_n(\omega):=|\phi(w_n(\omega))|_G.$$
Then again it is easy to see that $X_n\ge 0$, $X_{n+m}(\omega)\le
X_n(\omega)+X_m(\mathcal S^n\omega)$. Hence by the Subadditive Ergodic Theorem there is $\lambda\ge 0$ and there is a subset $Q\subseteq
\Omega$ with $P_{\mu_0}(Z)=0$ such that for any $\omega\not\in Z$
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\phi(w_n(\omega))|_G}{n}=\lambda.$$
Let $\mu$ be an arbitrary initial distribution on $E$. Then by Lemma \[zero\] we have $P_{\mu}(Z)=0$. Thus $$\frac{|\phi(w_n)|_G}{n} \to \lambda \text{ almost surely with respect
to } P_{\mu}.$$
Note that by the left-invariance of $d_G$ we have $|\phi(w)|_G\le K
|w|$ where $K=\max\{ |\phi(a)|_G : a\in A\}$. Hence $X_n/n=|\phi(w_n)|_G/n\le K$ and by the Dominated Convergence Theorem almost sure convergence of $X_n/n$ implies $L^1$-convergence.
Since $d_G$ is a seminorm on $G$ and the length of any path $w_n'$ differs from $|w_n|$ by at most a fixed constant, it is also true that $|\phi(w_n')|_G$ differs from $|\phi(w_n)|_G$ by at most a fixed constant and thus it is also the case that
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\phi(w_n'(\omega))|_G}{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{|\phi(w_n(\omega))|_G}{n}=\lambda.$$
There is substantial flexibility in the choice of the Markov chain $M'$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:H\] goes through without change for any choice of transition probabilities in $M'$ such that $p_{e,f}>0$ whenever $(e,f)$ is an edge of $\Gamma_1(M)$ and $p_{e,f}=0$ whenever $(e,f)$ is not an edge of $\Gamma_1(M)$.
Open Problems {#sect:prob}
=============
Let $\phi$ be an arbitrary (not necessarily injective) endomorphism of $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$. Is $\lambda(\phi)$ rational? Computable?
Let $\phi\in Aut(F)$. What can be said about the behavior of $\lambda(\phi^n)$ as $n\to\infty$? Same for $\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\phi^n)}$. How are these quantities connected with growth rates of different (or perhaps just top) strata from relative train-track representatives of $\phi$?
It is clear that the asymptotics of $\lambda(\phi^n)$ should reflect the dynamical properties of $\phi$. For example, it is not hard to see that for any Nielsen automorphism $\tau$ the stretching factor $\lambda(\tau^n)$ grows at most linearly and $\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\tau^n)}=1$. On the other hand for hyperbolic automorphisms $\phi$ Theorem \[hyperb\] implies that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\lambda(\phi^n)}>1$, so that the sequence $(\lambda(\phi^n))_n$ grows exponentially.
Can one estimate (say in the sense of Large Deviations) the speed of convergence $\frac{|\phi(\omega_n)|_G}{n}\to\lambda(\phi)$?
We have seen that in the case of free group automorphisms for any $\epsilon>0$
$$P_n\big(\frac{|\phi(\omega_n)|}{n}\in (\lambda(\phi)-\epsilon,
\lambda(\phi)+\epsilon)\big)\to 1$$ with exponentially fast convergence as $n\to\infty$. Are there any other situations where the speed of convergence in Theorem \[thm:stretch\] can be estimated?
Let $F=F(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ where $k\ge 2$. Consider the set $$W=\{\lambda(\phi): \phi:F\to Aut(X) \text{ is a free simplicial action
of } F \text{ on some simplicial tree } X\}.$$ We know that $W\subseteq \mathbb Q$ and, moreover $2kW\subseteq
\mathbb Z[\frac{1}{2k-1}]$.
Is $W$ a discrete subset of $\mathbb Q$?
The notion of a generic stretching factor for $\phi\in Aut(F)$ depends on the choice of a free basis $b=(a_1,\dots, a_k)$ of $F$, and, more generally, on the choice of a finite generating set $S$ of $F$ and the corresponding word metric $d_S$. Denote by $\lambda_S(\phi)$ the generic stretching factor of $\phi$ considered as a map $(F,d_S)\to (F,d_S)$.
One can define the following uniform constants $$\lambda'(\phi):=\inf\{\lambda_b(\phi): b \text{ is a free basis of }
F\}$$ and
$$\lambda''(\phi):=\inf\{\lambda_S(\phi): S \text{ is a finite
generating set of } F\}.$$ (Note that $\lambda''(\phi)$ can be defined in the same fashion for an automorphism $\phi$ of an arbitrary finitely generated group $G$).
For $\phi\in Aut(F)$ are the constants $\lambda'(\phi)$ and $\lambda''(\phi)$ actually realized by some free bases and finite generating sets of $F$ accordingly? That is, are the above infima actually minima? Are $\lambda'(\phi)$ and $\lambda''(\phi)$ algorithmically computable?
Similarly we can define $$||\phi||'=\inf\{||\phi||_b: b \text{ is a free basis of } F\}$$ and $$||\phi||''=\inf\{||\phi||_S: S \text{ is a finite generating set of }
F\}.$$ Since both of these constants are integers, they are clearly realizable by some $b$ and $S$ accordingly. Are these constants algorithmically computable?
[ABC]{}
G. Arzhantseva and A. Ol’shanskii, *Genericity of the class of groups in which subgroups with a lesser number of generators are free,* (Russian) Mat. Zametki **59** (1996), no. 4, 489–496
G. Arzhantseva, *On groups in which subgroups with a fixed number of generators are free,*(Russian) Fundam. Prikl. Mat. **3** (1997), no. 3, 675–683.
G. Arzhantseva, *Generic properties of finitely presented groups and Howson’s theorem,* Comm. Algebra **26** (1998), 3783–3792.
G. Arzhantseva, *A property of subgroups of infinite index in a free group,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **128** (2000), 3205–3210.
F. Bonahon, *Bouts des variétés hyperboliques de dimension $3$.* Ann. of Math. (2) **124** (1986), no. 1, 71–158
F. Bonahon, *The geometry of Teichmüller space via geodesic currents.* Invent. Math. **92** (1988), no. 1, 139–162
F. Bonahon, *Geodesic currents on negatively curved groups.* Arboreal group theory (Berkeley, CA, 1988), 143–168, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 19, Springer, New York, 1991
A. Borovik, A. G. Myasnikov and V. Shpilrain, [ *Measuring sets in infinite groups*]{}, Computational and Statistical Group Theory (R.Gilman et al, Editors), Contemp. Math., Amer. Math. Soc. **298** (2002), 21–42.
P. Brinkmann, *Hyperbolic automorphisms of free groups,* Geometric and Functional Analysis, **10** (2000), no. 5, 1071–1089
C. Champetier, *Petite simplification dans les groupes hyperboliques*, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) **3** (1994), no. 2, 161–221.
C. Champetier, *Propriétés statistiques des groupes de présentation finie*, Adv. Math. **116** (1995), 197–262.
C. Champetier, *The space of finitely generated groups,* Topology **39** (2000), 657–680.
P.-A. Cherix and A. Valette, *On spectra of simple random walks on one-relator groups,* With an appendix by Paul Jolissaint. Pacific J. Math. **175** (1996), 417–438.
P.-A. Cherix and G. Schaeffer, *An asymptotic Freiheitssatz for finitely generated groups,* Enseign. Math. (2) **44** (1998), 9–22.
J. Cohen, *Cogrowth and amenability of discrete groups*, J. Funct. Anal. **48** (1982), 301–309
D. Cooper, *Automorphisms of free groups have finitely generated fixed point sets.* J. Algebra **111** (1987), no. 2, 453–456
P. Dehornoy, *Braid-based cryptography,* Group theory, statistics, and cryptography, 5–33, Contemp. Math., 360, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004
A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni, *Large Deviation Techniques and Applications.* Second edition. Applications of Mathematics, 38. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998
Y. Derriennic, *Sur le théorème ergodique sous-additif.* C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A-B **281** (1975), no. 22, Aii, A985–A988
A. Furman, *Coarse-geometric perspective on negatively curved manifolds and groups.* Rigidity in dynamics and geometry (Cambridge, 2000), 149–166, Springer, Berlin, 2002
E. Ghys, *Groupes Aléatoires.* Seminar Bourbaki (2002/2003), Asterisque **294** (2004), 173–204
R. Grigorchuck, *Symmetrical random walks on discrete groups*, Multicomponent Random Systems, in: Adv. Probab. Related Topics, Vol. 6, Dekker, New York, 1980, 285–325
M. Gromov, *Hyperbolic Groups*, in “Essays in Group Theory (G.M.Gersten, editor)”, MSRI publ. **8**, 1987, 75–263
M. Gromov, *Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups.* Geometric group theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991), 1–295, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 182, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993
M. Gromov, *Random walks in random groups*, Geom. Funct. Anal. **13** (2003), no. 1, 73–146
Y. Guivarc’h, *Sur la loi des grands nombres et le rayon spectral d’une marche aléatoire.* Conference on Random Walks (Kleebach, 1979), pp. 47–98, 3, Astérisque, **74**, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1980
J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman, *Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1979.
V. Kaimanovich, *Hausdorff dimension of the harmonic measure on trees.* Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems **18** (1998), no. 3, 631–660
V. Kaimanovich, *The Poisson formula for groups with hyperbolic properties.* Ann. of Math. (2) **152** (2000), no. 3, 659–692.
I. Kapovich, *The frequency space of a free group,* Internat. J.Alg. Comput. (Grigorchuk’s 50s anniversary issue), to appear,\
http://www.arxiv.org/math.GR/0311053
I. Kapovich, *Currents on free groups,* preprint; 2004;\
http://www.arxiv.org/math.GR/0412128
I. Kapovich, A. Myasnikov, P. Schupp and V. Shpilrain, *Generic-case complexity, Decision problems in group theory and Random walks*, J. Algebra, **264** (2003), no. 2, 665–694
I. Kapovich, A. Myasnikov, P. Schupp and V. Shpilrain, *Average-case complexity for the word and membership problems in group theory*, Advances in Math. **190** (2005), no. 2, 343–359
I. Kapovich and P. Schupp, *Genericity, the Arzhantseva-Ol’shanskii method and the isomorphism problem for one-relator groups*, Math. Ann. **331** (2005), no. 1, 1–19
I. Kapovich, P. Schupp, and V. Shpilrain, *Generic properties of Whitehead’s algorithm and isomorphism rigidity of random one-relator groups*, Pacific J. Math., to appear
J. F. C. Kingman, *Subadditive ergodic theory.* With discussion by D. L. Bürkholder, Daryl Daley, H. Kesten, P. Ney, Frank Spitzer and J. M. Hammersley, and a reply by the author. Ann. Probability **1** (1973), 883–909
V. Kaimanovich, and A. Vershik, *Random walks on discrete groups: boundary and entropy.* Ann. Probab. **11** (1983), no. 3, 457–490
R. Lyndon and P. Schupp, *Combinatorial Group Theory,* Springer-Verlag, 1977. Reprinted in the “Classics in mathematics” series, 2000.
A. G. Myasnikov and V. Shpilrain, *Automorphic orbits in free groups*, J. Algebra [**269**]{} (2003), 18–27
A. G. Myasnikov and V. Shpilrain, [*Some metric properties of automorphisms of groups*]{}, preprint; http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/\~shpil/papers.html
Y. Ollivier, *Sharp phase transition theorems for hyperbolicity of random groups,* Geom. Funct. Anal. **14** (2004), no. 3, 595–679
A. Yu. Ol’shanskii, *Almost every group is hyperbolic*, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. **2** (1992), 1–17.
J. H. C. Whitehead, *On equivalent sets of elements in free groups*, Annals of Mathematics **37** (1936), 782–800
W. Woess, *Cogrowth of groups and simple random walks.* Arch. Math. (Basel) **41** (1983), no. 4, 363–370
A. Zuk, *On property (T) for discrete groups.* Rigidity in dynamics and geometry (Cambridge, 2000), 473–482, Springer, Berlin, 2002
[^1]: The second and the third author were supported by the NSF grant DMS\#0404991 and the NSA grant DMA\#H98230-04-1-0115
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Results of the CMS Silicon Strip Tracker performance are presented as obtained in the setups where the tracker is being commissioned.'
address: 'Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Particle Physics and Phenomenology, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium. [email protected]'
author:
- 'Dorian Kcira [^1]'
title: Results from the Commissioning Run of the CMS Silicon Strip Tracker
---
Introduction
============
The CMS Silicon Strip Tracker [@bib:striptracker], referred from here on as the Tracker, was commissioned using cosmic muons in two main setups: the Magnet Test Cosmic Challenge (MTCC) and the Tracker Integration Facility (TIF) [@bib:tkintegration]. A large number of studies of the tracker performance and offline data analysis has been performed and many others are still ongoing. Only few of these studies for both setups are presented here.
Signal Properties
=================
In figure \[fig:ston\] (right) the noise in ADC counts is plotted versus the length of the micro strips for different subsets of the detector modules at the TIF. As expected, this dependence is linear and the dependence on other effects, like number of readout chips per module, is small. The signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) for hits associated to reconstructed cosmic muon tracks (section \[sec:tracking\]) at the TIF was measured and is shown in figure \[fig:ston\] (left) for the TIB. The achieved (most probable) values for the $S/N$ are very good, and are all larger than 27 for all substructures of the tracker. For the TIF data taking the slower readout mode of the chip was used as the trigger timing was not precise enough to use the fast one. Using the fast readout mode will lead to a reduction by a factor of 2/3 of $S/N$. Measurements have shown that values of the noise and of the $S/N$ were stable and had only small variations with time over the period of the commissioning run at TIF.
Tracking {#sec:tracking}
========
\
Three tracking algorithms were applied to TIF and MTCC data: the standard Combinatorial Track Finder [@bib:ctf], Road Search [@bib:rs] and the Cosmic Track Finder [@bib:cosmic], specialized for single-track cosmic events. They use the reconstructed hits, i.e. position estimates based on clusters found in the modules of the tracker. In addition a reconstruction geometry describing the location of the modules and the distribution of passive material and condition information about the status of the different modules were needed. Modules known to be noisy were not taken into account. In figure \[fig:tracking12\] some track quantities are shown for all algorithms. The Cosmic Track Finder has a larger number of hits per track because it treats hits from stereo detectors as two separate hits. A general agreement is seen between the different algorithms.
Detector Efficiency Measurement
===============================
During the integration procedure the number of dead or noisy channels was determined to be low, around 0.2% of the total [@bib:tkintegration]. The tracker layer and module response efficiency was cross-checked using cosmic muon data taken at the TIF. For this the Combinatorial Track Finder was run and hits associated to the tracks were selected. For each layer (or module) crossed by the track the number of valid hits, $S$ and invalid hits, $B$ were computed, where valid means that the track built excluding that layer / module finds the hits in the expected position, within a certain range (dependent on the track / hit position uncertainty and the tracker alignment precision). The efficiency was then calculated as $S / (S+B)$. Events with only one track were selected in order to avoid high occupancy and tracks were selected almost perpendicular to the modules to avoid uncertainties in the module assignment during track propagation. The selected region for performing the study and the measured efficiencies for TIB/TOB are shown in figure \[fig:detefficiency\]. The layer efficiency is larger than 99.7% for both single sided and double sided layers.
Gain Measurement {#sec:gain}
================
Charged particles passing through the silicon material of the tracker release charge that translates into ADC counts assigned to the set of channels that make up a cluster. Non-uniformities both in the charge collection and in the readout chain affect the aplification and the linearity of the primary charge [@bib:gainprediction]. Linearity and uniformity of the amplification (gain) across the channels of a silicon module is fundamental for the ultimate space resolution of these detectors. Also, the performance of particle identification technique with energy loss (Section \[sec:energyloss\]) depends both on the absolute calibration and on gain non-uniformities. Two complementary methods are used to perform the inter-calibration of the APV pairs. The tickmark method uses a signal with constant height generated by each APV and consists in equalizing the height of it between modules. The particle method uses the cluster charge of the hits (corrected for tracks’ inclination) associated to reconstructed tracks and consists in equalizing the most probable value between different modules. As such it takes into account also non-uniformities in the silicon, amplification chain preceding the Linear Laser Driver (LLD) and non-perfect synchronization of the readout. The gain correction factors for both methods applied to MTCC data and their correlation on an APV pair basis are shown in figure \[fig:gaindistributions\]. A correlation between the methods is observed. The particle gain values are larger than the tick-height ones.
Particle Identification with the Energy Loss Technique {#sec:energyloss}
======================================================
The energy deposit into the silicon layers of the tracker can be used for particle identification. The signal height from a single microstrip (or pixel) is related to the number of electron-hole pairs created by the traversing particle in the bulk of the silicon module. The ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ of the track can provide information for identification of electrons in jets and will be able to discriminate between different hadron species. This is important particularly for low $p_{\rm T}$ jets, for which correcting the energy of the proton using its mass instead of the pion mass makes a difference of around 1 GeV. Another important motivation for the development of ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ measurements is that a large energy loss is one of the most characteristic signatures of long-lived massive charged particles[@bib:CMS_dedx]. The left side of figure \[fig:dedx\] illustrates the proton-pion separation at low momenta, where the separation is defined as the difference of the means over the square root of the sums of the squares of the two RMS for the $\log({\rm d}E/{\rm d}x)$ distributions of protons and pions.
The right side of figure \[fig:dedx\] shows a comparison of ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ measurements for the MTCC and the slice test of the TOB at the TIF. No difference is visible in this comparison. The ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ in both cases is normalized to the path the particle travels in the silicon.
Conclusions
===========
The commissioning run at the TIF and MTCC has been an important experience for the tracker. The tracking system has been successfully commissioned with local and global DAQ and operated together with all other subdetectors of CMS. The tracker perfomance has been excellent and a large sample of data has been gathered. Detailed offline studies are ongoing. Results of some of these studies have been presented.
[9]{} CMS Collaboration, CERN/LHCC 98-6, CERN/LHCC 2000-16 V. Ciulli, [*“The CMS Silicon Strip Tracker: from Integration to Start-Up”*]{}, [*Proceedings 10$^{\rm th}$ ICATPP Conference*]{}, (2007) W. Adam, B. Mangano, T. Speer and T. Todorov, [*Track reconstruction in the CMS tracker*]{}, CERN-CMSNOTE-2006-041, (2006) D. Abbaneo et al., [*Tracker Operation and Performance at the Magnet Test and Cosmic Challenge*]{}, CERN-CMSNOTE-2007-029 (2007) D. Benedetti et al., [*Tracking and Alignment with the Silicon Strip Tracker at the CMS Magnet Test Cosmic Challenge*]{}, CERN-CMSNOTE-2007-030 (2007) S. Dris, K. Gill, F. Vasey [*CMS Note*]{} [**2006 / 145**]{} (2006) A. Giammanco, [*Particle identification with energy loss in the CMS Silicon Strip Tracker*]{}, CMS Note in publication
[^1]: Supported by the Belgian Interuniversity Attraction Pole, PAI, P6/11.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new replay-based method of continual classification learning that we term “conditional replay” which generates samples and labels together by sampling from a distribution conditioned on the class. We compare conditional replay to another replay-based continual learning paradigm (which we term “marginal replay”) that generates samples independently of their class and assigns labels in a separate step. The main improvement in conditional replay is that labels for generated samples need not be inferred, which reduces the margin for error in complex continual classification learning tasks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach using novel and standard benchmarks constructed from MNIST and FashionMNIST data, and compare to the regularization-based *elastic weight consolidation* (EWC) method [@Kirkpatrick2016; @shin2017continual].'
author:
- Timothée Lesort
- Alexander Gepperth
- Andrei Stoian
- David Filliat
bibliography:
- 'samples.bib'
- 'lll.bib'
title: '**Marginal Replay vs Conditional Replay for Continual Learning** '
---
Introduction
============
![Left: The problem setting of continual learning as investigated in this article. DNN models are trained one after the other on a sequence of sub-tasks (of which three are shown here), and are continuously evaluated on a test set consisting of the union of all sub-task test sets. This gives rise to results as shown exemplarily on the right-hand side of the figure, i.e., plots of test set accuracy over time for different models, where boundaries between sub-tasks (5 in this case) are indicated by vertical lines. \[fig:my\_label\] ](Figures/mnist_rotations_all_task_accuracy.png){width="40.00000%"}
This contribution is in the context of incremental, continual or lifelong learning, subject that is gaining increasing recent attention [@parisi2018continual; @gepperth2016incremental] and for which a variety of different solutions have recently been proposed (see below). Briefly put, the problem consists of repeatedly re-training a deep neural network (DNN) model with new sub-tasks, or continual learning tasks (CLTs), (for example: new visual classes) over long time periods, while avoiding the abrupt degradation of previously learned abilities that is known under the term “catastrophic interference” or “catastrophic forgetting” [@gepperthICANN; @french; @gepperth2016incremental]. Please see Fig. \[fig:my\_label\] for a visualization of the problem setting. Is has long been known that catastrophic forgetting (CF) is a problem for connectionist models [@french] of which modern DNNs are a specialized instance, but only recently there have been efforts to propose workable solutions to this problem for deep learning models [@lee2017overcoming; @Kirkpatrick2016; @selfless; @DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1805-10784; @3862]. A recent article [@pfuelb2019a] demonstrates empirically that most proposals fail to eliminate CF when common-sense application constraints are imposed (e.g., restricting prior access to data from new sub-tasks, or imposing constant, low memory and execution time requirements).
One aspect of the problem seems to be that gradient-based DNN training is greedy, i.e., it tries to optimize all weights in the network to solve the current task only. Previous tasks, which are not represented in the current training data, will naturally be disregarded in this process. While approaches such as [@Kirkpatrick2016; @lee2017overcoming] aim at “protecting” weights that were important for previous tasks, one can approach the problem from the other end and simply include samples from previous tasks in the training process each time a new task is introduced.
This is the *generative replay* approach, which is in principle model-agnostic, as it can be performed with a variety of machine learning models such as decision trees, support vector machines (SVMs) or deep neural networks (DNNs). It is however unfeasible for, e.g., embodied agents or embedded devices performing object recognition, to store all samples from all previous sub-tasks. Because of this, generative replay proposes to train an additional machine learning model (the so-called *generator*). Thus, the “essence” of previous tasks comes in the form of trained generator parameters which usually require far less space than the samples themselves. A downside of this and similar approaches is that the time complexity of adapting to a new task is not constant but depends on the number of preceding tasks that shouldbe replayed. Or, conversely, if continual learning should be performed at constant time complexity, only a fixed amount of samples can be generated, and thus there will be forgetting, although it won’t be catastrophic.
This article proposes and evaluates a particular method for performing replay using DNNs, termed “conditional replay”, which is similar in spirit to [@shin2017continual] but presents important conceptual improvements (see next section). The main advantage of conditional replay is that samples can be generated conditionally, i.e., based on a provided label. Thus, labels for generated samples need not be inferred in a separate step as other replay-based approaches, e.g., [@shin2017continual], which we term *marginal replay* approaches. Since inferring the label of a generated sample inevitably requires the application of a possibly less-than-perfect classifier, avoiding this step conceivably reduces the margin for error in complex continual learning tasks.
Contribution {#sec:contr}
------------
The original contributions of this article can be summarized as follows:
- **Conditional replay as a method for continual classification learning** We experimentally establish the advantages of conditional replay in the field of continual learning by comparing conditional and marginal replay models on a common set of benchmarks.
- **Improvement of marginal learning** We furthermore propose an improvement of marginal replay as proposed in [@shin2017continual] by using generative adversarial networks (GANs, see [@goodfellow2014generative]).
- [New experimental benchmarks for generative replay strategies]{} To measure the merit of these proposals, we use two experimental settings that have not been previously considered for benchmarking generative replay: rotations and permutations. In addition, we promote the ”10-class-disjoint” task as an important benchmark for continual learning as it is impossible to solve for purely discriminative methods (at no time, samples from different classes are provided for training so no discrimination can happen).
- **Comparison of generative replay to EWC** We show the principled advantage that generative replay techniques have with respect to regularization methods like EWC in a “one class per task” setting, which is after all a very common setting in practice and in which discriminatively trained models strongly tend to assign the same class label to every sample regardless of content.
[0.15]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.15]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.15]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.15]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.15]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.9]{} {width="\textwidth"} \[fig:mnist\_permutation\_train\]
Related work
------------
The field of continual learning is growing and has been recently reviewed in, e.g., [@parisi2018continual; @gepperth2016incremental]. In the context of neural networks, principal recent approaches include ensemble methods [@ren2017life; @fernando2017pathnet; @mallya2018packnet; @rusu2016progressive; @yoon2017lifelong; @aljundi2017expertGate; @serra2018overcoming; @li2018learning], regularization approaches [@Kirkpatrick2016; @lee2017overcoming; @selfless; @DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1805-10784; @Srivastava2013; @Hinton2012; @aljundi2018memory; @liu2018rotate; @chaudhry2018riemannian; @gepperth2019matrix], dual-memory systems [@kemker2017fearnet; @rebuffi2017icarl; @gepperth2015bio], distillation-based approaches [@shmelkov2017incremental; @li2018learning; @kim2018keep] and generative replay methods [@shin2017continual; @kemker2017fearnet; @lesort2018generative; @kamra2017deep; @wu2018memory]. In the context of single-memory DNN methods, regularization approaches are predominant: whereas it was proposed in [@Goodfellow2013] that the popular Dropout regularization can alleviate catastrophic forgetting, the EWC method [@Kirkpatrick2016] proposes to add a term to the DNN energy function that protects weights that are deemed to be important for the previous sub-task(s). Whether a weight is important or not is determined by approximating and analyzing the Fisher information matrix of the DNN. A somewhat related approach is pursued with the incremental moment matching (IMM, see [@lee2017overcoming]) technique, where weights are transferred between DNNs trained on successive sub-tasks by regularization techniques, and the Fisher information matrix is used to “merge” weights for current and past sub-tasks. Other regularization-oriented approaches are proposed in [@selfless; @Srivastava2013] which focus on enforcing sparsity of neural activities by lateral interactions within a layer, or in [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1805-10784]. Concerning recent advances in generative replay improving upon [@shin2017continual]: Several works propose the use of generative models in continual learning of classification tasks [@Kamra17; @wu18incremental; @wu2018memory; @Shah18] but their results does not provide comparison between different types of generative models. [@2018arXiv181209111L] propose a conditional replay mechanism similar to the one investigated here, but their goal is the sequential learning of data generation and not classification tasks. Generally, each approach to continual learning has its advantages and disadvantages:
- ensemble methods suffer from little to no interference between present and past knowledge as usually different networks or sub-networks are allocated to different learning tasks. The problem with this approach is that, on the one hand, model complexity is not constant, and more seriously, that the task from which a sample is coming from must be known at inference time in order to select the appropriate (sub-)network.
- regularization approaches are very diverse: in general, their advantage is simplicity and (often) a constant-time/memory behavior w.r.t. the number of tasks. However, the impact of the regularizer on continual learning performance is difficult to understand, and several parameters need to be tuned whose significance is unclear (i.e., the strengths of the regularization terms)
- distillation approaches can achieve very good robustness and continual learning performance, but either require the retention of past samples, or the occurrence of samples from past classes in current training data to be consistent. Also, the strength of the various distillation loss regularizers needs to be tuned, usually by cross-validation.
- generative replay and dual-memory systems show very good and robust continual learning performance, although time complexity of learning depends on the number of previous tasks for current generative replay methods. In addition, the storage of weights for a sufficiently powerful generator may prove very memory-consuming, so this approach cannot be used in all settings.
Methods
=======
A basic notion in this article is that of a continual (or sequential) learning task (CLT or SLT, although we will use the abbreviation CLT in this article), denoting a classification problem that is composed of two or more sub-tasks which are presented sequentially to the model in question. Here, the CLTs are constructed from two standard visual classification benchmarks: MNIST and Fashion MNIST, either by dividing available classes into several sub-tasks, or by performing per-sample image processing operations that are identical within, and different between, sub-tasks. All continual learning models are then trained and evaluated in an identical fashion on all CLTs, and performances are compared by a simple visual inspection of classification accuracy plots.
Benchmarks
----------
**MNIST** [@LeCun1998] is a common benchmark for computer vision systems and classification problems. It consists of gray scale 28x28 images of handwritten digits (ten balanced classes representing the digits 0-9). The train, test and validation sets contain 55.000, 10.000 and 5.000 samples, respectively.\
**Fashion MNIST** [@Xiao2017] consists of grayscale 28x28 images of clothes. We choose this dataset because it claims to be a “more challenging classification task than the simple MNIST digits data [@Xiao2017]” while having the same data dimensions, number of classes, balancing properties and number of samples in train, test and validation sets.
Continual learning tasks (CLTs)
-------------------------------
All CLTs are constructed from the underlying MNIST and FashionMNIST benchmarks, so the number of samples in train and test sets for each sub-task depend on the precise way of constructing them, see below.
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.12]{} {width="\textwidth"}
**Rotations** New sub-tasks are generated by choosing a random rotation angle $\beta \in [0,\pi/2]$ and then performing a 2D in-plane rotation on all samples of the original benchmark. As both benchmarks we use contain samples of 28x28 pixels, no information loss is introduced by this procedure. We limit rotation angles to $\pi/2$ because larger rotations could mix MNIST classes like 6 and 9. Each sub-task in rotation-based CLTs contains all 10 classes of the underlying benchmark, leading to 55.000 and 10.000 samples, respectively, in the train and test sets of each sub-task.\
**Permutations** New sub-tasks are generated by defining a random pixel permutation scheme, and then applying it to each data sample of the original benchmark. Each sub-task in permutation-based CLTs contains all 10 classes of the underlying benchmark, leading to 55.000 and 10.000 samples, respectively, in the train and test sets of each sub-task.\
**Disjoint classes** For each benchmark, this CLT has as many sub-tasks as there are classes in the benchmark (10 in this article). Each sub-task contains the samples of a single class, i.e., roughly 6.000 samples in the train set and 1.000 samples in the test set. As the classes are balanced for both benchmarks, this does not unduly favor certain classes. This CLT presents a substantial challenge for machine learning methods since a normal DNN would, for each sub-task, learn to map all samples to a single class label irrespective of content. Selective discrimination between any two classes is hard to obtain except if replay is involved, because then a classifier actually “sees” samples from different classes at the same time.
Models
------
In this article, we compare a considerable number of deep learning models: unless otherwise stated, we employ the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) transfer function, cross-entropy loss for classifier training, and the Adam optimizer.
**EWC** We re-implemented the algorithm described in [@Kirkpatrick2016], choosing two hidden layers with 200 neurons each.\
**Marginal replay** [In the context of classification, the *marginal replay* [@2018arXiv181209111L; @shin2017continual; @wu2018memory] method works as follows : For each sub-task $t$, there is a dataset $D_t$, a classifier $C_t$, a generator $G_t$ and a memory of past samples composed of a generator $G_{t-1}$ and a classifier $C_{t-1}$. The latter two allow the generation of artificial samples $D_{t-1}$ from previous sub-tasks. Then, by training $C_t$ and $G_t$ on $D_t$ and $D_{t-1}$, the model can learn the new sub-task $t$ without forgetting old ones.]{} At the end of the sub-task, $C_t$ and $G_t$ are frozen and replace $C_{t-1}$ and $G_{t-1}$. In the default setting, we use the generator for marginal replay in a way that ensures a balanced distribution of classes from past sub-tasks $D_{t-1}$, see also Fig. \[fig:distribution\]. This is achieved by choosing a predetermined number of samples $N$ to be added for all sub-tasks t, and letting the generator produce $tN$ previous samples at sub-task $t$. Thus, the number of generated samples increases linearly over time. We choose to evaluate two different models for the generator: WGAN-GP as used in [@shin2017continual] and the original GAN model [@NIPS2014_5423] since it is a competitive baseline [@lesort2018training].\
**Conditional replay** The conditional replay method is derived from *marginal replay*: instead of saving a classifier and a generator, the algorithm only saves a generator that can generate conditionally (for a certain class). Hence, for each sub-task $t$, there is a dataset $D_t$, a classifier $C_t$ and two generators $G_t$ and $G_{t-1}$. The goal of $G_{t-1}$ is to generate data from all the previous sub-tasks during training on the new sub-task. Since data is generated conditionally, samples automatically have a label and do not require a frozen classifier. We follow the same strategy as for marginal replay (previous paragraph) for choosing the number of generated samples at each sub-task. However, conditional replay does not require this: it can, in principle, keep the number of generated samples constant for each sub-task since it is trivially possible to generate a balanced distribution of $\frac{N}{t}$ samples per class, from $t$ different classes, via conditional sample generation. $C_t$ and $G_t$ learn from generated data $D_{t-1}$ and $D_t$. At the end of a sub-task $t$, $C_t$ is able to classify data from the current and previous sub-tasks, and $G_t$ is able to sample from them also. We choose to use two different popular conditional models : CGAN described in [@mirza2014conditional] and CVAE [@NIPS2015_5775].
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
Experiments
===========
We conduct experiments using all models and CLTs described in the previous section. Each class (regardless of the CLT) is presented for 25 epochs, Results are presented either based on the time-varying classification accuracy on the *whole* test set, or on the class (from the test set) that was presented first. In the first case, accuracy should ideally increase over time and reach its maximum after the last class has been presented. In the second case, accuracy or decrease over time, reflecting that some information about the first class is forgotten. We distinguish two major experimental goals or questions:
- Establishing the performance of the newly proposed methods (marginal replay with GAN, conditional replay with CGAN or CVAE) w.r.t. the state of the art. To this effect, we conduct experiments that increase the number of generated samples over time in a way that ensures an effectively balanced class distribution (see Fig. \[fig:distribution\]). We do this both for marginal and conditional replay in order to ensure a fair comparison, although technically conditional replay can generate balanced distribution even with a constant number of generated samples.
- demonstrating the advantages of conditional w.r.t. marginal replay strategies, especially when only few samples can be generated, thus obtaining a skewed class distribution for marginal replay (see Fig. \[fig:distribution\]).
Results shedding light on the first question are presented in Fig. \[fig:all\_task\_accuracy\] (showing classification accuracy on whole test set over time, see Fig. \[fig:first\] for accuracy on first sub-task), whereas the second question is addressed in Fig. \[fig:bal\] for the disjoint CTL only due to space limitations.
Results and discussion
======================
From the experiments described in the previous section, we can state the following principal findings:\
![Why marginal replay must linearly increase the number of generated samples: distribution of classes produced by the generator of a marginal replay strategy after sequential training of 10 sub-tasks (of 1 class each). This essentially corresponds to the “disjoint” type of CLTs. Shown are three cases: “*balanced*: $tN$” (blue bars) where $tN$ samples are generated for each sub-task $t$, “unbalanced: $N$” (orange bars) where the number of generated samples is constant and equal to the number of newly trained samples $N$ for each sub-task, and “unbalanced: $0.1 tN$” where $0.1tN$ samples are generated. We observe that, in order to ensure a balanced distribution of classes, the number of generated samples must be re-scaled, or, in other words, must increase linearly with the number of sub-tasks. []{data-label="fig:distribution"}](distrBoth.png){width="44.00000%"}
**Replay methods outperform EWC** As can be observed from Fig. \[fig:all\_task\_accuracy\], the novel methods we propose (marginal replay with GAN and WGAN-GP, conditional replay with CGAN and conditional replay with CVAE) outperform EWC, on all CLTs, sometimes by a large margin. Particular attention should be given to the performance of EWC: while generally acceptable for rotation and permutation CLTs, it completely fails for the disjoint CLT. This is due to the fact that there is only one class in each sub-task, making EWC try to map all samples to the currently presented class label regardless of input, since no replay is available to include samples from previous sub-tasks (as outlined before in Sec. \[sec:contr\]).\
**Marginal replay with GAN outperforms WGAN-GP** The clear advantage of GAN over WGAN-GP is the higher stability of the generative models. This is not only observable in Fig. \[fig:all\_task\_accuracy\], but also when measuring performance on the first sub-task only during the course of continual learning (see Fig.\[fig:first\]).\
**Conditional replay can be run at constant time complexity** A very important point in favour of conditional replay is run-time complexity, as expressed by the number of samples that need to be generated each time a new sub-task is trained. Since the generators in marginal replay strategies generate samples regardless of class, the distribution of classes will be proportional to the distribution of classes during the last training of the generator, which leads to an unbalanced class distribution over time, with the oldest classes being strongly under-represented (see Fig. \[fig:distribution\]). This is avoided by increasing the number of generated samples over time for marginal replay, leading to a balanced class distribution (see also Fig. \[fig:distribution\]) while vastly increasing the number of samples. Conditional replay, on the other hand, can selectively generate samples from a defined class, thus constructing a class-balanced dataset without needing to increase the number of generated samples over time. In the interest of accuracy, it can of course make sense to increase the number of generated samples over time, just as for marginal replay. This, however, is a deliberate choice and not something required by conditional replay itself.\
**Marginal replay outperforms conditional replay when many samples can be generated** From Fig. \[fig:all\_task\_accuracy\], it can be observed that marginal replay outperforms conditional replay by a small margin. This comes at the price of having to generate a large number of samples, which will become unfeasible if many classes are involved in the retraining.\
**Conditional replay is superior when few samples are generated** The results of Fig. \[fig:bal\] show that conditional replay is superior to marginal replay when generating fewer samples at each sub-task (more precisely: $0.1tN$ samples instead of $tN$, for sub-task $t$ and number of new samples per sub-task N). This can be understood quite easily: since we generate only $0.1tN$ samples instead of $tN$ samples at each sub-task, marginal replay produces an unbalanced class distribution, see Fig. \[fig:distribution\], which strongly impairs classification performance. This is a principal advantage that conditional replay has over marginal replay: generating balanced class distributions while having much more control over the number of generated samples.\
[0.31]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.31]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.31]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
**Summary** We have proposed several of performing continual learning with replay-based models and empirically demonstrated (on novel benchmarks) their merit w.r.t. the state of the art, represented by the EWC method. A principal conclusion of this article is that conditional replay methods show strong promise because they have competitive performance, and they impose less restrictions on their use in applications. Most notably, they can be used at constant time complexity, meaning that the number of generated samples does not need to increase over time, which would be problematic in applications with many sub-tasks and real-time constraints.\
**Concerning the benchmarks** While one might argue that MNIST and FashionMNIST are too simple for a meaningful evaluation, this holds only for non-continual learning scenarios. In fact, recent articles [@pfuelb2019a] show that MNIST-related CLTs are still a major obstacle for most current approaches to continual learning under realistic conditions. So, while we agree that MNIST and FashionMNIST are not suitable benchmarks in general anymore, we must stress the difficulty of MNIST-related CLTs in continual learning, thus making these benchmarks very suitable indeed in this particular context. The use of intrinsically more complex benchmarks, such as CIFAR,SVHN or ImageNet is at present not really possible since generative methods are not really good enough for replaying these data [@2018arXiv181209111L].
**Next steps** Future work will include a closer study of conditional replay: in particular, we would like to better understand why they exhibit better performance w.r.t marginal replay in cases where the number of generated samples is restricted to be low. In addition, it would be interesting to study the continual learning behavior of conditional replay models when a fixed number of generated samples is imposed at each sub-task, for various CLTs. The latter topic is interesting because the success of replay-based continual learning methods in applications will depend on whether the number of generated samples (and thereby time and memory complexity) can be reduced to manageable levels.\
**Observations** An interesting point is that the disjoint type CLTs pose enormous problems to conventional machine learning architectures, and therefore represent a very useful benchmark for continual learning algorithms. If each of a CLT’s sub-tasks contains a single visual class, training them one after the other will induce no between-class discrimination at all since every training step just “sees” a single class. Replay-based methods nicely bridge this gap, allowing continual learning while allowing between-class discrimination. To our mind, any application-relevant algorithm for continual learning therefore must include some form of experience replay.\
**Outlook** Ultimately, the goal of our research is to come up with replay-based models where the effort spent on replaying past knowledge is small compared to the effort of training with new samples, which will require machine learning models that are, intrinsically, less prone to catastrophic forgetting than DNNs are.
\[ap:first\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine interferometric experiments in systems that exhibit non-Abelian braiding statistics, expressing outcomes in terms of the modular S-matrix. In particular, this result applies to FQH interferometry, and we give a detailed treatment of the Read-Rezayi states, providing explicit predictions for the recently observed $\nu=12/5$ plateau.'
author:
- Parsa Bonderson
- Kirill Shtengel
- 'J. K. Slingerland'
bibliography:
- '../bibs/corr.bib'
title: 'Probing Non-Abelian Statistics with Quasiparticle Interferometry'
---
Quantum systems in two spatial dimensions allow for exotic exchange statistics, characterized by a unitary representation of the braid group [@Leinaas77; @Wilczek82b]. This representation may be non-Abelian, acting on a multi-dimensional internal Hilbert space [@Goldin85; @Froehlich88]. So far, experimental evidence for the existence of such anyonic statistics has only recently been found in the (Abelian) Laughlin states of Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) systems [@Camino05a; @Camino05b]. However, the prospect of non-Abelian statistics is far more exciting, especially in light of its potential application in topologically fault-tolerant quantum computation [@Kitaev03; @Freedman02a]. There are currently several observed FQH states, at filling fractions $\nu =5/2, 7/2, 12/5$ [@Willett87; @Pan99; @Xia04] (and possibly $\nu=3/8, 19/8$), that are expected to possess non-Abelian statistics. Numerical studies [@Morf98; @Rezayi00; @Read99] suggest that the $\nu=5/2,12/5$ states should be described respectively by the Moore-Read (MR) state [@Moore91] and the $k=3, M=1$ Read-Rezayi (RR) state [@Read99]. Clearly, as experimental capabilities progress, it becomes increasingly important to understand how to probe and correctly identify the braiding statistics of quasiparticles. In this Letter, we explain how, for any system described by a topological quantum field theory (TQFT) in the infrared limit (e.g. FQH systems), knowledge of modular S-matrices may be used to extract this information from interferometry experiments, or, inversely, to predict the outcomes of such experiments. As an example relevant to current experimental interests, we obtain explicit results for the RR states.
The topological properties of 2D quantum systems with an energy gap can be described using TQFTs (or “modular tensor categories” in mathematicians’ terminology, see e.g. [@Preskill-lectures; @Kitaev06a; @Turaev94; @Kassel95]), often abstracted from conformal field theories (CFTs, see [@DSM] and references therein). Such an anyon model is defined by (i) a finite set $\mathcal{C}$ of particle types or “anyonic charges,” (ii) fusion rules specifying how these particle types may combine or split, and (iii) braiding rules dictating the behavior under exchange of two particles (all subject to certain consistency conditions). The “vacuum” charge is given the label $\openone$. The anti-particle or “charge conjugate” of a particle type $a$ is denoted $\overline{a}$, and is the unique charge that can fuse with $a$ to give $\openone$. Fusion of particle types generalizes the addition of charges or angular momenta and the (commutative and associative) fusion rules are specified as $a\! \times b=\sum_{c \in \,\mathcal{C}}N_{ab}^{c}\,c$, where the integer $N_{ab}^{c}$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space of particles of type $a$ and $b$ restricted to have total anyonic charge $c$. Fusion and braiding can be represented diagrammatically on oriented, labeled particle worldlines, and are unaffected by smooth deformations in which the lines do not intersect. Charge conjugation is represented by reversal of wordline orientation. We will refer to only one braiding relation, known as the modular S-matrix, defined by the following diagram: $$\label{eq:S-matrix}
S_{ab}=\frac{1}{D}
\pspicture[0.5](2.4,1.3)
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,arrows=<-,arrowscale=1.5,
arrowinset=0.15] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{165}{363}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black] (0.9,0.7){0.5}{0}{180}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,border=3pt,arrows=->,arrowscale=1.5,
arrowinset=0.15] (0.9,0.7){0.5}{180}{375}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,border=3pt] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{0}{160}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{155}{170}
\rput[bl]{0}(0.15,0.3){$a$}
\rput[bl]{0}(2.15,0.3){$b$}
\endpspicture
.$$ Here $D=\sqrt{\sum\nolimits_{a}d_{a}^{2}}=1/S_{\openone\openone}$ is the total quantum dimension, where $d_{a}$, the quantum dimension of particle type $a$, is the value of a single loop of that type,$$d_{a}=
\pspicture[0.5](1.5,1.3)
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,arrows=->,arrowscale=1.5,arrowinset=0.15]
(0.7,0.7){0.5}
{0}{373}
\rput[bl]{0}(1.25,0.3){$a$}
\endpspicture
=D S_{{\openone}a}\,.$$Some useful properties of the S-matrix are $$\label{sprops}
S_{ab}=S_{ba}=\overline{(S^{-1})}_{ab}=\overline{S}_{\overline{a}b}\,.$$ The importance of the S-matrix becomes clear when one envisions interferometry experiments for these systems in which a particle has two possible paths that it may take around another particle, the two paths combining to form a closed loop. This is typical of Mach-Zender, two-slit, FQH two-point-contact, etc. experiments [@Verlinde91; @Lo93; @Bais92; @Bais93; @Chamon97; @Fradkin98; @Overbosch01; @DasSarma05; @Stern06a; @Bonderson06a]. In such experiments, an interference term arises that can be written as $$\left\langle \Psi _{ab}\right| U_{1}^{-1}U_{2}\left| \Psi _{ab}\right\rangle
=e^{i\alpha _{ab}}\left\langle \Psi _{ab}\right| \mathbb{M}\left| \Psi
_{ab}\right\rangle =e^{i\alpha _{ab}}M_{ab}$$where $\left| \Psi_{ab}\right\rangle$ is the initial state of particles $a$ and $b$, and $U_{1},U_{2}$ are the unitary evolution operators for the particle $a$ traveling around the particle $b$ via the two respective paths. It has been rewritten in terms of the monodromy operator $\mathbb{M}$ that contains only the contribution from adiabatically transporting particle $a$ around particle $b$ (i.e. braiding), and a phase $e^{i\alpha_{ab} }$ that absorbs all other contributions (i.e. it contains the free particle dynamics and the Aharonov-Bohm phase from a background magnetic flux). For simplicity, we let the two particles have definite anyonic charge, however it is a straightforward generalization to allow superpositions of particle type. If the theory only has Abelian statistics, then $\left| M_{ab}\right| =1$, but with non-Abelian statistics, $\left| M_{ab}\right|$ can be less than $1$ and must be calculated by TQFT methods. The braiding term is diagrammatically represented by winding the worldline of particle $a$ around that of particle $b$, taking the standard closure (where the worldline of each particle is closed back on itself in a manner that introduces no additional braiding) and dividing by the quantum dimension of the two particle types [^1]. Thus, the resulting monodromy matrix element can be written entirely in terms of the S-matrix:$$\label{eq:MS}
M_{ab}=\frac{1}{d_{a}d_{b}}
\pspicture[0.5](2.4,1.3)
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,arrows=<-,arrowscale=1.5,
arrowinset=0.15] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{165}{363}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black] (0.9,0.7){0.5}{0}{180}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,border=3pt,arrows=->,arrowscale=1.5,
arrowinset=0.15] (0.9,0.7){0.5}{180}{375}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black,border=3pt] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{0}{160}
\psarc[linewidth=1pt,linecolor=black] (1.6,0.7){0.5}{155}{170}
\rput[bl]{0}(0.15,0.3){$a$}
\rput[bl]{0}(2.15,0.3){$b$}
\endpspicture
=\frac{S_{ab}S_{\openone\openone}}{S_{{\openone}a}S_{{\openone}b}}\,.$$This result is particularly nice because the S-matrix is typically more readily computable than the complete set of braiding/fusion rules, and, in fact, has already been computed for most physically relevant theories. In particular, this applies to the class of theories described by CFTs generated as products and cosets of Wess-Zumino-Witten theories, which includes all proposed non-Abelian FQH states (see [@Froehlich01; @Wen91a; @Ardonne99; @Ardonne02]). In the case of the product of two CFTs or TQFTs, the particle types are denoted by pairs of particle labels, one from each theory, and the S-matrix of the product theory is the tensor product of the S-matrices of the parent theories. In the ${G}_{k}/{H}_{l}$ coset theory, the new labels are also formed as pairs of labels from the parent ${G}_{k}$ and ${H}_{l}$ theories, but now there are branching rules which restrict the allowed pairings. Also, different pairs of labels may sometimes turn out to represent the same particle type, a phenomenon described by “field identifications”. This means that there will be only one row and column in the S-matrix for any set of identified labels. Despite these complications, the coset’s S-matrix elements are described by the simple formula [@Gepner89] $$\label{cosetsmat}
S^{(G/H)}_{(a,p)(b,q)}=c(G,H,k,l) \,S^{(G)}_{ab}\bar{S}^{(H)}_{pq}$$where $a,b$ and $p,q$ are respectively labels of the ${G}_{k}$ and ${H}_{l}$ theories, and $c(G,H,k,l)$ is an overall normalization constant that enforces unitarity of the S-matrix (but is irrelevant in Eq. (\[eq:MS\])).
We now focus specifically on FQH systems, because they are the only physical systems found to exhibit braid statistics thus far, and represent the most likely candidates for finding non-Abelian statistics. We consider the interferometry experiment originally proposed in [@Chamon97] for measuring braiding statistics in the Abelian FQH states, which was later adopted for the non-Abelian case in [@Fradkin98] and addressed again in the context of the $\nu=5/2$ state in [@Stern06a; @Bonderson06a]. A somewhat similar experiment has recently been implemented to probe the Abelian $\nu=1/3$ state [@Camino05a; @Camino05b]. The experimental setup is a two point-contact interferometer composed of a quantum Hall bar with two front gates on either side of an antidot (see Fig. \[fig:interferometer\]). Biasing the front gates, one may create constrictions in the Hall bar, adjusting the tunneling amplitudes $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$. Tunneling between the opposite edge currents leads to a deviation of $\sigma_{xy}$ from its quantized value, or equivalently, to the appearance of $\sigma_{xx}$. By measuring $\sigma_{xx}$ one effectively measures the interference between the two tunneling paths around the antidot. The tunneling amplitudes $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ must be kept small, to ensure that the tunneling current is completely due to quasiholes rather than higher charge composites [^2], and to allow us to restrict our attention to the lowest order winding term.
In order to be able to influence the resulting interference pattern, we envision several experimentally variable parameters: (i) the central gate voltage allowing one to control the number $n$ of quasiholes on the antidot, (ii) the perpendicular magnetic field $B$, (iii) the back gate voltage controlling the uniform electron density, and (iv) the side gate that can be used to modify the shape of the edge inside the interferometric loop [@Stern06a]. The intention is to be able to separately affect the Abelian Aharonov-Bohm phase and the number of quasiholes on the antidot; from this point of view having all these controls is redundant, but may be found beneficial for experimental success.
![A two point-contact interferometer for measuring braiding statistics. The hatched region contains an incompressible FQH liquid. The front gates (F) are used to bring the opposite edge currents (indicated by arrows) close to each other to form two tunneling junctions. Applying voltage to the central gate creates an antidot in the middle and controls the number $n$ of quasiholes contained there. An additional side gate (S) can be used to change the shape and the length of one of the paths in the interferometer.[]{data-label="fig:interferometer"}](two-point-interf-2.eps){width="2.4in"}
The longitudinal conductivity is proportional to the probability that current entering the bottom edge will leave through the top edge, which to lowest order is:$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma _{xx} &\propto &\left| t_{1}\right| ^{2}+\left| t_{2}\right| ^{2}+2%
\text{Re}\left\{ t_{1}^{\ast }t_{2}\left\langle \Psi _{ab}\right|
U_{1}^{-1}U_{2}\left| \Psi _{ab}\right\rangle \right\} \notag \\
&=&\left| t_{1}\right| ^{2}+\left| t_{2}\right| ^{2}+2\left| t_{1}
t_{2}\right| \left| M_{ab}\right| \cos \left( \beta +\theta
_{ab}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$In this equation $\beta =\alpha _{ab}+\arg \left( t_{2}/t_{1}\right) $ can be varied by changing B (keeping the quasihole number fixed), the relative tunneling phase, and/or the edge shape around the central region. We have written $M_{ab}=\left| M_{ab}\right|
e^{i\theta _{ab}}$, and will be interested in the elements where the particle $a$ which tunnels carries the anyonic charge of a quasihole, while the “particle" $b$ is a composite of $n$ quasiholes on the antidot, carrying an anyonic charge allowed by the fusion rules [^3].
We will now apply this formalism to the RR states and, in particular, look more closely at the $k=3,M=1$ case, which, by a particle-hole transformation (which generally inverts the statistics and has the effect of conjugating the S-matrix), is the expected description of $\nu=12/5$. The anyon theory for RR states at $\nu=k/(kM+2)$ can be described as $\text{RR}_{k,M}=\text{U}(1)
_{k,M}\times \text{Pf}_{k}$ where $\text{U}(1) _{k,M}$ is due to the electric charge and $\text{Pf}_{k}$ represents the $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$-parafermion theory [@Zamolodchikov85; @Gepner87]. The $\text{U}(1) _{k,M}$ part of this theory is a simple Abelian contribution, essentially labeled by integral multiples of the charge/flux unit $\left(\frac{e}{kM+2},\frac{2\pi}{ke}\right) $, where $-e$ is the electron charge and $\frac{2\pi }{e}=\Phi_{0}$ is the magnetic flux quantum (in units $\hbar=c=1$). The fusion rules for these labels are just addition of charge/flux and the S-matrix is $S_{n_a n_b} = e^{i n_{a}
n_{b}
\frac{2\pi }{k\left( kM+2\right) }}/\sqrt{k(kM+2)}$.
The $\text{Pf}_{k}$ part of this theory requires more explanation (for a discussion of its braiding, see [@Slingerland01]). Essentially, we use that the theory is equivalent to the coset ${\text{SU}(2)}_k/{\text{U}(1)}_k$. As a consequence, the $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$-parafermion sector’s anyonic charge can be labeled by the corresponding CFT fields $\Phi_{\lambda }^{\Lambda }$, where $\Lambda \in \left\{ 0,1,\ldots
,k\right\}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}$, subject to the identifications $\Phi
_{\lambda }^{\Lambda }=\Phi _{\lambda +2k}^{\Lambda }=\Phi _{\lambda
-k}^{k-\Lambda }$ and the restriction $\Lambda +\lambda \equiv 0\left(
\text{mod}2\right) $ (giving a total of $\frac{1}{2}k\left( k+1\right) $ fields). The fusion rules for this sector are (as for the CFT fields):$$\Phi _{\lambda _{a}}^{\Lambda _{a}}\times \Phi _{\lambda _{b}}^{\Lambda
_{b}}=\sum\limits_{\Lambda =\left| \Lambda _{a}-\Lambda _{b}\right| }^{\min
\left\{ \Lambda _{a}+\Lambda _{b},2k-\Lambda _{a}-\Lambda _{b}\right\} }\Phi
_{\lambda _{a}+\lambda _{b}}^{\Lambda }\,.$$Their quantum dimensions are$$d_{\Phi _{\lambda }^{\Lambda }} =
\sin \left( \frac{\left( \Lambda +1\right) \pi }{k+2}\right) \mbox{\LARGE$/$}
\sin \left( \frac{\pi }{k+2}\right) \,.$$Special fields in this theory are the vacuum ${\openone} \equiv \Phi
_{0}^{0}$, the $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$-parafermions $\psi
_{l} \equiv \Phi _{2l}^{0}$, the primary fields $\sigma _{l} \equiv \Phi
_{l}^{l}$, and the $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$-neutral excitations $\varepsilon _{j} \equiv
\Phi _{0}^{2j}$, where $l=1,\ldots ,k-1$ and $j=1,\ldots ,\left\lfloor \left(
k-1\right)/2\right\rfloor $. From (\[cosetsmat\]) we find that the S-matrix for $\text{Pf}_{k}$ is $$S_{\Phi _{\lambda _{a}}^{\Lambda _{a}}\Phi _{\lambda _{b}}^{\Lambda _{b}}}=%
\frac{\sin \left( \frac{\left( \Lambda _{a}+1\right) \left( \Lambda
_{b}+1\right) \pi }{k+2}\right) }{D\sin \left( \frac{\pi }{k+2}\right) }%
e^{-i\lambda _{a}\lambda _{b}\pi /k}.$$ The $\text{U}(1)_{k,M}$ and $\text{Pf}_k$ sectors combine so that the anyonic charges in the $\text{RR}_{k,M}$ theory are (defining a shorthand) $\hat{\Lambda}_{n}\!\!\!\!\equiv \!\!\!\!
\left(\frac{ne}{kM+2},\frac{n2\pi }{ke},\Phi _{n}^{\Lambda _{n}}\right)$, where we have $n \!\!\!\!\in\!\!\!\! \mathbb{Z}$ and $\Lambda _{n}
\in \left\{0,1,\ldots ,k\right\}$ such that $\Lambda_{n} + n \equiv 0\left(\text{mod}2\right)$. Quasiholes carry charge . The S-matrix for RR anyons is obtained by multiplying the S-matrix elements of the two sectors for anyons $a$ and $b$, and renormalizing by some overall constant $c$ (which we will not need explicitly): $$S_{ab}=c\sin \left( \frac{\left( \Lambda _{n_{a}}+1\right) \left( \Lambda
_{n_{b}}+1\right) \pi }{k+2}\right) e^{-in_{a}n_{b}\frac{M\pi }{kM+2}} .$$ Since the tunneling current is dominated by quasiholes [^4], we only need the monodromy matrix elements$$M_{\hat{1}_{1},\hat{\Lambda}_{n}} \!\!
= \frac{\cos \left( \frac{\left( \Lambda _{n}+1\right) \pi }{k+2}\right)}
{\cos\left( \frac{\pi }{k+2}\right)} e^{-in\frac{M\pi}{kM+2}} .$$ We note that RR$_{2,1}$ is the MR state, and we can easily check that this exactly matches the results of [@Fradkin98; @Bonderson06a].
We now turn to the $\text{RR}_{3,1}$ theory for $\nu =12/5$. The $\text{Pf}_{3}$ theory has six fields: $\openone$, $\psi _{1}$, $\psi_{2}$, which have quantum dimension $1$, and $\sigma _{1}$, $\sigma_{2}$, $\varepsilon$, which have quantum dimension $\phi=2\cos \frac{\pi}{5}=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ (the golden ratio). The total quantum dimension is $D=\sqrt{3\left( \phi +2\right) }$ and the S-matrix is$$S=\frac{1}{D}\left[
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 1 & 1 & \phi & \phi & \phi \\
1 & e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}}
& \phi e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi \\
1 & e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}}
& \phi e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi \\
\phi & \phi e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & e^{-i\frac{
\pi }{3}} & e^{i\frac{\pi }{3}} & -1 \\
\phi & \phi e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & \phi e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}} & e^{i\frac{
\pi }{3}} & e^{-i\frac{\pi }{3}} & -1 \\
\phi & \phi & \phi & -1 & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right]$$where the columns and rows are in the order: $\openone$, $\psi _{1}$, $\psi
_{2}$, $\sigma _{1}$, $\sigma _{2}$, $\varepsilon$. Quasiholes in the RR$_{3,1}$ theory have anyonic charge $\left(\frac{e}{5},\frac{2\pi}{3e},\sigma_{1}\right) $. It is useful to consider a Bratteli diagram (which has periodicity 6 in $n$) to keep track of the allowed $\text{Pf}_3$ charge for a corresponding value of $n$: $$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
& 3 & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{\hspace*{2mm} } &\psi _{2} & & \openone & &
\psi_{1} & \\
& 2 & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{\hspace*{2mm} \varepsilon } & & \sigma _{2}&
&\sigma_{1}& & \varepsilon \\ \Lambda _{n} & 1 &
\multicolumn{1}{|l}{\hspace*{2mm} } & \sigma _{1} & & %
\varepsilon & & \sigma _{2} & \\
& 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|l}{\hspace*{2mm} \openone} & & \psi _{1} & & \psi
_{2} & & \openone \\[4pt] \cline{2-9} &&\multicolumn{1}{l}{}&&&&&&\\[-3mm]
& n\rightarrow & \hspace*{2mm} 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
%& & \hspace*{2mm} & & n & & & &
\end{array}$$ The longitudinal conductivity in the interferometry experiment will be$$\label{eq:sigmaxx}
\sigma _{xx}\propto \left| t_{1}\right| ^{2}\!+\left| t_{2}\right|
^{2}\!+2\left| t_{1} t_{2}\right| \left( -\phi ^{-2}\right)
^{N_{\phi }} \! \cos \! \left( \beta +n\frac{4\pi }{5}\right)$$ where $N_{\phi }=1$ if the $n$ quasihole composite on the antidot has Pf$_3$ charge with quantum dimension $\phi $ (i.e. $\sigma _{1}$, $\sigma _{2}$, or $\varepsilon $) and $N_{\phi}=0$ if the composite has quantum dimension $1$ (i.e. $\openone$, $\psi _{1}$, or $\psi _{2}$). Thus, depending on the total Pf$_3$ charge on the antidot, one of two possible conductivity values will be observed. The Pf$_3$ charge may then be determined by varying $\beta$ (using the side gate) to measure the interference fringe amplitude, which is suppressed by a factor of $\phi^{-2} \approx .38$ when $N_{\phi}=1$. This behavior indicates the presence of non-Abelian statistics, and distinguishes this state from other proposals for the same filling fraction (e.g. composite fermions). To describe $\nu=12/5$, we apply a particle-hole transformation to $RR_{3,1}$, replacing $S$ with $\overline{S}$ (hence, $M$ with $\overline{M}$), which changes the sign in front of $n$ in Eq. (\[eq:sigmaxx\]) [^5]. In more general scenarios where composites of quasiholes/quasielectrons may be used instead of the single tunneling quasiholes, identical behavior (up to the phase) will be exhibited by quantum dimension $\phi$ composites, while quantum dimension $1$ composites exhibit a single unsuppressed interference pattern at any $n$.
We conclude with a few remarks explaining that despite the relatively simple nature of these interferometry experiments, they provide a surprisingly large amount of information about the system being probed. This is because the experiments essentially measure the S-matrix of the TQFT that describes the system. The S-matrix fully determines the fusion rules through the Verlinde formula [@Verlinde88]: $N_{ab}^{c}=\sum_{x \in\, \mathcal{C}}
S_{ax}S_{bx}S_{\overline{c}x}/S_{{\openone}x}$. Additionally, a theorem known as “Ocneanu rigidity” states that, given a set of fusion rules, there are only finitely many corresponding TQFTs with these rules [@Etingof05]. In other words, knowledge of the S-matrix is sufficient to pin down the topological order of the state to a finite number of possibilities. Clearly, it may be difficult to measure all elements of the S-matrix by the methods described here. It appears particularly challenging to invoke tunneling of anyonic charges different from that of the quasihole, though one may speculate on techniques that may eventually prove successful, such as resonant effects with intermediate antidots of tunable geometry and capacity on the tunneling arms. Still, the S-matrix has many special properties and so even a partial measurement of fairly low accuracy may be sufficient to determine it. In addition to Eq. (\[sprops\]), any S-matrix must satisfy a set of constraints coming from the Verlinde formula and the fact that the fusion coefficients are integers. Also, the first row of the S-matrix must be real and positive, because of its relation to the quantum dimensions (and in fact, all elements are numbers with special algebraic properties). Finally, given an S-matrix, there must be a diagonal matrix $T$ which together with $S$ generates a representation of the modular group $\text{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, implying that $(ST)^3=S^2$. For any fixed number of particle types, only finitely many different S-matrices are known (and it is conjectured that only finitely many exist). Hence, once some the S-matrix elements and the number of different charges are known from measurements, one may look at the finite list of known S-matrices and hope to identify one that matches. In conclusion, for any two-dimensional system, interference experiments as described here can in principle determine the fusion rules and even a finite set of TQFTs, one of which will fully describe the topological order.
The authors would like to thank E. Ardonne, P. Fendley, A. Kitaev, C. Nayak, J. Preskill, and Z. Wang for many illuminating discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant No. EIA-0086038. P. B. and K. S. would like to acknowledge the hospitality of Microsoft Project Q and KITP. K. S. is also grateful for the hospitality of the IQI.
[^1]: This result is derived for initial states of two uncorrelated particles. Other initial states and correlations may require more involved arguments along the lines set out in [@Overbosch01].
[^2]: In the weak tunneling regime, the tunneling current $I\propto V^{2s-1}$ where $s$ is the scaling dimension/topological spin of the corresponding fields [@Wen92b]. It follows that the dominant contribution is from the field with lowest scaling dimension, which in FQH systems is the quasihole.
[^3]: We expect the states of the antidot with the same electric charge but different topological spins to be non-degenerate (with energy difference scaling as $L^{-1}$ for an antidot of size $L$) and to have different charge distributions, ruling out the possibility of their superposition over extended time.
[^4]: As previously noted, the particle with lowest topological spin dominates tunneling. For RR$_{k,M}$ particles with charge $\hat{\Lambda}_{n}$, the topological spin is given by $s_{\hat{\Lambda}_{n}}=\frac{n^{2}}{2k\left(
kM+2\right)}+\frac{\Lambda \left( \Lambda +2\right)}{4\left( k+2\right)
}-\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{4k}$, where the field identifications must be used to write $\Phi _{n}^{\Lambda_{n}}=\Phi _{\lambda }^{\Lambda }$ such that $-\Lambda \leq \lambda \leq \Lambda $ in order to apply this formula. One may check that all other particles have greater spin than the quasihole value, $s_{\hat{1}_{1}}=\frac{kM-M+3}{2\left(
k+2\right) \left( kM+2\right) }$.
[^5]: We thank S. B. Chung for bringing this sign change to our attention.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Effects of stellar rotation on adiabatic oscillation frequencies of pressure modes are discussed. Methods to evaluate them are briefly exposed and some of their main results are presented.'
author:
- Mariejo Goupil
title: 'Effects of rotation on stellar p-mode frequencies '
---
Introduction
============
Many pulsating stars oscillate with pressure (or p-) normal modes for which pressure gradient is the main restoring force. A nonrotating star keeps its spherical symmetry; consequently, frequencies of its free vibrational modes are $2\ell+1$ degenerated when using a description by means of spherical harmonics, $ Y_{\ell}^m$ ($\ell$ the degree, $m$ the azimuthal indice) for the angular dependence of the variations. However, stars are rotating and their rotation affects their oscillation frequencies. This is an advantage since rotation breaks the spherical symmetry of the star; as a consequence, the $2\ell+1$ degeneracy is lifted and gives access to information about the internal rotation. The information is relatively easy to extract if the star rotates slowly provided observations are of high quality enough that they enable to achieve the necessary high accuracy of frequency measurements. On the other hand, when the star is rotating fast, one must properly take into account the consequences of the spheroidal shape of the star on the oscillation frequencies before extracting seismological information on the internal structure or the rotation profile of the star. Three methods have been used to investigate the effect of rotation on oscillation frequencies of stellar pressure modes: a variational principle, perturbation techniques and direct numerical integration of a two dimensional eigenvalue system. We briefly describe the 3 methods and their main results. All these methods assume the knowledge of the structure of the distorted star, which is obtained either by perturbation or by 2D calculations. This is also sketched when appropriate.
This lecture is priorily adressed to PhD students who possess some basic background in stellar seismology but wish to learn with some details how to handle the impacts of the rotation on the oscillation frequencies of a star. The present lecture cannot be exhaustive neither in the credit to authors nor to the numerous effects of rotation on stellar pulsation. Indeed, due to the importance of stellar rotation in a more general astrophysical context, a tremendous amount of work has been performed on stellar rotation and its interaction with stellar oscillations since the 1940-1950s. For more details, we refer the reader to standard text books such as Ledoux & Walraven (1958); Cox (1980); Unno et al (1989) and to litterature on the subject: Gough,Thompson (1991), Gough (1993), Christensen-Dalsgaard (2003, CD03) and references therein.
The organization of this contribution is as follows: as a start, some definitions and orders of magnitude are given in Sect.2. Sect.3 introduces the basic background in deriving the wave equation and eigenvalue problem modelling the adiabatic pulsations of a rotating star. Sect.4 discusses the existence and consequence of a variational principle for rotating stars. Sect.5 and 6 respectively concern calculation of the oscillation frequencies of respectively slowly and modetately rotating stars by means of perturbation methods. Sect.7 then turns to fast rotating stars and the computation of their oscillation frequencies with nonperturbative techniques. Some comparisons of the results of perturbative and nonpertubative methods and comments on the range of validity of the first ones are given in the case of polytropic models. Sect.8 briefly discusses observations of real stars and forward inferences on stellar internal rotation sofar derived. Sect.9 turns to inverse methods specifically applied to obtain the internal rotation profile. Finally results of inversions for the rotation profiles of some stars are presented in Sect.\[inversion\]. To keep up with the allowed number of pages, the choice has been to show almost no figures and rather to refer in the text to plots in the litterature. Some illustrations of the consequences of rotation on pulsations of stars can also be found in Goupil et al. (2006).
Definitions and orders of magnitude
===================================
We will denote $\omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell}$ the pulsation of an oscillation mode with radial order $n$ and degree $\ell$ for a nonrotating star and $\nu^{(0)}_{n,\ell} =\omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell}/2\pi$ the associated frequency in $Hz$. For a symmetric star of radius $R$ and mass $M$ and for any given eigenfrequency $\omega$, we define the dimensionless frequency, $\sigma$: $$\sigma= {\omega \over (GM/R^3)^{1/2} }
\label{sigma}$$
Consider now a star which rotates with a rotational period $P_{rot}$. We denote $ \Omega = 2\pi /P_{rot}$, its angular rotational velocity. One also defines the equatorial velocity $v_{eq}= R_{eq} \Omega $ where $R_{eq}$ is the equatorial stellar radius, this is the velocity of the fluid at the equatorial level generated by rotation. One also uses the projected velocity $v \sin i$ where $i$ is the angle between the line of sight and the rotation axis.
Why are the oscillation frequencies of a rotating star modified compared to those a nonrotating star ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
([*i)*]{} A first effect is easy to understand as it is purely geometric. Let consider a uniformaly rotating star which oscillates with a pulsation frequency $\omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell}$ in the rotating frame. In an inertial frame, an observer will see oscillations with frequencies given by $\omega_{n,\ell,m} = \omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell} + m \Omega$ with $m \in [-\ell,\ell]$ with progade ($m>0$) et retrograde ($m <0$) modes. Each $(n,\ell)$ mode appears in a power spectrum as a frequency multiplet split by rotation composed of $2 \ell +1$ components.
At the same level (i.e. linear in the rotational angular velocity $O(\Omega)$), one must also take into account intrinsic effects of rotation in the rotating frame related to the Coriolis force which directly acts on the oscillating fluid velocity, deflecting the wave. Ledoux (1951) has shown that the Coriolis acceleration modifies the pulsation such that in the observer frame, it becomes: $$\omega_{n,\ell,m} = \omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell} + m \Omega (1-C_{n,\ell}) +O(\Omega^2)$$ where $C_{n,\ell}$ is the Ledoux constant. The rotation rate then is simply given by $$\Omega= (\omega_{n,\ell,m} - \omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell})/ (m (1-C_{n,\ell}))$$ where the Ledoux constant is assumed to be known from a nonrotating stellar model. However, the rotation of a star is not necessarily uniform: it can vary with latitude and depth; this again results in modifications of the frequencies. Actually these modifications are those one really wishes to identify. Indeed current open issues are: what are the regions inside the star where the rotation is uniform and where it is not? how strong are rotational gradients? what are the mechanisms which make the region uniform or in contrary generate differential rotation? how to model them ot test the validity of their modelling?
The magnitude of the above effects are proportional to $\Omega$. For a slowly rotating star indeed, effects of the centrifugal force, proportional to $\Omega^2$, on oscillation frequencies are small and one usually ignores them. The [*rotational splitting*]{} of a mode with given $(n,\ell)$ then is defined as: $$\delta \omega_{n,\ell} = {\omega_{n,\ell,m} - \omega_{n,\ell,0} \over m}
\label{split0}$$ where $\omega_{n,\ell,0}$ can reasonably be identified with $\omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell}$ for a slow rotating star.
For stars rotating faster, one must take into account the various effects due to the distorsion of the star by the centrifugal force:
: the centrifugal force affects the wave propagation by deforming the resonant cavity where they propagate. Pioneer studies were due to Ledoux (1945) and Cowling, Newing (1949). Ledoux (1945) studied radial oscillations of a uniformaly rotating star by means of a variational principle and assuming uniform dilation and compression motions. He obtained the squared frequency of the fundamental radial mode under the influence of the centrifugal force as $$\omega^2 = -(3\Gamma_1-4) {E_g \over I_0}+(5-3\Gamma_1)2T$$ where $I_0, \Gamma_1, E_g, T$ respectively denote the moment of inertia, the adiabatic exponent (assumed constant throughout the star), gravitational potential and rotational kinetic energies. For a homogeneous spheroid in uniform rotation (Simon, 1969), $E_p/I_0 \sim 4\pi G \rho$ decreases whereas $T = {\cal M}/I_0 \sim \Omega^2/3$ increases (${\cal M}$ is the total angular momentum) when $\Omega$ increases. Cowling, Newing (1949) extended the study to nonradial oscillations of a rotating configuration and obtained numerical results for radial oscillations of a polytrope.
In order to obtain the rotational profile, one defines the [**generalized rotational splitting** ]{} of a mode with given $(n,\ell)$ as: $$S_m = {\omega_m -\omega_{-m}\over 2 m}
\label{split1}$$ This 2nd definition eliminates second order perturbation effects (cf Sect.\[third\]) that-is eliminates the mechanical effects of the nonspherically symmetric distorsion of the star on the oscillation frequencies.
: Works by Von Zeipel (1924ab), Eddington (1929), Vogt (1929), Sweet (1950) showed that the non spherical shape of a rotating star causes a departure from thermal equilibrium which generates large scale meridional currents. As already emphasized by Ledoux (1945), this meridional circulation can influence the pulsations. Indeed it generates a differential rotation which causes hydrodynamical instabilities. The net effect results in transport of chemical elements and angular momentum in radiative regions and modifications of the thermodynamical state of the star. All these processes influence the star evolution and structure (Tassoul (1978), Zahn (1992); see also Meynet , Maeder, (2000); Mestel (2003); Zahn (2003) for reviews), in particular the adiabatic sound speed and the rotation profile, the two main quantities [**accessible**]{} with seismology. Hence it is important to note that even for a star which is assumed to be in near spherical symmetry and with a given rotation profile at the time of observation, there exists a nonzero difference between the zeroth order eigenfrequencies of a rotating model which has been evolved taking into account the effect of rotation and that of an ’equivalent’ model at the same age evolved without rotation in which effect of rotation law is imposed afterward or which has been evolved with rotation included only through the effective gravity. For a slow rotating star however, this difference can often be neglected.
How to determine the frequency changes due to rotation?
-------------------------------------------------------
The methods which must be used in order to determine precisely how and how much the oscillation frequencies are affected by rotation can be divided into 2 groups (apart from the variational technique): the [*perturbative methods*]{} on one hand and the [*direct numerical approaches or non perturbative methods*]{} on the other hand. The choice will depend whether the star is a rather slow or rather fast rotator. This classification can be loosely made according to values of dimensionless parameters. The ratio of the time scales related to Coriolis force and pulsation is roughly given: $$\mu = {P \over P_{rot}}= {\Omega \over \omega}
\label{mu}$$ Another important parameter is the ratio of rotational kinetic energy to the gravitational one. As an order of magnitude, it can be evaluated as $$\epsilon_{eq} = {\Omega^2 R_{eq}^2 \over GM/R_{eq}} = {\Omega^2 \over
(GM/R_{eq}^3)} =\mu^2 ~ \sigma^2$$ where $M$ is the mass of the star ; $R_{eq}$ its radius at the equator; $G$ is the gravitational constant. One also uses the flatness, $f$, as defined by $ f= 1-{R_{pol}/ R_{eq}}$ where $R_{pol}$ is the radius at the pole.
In the following sections, we will then distinguish fast, moderate and slow rotators with respect to the pulsations of the stars according to these parameters. Stars for which these parameters obey ($\mu,\epsilon <<1$ ), ($\mu,\epsilon < 0.3$) or ( $\mu$ or $\epsilon > 0.3$) are classified respectively as slow, moderate or fast rotators. For slow rotators, a first order perturbation is enough; for a moderate rotator, a perturbation method can still be valid provided higher order contributions are included. Studying oscillations of fast rotators requires the use of 2D equilibrium models as well as solving a 2D eigenvalue system. However one must keep in mind that the above classification depends on the star as it depends on the frequency range of its excited modes. Perturbation methods cease indeed to be valid whenever the wavelength of the mode reaches the order of $\sim \epsilon ~R$ where $R$ is the stellar radius that-is for p-modes with high enough frequencies.
In the solar case, $P_{rot,\odot}$ varies from $\sim 25$ days at the equator up to $P_{rot,\odot} \sim 35$ days at the poles then $\epsilon_{eq,\odot} = 2.1~10^{-5}$ is very small. The splitting is of the order $0.456 \mu$Hz with a Coriolis strength $\mu = 1,4 ~10^{-4}$. With $\mu,\epsilon << 1$, the Sun is considered as a slow rotator with respect to its pulsations. However, measurements of the rotational splittings are so accurate for the Sun- one is able to determine the internal rotation velocity of the Sun as a function of radius and latitude with unprecedented spatial resolution and accuracy- that one measures second order effects in the rotational splittings which must be taken into account in order to obtain information on the solar magnetic field (Gough, Thompson, 1990 (GT90); Dziembowski & Goode, 1992 (DG92)) and to determine the gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun with much higher accuracy (Pijpers, 1998).
For a $\delta$ Scuti-type variable star ($~2M_\odot, 2R_\odot$), observations show that $v \sin i = 70- 280$ km/s that-is $P_{rot}\sim 1,45$ days to $\sim 8$ hours ; this yields $ \Omega= 5$ to $ 20~10^{-5}$ rad/s and a rotational splitting of the order of $ \nu_{rot}= 8$ to $32 \mu$Hz. Typical values for the dimensionless parameters then are $\epsilon= 0.025-0.41 $ and $\mu= 0.06-0.6 $ for an oscillation frequency range of $200-500 \mu$Hz. Altair is an exemple of a rapidly rotating $\delta$ Scuti star with a rotation velocity between 190 and 250 km/s (Royer 2002) which has been discovered to pulsate over at least 7 frequencies in the range 170-350 $\mu$Hz (Buzasi 2005). With $M=1.72\pm 0.05 M_\odot$ and $R=1.60\pm0.12$ for its mass and radius as found in the litterature, one obtains $\epsilon \sim 0.305$ and $\mu \sim 0.09-0.2$ which definitely classes this star as a rapid rotator with respect to its pulsations.
A $\beta$ Cepheid-type variable star ($~9M_\odot, 5 R_\odot$) can reach $v \sin i =300$ km/s that-is $P_{rot} < 20$ hours.This yields $\Omega >8.6 ~10^{-5} $rad/s and $\nu_{rot} > 14\mu$Hz. For the dimensionless parameters, one derives $\epsilon > 0.26 $ and for $\nu \sim 500 \mu Hz$ , $\mu > 2.7 10^{-2} $
A much more evolved star such as a Cepheid is a radially pulsating star and a slow rotator. However period ratios of radial modes can be quite significantly affected by rotation as mentionned by Pamyatnykh (2003, Fig.6) for a $\delta$ Scuti star and quantified by Suarez (2006a, 2007) for a Cepheid.
The above figures and classifications must be seen as illustrative and only a comparison between perturbative and nonperturbative approaches can give more precise delimitations between the different classes (Sect.\[valid\]).
A wave equation for a rotating star
===================================
A derivation of the wave equation for a rotating star can be found in Unno et al. (1989). The basic equations for a non magnetic, self gravitating fluid are written as : $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial {\bf v} \over \partial t} &+& {\bf v} \cdot {\bf \nabla} {\bf v}
= -{1\over \rho} {\bf \nabla} p - {\bf \nabla} \psi \\
{\partial \rho \over \partial t} &+& \nabla \cdot (\rho {\bf v}) = 0 \nonumber\\
\rho T {\partial \vec S\over \partial t} &+& \rho T ({\bf v \cdot \nabla})S = \rho \epsilon -{\bf \nabla \cdot {\cal F}} \nonumber\\
\nabla^2 \psi &=& 4\pi G \rho \nonumber
\label{basic}\end{aligned}$$ where the quantities take their usual meaning and $$\psi(\vec r,t)= G\int_V ~{\rho(\vec r',t)\over |\vec r-\vec r'|} ~\vec d^3r'$$ In an inertial frame, the effect of rotation appears through the inertial term ${\bf v \cdot \nabla v}$. In the frame rotating with the star, the inertial term acts as 2 fictive forces: the Coriolis force $(-2 \rho {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf v})$ which modifies the dynamics and insures the conservation of angular momentum and the centrifugal force ($-\rho {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf r}$) which affects the structure of the equilibrium configuration of the star, i.e. the star is distorted and loses its spherical symmetry. The oscillations are described as a linear perturbation about an equilibrium or steady-state configuration which is assumed to be known.
Equilibrium structure for a rotating star
-----------------------------------------
We assume a steady state configuration i.e. all local time derivatives vanish, the quantities describing this equilibrium are given a subscript 0, for instance the steady state velocity field is noted $\vec v_0$. The assumption of stationarity leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
{ 1\over \rho_0} {\bf \nabla} p_0 + {\bf \nabla} \psi_0 &=& - {\bf v_0 \cdot \nabla \vec v_0} \\
{\bf \nabla \cdot} (\rho_0 {\bf v}_0) &=& 0 \nonumber\\
\rho_0 T_0 ({\bf v}_0 {\bf \cdot \nabla})S_0 &=& \rho_0 \epsilon_0 -{\bf \nabla \cdot
\vec {\cal F}}_0 \nonumber\\
\nabla^2 \psi_0 &=& 4\pi G \rho_0 \nonumber
\label{eq}\end{aligned}$$
We consider an axisymmetric rotation ${\bf \Omega} $. In spherical coordinates, one has: $$\vec \Omega(r,\theta) = \Omega(r,\theta) \left(\cos \theta ~{\bf e_r} -\sin \theta ~
{\bf e_\theta} \right)$$
The large scale velocity field $\vec v_0= v_\Omega+\vec U$ is composed of the rotational velocity and the meridional circulation. We consider here that the meridional circulation has no direct effect on the dynamics of the pulsation ($U <<c_s$), hence one neglects it in the velocity field which therefore is only due to rotation and has the expression: $${\bf v}_0({\bf r})= {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf r}= \Omega(r,\theta) ~r \sin \theta ~{\bf e_\phi}$$ The steady state configuration is then given by: $$-{1\over \rho_0} {\bf \nabla} p_0- {\bf \nabla} \psi_0 = {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf \Omega}
\times {\bf r} =- r \Omega^2 \sin \theta ~{\bf e_s}
\label{equil}$$ where ${\bf e_s} = \sin \theta ~{\bf e_r} +\cos \theta ~{\bf e_\theta} = \partial{\bf e_\phi}/\partial\phi$. Note that $ - \vec \Omega \times \vec \Omega
\times \vec r = r \Omega^2 {\bf e_r} $ for $\theta =\pi/2$ is directed toward the $r>0$ and we recognize the centrifugal acceleration.
### Particular cases: barotropy and uniform rotation
When the centrifugal force can be considered as deriving from a potential (conservative rotation law), it can be included similarly to the gravity and the equilibrium equation becomes: $$-{1\over \rho_0} {\bf \nabla} p_0 - {\bf \nabla} (\psi_0- |{\bf \Omega} \times {\bf r}|^2/2)=0$$ One sets $\psi_{eff}\equiv \psi_0- |{\bf \Omega} \times {\bf r}|^2/2$ and obtains $${dp_0\over dr}= - \rho_0 ~g_{eff} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\bf \nabla \psi}_{eff}=g_{eff}$$ The star keeps it spherical symmetry. This happens for a uniform rotation or for a cylindrical rotation $d\Omega/dz = 0$ in a cylindrical coordinate system (Tassoul, 1978). The Von Zeipel (1924) law states that for a barotrope and a conservative rotation law, isobars and isopycnics coincide with the level surfaces (constant potential): $\rho =\rho (\psi_{eff}); T=T(\psi_{eff})$ with $\psi_{eff}= \psi + r \sin \theta \Omega$. Consequently the heat flux is proportional to local effective gravity $T_{eff}^4 \propto g_{eff}$ and poles are hotter than the equator (gravity darkening; see Tassoul 1978 for details).
### Shellular rotation $\Omega(r)$
Zahn (1992) considered that in stellar radiative regions, highly anisotropic turbulence developes: this leads to an efficient homogeneization in the horizontal plane but not in the vertical direction due to the stable stratification which inhibes vertical motions hence generating a shellular rotation. This was verified by Charbonneau (1992) by means of 2D numerical simulations. The combined effects of rotation and turbulence induce a process of advection/diffusion of angular momentum and diffusion of chemical elements. The turbulence itself can arise from a dynamical shear instability generated by the differential rotation $\Omega (\theta)$ due to the advection of angular momentum by the meridional circulation (see for a review, JP. Zahn (2005), web site of the Brasil Corot meetings, CB2; see also Talon, 2006). For rotators with no angular momentum loss, a weak meridional circulation exists only to balance transport by differential rotation induced turbulence. For rotators which lose angular momentum through a wind, the meridional circulation must adjust so as to transport momentum toward the surface. Hence effects of a complex rotationally induced 2D process can be described in a 1D framework (Zahn, (1992); Maeder, Zahn, (1998); Mathis, Zahn (2004))
### 2D rotation: $\Omega(r,\theta)$ {#rapideq}
Several studies have developped numerical schema in order to build more and more realistic 2D rotating stellar models. As the full problem is quite difficult, simplifying assumptions have been made depending on the purpose of the study (Clement’s series of papers from 1974 to 1998; Deupree from 1990 to 2001; see for a detailed historical review, M. Rieutord (2007), web site of the Brasil Corot meetings, CB3).
With the initial purpose of modelling the rapidly rotating, oblate Be star, Achernar, Jackson et al. (2004, 2005) neglected the evolution and dynamics of the star and focused their studies on a specified conservative rotation law. This allows them to solve a 2D partial differential equation for Poisson equation while dealing with only ordinary differential equations for the other equilibrium quantities. They were able to build stellar rotating models for a wide mass range ($2 M_\odot$ to $9 M_\odot$) and for equatorial velocity up to 250 km/s for the most massive ones. Roxburgh (2004) on the other hand computed 2D uniformaly rotating, barotrope zero age main sequence models again over a wide mass range and rotational velocities. The determination of the adiabatic nonradial oscillation frequencies of a rotating star only depends on the knowledge of $p_0(r,\theta)$, $\rho_0(r,\theta)$ and $\Gamma_1(r,\theta)$ and does not require that the thermal equilibrium be satisfied. Roxburgh (2005) takes advantage of this property to build 2-dimensional acoustic models of rapidly rotating stars with a prescribed rotation profile $\Omega(r,\theta)$. The initial density profile at a given angle $\theta_m$ can be taken as the density profile of a 1D stellar model (which can include effects of transport and mixing due rotation as described in the above section). Roxburgh (2005) then solves iteratively the 2D hydrostatic and Poisson equations; the adiabatic index $\Gamma_1$ is then obtained through the equation of state and the knowledge of the hydrogen profile (again possibly derived from the 1D spherically averaged stellar model).
In all the above studies, the $\Omega$ profile is prescribed and stellar models are built at a given evolutionary stage with no inclusion of any feedback of rotation on evolution and structure. To proceed a step further with the purpose of including effects of evolution and internal dynamics, Rieutord (2005, 2006), Espinosa Lara, Rieutord (2007) worked at building more and more realistic rotating models using spectral methods for both directions $r$ and $\theta$. Espinosa Lara, Rieutord (2007) succeeded in computing a fully radiative, baroclinic model in which the microphysics is treated in a simplified form and the star is assumed to be enclosed in a rigid sphere. Some interesting conclusions could nervertheless be drawn. For a stellar model rotating at $82 \%$ of the rotational break up velocity, the baroclinic model is much less centrally condensed than a radiative polytrope. The steady state is characterized by poles hotter but rotating less rapidly than the equator. The authors found that the temperature contrast between poles and equators is less than that given by the Von Zeipel model although this might be reduced with the use of a more realistic surface boundary condition. This is also found by Lovekin & Deupree (2006) using the 2D rotating stellar code of Deupree. With increasing rotation, the equator cools down enough that a convective region seems to be able to develope. It is also found that the isothermals are more spherical that the isobars. As a consequence and in constrast with the Boussinesq case, the meridional currents circulate from equator to poles: the meridional velocity $ U_\phi$ component decreases outward, because $T$ decreases on a isobar from pole to equator. Worth to be noting also, differential rotation in latitude seems to keep the same general form for increasing $\Omega$ between 0.01 to 0.08 of the critical rotation rate (Fig.10, Espinosa Lara, Rieutord, 2007).
Oscillations: linearization about the equilibrium
-------------------------------------------------
For the oscillating, rotating fluid of interest here, the velocity field in each point of the space can be split into 2 components $ \vec v = \vec v_0 + \vec v'$ where $\vec v'$ is the Eulerian perturbation of the velocity due to the oscillation. Similarly for any scalar quantity $f$ (such as $p,\rho,\psi$), one writes $f=f_0 +f'$. The quantities with a prime represent the oscillations which are modelled as linear Eulerian perturbations about the equilibrium. One inserts these decompositions into the basic equations Eq.9 and then linearizes with respect to the perturbations $\vec v',\rho'$ etc... about the equilibrium quantities. Only adiabatic oscillations are studied here, the system is then closed by using the linearized adiabatic relation: $${\delta p\over p_0} =\Gamma_1 \left({\delta \rho\over \rho_0} \right) ~~~ {\rm where} ~~~~
\Gamma_1 \equiv \left({\partial p \over \partial \rho}\right)_S
\label{adia}$$ since $\delta S=0$ ($S$ entropy) where $\delta$ denotes Lagrangian variations or in the Eulerian form: $${p'\over p_0} = \Gamma_1 \left( {\rho' \over \rho_0} + {\vec \xi \cdot A} \right)
~~{\rm where}~~
{\bf A } = {1\over \Gamma_1}{\vec \nabla p_0\over p_0} - {\vec \nabla \rho_0\over \rho_0}$$
The system of linearized equations for adiabatic nonradial oscillations of a rotating star takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial {\vec v'} \over \partial t} &+ &{\vec v' \cdot \vec \nabla \vec v}_0 + {\vec v}_0 { \cdot \vec \nabla
\vec v'}= -{1\over \rho_0} {\vec \nabla} p'+{\rho'\over \rho_0^2} {\vec \nabla} p_0 - {\vec \nabla} \psi' \nonumber\\
{\partial \rho' \over \partial t} &+ & {\vec \nabla \cdot} (\rho' {\vec v}_0 + \rho_0 {\vec v}') = 0 \\
{p'\over p_0} &=& \Gamma_1 \left({\rho'\over \rho_0} - {\vec \xi \cdot A} \right) \nonumber \\
\nabla^2 \psi' &=& 4\pi G \rho' \nonumber
\label{pert1}\end{aligned}$$
The displacement is related to the Lagrangian velocity by $${\vec \delta v} = {D{\vec \xi }\over Dt}={\partial {\vec \xi }\over \partial t} + {\vec v_0 \cdot \vec \nabla \vec \xi}$$ where ${D/Dt}$ is the Lagrangian derivative (Lebovitz, 1970). Using the linearized relation between the Lagrangian and Eulerian velocities is: ${\vec v'} = \delta {\vec v} -({\vec \xi \cdot \vec \nabla) \vec v_0 }$ the Eulerian velocity perturbation $ {\bf v'}$ is related to the displacement ${\vec \xi}$ by: $${\vec v'} = {\partial {\vec \xi} \over \partial t} + ({\vec v_0 \cdot \vec \nabla) \vec \xi - (\vec \xi \cdot \vec \nabla)
\vec v_0 }
\label{vp}$$
Time and azimutal dependances of the oscillation
-------------------------------------------------
One adopts a spherical coordinate system with the polar axis coinciding with the star rotation axis. For an axisymmetric star, the system Eq.13 is separable in $\phi$ and one can then seek quite generally for a solution of the form: $${\vec \xi}({\vec r},t)\propto {\vec \xi}(r,\theta,t) ~e^{i m \phi}$$ In a description based on spherical harmonics, an eigenfunction will be decomposed on the spherical harmonics with the $m$. Because of the assumed existence of a steady state configuration, one can represent all scalar perturbations by : $f'({\bf r}, t) = f'(r,\theta) ~ e^{i(\omega t + m \phi)}$ and for the fluid displacement vector $\vec{\xi} ({\bf r}, t) = \vec {\tilde \xi} (r,\theta) ~ e^{i(\omega t + m \phi)}$ The relation between ${\bf v'}$ and the displacement (Eq.\[vp\]) becomes: $$\vec v' =i (\omega + m \Omega) \vec {\tilde \xi} -(\vec {\tilde \xi} \cdot \vec \nabla \Omega) r \sin \theta \vec e_\phi
\label{vp2}$$ From now on, we drop the tilde for the displacement vector field.
The eigenvalue system
---------------------
One assumes that the configuration is axisymmetric and that the motion is purely rotational i.e. one then has: $B= {\bf v_0 \cdot \nabla} =\Omega ~{\partial / \partial \phi}$ and $B f\equiv {\vec v_0 \cdot \nabla} f = \Omega{\partial f\over \partial \phi}$ for a scalar $f$. Using Eq.13, Eq.\[vp\], Eq.\[vp2\], and the equality: $$\begin{aligned}
B {\vec \xi } \equiv {\bf \vec v_0 \cdot \vec \nabla} {\vec \xi} &=& i m \Omega {\vec \xi}
+ {\vec \Omega \times \vec \xi}
\label{BB}\end{aligned}$$ for a vector field ${\vec \xi}$, one obtains the wave equation: $${1\over \rho_0} {\cal L} {\vec \xi} -\hat \omega^2 {\vec \xi} +2 \hat \omega
~i~ {\vec \Omega} \times {\vec \xi} - ({\vec \xi} {\bf \cdot} {\vec \nabla} \Omega^2)~r \sin \theta ~{\vec e_s} =0
\label{wave0}$$ where we have defined $${\cal L} \vec \xi = \vec \nabla p'- {\rho'\over \rho_0} \vec \nabla p_0 + \rho_0~ \vec \nabla \psi'
\label{wave1}$$ and $\hat \omega = \omega+m\Omega(r,\theta)$. The continuity equation in Eq.13 becomes : $$\rho'+ \vec \nabla \cdot (\rho_0 {\vec \xi}) = 0
\label{ro2}$$ The system is completed with the linearized adiabatic relation Eq.\[adia\]. The first two terms in Eq.\[wave0\] susbist in absence of rotation and provide the eigenvalue problem for a nonrotating star: $ {\cal L} {\vec \xi} - \omega^2 \rho_0 {\vec \xi} =0$. The first additional term in Eq.\[wave0\] is due to the Coriolis force, the second additional term only exists in presence of a nonuniform rotation. The centrifugal force comes into play through its effects on the structure i.e. through the quantities $p_0,\rho_0,..$. The usual boundary conditions are the requirements that the solutions must keep a regular behavior in the center and at the surface. More specifically one usually asks that $\delta p=0$ at the surface and the gravity potential goes to zero at infinity. At the center the regularity conditions are expressed as $f' = O(r^\ell)$ for a scalar quantity for instance (see Unno et al (1989)).
Eq.\[wave0\], \[wave1\], \[ro2\] together with the perturbed adiabatic and Poisson equations plus the boundary conditions give rise to an eigenvalue problem for the oscillation of a rotating star. One looks for $\omega$ et ${\bf \xi}$, given $\Omega$ and the equilibrium structure. Although it is not necessary, the angular dependence of the eigenfunctions are most commonly seeked under the form of a decomposition over the basis formed with the spherical harmonics (with a given $m$): $$\begin{aligned}
\vec \xi_m ({\bf r}) &=& \sum^{+\infty}_{\ell \geq |m|} \left( \right.
\xi_{r,\ell}(r) ~Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi) ~{\bf e_r} + \xi_{h,\ell}(r) ~{\vec \nabla} ~ Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ \tau_\ell(r) ~{\bf e_r \times} ~{\vec \nabla} Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)
\left. \right) \label{eigenxi}\\
f'_m({\bf r})&=& \sum^{+\infty}_{\ell \geq |m|} f^{'m}_\ell(r)~ Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)
\label{eigenf}\end{aligned}$$ The first two terms in $ \vec \xi_m ({\bf r})$ represent the spheroidal part of the oscillation whereas the 3rd represents the toroidal part. If the star possesses the equatorial symmetry $\theta \Longrightarrow \pi-\theta$ (with $\Omega(r,\pi-\theta)= \Omega(r,\theta)$), the eigenmodes can be classified into 2 groups: symmetric (or even) modes and anti symmetric (or odd) modes with respect to the equator. One then obtains two different systems of differential equations, one for each parity (see Unno 1989; Hansen 2006). Symmetry with respect to the equatorial plane induces the property $$\omega_{n,\ell,-m} (\Omega)= -\omega_{n,\ell,m} (\Omega)
\label{symequat}$$
Symmetry properties of the operators and orthogonality relations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetries of the operators in Eq.\[wave0\], \[wave1\], \[ro2\] and their consequences were studied by Lynden-Bell and Ostriker (1967); Dyson, Schutz (1979), Schutz (1980), Clement (1989), see also Unno et al (1989) and Reese (2006); Reese (2006) for a polytrope in uniform rotation. One first introduces the inner product between two arbitrary vector fields $\vec \eta$ and ${\vec \xi}$: $$<{\vec \eta}|{\vec \xi}> \equiv \int_V \left({\vec \eta}^*({\vec r}) {\bf \cdot \vec \xi}({\bf r})
\right) {\bf d^3r}
\label{inner}$$ where $\vec \eta^*$ is the complex conjugate of $\vec \eta$. We also recall that the adjoint operator ${\cal Q}^+$ of an operator ${\cal Q}$ is defined such that $< {\cal Q}^+ ({\vec \eta}) |{\vec \xi}>\equiv <{\vec \eta}|{\cal Q} ({\vec \xi})> $ for any ${\vec \xi} \in $ domain of ${\cal Q}$. An operator ${\cal Q}$ is symmetric with respect to an inner product if for any nonsingular vector fields ${\vec \eta}$ and ${\vec \xi}$ defined in the unperturbed volume and having continuous first derivatives everywhere, one has $$<{\cal Q} ({\vec \eta})| {\vec \xi}> =<{\vec \eta}|{\cal Q} ({\vec \xi})>
\label{eqQ}$$ This is equivalent to $$\int \vec \eta^* \cdot {\cal Q}(\vec \xi) {\bf d^3r} = \left(\int {\cal Q}(\vec \eta) \cdot \vec \xi^* {\bf d^3r} \right)^*$$
Let start from the fluid motion equation $${D {\bf v} \over Dt} =({\partial \over \partial t}+ B) {\bf v}= -{1\over \rho}\vec \nabla p +\vec \nabla \psi$$ with $B$ is defined in Eq.\[BB\] above. If the configuration is assumed to be in steady state, $B$ commutes with ${\partial/\partial t}$. Using this property, Lynden-Bell and Ostriker (1967) have shown that the wave equation Eq.\[wave0\] can be cast under the form: $${D^2 {\vec \xi} \over Dt^2}= \delta \left(-{1\over \rho} {\vec \nabla} p +{\vec \nabla} \psi\right)
$$ where ${\vec \xi}$ is the fluid Lagrangian displacement, $\delta$ represents a Lagrangian variation. As $$\begin{aligned}
{D^2 {\vec \xi} \over Dt^2} &=& {\partial^2 {\vec \xi} \over\partial t^2}+
2 ~B {\partial {\vec \xi} \over \partial t} + B^2 {\vec \xi}\end{aligned}$$ one must then solve: $${\partial^2 {\vec \xi} \over \partial t^2}+
2~ B {\partial {\vec \xi}\over \partial t} = ~C({\vec \xi})
\label{eqa}$$ where the Lagrangian expression for $C({\vec \xi})$ can be found in Lynden-Bell and Ostriker (1967) or Dyson and Schutz (1979) for instance. It is also given by $${\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_m)= -B^2({\vec \xi}_m) -{1\over \rho_0} {\cal L} ({\vec \xi}_m) + K({\vec \xi}_m)$$ where ${\cal L}({\vec \xi}) $ is defined by Eq.\[wave1\] and $$K(\vec \xi)= \vec \xi\cdot \vec \nabla \left(-{1\over \rho_0} \vec \nabla p_0 + \vec \nabla \psi_0 \right) =\vec \xi\cdot \vec \nabla
\left(-\Omega^2 r \sin \theta \vec e_s\right)$$ where we have used Eq.\[equil\]. Eq.\[eqa\] is valid for any axisymmetric rotation law for a steady state rotating configuration. Assuming again a time dependence $e^{i \omega t}$ for ${\vec \xi}$ and the scalar variables, the linear adiabatic perturbations of a differentially rotating, axisymmetric stellar model Eq.\[wave0\],\[wave1\] are then cast into the form (Dyson, Schutz 1979): $${\cal Q}({\vec \xi}_m)\equiv -\omega^2 \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_m+
i ~\omega {\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_m) + C({\vec \xi}_m) = 0
\label{Dyson}$$ where we have defined $${\cal B}({\vec \xi}_m) = 2 \rho_0 \left( {\vec \Omega} \times {\vec \xi}_m + i m \Omega {\vec \xi}_m
\right)
\label{BLO}$$ Lynden-Bell & Ostriker (1967) have shown that $ C$ is symmetric and $B$ is antisymmetric i.e, for any ${\vec \eta}$ and ${\vec \xi}$, $$<{\vec \eta}|C({\vec \xi})>= <C({\vec \eta} )|{\vec \xi}> ~~;~~<{\vec \eta}|{\cal B}({\vec \xi})>= - <{\cal B}({\vec \eta}
)|{\vec \xi}>$$ and actually $C$ is real, ${\cal B}$ is purely imaginary. Dyson & Schutz (1979) and Schutz (1980) studied the general properties of eigenfunctions of a rotating star. We focus here on a much simpler issue, for later use. Let $\vec \xi_1$ and $\vec \xi_2$ two eigenfunctions associated with 2 eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, they verify the equalities: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q} ({\vec \xi}_1) &=& \lambda_1^2 \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_1 + \lambda_1 {\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)+
{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_1)=0 \label{Q1} \\
{\cal Q} ({\vec \xi_2}) &=& \lambda_2^{2} \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_2 + \lambda_2 {\cal B} ({\vec
\xi}_2) +{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_2)=0
\label{Q2} \end{aligned}$$ Taking the inner product of Eq.\[Q1\] with $< \vec \xi_2|$, one gets: $$\lambda_1^2 <\vec \xi_2 | \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_1>
+ \lambda_1 <\vec \xi_2 |{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)> +
<\vec \xi_2 |{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_1)>=0
\label{lamb1}$$ Similarly taking the inner product of Eq.\[Q2\] with $<\vec \xi_1|$, one obtains: $$\lambda_2^{2}< \vec \xi_1 \rho_0 |{\vec \xi}_2> + \lambda_2 <\vec \xi_1 |{\cal B} ({\vec
\xi}_2)> +
<\vec \xi_1|{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_2)>=0
\label{lamb2}$$ We now make use of the symmetry properties of $C$ and $B$, ie $<\vec \xi_1|{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_2)>= <{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_1)| \vec \xi_2>$ and $<\vec \xi_1|{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_2)>= -<{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)| \vec \xi_2>$ which give for the last equality Eq.\[lamb2\] $$\lambda_2^{2}<\vec \xi_1 \rho_0 |{\vec \xi}_2> - \lambda_2 <{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)| \vec \xi_2> +
<{\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_1)|\vec \xi_2>
=0$$ Taking the complexe conjugate of this equation yields: $$\lambda_2^{*2} <\vec \xi_2 | \rho_0 \vec \xi_1> - \lambda_2^{*} <\vec \xi_2 |{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)>
+< \vec \xi_2| {\cal C} ({\vec \xi}_1)>
=0$$ which can be compared to Eq.\[lamb1\]. The difference between these 2 equations yields the relation: $$(\lambda_1^2 - \lambda_2^{*2}) <\vec \xi_2 | \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_1>
+ (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2^{*}) <\vec \xi_2 |{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)> =0
\label{orth}$$ For a pure imaginary eigenfrequency $\lambda=i \omega$, this reduces to $ (\omega_1^2 - \omega_2^{2}) <\vec \xi_2 | \rho_0 {\vec \xi}_1>
+ i(\omega_1 - \omega_2) <\vec \xi_2 |{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)> =0$. For $\omega_1 \not = \omega_2$, one obtains the orthogonality relation: $$<\vec \xi_2 | (\omega_1 +\omega_2) \rho_0 + i{\cal B} ({\vec \xi}_1)> =0
\label{orth}$$ which is valid for any rotating, axisymmetric star. A similar relation although in the context of a perturbative third order approach was derived in Soufi et al (1998).
A variational principle {#variat}
=======================
Chandrashekhar (1964) has shown that nonradial oscillations of a nonrotating star can be treated as a variational problem. This was extented to uniformaly rotating bodies by Chandrasekhar and Lebovitz (1968) and nonuniform axisymmetric rotation for a steady state configuration by Lebovitz (1970). The symmetry properties of the operators in Eq.\[wave0\],\[wave1\] indeed leads to the existence of a [*variational principle*]{} which states: let a real number $\zeta$ and a function $\eta(r)$ related by the relation $$\zeta^2 <\eta|\rho_0 \eta> +\zeta<\eta|B \eta>+ <\eta|C \eta> =0$$ where ${\cal B, C}$ are antisymmetric and symmetric operators. One assumes that $\eta(r)$ is a trial function close enough but not equal to the unknown true eigenfunction $\xi(r)$ and one sets $\eta = \xi+ \delta \xi$. The value of $\zeta$ will be close but different of the true unknown eigenvalue $\lambda$ with $\zeta = \lambda + \delta \lambda$. Inserting the expressions pour $\zeta$ et $\eta$ in the above equation and linearizing, one gets: $$\begin{aligned}
& & 2 (\delta \lambda) \lambda <\xi|\rho \xi>+\lambda^2 \delta (<\xi|\rho \xi>)= \nonumber \\
& & (\delta \lambda) <\xi|B\xi> +\lambda (\delta <\xi|B\xi>) + \delta (<\xi|C\xi>)
\end{aligned}$$ which is rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \lambda &=&{2 ~{\cal R}(<\delta \xi|(-\lambda^2 \rho \xi +\lambda B \xi + C\xi)>)
\over (2 \lambda<\xi|\rho \xi> - <\xi|B\xi>)}
\label{var}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal R}$ means real part. The numerator in the right hand side of Eq.\[var\] vanishes since $\xi$ is the eigenfunction associated to $\lambda$; one then has $\delta \lambda =0$ (i.e. $\zeta = \lambda$) for any arbitrary $ \delta \xi \not=0$. The reciprocal is also true. Hence the eigenfrequencies are invariant to first order to a change in the function $\xi$. The existence of such a variational principle has the consequence that any trial function used instead of the true eigenfunction gives an estimation of the eigenvalue accurate enough: the error on $\lambda$ is quadratic in the error on the eigenfunction.
### Variational expressions for the eigenfrequencies
It is possible to use Eq.\[Dyson\] to derive an integral expression for the eigenfrequency. Taking the inner product with ${\bf \xi}^*$ and integrating over the entire volume of the star, one gets $-\omega^2 + \omega b + c = 0$ where $$b= {i \over I} ~ \int_0^R ~\vec \xi_m^* \cdot {\cal B} (\vec \xi_m) {\bf d^3r} ~~~
~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~c = {1\over I} \int_0^R ~ \vec \xi_m^* \cdot C(\vec \xi_m) {\bf d^3r}$$ and $$I= \int_0^R ~(\vec \xi_m^* \cdot \vec \xi_m) ~ \rho_0 {\bf d^3r}
\label{inertia}$$ $b$ and $c$ are real since the operators are Hermitian. Then one obtains $ \omega = \left(b \pm \sqrt{b^2+4c} \right)/2$ For $\Omega=0$, one recovers $ \omega^2 = c=
{1\over I} \int_0^R ~ \vec \xi_m^* \cdot {\cal L} ({\bf \xi}_m) {\bf d^3r} \equiv \omega^2_0 $. Since $c$ does not depend on m $(-\ell<m<\ell)$, the eigenfrequencies of nonradial pulsations in a nonrotating star are $(2\ell+1)$-fold degenerate.
Clement (1984) applied the variational principle to compute eigenfrequencies of polytropes. Clement (1989) again used a variational approach to compute the nonaxisymmetric modes for a $15 M_\odot$ uniformly rotating 2D model. For the p-mode eigenfunctions entering the integral expression, as they have a dominant contribution from the poloidal part, Clement chose trial functions in the form of the gradiant of a longitudinal potential ${\bf \xi_p} \sim {\bf \nabla} \phi_1$, the potential $\phi_1$ is then expanded in powers of Legendre polynomials and the expansion coefficients are determined by the stationary condition on the eigenfrequency. Saio (2002) neglected the perturbation of gravitational potential $\psi'$ in Eq.\[Dyson\] (which is justified in the case of high frequency p-modes) and derived simplified expression for the coefficients b and c. As the error on the frequencies is much smaller than that of the eigenfunctions, it is possible to use the numerical eigenfunctions (obtained by solving numerically the eigensystem Eq.\[wave0\]) in the integrals for the coefficients $b$ and $c$ defined above. The resulting eigenfrequencies $\omega_{var}$ can be compared to the numerical ones. If an error $\delta \xi$ exists for $\xi$ in the numerical calculation, the resulting error on $\omega$ will be : $\omega_{var}=\omega+O(||\delta \xi||^2)$. This property has been used for instance by Christensen-Dalsgaard and Mullan (1994) to check the accuracy of their numerical computations of eigenfrequencies of nonrotating polytropes. Reese (2006) used it to check the numerical accuracy of the results of their 2D eigenvalue system for a rotating polytrope.
Slow rotators
=============
At the lowest order, $O(\Omega)$, only the Coriolis force plays a role and one can ignore the direct effect of the centrifugal oblatness on the oscillation frequencies for slow rotators like the Sun for exemple. From here on , we use the DG92 notations. The eigensystem Eq.\[wave0\], Eq.\[wave1\] then reduces to: $${\cal L} ({\bf \xi}) -\hat \omega^2 \rho_0 ~\xi +2 \hat \omega \rho_0 ~i {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf \xi} =0$$ The scalar perturbations $f=(p',\rho',\psi')$ are expanded up to first order $f'=f'_0+ f'_1$ and similarly for the fluid displacement: ${\bf \xi} = {\bf \xi_0}+ {\bf \xi_1}$, this yields ${\cal L}={\cal L}_0+{\cal L}_1$ where the operators ${\cal L}_0,{\cal L}_1$ take the same form than ${\cal L}$ with the perturbed quantities subscribed with 0 and 1 respectively. Note that the equilibrium quantities entering ${\cal L}$ can come from a rotating stellar model, although strictly speaking, this would be somewhat inconsistent. The eigenfrequency is written as $\omega = \omega_0 +\omega_1$ and $\hat \omega = \omega + m\Omega = \omega_0 + \omega_1 + m\Omega $. The subscript 0 refers to solutions of the problem at the zeroth order which is specified by $${\cal L}_0 ~{\vec \xi}_0 - ~\omega^2_0 \rho_0~{\vec \xi}_0 = 0
\label{zerothorder}$$ this yields the zeroth order eigenvalues $\omega_0$ and eigenfunctions ${\vec \xi_0}$ for a given $(\ell,n)$ set. We recall that the zeroth order operator $ {\cal L}_0$ is selfadjoint $$<{\vec \xi}_0|{\cal L}_0 ~ {\vec \xi}_0>= <{\cal L}_0 {\vec \xi}_0| ~ {\vec \xi}_0>
\label{zerothorder1}$$ consequently the right- and left-eigenfunctions are identical and orthogonal to one another. $$< {\vec \xi}_{0i}| {\vec \xi}_{0j}> = \int \rho_{0} ({\vec \xi}_{0i}^* {\vec \cdot \xi}_{0j}) {\bf d^3r}=
I ~\delta_{ij}$$ with $I$ the oscillatory moment of inertia Eq.\[inertia\] and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker symbol, $i,j$ label eigenfunctions and are shortcuts for the subscripts $(n_i,\ell_i)$ and $(n_j,\ell_j)$. Using the integral form, the zeroth order solution is then given by $$\omega^2_0= {1\over I} <\vec \xi_0|{\cal L}_0 ~\vec \xi_0>
\label{omeg0}$$ In practice, $\omega^2_0$ is obtained as the numerical solution of the zeroth order eigensystem. At the first order in $\Omega$, one must solve $${\cal L}_0 ~ {\vec \xi}_1 - ~\omega^2_0 ~\rho_0 ~{\vec \xi}_1 = 2 \omega_0 ~\rho_0 ~(\omega_1 + K) ~{\vec \xi}_0
\label{om1}$$ with $K = m \Omega - i {\vec \Omega} \times$. One seeks a solution for the correction $\omega_1$. The integral solution is again obtained by projecting Eq.\[om1\] onto the eigenfunction ${\vec \xi_0}$ using the inner product Eq.\[inner\]: $ <{\vec \xi}_0|{\cal L}_0 {\vec \xi}_1> - \omega^2_0 <{\vec \xi}_0^*|\rho_0 {\vec \xi}_1> = 2 \omega_0
<{\vec \xi}_0|\rho_0 (\omega_1 + K) {\vec \xi}_0>$ which admits a solution provided that $< {\vec \xi}_0 |(\omega_1 + K) {\vec \xi}_0>=0$ is satisfied, which yields $$\omega_1 = - {1\over I} <{\vec \xi}_0 | K ~{\vec \xi}_0>
\label{om1sol}$$ Due to the existence of the variational principle discussed in Sect.4, if one is interested only in the eigenfrequency, one needs not to know the correction to the eigenfunction ${\vec \xi_1}$. Note however that one obtains the correction $\omega_1$ numerically by integrating the O($\Omega$) eigensystem as shown by Hansen et al. (1978). Comparison of the variational expression and the numerical one can be used to check the results.
The integral expression of Eq.\[om1sol\] is: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1 &=& {1\over I} ~ \int \rho_{0} \left( m\Omega |{\vec \xi}_0 |^2- i ~{\vec \xi}^*_0 {\bf \cdot} ({\vec \Omega \times
\xi}_0) \right) {\bf d^3r}
\label{omeg1}\end{aligned}$$ which requires the knowledge of the zeroth order displacement eigenfunction ${\vec \xi}_0$. Each mode is usually determined as a sum of spherical harmonics Eq.\[eigenxi\]. Solving the zeroth order eigensystem Eq.\[zerothorder\] shows that actually the zeroth order solution can be written with a single spherical harmonics: $${\vec \xi}_0 (\vec r) = \xi_r(r) Y_{\ell}^m~ {\bf e_r} + \xi_h(r) {\bf \nabla}_h
Y_{\ell}^m
\label{xi0}$$ where the gradient $\vec \nabla_h$ is defined as: $$\vec \nabla_h= {\bf e_\theta} {\partial \over \partial \theta} + {\bf e_\phi} {1\over \partial \sin \theta} {\partial \over \partial \phi}$$ Using this expression, it is straightforward to show that $$\begin{aligned}
m\Omega |{\vec \xi}_0 |^2 & &- i ~{\vec \xi}^*_0 {\bf \cdot} ({\vec \Omega \times \vec \xi}_0) = \nonumber \\
& & m \Omega \left[ \right. (|\xi_r|^2 -(\xi^*_r \xi_h+cc)) |Y_{\ell}^m|^2
+ \nonumber \\
& & |\xi_h |^2 ( {\vec \nabla}_h Y^*_{\ell,m} {\bf \cdot \vec \nabla}_h Y_{\ell}^m-{\cos \theta\over \sin \theta}
{\partial |Y_{\ell}^m|^2\over \partial \theta})
\left.\right] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Inserting this expression into Eq.\[omeg1\] yields the rotation splitting, Eq.\[split0\], in the compact form: $$\delta \omega_m= {\omega_{1,j}\over m}= \int_0^R \int_0^\pi K_{n,\ell,m}(r,\theta) ~\Omega(r,\theta) ~r d\theta dr
\label{split}$$ where $K_{n\ell}$ is called [*rotational kernel*]{}; its expression can be found in Schou et al (1994a,b), Pijpers (1997) or CD03. For instance, the sectoral modes ($|m|=\ell$) for increasing $\ell$, get increasingly confined toward the equator. Hence the measure of the splittings of sectoral modes provide a measure of the equatorial velocity.
### Shellular rotation $\Omega(r)$
When the rotation can be assumed independent of $\theta$, the expression of the rotational splitting reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \omega_{n,\ell} = \int_0^R ~K_{n,\ell}(r) ~\Omega(r) ~dr
\label{split4}\end{aligned}$$ with $$K_{n\ell} (r) ={1\over I} \left( \xi_r^2 +\Lambda \xi_h^2 -2 \xi_r \xi_h + \xi_h^2\right) ~\rho_{0}~ r^2~$$ and $$I=\int_0^R \rho_{0} r^2 ~(\xi_r^2 +\Lambda \xi_h^2) dr$$ and $\Lambda = \ell(\ell+1)$ and $R$ stellar radius. One also finds in the litterature: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \omega_{n,\ell} = m \bar \Omega (1-C_{n,\ell} - J_{n,\ell}) \end{aligned}$$ in the observer frame with $\bar \Omega$ an averaged or the surface rotation rate. The Ledoux constant is: $$C_{n,\ell} = {1\over I} \int_0^R ~ \rho_{0} r^2 ~ (2 \xi_r \xi_h + \xi_h^2) dr$$ and $$J_{n,\ell} = {1\over I}
\int_0^R ~ \rho_{0} r^2 ~ (\Omega(r)-\bar \Omega)~ (\xi_r^2 +\Lambda \xi_h^2- 2 \xi_r \xi_h - \xi_h^2) dr$$ A particular case is that of [*solid-body rotation*]{} for which one derives $ \delta \omega_{n,\ell} = m \Omega (1-C_{n\ell})$. It is worth noting that for $|\xi_h| <<|\xi_r|$, $C_{n,\ell} \rightarrow 0$. As $${\xi_h \over |\xi_r|} \propto {1\over \sigma^2}$$ where $\sigma$ is the normalized frequency, $C_{n\ell} \sim 0$ for high frequency p-modes and the measure of the rotational splitting $\delta \omega_{n,\ell,m} = \Omega $ then is a quasi direct measure of the rotational angular velocity.
Forward techniques compute the splittings with Eq.\[split\], \[split4\] by assuming a rotation profile. The rotational kernels $K_{n\ell} $ are assumed to be known and calculated for the appropriate stellar model. The results are compared with the observed splittings. The integral relations Eq.\[split\], Eq.\[split4\] can be inverted to provide $\Omega$. The observed splittings for several differents modes $(n,\ell)$ constitute the data set (see Sect.\[inversion\]).
### Latitudinal dependence
It is convenient to assume a rotation of the type: $$\Omega(r,\theta)= \sum_{s=0}^{s_{max}} ~ \Omega_{2s}(r) ~(\cos\theta)^{2s}
\label{latit}$$ The expression for the rotational splitting then becomes (see for instance Hansen 1977; DG92; CD03): $$\delta \omega_m= \sum_{s=0}^{s_max} ~ \int_0^R ~ \Omega_{2s}(r) ~K_{n,\ell,m,s}(r) ~\rho_0 r^2 dr$$ with $$K_{n,\ell,m,s}(r) = |\xi_r|^2-(\xi^*_r \xi_h+cc) {\cal S}_s
+|\xi_h|^2 ((2s-1){\cal S}_{s-1}-\Lambda {\cal S}_s$$ where $${\cal S}_s = \int_0^\pi d\theta \sin \theta (\cos\theta)^{2s} ~|Y_{\ell}^m(\theta,\phi)|^2$$ and ${\cal S}_{-1}=0; {\cal S}_{0}=1$. For later purpose, we also give $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_{1} &=& {1\over 4\Lambda-3} (-2m^2+2\Lambda-1) \\
{\cal S}_2 &=& {1\over 4\Lambda-15} \left[{\cal S}_{1} (-2m^2+2\Lambda-9)+1 \right] \nonumber
\label{SS}\end{aligned}$$ More generally $ {\cal S}_s$ for any $s$ is given by a recurrent relation (Eq.31 in DG92). Results of 2D inversion in the solar case are discussed in Sect.\[suninvers\].
Moderately rotating pulsating stars
===================================
For moderate rotators, one needs to include second order corrections to the frequency $\omega_2$ (not to say higher order contributions, see Sect.\[third\]). At the second order level, several contributions must be included.
1- The eigenfunction is modified by the Coriolis acceleration and becomes ${\bf \xi} = {\bf \xi}_0+ {\bf \xi}_1$ with the eigenfunction correction including a spheroidal (${\bf \xi}_{1p}$) and a toroidal (${\bf \xi}_{1t}$) components respectively: ${\bf \xi}_1= {\bf \xi}_{1p} + {\bf \xi}_{1t}$ which result in frequency corrections labelled $\omega_{2P}$ et $\omega_{2T}$.
2- Oscillatory inertia is also modified $I= I_0+I_2$ where $I_2= <{\bf \xi}_1|{\bf \xi}_1>$. We recall that $<{\bf \xi}_0|{\bf \xi}_1>=0=<{\bf \xi}_1|{\bf \xi}_0>$ and $<{\bf \xi}_0|{\bf \xi}_2>=0=<{\bf \xi}_2|{\bf \xi}_0>$. This causes a second order frequency correction $\omega^I_2$.
3- The centrifugal force generates changes in the structure of the star:
i\) geometrical distorsion which can be split into 2 components :
- [*spherically symmetric*]{} distorsion due to the latitudinally averaged centrifugal force which generates an effective gravity $$g_{eff}(r) = g(r) - (2/3) r \Omega^2
\label{geff}$$ Its principal effect is to decrease slightly the central density and to modify the radius of the star. The corresponding frequency change is proportional to a quantity which we denote $Z_1$,
- [*non spherically symmetric*]{} distorsion. This is the dominant second order effect and is denoted $\omega_{2D}$ as in DG92.\
ii) rotationally induced transport and mixing modify the internal stratification and influence the evolution of the steady configuration. This effect is responsible for a frequency change which is proportional to a quantity denoted $Z_2$. The frequency correction induced by modifications of the the steady configuration is then proportional to $Z_1+Z_2$. Finally the (second order) frequency correction is given by : $$\omega_{2,n,\ell,m}= {\Omega^2\over \omega^{(0)}} ~(Z_1+Z_2)
+\omega_{2I}+\omega_{2P}+\omega_{2T}+\omega_{2D}+ {\omega_1^2 \over \omega_0}
\label{om2a}$$ In order to obtain explicit expressions and quantitative estimates for these corrections, one starts again with Eq.\[wave0\]. The expansions are carried out up to second order $f'= f'_0+f'_1+f'_2$ for any scalar perturbed quantity and for the displacement vector field ${\bf \xi=\xi_0+\xi_1+\xi_2}$. Assuming that the zeroth order and first order systems have been solved, it remains to solve for the second order system of equations. The knowledge of the first order correction to the [*eigenfunction*]{} is indeed required to compute $\omega_2$. One also needs to include the effects of the centrifugal force on the equilibrium structure. For moderate rotation, it is enough to use a perturbative technique to compute the centrifugal distorsion. Two approaches have been used: a mapping technique and a direct perturbative method.
Mapping technique {#mapping}
------------------
Because the shape of the star is distorted, one must in principle work in a [*spheroidal*]{} coordinate system and take into account the oblateness of the surface in the boundary conditions. It is possible however to work in a [*spherical*]{} coordinate system with simple (classical) boundary conditions by defining a mapping between the coordinate system $(r,\theta,\phi)$ in the spheroidal volume of the star and the corresponding one $(\zeta,\theta,\phi)$ in a spherical volume. This mapping then consists in defining a transformation $(r,\theta,\phi) \Longrightarrow (\zeta,\theta,\phi)$ where $r$ and $\zeta$ are related through the transformation: $$r(\zeta,\theta) = \zeta ~(1 -h_2(\zeta, \Omega) P_2(\cos\theta))
\label{rzeta}$$ where $P_2(\theta)$ is the second order Legendre polynomial. The function $h_2$ is chosen so that surfaces of constant $\zeta$ are surfaces of constant pressure in particular the surface of the star is given by $\zeta =R$. This gives for the oblatness of the star $r_{eq}-r_{pole}= (3/2) h_2(\zeta,\Omega) ~\zeta $ between the equatorial and polar radii. This approach was carried out by Simon (1969) and Lebovitz (1970). Gough, Thompson (1990) developed the formalism under the Cowling approximation - which consists in neglecting the Eulerian perturbation to the gravitational potential- for a general stellar model and a prescribed rotation law $\Omega(r,\theta)$. The authors considered the wave equation Eq.\[wave0\] from Lynden-Bell and Ostriker (1967) which in our notation is (see also Sect.\[variat\]): $${\cal L} (\vec \xi) - \rho_0 \omega^2 (\vec \xi) = i \omega {\cal B} (\vec \xi) + {\cal N}(\vec \xi)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}(\vec \xi) &=& \vec \nabla \left( \right. (p_0-\rho_0 c_{s0}^2) \nabla \cdot \vec \xi \label{Lmap} \\
& -& \vec \xi \cdot \nabla p_0 \left. \right)
- p_0 \vec \nabla(\vec \nabla \cdot \vec \xi)
+\vec \xi \cdot \vec \nabla(ln \rho_0 ) \nabla p_0 \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ with $ {\cal N}\xi = \rho_0 \left[\vec \xi_0 \cdot \vec \nabla (\vec v_0 \cdot \vec \nabla \vec v_0)
- (\vec v_0 \cdot \nabla)^2 \vec \xi \right]$ and ${\cal B} (\vec \xi) $ is defined in Eq.\[BLO\]. GT90 actually were interested in the effects of a magnetic field on adiabatic oscillation frequencies and included the Lorenz force contribution to the above equation which we disregard here. The equilibrium quantities $p_0,\rho_0$ and the adiabatic sound speed $c_{s0}^2$ can be expanded about their values in the spherical volume, so for exemple: $$p_0({\bf r})=p_{00}(\zeta)+\epsilon^2 p_2(\zeta) ~P_2(\cos \theta)
\label{p0p2}$$ This procedure has the advantage of retaining simplicity in the boundary conditions which are $\delta P =0 $ at surface and $\psi'=0$ matching the solution of Laplace equation away outward from the surface. GT90 found that for slow rotation, these boundary conditions are far enough. However, they also discussed in detail the boundary conditions obtained by matching the interior with an isothermal atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.\
The price to pay for the change of coordinate system Eq.\[rzeta\] is additional terms coming from the decomposition of the gradients such that $\nabla = \nabla_0+ \nabla_\Omega$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_0 &=& {\bf e_r} {\partial \over \partial \zeta} +
{\bf e_\theta} {1\over \zeta }{\partial \over \partial \theta } + {\bf e_\phi} {1\over \zeta \sin \theta }{\partial \over \partial \phi } \\
\nabla_\Omega &=& {\bf e_r}~{d (\zeta h_2)\over d\zeta} ~P_2(\theta) {\partial \over \partial \zeta} + {\bf e_\theta} \left( h_2
{d P_2(\theta) \over d\theta }{\partial \over \partial \zeta}+{1\over \zeta} h_2 P_2(\theta) {\partial \over \partial \theta}\right)
\nonumber \\
&+& {\bf e_\phi} h_2 P_2(\theta) {1\over \zeta \sin \theta} {\partial \over \partial \phi}\end{aligned}$$ so that ${\cal L}={\cal L}_0+{\cal L}_\Omega$. An inhomogeneous differential equation and boundary conditions for $h_2(\zeta)$ are obtained by matching the gravitational potential onto the vacuum potential in $\zeta>R$ and requiring the transformation be regular at $\zeta=0$.
Simon (1969) carried the expansion up to 2nd order. He derived an integral expression for the second order eigenfrequency correction for nonradial p-modes for a prescribed rotation law $\Omega(r,\theta)$. He then studied the particular case of a uniformly rotating homogeneous spheroid and computed the frequency for the radial fundamental mode which was found to be of the form: $\sigma = \sigma_0 + \beta ~\hat \Omega^2$, $\bar \Omega$ is the dimensionless rotation rate $\Omega/(GM/R^3)^{1/2}$, retrieving results similar to those of Ledoux (1945) and Chandrashekhar and Lebovitz (1962). Chlebowski (1978) derived the expressions for the correcting coefficients for non radial modes and wrote the frequencies under the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma = \sigma_0 -m (1-C_{n,\ell})~\hat \Omega+ {1\over 2\sigma_0} (P_{n,\ell} - m^2 ~Q_{n,\ell}) ~\hat \Omega^2
\label{chleb}\end{aligned}$$ Numerical results were obtained for g-modes of white dwarfs. Later Saio (1981) developed an equivalent procedure and applied it to the study of a polytrope in uniform rotation. He put the scaled eigenfrequency under the convenient form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{n,\ell,m} &=& \sigma_{0,n,\ell}+ m ~\hat \Omega ~(1-C_{nl}) +~ {\hat \Omega^2\over \sigma_0}
\left((Z+X_1+X_2) \nonumber \right. \\
&+& m^2 (Y_1+Y_2) \left. \right)
\label{saioc}\end{aligned}$$ in the observed frame. $\sigma_0$ is the dimensionless frequency of a nonrotating polytrope having the same central pressure and density than the rotating one. Saio found a significant departure from equidistance due to both spherical Z and non spherical X2,Y2 distorsion. GT90 applied this formalism to a shellular rotation for a solar model. Burke, Thompson (2006) used the same approach and correct some errors in GT90. They did not include the poloidal correction of the first order correction to eigenfunction ${\bf \xi_{1p}}$. They computed p-mode eigenfrequencies for stellar models with a variety of masses and ages in the Cowling approximation.
Perturbative approach
----------------------
This procedure has been first developped by Hansen et al. (1978) and DG92.
### Perturbative approach for the structure
Eq.\[equil\] is decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
-{1\over \rho_0}{ \partial p_{0}\over \partial r} &=& {\partial \psi_0 \over \partial r} + {2\over 3} r
\Omega^2(r,\theta) ~(1-P_2(\cos \theta)) \label{st11}\\
-{1\over \rho_0}{ \partial p_{0}\over \partial \theta} &=& {\partial \psi_0 \over \partial \theta} + {1\over 3} r^2
\Omega^2(r,\theta) ~{dP_2(\cos \theta)\over d\theta}
\label{st12}\end{aligned}$$ where the acceleration term $ -r \Omega^2 \sin \theta \vec e_s $ has been written in terms of Legendre polynomials. Pressure, density and gravitational potential are then expanded in terms of even Legendre polynomials due to the equatorial symmetry. One keeps only the first two terms i.e. for the pressure, for instance one sets $$p_0(r,\theta) = p_{00} (r)+ p_2(r) ~ P_2 (\cos \theta)
\label{p0}$$
Inserting this expansion into Eq.\[st11\],\[st12\], one gets on one hand one equation for the spherically symmetric perturbed part of the stellar model $p_{00}, \rho_{00}, \psi_{00}$ and on the other hand equations for the nonspherical part of the stellar model $p_{2}, \rho_2,\psi_2$.
For a shellular rotation $\Omega(r)$, Eq.\[p0\] and Eq.\[st11\] yield: $$-{1\over \rho_{00}} {d p_{00}\over dr} = {d\psi_{00} \over dr} + {2\over 3} r \Omega^2$$ This equation replaces the hydrostatic equation for a non-rotating star. The horizontally averaged centrifugal force modifies the effect of gravity and the equilibrium pressure must adjust in order to balance an ‘effective’ gravity $g_{\rm eff}$ (Eq.\[geff\] . This effect can easily be implemented in an evolutionary code by solving numerically for a classical spherically symmetric (non-rotating) stellar model but using the effective gravity (Kippenhahn et Weigert, 1994).
For a shellular rotation $\Omega(r)$, Eq.\[p0\],\[st11\],\[st12\] yield two equations: $$\begin{aligned}
{d p_{2}\over dr} &=& - \rho_{00} {d\psi_{2} \over dr}- \rho_{2} {d\psi_{00} \over dr} - {2\over 3} r \rho_{00}
~\Omega^2 \\
p_{2}(r) &=& -\rho_{00}(\psi_{2} +{1\over 3} r^2 \Omega^2) \end{aligned}$$ The perturbed part of the Poisson equation writes: $${1\over r^2} {d \over dr} \left( r^2 {d \psi_{2}\over dr}\right) -{6\over r^2} \psi_{2}= 4\pi G \rho_{2}$$ Details for the integration of the system can be found in DG92, Soufi et al. (1998). Generalisation to the case of $\Omega(r,\theta)$ is treated in DG92 and GT90.
### Second order effects from uniform rotation: centrifugal force and uniform rotation {#s2}
For pedagogical reasons, the effects of the Coriolis force are ignored in this section. Including only the frequency corrections due to the centrifugal force remains a good approximation for high frequency p-modes. Indeed the Coriolis force becomes negligible for large $\mu$ (Eq.\[mu\])). We also restrict the study to uniform rotation. In this simplified case, the eigenfrequency and eigenfunction are expanded as $\omega_0+\omega_2$ and $\xi_0+\xi_2$ respectively. One starts again with Eq.\[wave0\], \[wave1\]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_0 ({\bf \xi}_0+ {\bf \xi}_2) +{\cal L}_2({\bf \xi}_0)
& -& \hat \omega^2 (\rho_{00}+\rho_2) ~ ({\bf \xi_0}+{\bf \xi_2}) =0
\label{eql02}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_0 \vec \xi &=& \vec \nabla p'- {\rho'\over \rho_{00}} \vec \nabla p_{00} + \rho_{00} \vec \nabla \psi'
\label{eql00} \\
{\cal L}_2 \vec \xi &=&{\rho_2}~ ({\rho'\over \rho_{00}} \vec \nabla p_{00} + \vec \nabla \psi') -
{\rho'\over \rho_{00}} \vec \nabla p_2
\label{eql22}
\end{aligned}$$
From Eq.\[eql02\], one first gets the zeroth order system Eq.\[zerothorder\] with the zeroth order solution given by Eq.\[omeg0\], \[xi0\]. However, now, second order effects are indirectly inscribed in $\omega_0$ as the equilibrium quantities $p_{00},\rho_{00}, \psi_{00}$ are modified by the effective gravity Eq.\[geff\]. This effect is taken into account for instance in Soufi (1998), Goupil et al. (2000), Daszynska-Daszkiewicz (2002, 2003), Suarez (2006a,b). It is quite small in general: it slightly changes the radius of the star for given mass and age compared to a nonrotating model. Therefore the tracks of a nonrotating equilibrium model and a model with same mass but including spherical distorsion do not coincide. Fig.1 of Goupil et al. (2000) shows evolutionary tracks of main sequence $1.80 M_\odot$ stellar models where gravity is modified by rotation for initial rotational velocities 50 km/s, 100 km/s and 150 km/s. Local conservation of angular momentum is assumed for the evolution of the rotation with age. The evolutionary track for a spherically distorted model is shifted to lower luminosities than that of non-rotating model with same mass. It therefore corresponds to a track of nonrotating models with smaller masses, the larger the initial rotation velocity, the smaller the mass of the nonrotating model. The rotation modification of gravity corresponds to a change of mass smaller than $0.02 M_\odot$ for initial velocities and masses in the above ranges.
This has the consequence that a comparison of the oscillation frequencies of a non-rotating model and a model including rotation, depends on the choice of the non-rotating model. Several choices of non-rotating models are possible. Indeed, for given physical input, chemical composition and rotation rate, two additional parameters must be specified to define a model. The simplest and meaningful choice is that these parameters be fixed at the same value for both models. Saio (1981) compared frequencies of polytropes with and without rotation keeping the central pressure and density constant (by keeping the polytropic index constant). For realistic stellar models, other possible choices are the mass and the radius; the mass and the central hydrogen content for main sequence stars; the effective temperature and the luminosity. The frequency difference for a given mode between a nonrotating model and a rotating model depends on the choice of these two constants. Christensen-Dalsgaard and Thompson (1999) kept the luminosity and the effective temperature constant and showed that the results for radial modes for a polytrope are quite similar to those obtained for realistic models. They also found that the frequency difference obtained between nonrotating and rotating polytropes keeping constant mass and radius as they chose can simply be modelled by adding a constant value to the difference obtained by keeping constant central density and pressure (as in Saio(1981)) at least for asymptotic ie high $n$ radial modes : ${\delta \sigma / \sigma} = \hat \Omega^2 ~(X_1+Z) /\sigma^2 +0.33$ where Z is interpolated from Saio’s table. The second order correction to the eigenfrequency, $\omega_2$, is obtained from Eq.\[eql02\] written under the form: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_0 {\vec \xi}_2 -\rho_{00} ~\omega_0^2 {\vec \xi}_2 = 2 \rho_{00} ~ \omega_0 ~\omega_2 ~{\vec \xi}_0
- \left( {\cal L}_2 - \omega_0^2 \rho_{2}\right) {\vec \xi}_0
\label{L2}\end{aligned}$$ together with the second order perturbed continuity and Poisson equations. Projection of ${\bf \xi_0}$ onto this equation (recalling that $<{\bf \xi}_0|{\cal L}_0 {\bf \xi}_2>= <{\cal L}_0{\bf \xi}_0| {\bf \xi}_2>
=<\rho_0 \hat \omega_0^2 {\bf \xi}_0 |{\bf \xi}_2>$) yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_2 = {1\over 2 \omega_0 I } ~ \int_{V0} ~{\bf \xi}_0^* {\bf \cdot}
\left({\cal L}_2 - \omega_0^2 \rho_2 \right) {\bf \xi}_0 ~d^3r
\label{omeg2}\end{aligned}$$ Some algebraic manipulations leads to : $$\omega_{2,n\ell,m} = {\Omega^2 \over \omega_{0,n,\ell}}~(D_{1,n,\ell}+m^2 D_{2,n,\ell})$$ for each mode $(n,\ell,m)$ (DG92). The $m, \Omega$ dependence of Eq.\[omeg2\] can be understood as a consequence of symmetry properties.
When only the centrifugal force is considered, the eigenfrequencies obtained by perturbation are of the form: $\omega_{n,\ell,m}= w^{(0)}_{n,\ell,m}+ \Omega^2 ~w^{(2)}_{n,\ell,m}+...$ More generally, following Lignière (2006) and Reese (2006), we write the frequency as an expansion in power of $\Omega$ $$\omega_{n,\ell,m}(\Omega)= \sum_{j\geq 0} w^{(j)}_{n,\ell,m} ~\Omega^{j}$$ where $j $ is an integer. The symmetry property $\omega_{n,\ell,m}(\Omega)=\omega_{n,\ell,m}(-\Omega)$ which exists in absence of the Coriolis force imposes $\omega^{(2j-1)}_{n,\ell,m}=0$. Hence the perturbative expansion of the frequency in powers of $\Omega$ only involves even powers in $\Omega$. Further the reflexion symmetry also imposes $ \omega_{n,\ell,-m}(-\Omega)= \omega_{n,\ell,m}(\Omega)$ that-is $ \omega^{(2j)}_{n,\ell,m}= \omega^{(2j)}_{n,\ell,-m}$. Hence the even order coefficients are even functions of $m$. As a consequence, the generalized rotational splitting vanishes $ S_m= (\omega_{n,\ell,m} -\omega_{n,\ell,-m})/m=0$ in absence of the Coriolis force.
Chandrasekhar & Lebovitz (1962) discussed the effect of near-degeneracy in the stellar oscillation context that-is the existence of small denominators which is a classical problem of the perturbation methods in quantum mechanics for instance. Indeed the n-th order correction of an eigenfunction usually involves small denominators of the form $1/(\omega_{0j}-\omega_{0k})$ which can make this correction as large as the (n-1)-th order eigenfunction correction, thereby invalidating the perturbation expansion. Hence when 2 modes, labelled say $j$ and $k$, are such that $(\omega_{0j}-\omega_{0k}) \sim 0$, one must consider them as degenerate or ’coupled’. This leads to an additional correction to the eigenfrequencies. Several works in the context of stellar pulsation have included this correction: Simon (1969), DG92 , Suarez (2006, 2007) , Soufi (1998), Karami (2005). The eigenfunction correction, $\vec \xi_{2k}$ for the mode labelled $k$, is obtained by assuming that it can be written in the zeroth order normal mode basis as: $$\vec \xi_{2k} = \sum_{j\not= k} \alpha_j \vec \xi_{0j}
\label{xi2}$$ where the unknowns now are the $\alpha_{j}$ coefficients. Inserting Eq.\[xi2\] into Eq.\[L2\], one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j\not= k} \alpha_j ~({\cal L}_0 &-& \rho_{00} ~\hat \omega_{0k}^2 )~ {\vec \xi}_{0j} \\
&=& 2 \rho_{00} ~\omega_{0k} ~\omega_{2k} ~{\vec \xi}_{0k}
- \left( {\cal L}_2 {\vec \xi}_{0k} - \omega_{0k}^2
\rho_{2} {\vec \xi}_{0k} \right) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Taking the inner product Eq.\[inner\] with $ {\vec \xi}_{0k}$ yields the solution for $\omega_{2k}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_j= - {1\over \left(\omega^2_{0j} - \omega^2_{0k} \right) I_j }
\int_0^R \vec \xi^*_{0j} \cdot \left( {\cal L}_2 - \omega_{0k}^2 \rho_{2} \right) \vec \xi_{0k} ~{\bf d^3r} \end{aligned}$$ Hence the correction to the eigenfunction of mode $k$ is given by $$\vec \xi_{2k} = - \sum_{j\not= k} { D_{jk} \over \left(\omega^2_{0k} -\omega^2_{0j} \right) } ~
\label{xi2k}$$ where $$D_{jk}= {1\over I_j } ~ \int_V {\vec \xi}^*_{0j}
{\bf \cdot} \left( {\cal L}_2 -\omega_{0k}^2 \rho_{2} \right) {\vec \xi}_{0k} ~{\bf d^3r}
\label{Djk}$$ Note that $D_{jj}=2 \omega_{0j} \omega_{2j}$, the second order (nondegenerate) frequency correction for mode $j$. Let 2 degenerate modes such that $\omega_a \sim \omega_b$ with $\omega_a=\omega_{0a}+\omega_{2a}$ and $\omega_b=\omega_{0b}+\omega_{2b}$ where $\omega_{0a}$, et $\omega_{2a}$ are given by Eq.\[omeg0\] and Eq.\[omeg2\]. One seeks for an eigenfunction of the form: ${\vec \xi}_{0ab} = c_a ~{\vec \xi}_{0a} + c_b ~{\vec \xi}_{0b}$ associated with an eigenvalue $\omega$. Let define $$\bar \omega = {\omega_{0a}+ \omega_{0b} \over 2} ~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~\delta \omega = \omega_{0a}- \omega_{0b}$$ Inserting these expressions into Eq.\[L2\] and taking the inner product with ${\bf \xi}_{0a}$ and $ {\bf \xi}_{0b}$ respectively yield the following system of linear equations: $$\begin{aligned}
c_a \left(\omega^2_{0a}+2\omega_{0a} ~\omega_{2a}-\omega^2\right) + c_b ~D_{ab} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
c_a ~ D_{ba} + c_b \left(2 \omega_{0b} ~\omega_{2b}+\omega_{0b}^2 -\omega^2 \right) &=& 0 \end{aligned}$$ where $D_{jk}$ is given by Eq.\[Djk\] above. Up to second order in $\Omega$, one can write $\omega^2_{0a}+2\omega_{0a} ~\omega_{2a} \sim \omega^2_{a}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
c_a \left(\omega^2_a-\omega^2 \right)+ c_b D_{ab} &=& 0 ~;~ c_a D_{ba} + c_b \left( \omega^2_b-\omega^2 \right) = 0
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The solutions must then verify: $$\omega^4-\omega^2 (\omega^2_{a}+\omega^2_{b})+\omega^2_{a}\omega_{b}^2 -
D_{ab}~D_{ba} =0$$ Accordingly, the frequencies of modified degenerate modes are $$\omega^2_{\pm} = {1\over 2}(\omega^2_{a}+\omega^2_{b})\pm
{1\over 2} \sqrt{(\omega^2_{a}-\omega^2_{b})^2+ 4 D_{ab} D_{ba} }
\label{ompm}$$ The corresponding eigenfunctions $ {\bf \xi}_{\pm}$ are composed of contributions from both zeroth order modes $a$ and $b$ in respective parts determined by the ratio $c_b/c_a$. For vanishing coupling coefficients or negligible in front of the frequency difference i.e. $4\sqrt{D_{ab}D_{ba}}<<|\omega^2_{a}-\omega^2_{b}|$, one recovers the uncoupled second order eigenfrequencies $\omega_\pm = \omega_{a,b}= \omega_{0a,b}+\omega_{2a,b}$. When the effect of the Coriolis force is taken into account up to 3rd order and for non uniform rotation, the calculation is slightly more complicated but the procedure remains in the same spirit (Soufi et al. 1998).
### Full second order and beyond and shellular rotation
In this section, we consider both the Coriolis and the centrifugal forces and assume a shellular rotation $\Omega(r)$, unless otherwise stated. At the end of this section, we also briefly discuss the extention of the calculation up to third order included. Let then return to the eigenvalue system Eq.\[wave0\], \[wave1\] which includes both forces and a differential rotation. When compared to Eq.\[eql02\], additional terms are present which are due to Coriolis; another additional term is proportional to the gradient of $\Omega$ i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf f} &\equiv & {\cal L}_0 {\bf \xi} -\hat \omega^2 \rho_{00}~ {\bf \xi} + 2 \hat \omega \rho_{00}~ i {\bf \Omega} \times {\bf \xi}
- \rho_{00}~ ({\bf \xi \cdot \nabla} \Omega^2) ~r \sin \theta {\bf e_s} \nonumber\\
& &
+\left( {\cal L}_2 {\bf \xi} -\hat \omega^2 \rho_{2} {\bf \xi} \right) + 2 i \hat \omega \rho_{2}
\Omega \times \xi =0
\label{f}\end{aligned}$$ where the operators ${\cal L}_0, {\cal L}_2$ have been defined in Eq.\[eql00\],\[eql22\].
When solving the zeroth order eigensystem (Eq.\[zerothorder\]), the quantities $p_{00},\rho_{00}$ can be provided by solving a 1D spherically symmetric stellar model which includes rotationally induced mixing of chemical elements and transport of angular momentum. which can significantly change the evolution of a rotating star compared to one which is not rotating. Exemples of comparison of evolutionary tracks of models with and without rotationally induced transport can be found in the litterature: evolutionary tracks for a $9M_\odot$ stellar model evolved with an initial rotational velocity of $v=$ 100 and 300 km/s (Talon 1997); for massive stars (Meynet & Maeder, (2000)) ; for a $~1.85 M_\odot$ stellar model evolved with an initial rotational velocity of $v= 70$km/s or 100 km/s (Goupil & Talon, 2002); for low mass stars (Palacios 2003). The main sequence lasts longer for the rotating model as mixing fuels fresh H to the burning core. This also causes for the rotational model a larger increase of its luminosity with time. The evolution of the rotating star can then be quite different from that of a nonrotating one. For an intermediate mass main sequence star with a convective core, the evolution is closer to that of a nonrotating model with overshoot. The inner structure in the vicinity of the core is therefore quite different. Hence, at zeroth order, the eigenfrequency $\omega_0$ differs from the eigenfrequency $\omega^{(0)}$ of a nonrotating star or that of a uniformaly rotating star because one must take into account the rotationally induced transport which are likely to occur in presence of a differential rotation. At the same location in the HR diagram, the Brunt-Väissälä frequencies in the central regions are similar for the rotating and nonrotating stars (both with no overshoot) but the Brunt-Väissälä frequency for the overshoot model is quite different (see Fig.4. Goupil & Talon, 2002). Hence, one expects large frequency differences for low frequency and mixed modes which are are sensitive to these layers between a rotating (no overshoot) model and a nonrotating model with overshoot one.
Consequences of mixing on solar-like oscillations have been studied for several specific stars. An exemple is a $1.5 M_\odot$ stellar model with an initial velocity of 150 km/s (Eggenberger, PhD; Mathis et al., 2006). At the same location in the HR diagram, the evolutionary stages respectively are $X_c=0.33$ and $X_c = 0.443$ for the central hydrogen relative mass content. The effect remains small on the averaged large separation as mass and radius are similar ($<\omega_{n,\ell}-\omega_{n-1,\ell}>_n/(2\pi) \sim 70.40 \mu$Hz without rotation against $69.94 \mu$Hz with rotation). The difference for the averaged small separation between $\ell=0,2$ ($<\omega_{n,\ell}-\omega_{n-1,\ell+2}>_n/(2\pi) \sim 5.07\mu$Hz without rotation against $5.76\mu$Hz with rotation) is large enough to be detected with the space seismic experiment CoRoT (Baglin et al. 2006).
For lower mass stars, undergoing angular momentum losses, the effects might be more subtil. [*$\beta$ Vir*]{} is a solar like star with a mass $1.21-1.28 M_\odot$ and an effective temperature $\sim 6130 K$. It was selected as one best candidate target for the unfortunate seismic space missiom EVRIS (Michel 1995, Goupil 1995). Solar like oscillations for this star have later been detected from ground with Harps: 31 frequencies between 0.7 and 2.4 $\mu$Hz. This star is a slow rotator with a $v \sin i$ between 3 and 7 km/s. Eggenberger & Carrier (2006) have modelled this star with the evolutionary Geneva code with the assumption of rotational mixing of type I (Zahn, 1992; Maeder, Zahn 1998; Mathis et al. 2004). The computed frequencies show that one cannot reproduce simultaneously the large and small separations. The authors stress that a large dispersion of the large separation for the nonradial modes exists which could be attributed to non resolved splittings. Three models with initial velocity $v = 4; 6.8; 8.2$ km/s (ie with magnetic breaking) have been studied (Fig.8 of Eggenberger & Carrier (2006)). As the rotation is so slow, its effect on the structure, hence on $\omega_0$ and the small separation, is very small. This small separation however is found larger than for a corresponding nonrotating model. The rotationally induced transport is not efficient enough to impose a uniform rotation in the radiative zone. The models give $\Omega_c/\Omega_s \sim 3.12$. Such a $\Omega$ gradient ought to be detectable with the rotational splittings, provided they could be detected. The mean value of the splitting is found smaller when the rotation is uniform (0.6 instead of 0.8-0.9 n$\mu$Hz). Hence if futur observations indicate that this 1.3 $M_\odot$ star, like the Sun, is uniformaly rotating, one will have to call for an additional mechanism to transport angular momentum as in the solar case.
A precise knowledge of $\omega_0$ can also serve as a test for the transport efficiency of the horizontal turbulence as reported by Mathis et al. 2006. The investigated case is that of a calibrated solar model. The initial rotational velocity is taken to be 0, 10, 30 or 100 km/s. The seismic properties are compared for 3 different prescriptions for the horizontal turbulence transport coefficient, $D_h$ given respectively by Zahn (1992), Maeder (2003) and Mathis et al. (2004). The more recent prescriptions lead to increased transport and mixing and therefore to a larger effect on the eigenfrequencies compared to nonrotating model . Increasing the rotation leads to an increase of the value of the small separation but its variation with frequency remains similar. Going from Zahn’s transport coefficient to Maeder’s coefficient results in the increase with $\Omega$ to be larger when $\omega$ is increased.
The resolution for the first order frequency correction has been discussed in Sect.[5]{} above. However solving for the second order frequency correction, $\omega_2$, requires the knowledge of the first order eigenfunction, $${\bf \xi_1}={\bf \xi^P_1}+{\bf \xi^T_1}
\label{xi}$$ which is composed of a poloidal part ${\bf \xi^P_1}$ and a toroidal part ${\bf \xi^T_1}$. DG92 provide a detailed procedure for calculating $\xi_1$ and $\omega_2$ and the nonspherical distortion of the star for a differential rotation $\Omega(r,\theta)$ for a prescribed rotation law Eq.\[latit\]. The toroidal part is obtained by taking the radial curl of Eq.\[om1\]. One can obtain the poloidal part by two possible methods: the first one consists in expanding the poloidal part in terms of unperturbed eigenvectors, one then gets the standard expression as Eq.\[xi2k\]. However as stressed by DG92, this method involves an infinite sum which in practice must be truncated at some level. An alternative approach is to solve Eq.\[om1\] directly following Hansen, Cox and Carroll (1978) and Saio (1981) in deriving equations for the radial eigenfunctions corresponding to $\xi_1^P$. DG92 generalized it so as to include latitudinally differential rotation. For a shellular rotation, the poloidal and toroidal parts are seeked under the respective form $$\begin{aligned}
\vec \xi^P_{1,\ell,m} &=& \xi_{1r}(r)~Y_\ell^m~ {\bf e_r} + \xi_{1h}(r) {\vec \nabla_h} Y_\ell^m \nonumber \\
\vec \xi^T_{1,\ell,m} &=& \sum_{\ell,m} ~\tau_1(r) ~{\bf e_r} \times \vec \nabla_h Y_\ell^m \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ For the vector field ${\vec f}$ defined in Eq.\[f\] to vanish, one must impose: $$\begin{aligned}
\int ~ Y_\ell^{m*}~ (\vec e_r\cdot \vec f) ~d{\underline \Omega} = 0 \rightarrow (\xi^P_{1})_{r,\ell} \nonumber \\
\int ~ Y_\ell^{m*}~ (\vec \nabla_h \cdot \vec f) ~d{\underline \Omega} = 0 \rightarrow (\vec \xi^P_{1})_{h,\ell} \\
\int ~ Y_\ell^{m*}~ (\vec e_r \cdot \vec \nabla \times \vec f) ~d{\underline \Omega} = 0 \rightarrow \tau_{1,\ell+1}(r), \tau_{1,\ell-1}(r) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $d{\underline \Omega} = r^2 \sin\theta d\theta d\phi$. These conditions provide differential equations for the two components $\xi_{1r},\xi_{1h}(r)$ and analytical expressions for $\tau_1(r)$ . The components $\xi_{1r},\xi_{1h}(r)$ of the poloidal part are obtained numerically; the numerical resolution of this system also provides the first order correction $\omega_1$ which can be compared to the integral value Eq.\[omeg1\] (Hansen et al.1978, DG92). For near degenerate modes $a$ and $b$, the solution is $$\omega_{1\pm}= \bar \omega_1 \pm \sqrt{(\Delta \omega_1)^2+4 \omega^2_{1,ab}}$$ where $$\bar \omega_1 = {\omega_{1a}+\omega_{1b}\over 2} ~~~;~~~ \Delta \omega_1 = \omega_{1a}-\omega_{1b}$$ and for the coupling coefficient: $$\omega_{1,ab}= -<{\bf \xi}_{0a}|(m \Omega - i {\bf \Omega} \times) {\bf \xi}_{0b}>$$ i.e. for a shellular rotation (see also Suarez et al. (2006)), $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{1,ab}& &= m{1\over I} \delta_{\ell_a,\ell_b} \delta_{m_a,m_b} \int_0^R dr \rho_0 r^2 ~\Omega(r) \nonumber \\
& &~(\xi_{ra}\xi_{rb}
+\Lambda \xi_{ha}\xi_{hb}
- \xi_{ra}\xi_{hb}-\xi_{ha}\xi_{rb}-\xi_{ha}\xi_{hb})
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{\ell_a,\ell_b}$ and $ \delta_{m_a,m_b}$ are Kroenecker symbols and $\Lambda=\ell_a(\ell_a+1)$
Once the first order system is fully solved, the second order system can be solved with the same procedure described in Sect.\[s2\] above: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_0 {\vec \xi_2} &-& \omega_0^2 \rho_{00} {\vec \xi_2}
=(2 \omega_0\omega_2 +2m\Omega \omega_1+m^2 \Omega^2+\omega_1^2) \rho_{00} ~{\vec \xi_0} \nonumber \\
&+& 2\omega_0(m\Omega+\omega_1) \rho_{00} ~ {\vec \xi_1}
- 2 \omega_0 \rho_{00} i {\bf \Omega} \times {\vec \xi_1} \nonumber \\
& +& \rho_{00} ({\vec \xi_0 \cdot \nabla} \Omega^2) ~r \sin \theta {\bf e_s}
- \left( {\cal L}_2 {\vec \xi_0} - \omega_0^2 \rho_{2} {\vec \xi_0} \right)
\label{f2}\end{aligned}$$ where the operators ${\cal L}_0, {\cal L}_2$ have been defined in Eq.\[eql00\],\[eql22\]. DG92 finally obtained : $\omega_2 = \omega^T_2+\omega^P_2+\omega^I_2+\omega^D_2+ {\omega^2_1 \over 2 \omega_0}$. DG92 established the integral expressions for each of the above contributions to $\omega_2$ in the general case of a rotation law Eq.\[latit\] and showed that for a given $(n,\ell,m) $ mode, $\omega_{2,n,\ell,m}$ is a polynome in $m^2$. Following the notations of Eq.\[chleb\], Eq.\[saioc\], the frequency computed up to second order for a shellular rotation can be cast under of the form: $$\omega_{n,\ell,m} = \omega^{(0)}_{n,\ell}+ m \bar \Omega (1-C_{n\ell}-J_{n,\ell})+ \Omega^2 ~(D_{1,n,\ell,m}+ m^2 D_{2,n,\ell,m})$$ Suarez et al. (2006b) provided the equivalence between Saio’s and DG92 notations for a shellular rotation included effect of degeneracy up to second order .
\[third\]
In order to compute the third order frequency correction, a classical perturbation procedure requires the knowledge of the second order eigenfunction ${\bf \xi_2}$. However it is possible to build a pseudo zeroth order system which avoids the lengthy computations of eigenfunctions at two successive orders including degeneracy. The procedure is developped in Soufi et al (1998), see also Karami et al.(2005). The wave equation Eq.\[wave0\] is written as ${\cal F}_0(\xi,\omega)+{\cal F}_c (\xi,\omega)=0$. Part of the Coriolis force is included in the pseudo zeroth order ${\cal F}_0(\xi,\omega)$. As a consequence, the first order frequency and eigenfunction corrections are implicitely included in the pseudo zeroth order solution; first order degeneracy is implicitely included as well. one seeks for a eigenfrequency of the form: $\tilde
\omega_0+\omega_c$ where $\tilde \omega_0$ is solution of the pseudo zeroth order eigensystem and $\omega_c$ is a frequency correction. The solution is then expanded as $ {\bf \xi}= {\bf \tilde \xi}_0 + {\bf \xi}_c+O(\Omega^4)$ where ${\bf \tilde \xi}_0$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \tilde \xi}_0 (\vec r) &=& \xi_{r,m} (r) Y_{\ell}^m {\bf e_r} + \xi_{h,m} (r)
{\bf \nabla}_h Y_{\ell}^m+ \nonumber \\
&+&\tau_{\ell+1,m}(r) \vec e_r \times \vec \nabla_h Y_{\ell+1}^m + \tau_{\ell-1,m}(r) \vec e_r
\times \vec \nabla_h Y_{\ell-1}^m
\label{xim}
\end{aligned}$$ The pseudo zeroth order system is ${\cal F}_0(\tilde \xi_0, \tilde \omega_0)=0$ and ${\bf \tilde \xi}_0$ is then solution of a differential equation system which must be numerically solved and provides the pseudo zeroth order eigenfrequency $\tilde \omega_0$. ${\bf \xi}_c$ is a correction to the eigenvector field ${\bf \tilde \xi}_0$ and is solution of the system ${\cal F}_0(\xi,\omega)+{\cal F}_c (\tilde \xi_0,\tilde \omega_0)-{\cal F}_0(\tilde \xi_0, \tilde \omega_0)=0$ arising from $O(\Omega^2)$ contributions. The solvability condition for this equation yields the frequency correction $\omega_c$. Part of the third order contribution due to Coriolis force is implicitely included in pseudo zeroth order. The price to pay is that 1)- the pseudo zeroth order numerical eigensystem is now m-dependent and 2)- the eigenfunctions are no longer orthogonal with respect to the inner product Eq.\[inner\]. However they are orthogonal with respect to Eq.\[orth\].\
For a given nondegenerate $(n,\ell,m) $ mode, the frequency is then obtained as: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{n,\ell,m} &=& \tilde \omega_{0,n,\ell,m} + \bar \Omega^2 ~(D_{1,n,\ell,m} + m^2 ~D_{2,n,\ell,m}) \nonumber \\
& +& \bar \Omega^3 ~m ~(T_{1,n,\ell,m}+m^2 ~T_{2,n,\ell,m})
\label{linpert}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar \Omega$ is a constant rotation (for instance a depth average or the surface value). For convenience we define a frequency $\omega_{0,n,\ell,m}$ such that $$\omega_{0,n,\ell,m}= \tilde \omega_{0,n,\ell,m} - m \bar \Omega (1-C_{n,\ell,m}-J_{n,\ell,m})
\label{om00}$$ so that one writes the eigenfrequency in a more familiar form: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{n,\ell,m} &=& \omega_{0,n,\ell,m} + m \bar \Omega (1-C_{n,\ell,m}-J_{n,\ell,m}) \nonumber \\
&+& \bar \Omega^2 ~(D_{1,n,\ell,m} + m^2 ~D_{2,n,\ell,m}) \nonumber \\
& +& \bar \Omega^3 ~m ~(T_{1,n,\ell,m}+m^2 ~T_{2,n,\ell,m})
\label{solcub}
\end{aligned}$$ To a good approximation, when cubic order effects are not too large, one has $\omega_{0,n,\ell,m} \sim \omega_{0,n,\ell} $ where $\omega_{0,n,\ell}$ includes only the $O(\Omega^2)$ effects of spherically symmetric distorsion. Because of the symmetry property $$\omega_{n,\ell,m}(\Omega)= \omega_{n,\ell,-m}(-\Omega)$$ the coefficients in Eq.\[solcub\] verify: $$\tilde \omega_{0,n,\ell,m}= \tilde \omega_{0, n,\ell,-m} ~;~D_{j,n,\ell,m} = D_{j,n,\ell,-m} ~; ~T_{j,n,\ell, m} = T_{j,n,\ell,-m}
\label{symproper}$$ for $j=1,2$. It is also convenient to cast the result under the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{n,\ell,m} &=& \omega_{0,n,\ell,m} + m \bar \Omega (1-C_{n,\ell,m}-J_{n,\ell,m}) \nonumber \\
& + & {\bar \Omega^2 \over \tilde \omega_0} ~\left((X_1+m^2 Y_1) +(X_2+m^2 Y_2) \right) \nonumber \\
& +& {\bar \Omega^3 \over \tilde \omega^2_0} ~m ~({\cal S}_1+m^2 ~{\cal S}_2)
\label{solcub2}
\end{aligned}$$ where notations similar to Saio81’s are used but generalised to shellular rotation (Suarez et al 2006b). When modes are degenerate, one uses the same procedure as described in the above paragraph and for a two mode degenerate coupling, the frequencies are then given by (Soufi et al, 1998, Daszynska-Daszkiewicz et al. 2002) $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_\pm &= & \bar \omega_{n,\ell,m} \pm h_{n,\ell,m}
\label{coupl}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\bar \omega_{n,\ell,m} &=& {1\over 2} (\omega_{n,\ell,m}+\omega_{n-1,\ell+2,m}) \nonumber \\
h_{n,\ell,m} &=& {1\over 2} \sqrt{d^2_{n,\ell,m}+4 H^2_{n,\ell,m}} ~~;~~d_{n,\ell,m} = \omega_{n,\ell,m}-\omega_{n-1,\ell+2,m} \nonumber
\label{coupl2}\end{aligned}$$ This generalizes to 3 mode coupling which becomes quite common when rotation is large.
Using Eq.\[solcub\] and symmetry properties, one derives for the rotational splittings Eq.\[split1\] the following expression: $$S_m = \bar \Omega ~(1-C_{n,\ell,m}-J_{n,\ell,m}) + \bar \Omega^3~ (T_{1,n,\ell,m}+m^2 T_{2,n,\ell,m})
\label{Sm1}$$ which is free of second order nonspherically symmetric distorsion effect. For degenerate modes, the expression for the splittings $S_m$ is more complicated and can be derived from Eq.\[coupl\] Asymmetry of the split multiplets, or departure from equal splittings for nondegenerate modes, is measured by: $$\Delta \omega_{n,\ell,m} = \omega_{n,\ell,m=0}-{1\over 2} (\omega_{n,\ell,m}+\omega_{n,\ell,-m})
\label{asym}$$ Using Eq.\[solcub\], its expression becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \omega_{n,\ell,m} &=& (\omega_{0,n,\ell,0}-\omega_{0,n,\ell,m}) \nonumber \\
&+& \bar \Omega^2 ~((D_{1,n,\ell,0} - D_{1,n,\ell,m})
- m^2 ~D_{2,n,\ell,m}) \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the symmetry properties Eq.\[symproper\]. When cubic order effects on $\omega_{0,n,\ell,m}$ are small, $D_{2,n,\ell,m}$ dominates over the third order differences $(\omega_{0,n,\ell,m} - \omega_{0,n,\ell,0}) $ and $(D_{1,n,\ell,0}-D_{1,n,\ell,m}) $ so that one can most often considers: $$\Delta \omega_{n,\ell,m} \sim - m^2 ~\bar \Omega^2 ~D_{2,n,\ell,m}
\label{asym2}$$
Some theoretical results : case of a polytrope
----------------------------------------------
As mentionned in Sect.\[mapping\], Simon (1969) built a mapping between a spheroidal coordinate system and a spherical one and computed the second order effects for radial modes of a polytrope of index $n_{polyt}=3$ and specific heat coefficient $\Gamma_1=5/3$. He found for the dimensionless squared frequency (in units of $4\pi G \rho_c$, $\rho_c$ being the central density): $ \sigma^2 = \sigma^2_0 + \beta \Omega^2$ with $\sigma^2_0 =0.057, \beta =-3.858$ for the fundamental radial mode which includes the effect of the first order toroidal contribution ${8\over 3} \Omega^2$ ($m=0$, $X_1= 8/3$, $X_2=0$ in Eq.\[solcub2\]) to $\sigma$ and the approximate effect of distorsion. This results agreed with the earlier work by Cowling & Newing (1949), but in a somewhat desagreement with results of other previous works such as Chandrasekhar and Lebovitz (1962). Clement (1965) using a variational principle computed the frequency for an axisymmetric $\ell=2$ mode, he found $\sigma^2= 8.014-0.255 \hat \Omega^2 $.\
Saio (1981) studied the effect of uniform rotation upon nonradial oscillation frequencies up to second order $O(\Omega^2)$ and computed the frequency corrections for a polytrope of index $n_{polyt}=3$ and $\gamma=5/3$ and for $\ell=0,1,2,3$ modes with radial order $n$ up to $n=6$ for p-modes. His numerical results were in agreement with those of Simon (1969), Clement (1965), Chlebowski (1978). For the radial fundamental mode, he found $\sigma^2 = 9.252-3.79 ~ \hat \Omega^2 $ to be compared to Simon’s result in the same units $\sigma = 9.249-3.86 \hat \Omega^2 $. He wrote the corrected frequency under the convenient form Eq.\[saioc\] The quantity $Z+ X_2+m^2 Y_2$ arises from the distorsion of the equilibrium model. The first order eigenfunctions were computed by solving directly the appropriate system of equations which he gave in appendix, generalising the approach derived by Hansen et al. (1978) in the Cowling approximation. Perturbations of the structure were obtained from the tabulated results of Chandrashekhar and Lebovitz (1962). Eq.\[saioc\] shows that second order effects break the symmetry of the rotational splitting which exists at first order. For non radial p-modes, he found that the effect of distorsion of the equilibrium model dominates the frequency correction: $Z$ is large and negative and dominates over $X_2$ which is also large and positive; $Y_2$ is negative and much larger than $Y_1$ which is positive. $|Z|, X_2, |Y_2|$ increase with radial order of the p-modes. Table \[tab1\] gives values of the coefficients in Eq.\[solcub2\] for a polytrope with $n=3$ and $\gamma =5/3$ computed using Soufi et al.(1998)’s approach. Columns $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the cubic order coefficients appearing explicitely in Eq.\[solcub2\], they are found to increase steadily with the radial order as for the second order distorsion coefficients but they are smaller and increase more slowly with the frequency. The last column lists the asymptotic coefficient $<{\cal W}_2>$ defined in Eq.\[sig2m\].
[llllllllll]{} & & & & $\ell=1$ & & & & & n & $\sigma^2_0$ & $C_{n,\ell}$ & $X_1$ & $Y_1$ & $X_2$ & $Y_2$ & $S_1$ & $S_2$ & $<{\cal W}_2>$ 1 & 11.400 & 0.028 & 0.776 & 0.980 & 2.898 & -4.347 & 0.694 & -0.243 &0.127 2 & 21.540 & 0.034 & 0.773 & 0.919 & 5.829 & -8.743 & 0.345 & 0.231 &0.135 3 & 34.896 & 0.033 & 0.773 & 0.872 & 9.677 & -14.515 & -0.038 & 0.767 &0.139 4 & 51.467 & 0.031 & 0.776 & 0.839 & 14.427 & -21.641 & -0.436 & 1.334 &0.140 5 & 71.234 & 0.027 & 0.778 & 0.815 & 20.069 & -30.103 & -0.835 & 1.906 &0.141 6 & 94.177 & 0.024 & 0.781 & 0.798 & 26.593 & -39.890 & -1.233 & 2.483 &0.141 7 & 120.280 & 0.021 & 0.783 & 0.785 & 33.995 & -50.992 & -1.634 & 3.067 &0.141 8 & 149.529 & 0.019 & 0.785 & 0.775 & 42.269 & -63.404 & -2.031 & 3.647 &0.141 9 & 181.911 & 0.017 & 0.787 & 0.768 & 51.413 & -77.119 & -2.426 & 4.226 &0.141 10 & 217.417 & 0.015 & 0.788 & 0.761 & 61.422 & -92.134 & -2.818 & 4.803 &0.141 11 & 256.040 & 0.013 & 0.789 & 0.756 & 72.296 & -108.445 & -3.207 & 5.377 &0.141 12 & 297.770 & 0.012 & 0.790 & 0.752 & 84.033 & -126.050 & -3.593 & 5.948 &0.141 13 & 342.604 & 0.011 & 0.791 & 0.748 & 96.631 & -144.947 & -3.976 & 6.515 &0.141 14 & 390.535 & 0.010 & 0.792 & 0.744 & 110.090 & -165.136 & -4.355 & 7.077 &0.141 15 & 441.560 & 0.009 & 0.793 & 0.741 & 124.410 & -186.615 & -4.730 & 7.633 &0.141 16 & 495.676 & 0.008 & 0.793 & 0.739 & 139.590 & -209.386 & -5.101 & 8.184 &0.141 17 & 552.879 & 0.008 & 0.794 & 0.736 & 155.631 & -233.447 & -5.466 & 8.727 &0.141 18 & 613.167 & 0.007 & 0.794 & 0.734 & 172.533 & -258.800 & -5.825 & 9.262 &0.141 19 & 676.539 & 0.006 & 0.795 & 0.731 & 190.296 & -285.445 & -6.178 & 9.787 &0.141 20 & 742.992 & 0.006 & 0.795 & 0.729 & 208.922 & -313.383 & -6.524 & 10.302 &0.141 21 & 812.525 & 0.006 & 0.796 & 0.727 & 228.411 & -342.616 & -6.861 & 10.805 &0.141 22 & 885.139 & 0.005 & 0.796 & 0.725 & 248.764 & -373.145 & -7.190 & 11.295 &0.141 23 & 960.830 & 0.005 & 0.796 & 0.723 & 269.982 & -404.972 & -7.509 & 11.772 &0.140
Some theoretical results: realistic stellar models
--------------------------------------------------
### Frequency comparisons between polytropic and realistic stellar models
Tab.2 of DG92 compares results from a polytropic and a realistic stellar models for the first order splitting coefficient $C_{n,\ell}$ and the second order coefficient $D_L=Y_1+Y_2$ appearing in Eq.\[solcub2\]. The authors computed $D_L$ assuming rigid rotation for a 2 $M_\odot$ at two evolutionary stages one with a central hydrogen content $X_c=0.699$ (ZAMS) and a more evolved model with $X_c=0.313$. They compared with the results for a $n_{polyt}=3$ polytrope. Apart for mixed modes, the polytropic and realistic values for $D_L$ are comparable $D_L<0, |D_L|$ increases with $n$. Differences were found larger for $C_L$ coefficients than for $D_L$ ones. The largest differences arise for modes in avoided crossing on the $C_l$ coefficients.
### The solar case and solarlike pulsators
GT90 computed the high p-mode frequencies up to second order for a solar model assuming uniform rotation as well as several shellular rotation laws. They found that centrifugal distorsion is the dominant second order effect, of the order of a few dozen nanoHz for a surface rotation frequency $\nu_s$ of about 0.5 $\mu$Hz and either a uniform rotation or a rotation profile with a core rotation of $\sim 2 \nu_s$ and a first order splitting of $\sim
440$ nanoHz. DG92 investigated these effects for a realistic solar model and a differential rotation $\Omega(r,\theta)$. The authors studied the 2nd order effects on the splittings $\delta_m$ (Eq.\[split\]) for the Sun and found that of the nonspherical distorsion $Y_2$ in Eq.\[solcub2\] dominates (hence Eq.\[asym2\]) with values as $\Omega^2 /\omega_0 \sim 0.1$ nanoHz which must be mulitplied by $\sigma^2 ~\sim 100-1000$ for solar p-mode, in agreement with GT90. Because the nonspherically symmetric distorsion dominates for high frequency nondegenerate modes, one can write for these modes: $$\omega_{2,n,\ell,m} \sim \omega_2^D ~(DG92)={\bar \Omega^2 \over \omega_0} (X_2+m^2 Y_2) ~(Saio81)$$ It is also convenient to write the quantity $X_2+m^2 Y_2 $ as: $$\begin{aligned}
X_2+m^2 Y_2 & \sim & {\cal Q}_{2\ell,m} ~ {\cal D}_{asymp} ~~{\rm with}~~ {\cal Q}_{2,\ell,m} = {\Lambda-3 m^2 \over 4\Lambda-3} \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ For high radial order, an asymptotic analysis indeed shows that ${\cal D}_{asymp} \sim \sigma^2_0 ~<{\cal W}_2>$ where $<{\cal W}_2>$ is an integral over the distorted structure quantities which depends on the non spherically rotational perturbation of the gravitational potential (DG92, Fig.8 of Goupil 2001). This explains the linear increase with the frequency, $\omega_0$, of the second order correction (Saio81, GT90, DG92, Goupil 2004) which in dimensionless form behaves as $$\sigma_{2m} = \hat \Omega^2 ~ {\cal Q}_{2,\ell,m} ~ \sigma_0 ~<{\cal W}_2>
\label{sig2m}$$ The asymptotic quantity $<{\cal W}_2> $ is listed in Tab.1 for a polytrope with $n_{polyt}=3$ and $\Gamma_1=5/3$. Burke and Thompson (2007) computed the second order effects for a 1 $M_\odot$ evolving along the main sequence and for a 1.5 ZAMS model They also find that the second order dimensionless coefficients vary little with age for a 1 $M_\odot$ and vary in a homologous way for different masses along the ZAMS.
A linear increase with radial order is also the case for the degenerate second order coupling coefficient (Suarez et al, 2006b): for two modes $a$ and $b$ ($\omega_{0a}\sim \omega_{0b}$): $$H_{ab} \sim \omega_{2D,ab} \sim {\Omega^2 \over \omega_0}~ {\cal Q}_{2,\ell,m} ~{\cal D}_{ab, asymp}$$ with ${\cal D}_{ab, asymp} \sim \sigma_0 ~<{\cal W}_{2}>$ as it is also dominated by nonspherically symmetric distorsion.
P-mode frequency small separations, defined as $\omega_{n-1,\ell,0}-\omega_{n,\ell+2,0}$ are of the order of a few dozen $\mu$Hz for solar like main sequence low and intermediate mass stars. When the star is rotating fast enough (F,G,K main sequence stars have surface projected rotational velocities between 10 and 40 km/s), the frequencies are modified by an amount which can be significant, particularly when they are degenerate. Close frequencies as those involved in small separations favor the occurence of degeneracy induced modifications. As a consequence, the small separation can be quite affected by rotation. This was stressed by Soufi et al (1998). Quantitative estimates have been obtained by Dziembowski & Goupil (1998) for a $1 M_\odot$ and $v=10$ and $20$ km/s and Goupil (2004) for a 1.4 $M_\odot$ and a $1.54 M_\odot$ rotating stellar models with a surface rotational velocity of 20, 30, 35 km/s. Changes in the small separations are of the order of $0.1-0.2 \mu$Hz (corresponding to a change of 0.1-0.2 Gyr for the age of the star) and increase with the frequency. Provided enough components of the rotational splittings are available, it is possible to remove most of these contamination effects in order to recover a ’classical’ small separation (Dziembowski & Goupil (1998) and Fig.4 in Goupil (2004)). As rotation induced distorsion of the equilibrium significantly affects the small separation of high order p-modes, it also affects the shape of the ridges in an echelle diagram. The effect is larger in the upper part of the diagram ie at high frequency (Goupil & Dupret (2007), Fig.6) but as one can decontaminate the small separation, it is also possible to recover an echelle diagram free of rotationally induced pollution effects (Goupil 2006; Lochard 2008 in prep.)
### Delta Scuti stars
DG92 computed the second order frequencies for a 2 $M_\odot$ with a uniform rotation velocity of 100 km/s and discussed the departure from equal rotational splittings induced by distorsion $\omega_{2D}$ for low frequency modes in the range of the fundamental radial mode. The distorsion, hence the departure from equal splitting, is larger for the trapped mode (or mixed mode) in this low frequency regime where all the other modes have a predominantly g-mode character. Goupil et al. (2000) investigated the effects of moderate rotation (initial radial velocity of 100 km/s) on rotational splittings of $\delta$ Scuti stars using the 3rd order perturbative approach of Soufi et al. (1998). A $1.8 M_\odot$ stellar model half way on the main sequence was studied. Effects of successive perturbation order contributions on the oscillation frequencies are shown for modes $\ell=0,\ell=2$ modes (Fig.3). Changes in the frequency pattern appearence in a power spectrum are mainly due to centrifugal distorsion and are shown in the particular case of the $\delta$ Scuti star FG Vir for 3 values of the initial rotation velocity $10, 46, 92km/s$. The first order equidistant pattern of the rotational splittings is totally lost at 92 km/s. The 3rd order effects effects in the generalised rotational splittings (Eq.\[Sm1\]) computed for a uniform rotation are found relatively small. Although the rotation is uniform, $S_m$ show strong variations of the order of $\mu$Hz with the frequency due to the presence of mixed modes (Fig.6). The true (uniform) rotation rate can however be recovered when combining well chosen components of the multiplets. Departure from equal splittings for nondegenerate modes as measured by Eq.\[asym\] is again found to be dominated by the nonspherically symmetric centrifugal distorsion contribution. The splitting asymmetry then becomes $$\Delta \omega_m
\sim m^2 ~\omega_0 ~{3 \over 4\Lambda-3} ~{\Omega^2 \over (GM/R^3)} ~<{\cal W}_2>$$
Pamyatnykh (2003) give quantitative estimates of the effect of mode near- degenerate coupling on nonradial p-mode frequencies (Fig.5) and on period ratios of radial modes (Fig.6) for a 1.8 $M_\odot$ main sequence model with a surface rotational velocity of 92 km/s. The induced modifications can be quite significant. Suarez et al (2006a,b) studied second order effects for a 1.5 $M_\odot$ mass star, representative of a delta Scuti star and for a prescribed shellular rotation law with assuming a surface velocity of 100 km/s. Comparing frequencies for models assuming a uniform rotation on one hand and a shellular rotation law on the other hand, they found differences of about 1-3 $\mu$Hz for high frequency p-modes and larger for lower frequencies. The authors ivestigated consequences of degeneracy due to rotation which are also illustrated in Goupil et al. (2006). Burke and Thompson (2007) computed the second order frequencies for a 1.98 $M_\odot$ mid main sequence star representative of a $\delta$ Scuti star. Their Fig.3 shows that the coefficients vary little with radial order $n$ except for mixed modes.
Fast rotators: nonperturbative approaches {#fast}
=========================================
Several types of fast rotating pulsating stars are known to exist. One good exemple is the nearby A-type star, Altair. This star is rotating fast with a $v \sim 227$ km/s and is flattened with a ratio $R_{eq}/R_{pole}\sim 1.23-1.28$; $\mu =0.08-0.2$. Interferometric observations has revealed a gravity darkening effect in accordance with Von Zeipel theory for this star with the equatorial layers cooler ($\sim$ 6800 K instead of $\sim $ 8700K) and $60-70\%$ darker than the poles (Domiciano de Souza et al 2005, Monnier et al 2007). Altair is a delta Scuti stars and its power spectrum shows 7 frequencies from WIRE observations (Buzasi 2005). Modelling of these pulsations has been attempted by Suarez et al (2005). For such a star, it is likely that a perturbative approach is no longer valid neither for the equilibrium model nor for the computation of the oscillation properties.
Formalisms
----------
Oscillation properties are computed for a stellar model which is considered in static equilibrium. The rotating model is no longer perturbative but is assumed to keep the axisymmetry and must then be described as a 2D configuration. Hence, the equations are separable in $\phi$ but no longer in $(r,\theta)$ variables in a spherical coordinate system. In order to study the structure of a rotating star, several works have developped various techniques with the goal of building 2D rotating equilibrium configurations as mentionned in Sect.\[rapideq\].
### Eigenvalue problem
Once the equilibrium configuration is built, the goal is to calculate the adiabatic oscillations of a given model defined by the quantities $\rho(r,\theta), p((r,\theta)$ etc.... When the star is rotating fast, as the latitudinal and radial dependences (in $\theta$, $r$) are no longer separable, one here again one deals with a 2D computation. Linearization of the equations, $\phi$ variable separation and the hypothesis of a steady state configuration allow to write the displacement eigenfunction as: $ \xi \propto e^{i(\omega t - m \phi)}$ where $m$ is an integer. Solving the associated eigenvalue problem has led to series of different studies starting with Clement (1981), see Reese (2006) for a detailed bibliography. One of the techniques is to expand the solution as a series of spherical harmonics for the angular dependence: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec \xi_m = e^{i\omega t}~ r~\sum^{\infty}_{\ell\geq |m|} & &
~\left(\right.S_\ell(r) Y_{\ell}^m(\theta,\phi) \vec e_r + H_\ell(r) \vec \nabla_h Y_{\ell}^m(\theta,\phi)
\nonumber \\
& & +T_\ell(r) ~ \vec e_r \times \vec \nabla_h Y_{\ell}^m(\theta,\phi) \left.\right)
\label{xiht}
\end{aligned}$$ and $f '= \sum^{\infty}_{\ell\geq |m|} f'_\ell(r) Y_{\ell}^m(\theta,\phi) e^{i\omega t}$. One obtains a infinite set of coupled differential equations for the depth dependence of the eigenfunctions. The properties of axisymmetry and symmetry with respect to the equator $(\theta \rightarrow \pi-\theta)$ cause a decoupling of the problem into 2 independent eigenvalue systems (Unno et al. 1989; Lee & Saio 1986). For any integer $j \geq 0$:
Even modes (i.e sym/equator) are $\ell= |m|+2j+2 , \ell'=\ell+1$ i.e. $ (m=0, \ell=0,2,4..) ; (m\pm 1, \ell=1,3,5..); ..$
Odd modes (i.e. antisym/equator) are $ \ell=|m|+2j-1, \ell'=\ell-1 $ i.e. $(m=0, \ell=1,3,5,..) ; (m\pm 1, \ell=2,4,5..); ..$
Lee and Saio (1986) used this technique to study the g-modes of a 10 $M_\odot$ stellar model, the frequencies were computed by keeping only the first two harmonics in the series Eq.\[xiht\]. Note that the equilibrium model was obtained by means of perturbation as developped by Kippenhan, Meyer-Hofmeister, Thomas (1970).
More recently, Espinosa (2004) considered the effect of the centrifugal force only, neglecting the Coriolis force, assumed the Cowling approximation and neglected the Brünt- Väissälä frequency in the adiabatic oscillation equation $(N^2 << \omega^2)$. These above assumptions are valid for high frequency p-modes. He also assumed a uniform rotation. The numerical resolution was based on a finite difference method. Espinosa(2004) studied first a model with a uniform density then turned to a realistic model built by Claret with $\epsilon^2$ between 0 and 0.3. An alternative approach has been developed by Reese (2006) who studied a polytrope in uniform rotation, that-is the structure is built according to $$\begin{aligned}
p_0 &=& K \rho_0^\gamma ~~;~~\Delta \psi_0 = 4 \pi G \rho_0 \nonumber \\
0 &=& -\nabla p_0 - \rho_0 \nabla \left(\psi_0-{1\over 2} \Omega^2 s^2 \right)\end{aligned}$$ The computation of adiabatic oscillation frequencies of p-modes is based on a 2D approach which uses spectral methods in both dimensions $r,\theta$ with expansions in spherical harmonics for the angular part and in Chebitchev polynomials for the radial dependence. For any function, $f$, $$f(r,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=|\ell|}^{\infty} f_m^\ell(r)
Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)$$ Each of the radial functions $f_m^\ell$ is written as: $ f_m^\ell(r) = \Sigma_{j=0}^{\infty} a_j^{\ell,m} ~T_j(2r-1)$. For the velocity field: $$\vec v(r,\theta,\phi) = \Sigma_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \left( \Sigma_{m=|\ell|}^{\infty} u_m^\ell(r) \vec R_\ell^m
+ v_m^\ell(r) \vec S_\ell^m + w_m^\ell(r) \vec T_\ell^m \right)$$ where $\vec R_\ell^m, \vec S_\ell^m, \vec T_\ell^m $ constitute a basis which becomes the usual spherical basis $Y_\ell^m \vec e_r, \vec \nabla Y_\ell^m, \vec e_r \times \vec \nabla Y_\ell^m$ (as in Eq.\[xiht\]) when $\Omega \rightarrow 0$. According to the authors, 120 points with a spectral method correspond to 5000 points with a finite difference method at least when the structure is smooth as is that of a polytrope. Furthermore, the authors chose a coordinate system which is better adapted to the oblate geometry $(\zeta, \theta, \phi)$ as proposed earlier in another context by Bonazzola et al. (1998). The relation between the star radius in spherical (r) and oblate ($\zeta$) coordinate systems is given by: $$r(\zeta,\phi) = \zeta \left(1-\epsilon +{5\zeta^2-3\zeta^4\over 2} (R_s(\theta)-1+\epsilon) \right)$$ where $R_s(\theta)$ is the surface radius, $\epsilon$ is the oblatness parameter. The surface boundary condition is taken as $\psi' =0$ at large distance of the surface of the star. The numerical computation solves a full matrix system.
Some results and conclusions
----------------------------
Espinosa (2004) and Lignières et al. (2006) studied the effect of the centrifugal force. The first study chose an oblateness parameter in the range $\epsilon = 0 -0.3$ while the second one investigated the range $\epsilon = 0 -0.15; \Omega/\Omega_k = 0$ up to 0.59 that-is a rotational velocity up to 150 km/s for a $\delta $ Scuti where $\Omega_k = ({G M/ R_{eq}^3})^{1/2}$ with $M$ the stellar mass and $R_{eq}$ the equatorial radius. The effects of the centrifugal force increase with increasing $\omega$ (Fig.2 of Lignières et al 2006). Frequencies of even and odd modes behave differently: frequencies of even modes tend to increase whereas those of odd modes decrease. The effect of the centrifugal force on p-modes is to contract the eigenfrequency spectrum. These effects are more important for high $n$ and low $\ell$ (see Fig.3 of Lignière et al 2006). Reese (2006) computed frequencies of a polytrope with a polytropic index $n=3$, using 70-80 $\ell$ degree spherical harmonics and 60-80 points for the radial grid in the spectral decompositions. Both the centrifugal and Coriolis forces are included. The Coriolis effects are found to decrease with increasing $\omega$. For high frequency modes, the effects du to the centrifugal force dominate. Visualisation of oscillations of a distorted rotating star can be seen on the web site of D. Reese or Fig.4 of Espinosa (2004).
In general, the oscillation modes of a fast rotating star look like modes for a spherically symmetric star and a mode classification remains possible: the dominant $\ell$ degree most often corresponds to the degree of the mode for a zero rotation. This is shown by following the mode starting from a zero rotation and progressively increasing the rotation rate. However following the mode with increasing rotation rate is made more complicated by the presence of mixed modes. For the highest rotational velocities, the dominant degree $\ell$ is no longer the degree of the mode with zero rotation. The dominant $\ell$ can be as large as $\ell_0+6$ where $\ell_0$ is the degree of the mode for the nonrotating model. In that case, one can wonder whether the mode would still be visible in disk integrated light from ground? Would that contribute to explain the complicated patterns seen in power spectra of fast rotating $\delta$ Scuti stars where no frequency are detected in large domains in between frequency ranges where many frequencies are detected for the same star?
Espinosa (2004) found that the numerical frequencies computed assuming a uniform rotation and with the aforementioned approximation obey the relation $\omega_{n,\ell,m} = \bar \omega_{n,\ell,m} + m \Omega - f_{n,\ell}(m^2,\Omega) - (-)^{\ell+m} g_{n,\ell}(m^2,\Omega)\nonumber
$ where $f$ and $g$ are positive definite and monotonically increasing functions with $ m^2$. The combined effect of the 3rd and last terms produces compressions of the frequencies within the multiplets which generate pairing of modes with different types of symmetry. Indeed for increasing rotation, frequencies tend to assemble by pair of modes with different values of $m$ (Fig.1 of Espinosa 2004, Lignières 2006, Reese 2006). This effect starts to appear for larger $\ell$ when the rotation is increased. The origin of such a pairing is attributed to the nonspherical distorsion of the structure. This effect might have already been observed in the Fourier spectra of $\delta$ Scuti star light curves.
Fig.7.3 in PhD thesis of Reese (2006) shows that when the radial order $n$ increases, the large separation still tends toward a constant value but the small separation no longer decreases to 0 . Fig.7.2 also shows that the small separation between $\ell=0,n$ and $\ell=2,n-1$ modes for instance increases for increasing rotation as the frequency of the $\ell=2$ mode decreases whereas that of the radial one remains almost constant until some rotation is reached beyond which the small separation is now between the $\ell=2,n-1$ and the radial mode below ie $\ell=0,n-1$. This behavior is reminiscent of the avoided crossing behavior of the same modes when the (non-rotating) stellar model evolves i.e. with decreasing effective temperature or central hydrogen content. Reese et al. (2006a,b) modelled the behavior of the numerical frequencies as : $\omega_{n,\ell,m}= \Delta_n n +\Delta_\ell \ell-m \Omega+\Delta_m |m|+\alpha_\pm$ where the $\Delta$ coefficients are constant depending on $\Omega$ but not on $n,\ell,m$, $\alpha_\pm$ depends on $\Omega$ and on the $(\ell+m)$ parity of the mode.
The centrifugal distorsion is found to cause a high concentration of the mode amplitude toward the equator (Fig.8 of Lignière et al (2006)).
Most of the above effects obtained for a polytrope appear to be also verified when one turns to the oscillation frequencies of a more realistic stellar model (Espinosa, 2004, PhD thesis). However, the effect of mode couplings seems to be stronger in the realistic case. This perhaps might be expected as the structure of a polytrope is smoother than that of a more realistic stellar model.
Validity of the results from perturbation techniques {#valid}
----------------------------------------------------
From the previous chapter and what has been described in this chapter, one concludes that some results of perturbative and non pertubative methods are qualitatively similar. On the other hand, some new types of behavior seem to appear when the perturbative methods are no longer valid. For concrete studies, one then needs to quantify the domain of validity of perturbation methods. In order to do so, one must compare the results coming from the perturbation methods under the form Eq.\[solcub\] with the numerical frequencies computed with a nonperturbative approach. Reese et al (2006) determined the dependence of the frequency $\omega$ in function of the rotation rate $\Omega$ by means of a polynomial fit of the form $$\omega_{fit}(\Omega) = A_0+A_1 ~ \Omega+ A_2 ~ \Omega^2+A_3 ~ \Omega^3+O(\Omega^4)$$ The $A_j$ coefficients are determined by fitting the numerical frequencies computed with the non perturbative approach. The authors then compared the numerical frequencies to their conterpart at a given level of approximation. The comparison is carried out with the differences $\delta_j=\omega-\omega_{app,j}$ where $\omega_{app,j} = \sum_{1}^j A_j \Omega^j$ . When only the centrifugal force in included, the error between second order perturbative and nonperturbative frequencies is $\sim 11 \mu$Hz for $\Omega/\Omega_K = 0.24$ for a typical delta Scuti star with a rotational velocity of 100 km/s (Fig.12, Lignières et al 2006). The relative error reaches $3\%$ at $\Omega/\Omega_K = 0.3$. Reese (2006) considered more appropriate quantities for the comparison: $$\begin{aligned}
{\omega_{n,\ell,m}+\omega_{n,\ell,-m}\over 2}
&= \omega^0_{n,\ell,m}+\omega^2_{n,\ell,m} \Omega^2 + \omega^4_{n,\ell,m} \Omega^4 \\
{\omega_{n,\ell,m}-\omega_{n,\ell,-m}\over 2}
&= \omega^1_{n,\ell,m} \Omega + \omega^3_{n,\ell,m} \Omega^3 + \omega^5_{n,\ell,m} \Omega^5 \end{aligned}$$ Frequency differences between perturbative and nonperturbative computations are the same for two modes with opposite $m$ and same $\ell,n$. Reese (2006) found that the error which is introduced between perturbative frequencies and non perturbative ones is larger than the accuracy of frequency measurement (0.4 $\mu$Hz) for 150 days of observation for a solar like oscillating star. (0.08 $\mu$Hz) (Fig.4 of Reese et al 2006). In the frequency range considered and with COROT’s accuracy, it is found that complete calculations are required beyond $v sin i=50 km s^{-1}$ for a $R = 2.3 R_\odot, M=1.9 M_\odot$ polytropic star. Furthermore, it is shown that the main differences between complete and perturbative calculations come essentially from the centrifugal distortion. A comparison between the results of nonperturbative calculations and those from perturbative computations as described in the previous section is also necessary and is currently being carried out.
Observed rotational splittings and forward inferences
=====================================================
Solar-like pulsators
--------------------
Several low to intermediate mass main sequence stars are known to oscillate with solar like oscillations. However, they are rotating too slow and in all but one instance and apart for the Sun, their splittings have not been detected yet.
### $\alpha$ Cen A :
50 days of space photometric observations of this star with Wire led to the detection of 18 frequencies in the range 1700-2650 $\mu$Hz which were measured with an accuracy of 1-2 $\mu$Hz (Fletcher et al. 2006). Detected modes have $\ell=0$ to 2 and radial order $n=14-18$. These observations allowed to determine an average value for the rotational splitting of $0.54\pm 0.22 \mu$Hz.
### Procyon:
Solar like oscillations for Procyon have been detected in velocity measurements (Claudi et al. 2005, Leccia 2007, Heeker 2007). Some controversy exists as to whether these oscillations can be detected in photometry even from space. As a prototype for a 1.5 $M_\odot$ main sequence star, Bonanno et al. (2007) have modelled the latitudinally differential rotation in the outer convective layers for this star. Their models give a flatness of order 0.1-0.45 which is comparable with the solar case 0.25. The authors computed a latitudinal averaged $\Omega(r)$. The splittings differ by a few nanoHz depending on the latitudinal shear obtained in the models generating the differential rotation. Such a small value could be detected with Corot after averaging over several multiplets.
### HD 49933:
The space experiment Corot, which was successfully launched in december 2006, seems to be able to keep its promises and makes possible to detect mean splitting values as well as individual splittings at least in some favorable cases. As the first solar-like target for this mission, HD49933 was observed from ground with the spectrograph HARPS (Mosser et al, 2005). These observations confirmed the expectation that this star is a solar like oscillator. The star shows a high degree of stellar activity and the rotation appears to be quite rapid with a period of the order of 4-8 days. The star was the object of a hare and hound exercise in order to see whether splittings can indeed be detected and which accuracy can be expected. This exercice indicated that for an assumed rotation of 1.4-2.9$\mu$ Hz, many splittings could be detected. Only a few correct ones however were measured within $0.5 \mu$Hz from the correct value and with error bars less that $0.5 \mu$Hz (Appourchaux et al. 2006).
$\delta $ Scuti stars
---------------------
These stars are nonradial multiperiodic variables with excited modes in the vicinity of the fundamental. The main problem for these stars is mode identification. As it is not yet possible to assign $n,l,m$ values with full confidence to the observed frequencies, it is difficult to get information on the star. As far as rotational splitting is concerned, a few detections have been claimed:
### GX Peg
belongs to a spectroscopic binary system. Knowing the surface rotation from the binarity, the identification of a splitting led to the conclusion that the core is rotating faster than the outer layers (Goupil 1993). The rotationally split multiplet was found asymmetric which could be attributed to distorsion of the star by the centrifugal force.
### FG Vir
is one of the best studied delta Scuti star. Its variability has been extensively observed and analysed and the results have been the subject of many observations and theoretical studies over the past 20 years (Breger et al. 2005; Pamyatnykh, Daszynska-Daskiewicz 2005; Zima 2006). Among about 70 detected frequencies, a dozen $\ell$ and $m$ values can be assigned. The star appears to be moderately rotating with a equatorial velocity of $ 66\pm 16 km/s$. Most of the identified modes are axisymmetric but Zima (2006) found that one $\ell=1$ triplet is observed with a splitting value of 6.13 $\mu$Hz. Failure to find a stellar model which frequencies match the observed frequencies of FG Vir subsists even when taking into account second order rotational effects.
### 44 Tauri
has been observed for a long time and is known to pulsate with at least 13 frequencies. Mode identification indicates a few possible splitting components among them which indicate that the star is a slow rotator with 26 km/s as an equatorial velocity (Poretti 1992, Antoci 2006 and references therein).
### HD104237:
Detecting the rotational splittings of oscillating PMS stars ought to be relatively easy as they are fast rotators and their power spectra are expected to be much simpler than those of their postZAMS counterparts i.e. delta Scuti stars (Suran et al. 2001). Determining their rotation profiles and internal structures can give us clues about temporal evolution of rotation profiles and transport of internal angular momentum. In this spirit, the binary PMS system HD104237 is being studied as one of its two components has been identified as a $\delta$ Scuti star (Alecian 2005, 2007; Goupil 2005 ; Dupret 2006).
$\beta$ Cephei stars:
---------------------
More massive than $\delta$ Scuti stars, B-type main sequence stars oscillate with periods between 1.5 h and 8 h corresponding to low radial order p and g -modes. Their projected rotational velocities can reach up to 300 km/s. Rotational splittings for $\ell=1$ and $\ell=2$ modes seem to have been detected for a few stars (see for instance Fig.1 of Pigulski, 2007).
### HD129929, a $\sim 8-9 M_\odot$ $\beta$ Cephei star:
This star is known to oscillate with at least 6 identified frequencies. From one $\ell=1$ multiplet, the rotational splitting yields a rotational velocity of 3.61 km/s when assuming a uniform rotation. On the other hand, 2 successive components of a $\ell=2$ multiplet indicate a rotational velocity of 4.20 km/s. This leads to the likely conclusion that the rotation varies with depth with a ratio of the angular velocity at the center to that the surface $\Omega_c/\Omega_s = 3.6$ (Dupret et al. 2004).
### $\nu$ Eridani
is another $\beta$ Cepheid which shows a rich frequency spectrum but with only a few of them identified (see Fig. 1 of Ausseloos 2004). Pamyatnykh (2004) used the identified $\ell=1$, $g1$ triplet and two components of the $\ell=1$, $p1$ to determine a non uniform rotation for this star with $\Omega_c/\Omega_s \sim 3 $, close to what is found for HD 129929. Using an assumed depth dependent profile, Suarez et al (2007) computed the splittings and their associated departures from equidistant in order to reproduce the observed 3 $\ell=1$ multiplets obtained by Jerzykiewicz et al (2005). The observed asymmetries are in favor of a non uniform rotation profile although they are too small to allow a definitive conclusion.
### $\theta$ Ophuichi
is a $\sim 8-9 M_\odot$ $\beta$ Cepheid with 7 identified frequencies (Handler , 2005): a $\ell=1,p1$ triplet and 4 components of a $\ell=2,g1$ quintuplet (Fig.6 of Handler , 2005). The splittings indicate a rotation velocity of $ 29\pm 7 $ km/s, large enough to cause detected departure from equal splittings (Briquet et al. 2007).
Inversion for rotation {#inversion}
=======================
We consider the simplified problem of determining the depth dependent rotation law of a star from the measurements of its rotational splittings. For more general 2D inversions which yields $\Omega(\theta, r)$ as well as for more details on inversion methods and results on the solar internal rotation, we refer the reader to general such as reviews Gough (1985); Gough & Thompson, (1991), Thompson (2003).\
According to Eq.\[split4\], a 1D rotation profile is related to the splittings by the integral relation $$\delta \omega_j + \delta (\delta \omega_j) = \int_0^R ~ K_j(r) ~\Omega (r) dr
\label{invrel}$$ where for shortness $j$ represents the set of values $(n,\ell)$ and $\delta (\delta \omega_j)$ is the incertainty pf the measured splitting values. In general, only a finite number, $N$, of discrete splittings values associated with $N$ modes, are available. The measurements are polluted with some observational errors $\delta S_j$ which are assumed uncorrelated with a variance $\sigma_j^2$. In order to derive the rotation profile from the observed splittings, one must invert the relation Eq.\[invrel\]. As the data are related to the rotation profile by a linear functional, one is confronted to a [*linear inverse problem*]{}.
Splittings of high frequency p-modes and the Abel equation
----------------------------------------------------------
For modes with high radial orders or degrees, the eigenfunctions vary more rapidely than the equilibrium quantities; hence the scale of spatial variations of the eigenfunctions being smaller than that of the basic state, a local analysis is valid. One then assumes that the solution can be cast under the form of a plane wave: $\vec {v'} \propto e^{i(\omega t - \vec k \cdot \vec r)}$ with $\vec k$ the wavenumber and $|\vec k|^2 = k_r^2 + k_h^2$, with $k_r,k_h$ the radial and horizontal components. One can also neglect the perturbation of the gravitational field (Cowling approximation) as well as the derivatives of the equilibrium quantities. For high frequency p-modes which nature is mainly acoustic, the eigenfrequency is much larger than the Brünt-Väissälä frequency ($\omega^2 >> N^2 $) which therefore can be neglected in the problem considered here. With these approximations, one recovers the expected dispersion relation for an acoustic wave $\omega^2= k^2 ~ c_s^2 $ where $k^2=k^2_r+k^2_h$ and $k_h= {S^2_{\ell}/c_s^2} = {\Lambda /r^2}$ with $\Lambda = \ell(\ell+1)$ and $c_s(r)$ is the adiabatic sound speed profile, $ S_\ell^2 = {c^2_s \Lambda / r^2 } $ is the squared Lamb frequency. One then has: $$k^2_r(r) \approx {1\over c_s^2 } (\omega^2 - S_\ell^2)= {\omega^2\over c_s^2 } -{\Lambda \over r^2}$$
Let recall first that for a 1 dimensional acoustic wave with a wavenumber $k$ with a node at one end ($r=0$) and a free boundary at the other end ($r=R$), the resonant condition for the existence of a normal mode in a homogeneous medium is $k R =n \pi - \pi/2$ for some integer $n$. In the stellar 3D (inhomogeneous) medium, this condition becomes $$\int^{R}_{r_t} ~k_r(r) ~dr = (n-{1\over 2}) \pi
\label{reso}$$ where $r_t$ is the radius of the mode inner turning point.
Taking for the mode frequency, the frequency corrected for the first order effect of rotation, $\omega \sim \omega_0+(\delta \omega+m\Omega)$ where $\omega_0$ is the zeroth order frequency (ie the frequency of the mode in abscence of rotation), one obtains $$k_r(r)= {\cal Q}
+ \left({ \omega^{(0)}\over c_s^2 {\cal Q}} \right) (\delta \omega+m\Omega)$$ with $${\cal Q}= \left({\omega^{(0)2}\over c_s^2 } -{\Lambda^2 \over r^2} \right)^{1/2} = {\omega^{(0)}\over c_s} \left(1
-{a^2\over W^2} \right)^{1/2}$$ and $a=c_s(r)/r$ et $W=\omega_0/\Lambda$. Recalling that at zeroth order, one has $$\int_{r_t}^R {\cal Q}(r) dr = (n-{1\over 2}) \pi ~~~~~~~~~,$$ the resonant condition Eq.\[reso\] becomes: $$\delta \omega
={1\over S} ~ \int^{R}_{r_t} ~m ~\Omega(r)
\left(W^2 -a^2 \right)^{-1/2} ~{dr\over c_s}
\label{Abel}$$ with $$S= \int^{R}_{r_t} \left(W^2 -a^2\right)^{-1/2} ~{dr\over c_s}$$ Note that for very high radial order modes, $a/W<<1$ and $$\delta \omega = m~
\int_{r_t}^R \Omega(r) {dr\over c_s} ~ \left(\int_{r_t}^R {dr\over c_s}\right)^{-1}$$ which shows that the perturbation of the frequency by the rotation can be expressed as an average of the rotation weighted by the acoustic propagation time in the radial direction inside the cavity.\
Eq.\[Abel\] is of Abel type. Indeed the Abel (integral) equation is defined as: $$\int_0^x {f(y)\over (x-y)^\alpha } dy = g(x) ~~~~~0<\alpha<1 ~~~g(0)=0
\label{Abel2}$$ and has the formal solution (Gough, 1985): $$f(y) = {1\over \pi} \sin(\pi \alpha)
{d\over dx} \int_0^y {g(x)\over (y-x)^{1-\alpha}} dx
\label{Abel3}$$ Eq.\[Abel\] then admits an analytical inverse solution. The angular velocity is given by: $$\Omega(r) = - {2a\over \pi}
{d\over d\ln r}\int_{a_s}^a (a^2-W^2)^{-1/2}
{\cal H}(W) dW$$ where $a_s=a(R)$ and $ {\cal H}(w)$ represents the data set derived from the observed splittings.
The Abel equation, Eq.\[Abel2\], is known to be an ill-posed inverse problem in the sense of Hadamard (1923). The existence of an analytical solution to the inverse problem does not suppress the ill-posed nature of the numerical inversion, particularly when the observational data are noisy.
### Ill-posed nature of an inverse problem
A [*well-posed problem in the sense of Hadamard*]{} (1923) is defined as follows: let consider the equation ${\cal H}(f) = g $ where ${\cal H}$ is an operator $\in {\cal F} \longrightarrow {\cal O}$ where ${\cal F}$ et ${\cal O}$ are closed vectorial spaces and more specifically here the integral equation: $$\int_0^R K(x,y) f(y) dy = g(x)
\label{invpb}$$ The three Hadamard conditions are :
- existence of a solution: $\forall g \in {\cal O}$, $\exists f \in {\cal F}$ such that $ {\cal H}(f)= g$
- unicity of the solution: $\forall g \in {\cal O},
\exists$ at most one $f \in {\cal F}$ such that $ {\cal H}(f)= g $
- stability of the solution with respect to the data: $\forall f_n$, any sequence $\in {\cal F}$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} {\cal H}(f_n) = {\cal H}(f) ~~~~~~~{\rm then}~~~~~
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} f_n = f$$ This last condition can be understood in a more practical sense as $$|{\delta g \over g}| <<1 \rightarrow |{\delta f \over f}| <<1$$ Existence and unicity are the classical conditions for solving an equation and the stability condition, on the other hand, is an additional condition which requires that, for a well-posed problem, any small perturbation of the data can only lead to a small error on the solution. This condition is barely verified in practice for inverse problems. In particular, inversions of integral equations often are ill-posed problems: noise, even small, in the data can cause the derived solution to be very far from the true one.
One must recall that the inverse problem Eq.\[invpb\] admits the set of solutions $f(y)+h(y)$ provided that\
$\int_0^R K(x,y) h(y) dy = 0$ Furthermore, the Riemann-Lebesgue theorem states that: $$~\int_a^b K(x,y) \cos(my) dy = 0 ~;~\int_a^b K(x,y) \sin(my) dy = 0$$ when $m \rightarrow \infty$, valid for any integrable $K(x,y)$. Consequences:
on one hand, high frequency components of the solution $f(y)$ are not accessible as they are smoothed by the kernel $K(x,y)$ to an arbitrary small amplitude level in the data. As an illustration, let some perturbation of the source function $f$ in Eq.\[Abel2\], be of the form: $\delta f(y) = A \sin(2 \sqrt{\lambda y})$ (Craig & Brown, 1986). It causes a perturbation of the data of the form: $$\delta g (x) = A \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(1-\alpha)
\lambda^{\beta} x^{(3/2-\alpha)/2} J_{3/2-\alpha}(2 \sqrt{\lambda y})
\label{delg}$$ where $\beta = (\alpha-1/2)/2$ and $J_{3/2-\alpha}$ is a Bessel function of 1st kind of order $3/2-\alpha$. For high frequencies (i.e. $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$), one can use $\vert J_\nu (z) \vert \sim \vert{2/\pi z}\vert^{1/2}$ and Eq.\[delg\] becomes $\vert \delta g(x)\vert \sim \Gamma(1-\alpha) \lambda^{(\alpha-1)/2}
x^{(1-\alpha)/2}$ so that for any amplitude $A$ and $\forall \alpha <1$, $\delta g(x) \longrightarrow 0 $ when $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$. Any discontinuity can be represented by an infinite Fourier series but all the high frequency components are smoothed out and contribute to the data at a small amplitude level; they can not be distinguished from the high frequency noise in the data. The smoothing properties of the operators and/or kernels in the process $f \rightarrow g$ remove any real discontinuity of the solution $f$ and which is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to bring out from the data.
on the other hand, high frequency small perturbations in the data (noise) appear as large amplitude oscillating components in the calculated source. These large amplitude contributions can dominate the inverse solution even if they are totally spurious as due to small perturbations in the data due to noise. An exemple given by Craig & Brown (1986) illustrates this issue (cf Fig.1). One considers the particular kernel $ K(x,y)=1$ in Eq.\[invpb\] (differentiation). Let 2 functions $g_1(y)$ et $g_2(y)$ differing only by the addition of a sinusoidal component with a given frequency $\Delta g$. We choose for instance $g_1(x) =1 - e^{ - \alpha x } ~~;~~g_2(x) = g_1(x)+ \beta \sin \omega x $. The difference appears in the source functions $f_1$ and $f_2 $ as $\Delta f(y) = f_2(x)-f_1(x) = \omega \beta \cos \omega y $. Fig.1 shows the data and the source functions for $\alpha = 0.8 ; \beta=0.04 ; \omega=20$. Although the difference $g_1-g_2$ is very small, the corresponding difference in the source functions is an oscillatory behavior with a large amplitude.
Hence since observations cannot in general be noise free, a simple ’ naive’ inversion is not able to give the correct inverse solution.
### Discretisation and a measure of the ill-posed nature of the problem
Although the first inversions for the solar rotational splittings using Eq. \[Abel\] were successfull enough, the asymptotic integral relation remains an approximation. In practice, one actually considers the general relation Eq.\[split\] and inversions are carried out first by discretizing the integral. Let write the resulting discretized relation as : $\Delta = A X $ where $\Delta $ represents the data vector and $X$ is the rotation vector to be determined. The stability can be measured with the conditionning of the matrix $A$. If $A$ is regular, its conditionnement is defined as $cond(A) = ||A|| ~||A^{-1}||$ where $||A||$ is a matrix norm for close $A$. Note that $cond(A) \geq 1$ is always verified. A well conditionned matrix is such $cond(A)$ remains close to 1. Using the norm $||A||= max_{j}(\mu_j)$ where $\mu_j$ are the singular values of $A$ (i.e. the square root of the eigenfrequencies of the squared symmetric matrix $AA^t$), one shows that $cond(A)={\mu_{max}/ \mu_{min}}$. A small perturbation $\delta \Delta $ of the data generates a perturbation $\delta X$ of the solution then $\delta \Delta = A(\delta X)$ and it is easy to deduce from the matrix norm properties that $${||\delta X||\over ||X||} \leq cond(A) {||\delta \Delta ||\over ||\Delta||}$$ Accordingly, if $A$ is well conditionned ($cond(A) \sim 1$), the stability condition is satisfied whereas for $cond A >> 1$ which is most often the case, $||\delta X||$ can become large compared with $||X||$ and the problem is ill-posed.
Once the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem is recognized, one is then force to carry out a regularization of the calculated solution. As seen above, helio- and astero- seismic inversions are ill-posed problems which therefore require regularisation inverse techniques.
Inversion with regularisation
-----------------------------
Several classes of inversion techniques with regularisation exist. They are based on the addition of a priori information on the solution, often on the shape of the solution. One wants a solution which remains insensitive to errors in the data. Most methods involve one or two parameters which control the sensitivity of the solution to errors in the data. We briefly present two of the most currently used ones in the stellar context.
### Inverse methods with a priori douceur or Tikhonov’s methods :
The inversion [*strategy*]{} consists in determining a solution where high frequency variations -which cannot be identified as real or due to noise magnification- have been removed. One then seeks for a [**global**]{} solution which reproduces at best the data without reproducing the noise (seen as the high frequency components). The procedure is to find a least square solution submitted to a regularisation constrain : $min(||A X- \Delta||^2 + \gamma ~\sigma^2 ~B(X) ) $ where $\sigma$ is the variance of the noise and $\gamma$ a trade-off parameter and $B$ a discretized regularising function. This is equivalent to solve the normal form equation: $(A^t A+\gamma B^t B ) X = A^t \Delta)$ where $A^t$ is the transposed matrix. The regularising function $B(X) $ is often taken as the second derivative of the solution since one wishes to eliminate the high frequency part of the solution. The trade-off parameter $\gamma$ must be adjusted to realize the best compromise between a noise insensitive but distorted solution (large $\gamma$) and a solution which is not regularised enough (small $\gamma$).
### Optimally Localized averages: OLA and its variants
One looks for a [**local**]{} solution that-is- an averaged value of the solution over a small interval about a given radius. The SOLA method is a variant of the OLA technique (Backus & Gilbert 1970) developed by Pijpers and Thompson (1992, 1994, 1996). It aims at building localised kernels ${\cal K}$ about a predefined value, $r=r_0$ as linear combinations of the rotational kernels $K_j(r)$: ${\cal K}(r,r_0) = \Sigma_j c_j(r_0) ~ K_j(r)$. The coefficients $c_j$ must be determined by a minimisation process: $$min_{cj} (|\int({\cal K}-T)^2 ~dr|^2 + \gamma E^2)$$ where $T(r,r_0)$ is a predefined target, $E$ is the noise covariant matrix; $\gamma$ a trade-off parameter in order to obtain a satisfying compromise between magnification of the error and the width of the target ie the interval over which the solution is averaged. The SOLA method with a predefined target presents the advantage over the original OLA method that the inverse matrix is computed once and for all. Once the $c_j(r_0)$ are determined, one computes the average rotation value as $<\Omega(r)>_{r0}=\sum_j c_j(r_0) ~ \delta \omega_j$. Indeed one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j c_j(r_0) \delta \omega_j&=& \sum_j c_j(r_0) (\int K_j(r) \Omega(r) dr) \nonumber \\
&=& \int (\sum_j c_j(r_0) K_j(r)) \Omega(r) dr \nonumber \\
& =& \int {\cal K}(r,r_0) \Omega(r) dr
\sim \int T(r,r_0) \Omega(r) dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ If the target $T$ is a Dirac function i.e. $T =\delta(r-r_0)$ , then $\sum_j c_j \delta \omega_j=\Omega(r_0)$. However one seldomely has enough information in the data to succeed in building Dirac function as localised kernels. Usually the target function takes the form of gaussian with a given width. Again a compromise must be obtained between the magnification of the error and the width of the target ie the interval over which the solution is averaged.
Application to stellar seismology
---------------------------------
### The solar rotation profile {#suninvers}
With the high quality helioseismic data available for the past 2 decades or so, highly accurate frequency splittings were obtained and allowed to derive the 2D rotation profile in the 3/4 outer part of the Sun. See Fig.5 of Schou (1998) for instance for the result of an inversion based on SoHo data. Several 2D inversion methods have been applied with various adjustements and adaptations to the available helioseismic data sets over the years (Schou (1994ab, 1998), Antia (1998)). This has provided the internal rotation profile for the Sun with quite a number of surprises at the time: latitudinal dependence of rotation in the convective outer region and uniform rotation in the radiative region. Only the rotation of the inner part is still not yet accessible.
The inversion results have generated many studies in order to explain these seismic results. Several studies have led to identify the shear of the Reynolds stress as responsible for differential rotation in latitude in the convective outer layers of the Sun; others have studied the importance and the role of the tachocline in the solar magnetogydrodynamical processes, see for instance Rüdiger 2003, 2005; Miesch 2007, Zahn 2007.
The discovery of the uniform rotation of the solar radiative zone drove the developement of models able to transport angular momentum from the inner to the outer part. It was found type I rotationally induced mixing models are not efficient enough and predict an incorrect increase of the rotation rate with decreasing radius (Talon 1997; Matias & Zahn, 1998)). Internal waves, on the other hand, are very efficient in transporting the angular momentum from center upward to the surface and inforce a uniform rotation in the radiative zone. (Charbonnel & Talon , 2005; Talon, 2006 and references therein). Fig.1 of Charbonnel Talon (2005) shows the evolution of the rotation profile for a $1.2 M_\odot$ stellar model from 0.2 Gyrs up to 4.8 Gyrs when rotational induced mixing of type I is included and the successful approach of uniform rotation when mixing of type II is included.
One current issue is the role of the magnetic field, another is to determine to what extent these results and explanations are valid for other stars than the Sun, particularly young stars which rotate faster than the Sun. In that context, information from 3D simulations will be of great help (Brun 2006, Ballot 2007).
### Solar like stars
The observed high frequency solar p- modes do not give access to the core rotation. For stars slightly more massive and slightly more evolved than the Sun such as $\eta$ Boo for instance, a small number of mixed modes does indeed exist in the high frequency domain of modes excited by the turbulent convection of the outer layers. A theoretical study was carried out with SOLA inversions for the rotation profile on simulated data for a 1.5 $M_\odot$ stellar model with a surface velocity of $\sim 30 $ km/s and a ratio between the rotation rate at the center to that at the surface $\Omega_c/\Omega_s
\sim 3$ (Lochard 2005). The incertainties were estimated in function of the expected Corot performances. Fig.8 of Lochard (2005) shows that the variation for the rotation profile with radius in the vicinity of the convective core - varying from $\Omega/\Omega_s = 1.5$ at $r=0.2$, (with a incertainty on the recovered value $\pm 0.2$) to $\Omega/\Omega_s = 2.4$ at $r\leq 0.1$ (with a incertainty on the recovered value $\pm 0.6$)- is accessible.
-1.truecm
### Inversion for rotation for $\delta$ Scuti like oscillations
Other stars oscillate with modes with lower frequencies in the vicinity of the fundamental, driven by an opacity mechanism. These stars are slightly more massive than the Sun and develope a convective core on the main sequence which receeds with time. This generates the existence of mixed modes in the excited frequency range. Only one or two such modes are enough to give access to $\Omega_c$ the core rotation rate (Goupil et al. 1996). One illustrative exemple is $\epsilon$ Cep. Assuming that one has obtained a seismic model for this star that-is a model as close as possible of reality with the same mean large separation, a SOLA inversion was performed with a data set of $\ell=1,6$ linearly unstable modes. The variation of the rotation profile with depth is well recovered.
This theoretical study assumed a noise level according to Corot performances. The inversion was carried out with linear splittings Eq.\[split4\] although for a real case, distorsion effects on the splittings ought to be included for such a moderately rapid rotator ($v ~\sin i = 91 $km/s, Royer 2002). Several frequencies have recently been detected for this star but its complex frequency pattern has not yet been fully elucidated (Bruntt 2007).
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I gratefully thank Rhita Maria Ouazzani for a careful reading which helped to improve grandly the manuscript.
[8.]{}
, E. and [Catala]{}, C. and [van’t Veer-Menneret]{}, C. and [Goupil]{}, M.-J. and [Balona]{}, L., 2005, AA 442, 993\
, 2007, AA 465, 241\
, 1998, MNRAS 298, 543\
Antoci, V., Breger, M., Bishof, K., Garrido, R., 2006, PASP 349, 181, eds. C. Sterken, C. Aerts\
, 2006, [ESA Special Publication]{}, vol. 1306, p. 377\
[[Ausseloos]{}, M. and [Scuflaire]{}, R. and [Thoul]{}, A. and [Aerts]{}, C.]{}, 2004, MNRAS, 355, 352\
Backus, G. & Gilbert, F., 1970, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, A 266, 123\
Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Barge P. Deleuil, M., Catal, C. Michel, E., Weiss, W., and the CoRoT team, 2006, [ESA Special Publication]{}, vol. 1306, 33\
[[Ballot]{}, J. and [Brun]{}, A. S. and [Turck-Chi[è]{}ze]{}, S.]{}, 2007, ApJ 669, 1190\
[[Bonazzola]{}, S. and [Gourgoulhon]{}, E. and [Marck]{}, J.-A.]{}, prd, [arXiv:astro-ph/9803086]{}, 58,\
[[Bonanno]{}, A. and [K[ü]{}ker]{}, M. and [Patern[ò]{}]{}, L.]{}, 2007, AA 462, 1031\
[[Breger]{}, M. and [Lenz]{}, P. and [Antoci]{}, V. ]{}, 2005, A&A, [**435**]{}, 955\
[[Briquet]{}, M. and [Morel]{}, T. and [Thoul]{}, A. and [Scuflaire]{}, R. and [Miglio]{}, A. and [Montalb[á]{}n]{}, J. and [Dupret]{}, M.-A. and [Aerts]{}, C.]{}, 2007, MNRAS 381, 1482\
[[Brun]{}, A. S. and [Miesch]{}, M. S. and [Toomre]{}, J.]{}, 2006, [ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints]{}, [astro-ph/0610073]{}\
Bruntt, H., Suarez, J.C. , Bedding, T.R., , 2007, AA 461, 619\
[[Burke]{}, K. D. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 2006, in [Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun]{}, [ESA Special Publication]{}, 624,\
[[Buzasi]{}, D. L. and [Bruntt]{}, H. and [Bedding]{}, T. R. ]{}, 2005, AA 619, 1072\
[[Chaboyer]{}, B. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 1992, AA 253, 173\
[[Chandrasekhar]{}, S. and [Lebovitz]{}, N. R.]{}, 1962a, ApJ 136, 1069\
[[Chandrasekhar]{}, S. and [Lebovitz]{}, N. R.]{}, 1962b, ApJ 136, 1082\
[[Chandrasekhar]{}, S. and [Lebovitz]{}, N. R.]{},1962c, ApJ 136, 1105\
[[Chandrasekhar]{}, S.]{}, 1964, ApJ 140, 599\
Chandrasekhar, S. and Lebovitz, N.R., 1968, ApJ 152, 152\
[[Charbonnel]{}, C. and [Talon]{}, S.]{}, 2005, [Science]{}, 309, 2189\
[[Charbonneau]{}, P.]{}, 1992, AA 259, 134\
[[Chlebowski]{}, T.]{},1978, [Acta Astronomica]{}, 28, 441\
[[Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J. and [Mullan]{}, D. J.]{}, 1994, MNRAS 270, 921\
[[Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 1999, AA 350, 852\
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2003 (CD03), Lecture Note on Stellar Oscillation, 5th edition, http://www.phys.au.dk/ jcd/oscilnotes/)\
[[Claudi]{}, R. U. and [Bonanno]{}, A. and [Leccia]{}, S. ]{}, 2005, AA 429, L17\
[[Clement]{}, M. J.]{}, 1965a, ApJ 141, 210\
[[Clement]{}, M. J.]{}, 1965b, ApJ 142, 243\
[[Clement]{}, M. J.]{}, 1981, ApJ 249, 746\
Clement, M.J., 1984, ApJ 276, 724\
[[Clement]{}, M. J.]{}, 1989, ApJ 339, 1022\
[[Cowling]{}, T. G. and [Newing]{}, R. A.]{}, 1949, ApJ 109, 149\
[[Cox]{}, J. P.]{}, 1980 , “[Theory of stellar pulsation]{}”,
Research supported by the National Science Foundation Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press\
Craig, I.J.D, Brown, J.C., 1986, Inverse problems in Astronomy, Ed Adam Hilger Ltd\
Daszynska-Daszkiewicz Dziembowski, W.A., Pamyatnykh, A.A., Goupil, M.J., 2002, AA 392, 151\
Daszynska-Daszkiewicz, J., Dziembowski, W.A., Pamyatnykh, 2003, AA 407, 999\
[[Deupree]{}, R. G.]{}, 1990, ApJ 357, 175\
[[Deupree]{}, R. G.]{}, 2001, ApJ 552, 268\
[[Domiciano de Souza]{}, A. and [Kervella]{}, P. and [Jankov]{}, S. ]{}, 2005, AA 442, 567\
[[Dupret]{}, M.-A. and [Thoul]{}, A. and [Scuflaire]{}, R. ]{}, 2004, AA 415, 251\
[[Dupret]{}, M.-A. and [B[ö]{}hm]{}, T. and [Goupil]{}, M.-J. ]{}, 2006 Communications in Asteroseismology 147, 72\
[[Dyson]{}, J. and [Schutz]{}, B. F.]{}, 1979, in [Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A]{}, 368, 389\
[[Dziembowski]{}, W. A. and [Goupil]{}, M.-J.]{}, 1998, in
The First MONS Workshop: Science with a Small Space Telescope, held in Aarhus, Denmark, June 29 - 30, 1998, Eds.: H. Kjeldsen, T.R. Bedding, Aarhus Universitet, p. 69., eds. [[Kjeldsen]{}, H. and [Bedding]{}, T. R.]{}, p. 69\
[[Dziembowski]{}, W. A. and [Goode]{}, P. R.]{}, 1992 (DG92), ApJ 394, 670\
[[Eddington]{}, A. S.]{}, 1929, MNRAS 90, 54\
Eggenberger, P., Carrier, F., 2006, AA 449, 293\
[Espinosa]{}, F. , 2004, PhD thesis
[[Espinosa]{}, F. and [P[é]{}rez Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, F. and [Roca Cort[é]{}s]{}, T.]{}, 2004 in [SOHO 14 Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future]{}, [ESA Special Publication]{}, vol. 559, ed. [[Danesy]{}, D.]{}, p. 424\
[[Espinosa Lara]{}, F. and [Rieutord]{}, M.]{}, AA 470, 1013\
[[Fletcher]{}, S. T. and [Chaplin]{}, W. J. and [Elsworth]{}, Y. and [Schou]{}, J. and [Buzasi]{}, D.]{}, 2006, MNRAS 371, 935-944\
[[Gough]{}, D.]{}, 1985, Sol. Phys 100, 65\
[[Gough]{}, D. O. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 1990 (GT90), MNRAS 242, 25\
Gough, D.O., Thompson, M.J., 1991, ‘The inversion probleme, in Solar interior and atmosphere Eds A.N. Cox; W.C. Livingston, M.S. Matthews, University of Arizona Press p. 519\
Gough, D.O., 1993, ‘Linear adiabatic stellar pulsation’, in Astrophysical fluid fluid dynamics, Les Houches Session XLVII 1987, Eds J.P. Zahn, J. Zinn-Justin, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., p. 399\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Michel]{}, E. and [Lebreton]{}, Y. and [Baglin]{}, A. ]{}, 1993, AA 268, 546\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Michel]{}, E. and [Cassisi]{}, S. ]{}, 1995, [IAU Colloq. 155: Astrophysical Applications of Stellar Pulsation]{}, [Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series]{}, 83, eds [[Feast]{}, M. W.]{}, 453\
[[Goupil]{}, M.-J. and [Dziembowski]{}, W. A. and [Goode]{}, P. R. and [Michel]{}, E.]{}, 1996, AA 305, 487\
[[Goupil]{}, M.-J. and [Dziembowski]{}, W. A. and [Pamyatnykh]{}, A. A. and [Talon]{}, S.]{}, 2000 in [Delta Scuti and Related Stars]{}, [Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series]{}, 210, eds. [[Breger]{}, M. and [Montgomery]{}, M.]{}, p. 267\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Talon]{}, S.]{}, 2002, in [IAU Colloq. 185: Radial and Nonradial Pulsations as Probes of Stellar Physics]{}, [Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series]{}, 259, eds [[Aerts]{}, C. and [Bedding]{}, T. R. and [Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J. ]{}, 306\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Samadi]{}, R. and [Lochard]{}, J. ]{}, 2004, in [Stellar Structure and Habitable Planet Finding]{}, [ESA Special Publication]{}, 538, eds [[Favata]{}, F. and [Aigrain]{}, S. and [Wilson]{}, A.]{}, 133\
[[Goupil]{}, M.-J. and [Dupret]{}, M. A. and [Samadi]{}, R. and ]{}, 2005, JApA vol. 26, 249\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Moya]{}, A. and [Suarez]{}, J. C. and ]{}, 2006, [ESA Special Publication]{}, vol. 1306, p. 51\
[[Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Dupret]{}, M. A.]{},2007, [EAS Publications Series]{}, 26, 93\
Hadamard J., 1923, ’Lectures on Cauchy’s Problem in Linear Partial Differential Equations’, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press)\
[[Handler]{}, G. and [Shobbrook]{}, R. R. and [Mokgwetsi]{}, T.]{}, 2005, MNRAS 362, 612\
[[Hansen]{}, C. J. and [Cox]{}, J. P. and [van Horn]{}, H. M.]{}, ApJ 217, 151\
[[Hansen]{}, C. J. and [Cox]{}, J. P. and [Carroll]{}, B. W.]{}, 1978, Apj, 226, 210\
[[Hekker]{}, S. and [Arentoft]{}, T. and [Kjeldsen]{}, H. ]{}, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [0710.3772]{}\
[[Jackson]{}, S. and [MacGregor]{}, K. B. and [Skumanich]{}, A.]{}, 2005, ApJS 156, 245\
[[Jackson]{}, S. and [MacGregor]{}, K. B. and [Skumanich]{}, A.]{}, 2004, ApJ 606, 1196\
[[Jerzykiewicz]{}, M. and [Handler]{}, G. and [Shobbrook]{}, R. R. ]{}, 2005, MNRAS 360, 619\
[[Karami]{}, K. and [Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J. and [Pijpers]{}, F. P. ]{}, 2005, [ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints]{}, [astro-ph/0502194]{},\
[[Kippenhahn]{}, R. and [Meyer-Hofmeister]{}, E. and [Thomas]{}, H. ]{}, 1970, AA 5, 155\
[[Kippenhahn]{}, R. W. A.]{}, 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York. Also Astronomy and Astrophysics Library
\
[[Kjeldsen]{}, H. and [Arentoft]{}, T. and [Bedding]{}, T. ]{}, in [Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars]{}, 1998, [ESA Special Publication]{}, 418, Ed. [[Korzennik]{}, S.]{}, p.[385]{}\
[[Lebovitz]{}, N. R.]{}, 1970a, ApJ 160, 701\
[[Lebovitz]{}, N. R.]{}, 1970b, Ap&SS 9, 398\
[Leccia]{}, S. and [Kjeldsen]{}, H. and [Bonanno]{}, A.
, 2007, AA 464, 1059\
[Ledoux]{}, P., 1945, ApJ 102, 143\
[Ledoux]{}, P., 1951, ApJ 114, 373\
[[Ledoux]{}, P. and [Walraven]{}, T.]{}, 1958, [Handbuch der Physik]{}, 51, 353\
[[Lee]{}, U. and [Saio]{}, H.]{}, 1986, MNRAS 221, 365\
[[Ligni[è]{}res]{}, F. and [Rieutord]{}, M. and [Reese]{}, D.]{}, 2006, AA 455, 607\
[[Lochard]{}, J. and [Samadi]{}, R. and [Goupil]{}, M. J.]{}, 2005, AA 438, 939\
Lovekin, C.C. & R.G. Deupree, 2006, Mem S.A., It, vol.77, 137\
[[Lynden-Bell]{}, D. and [Ostriker]{}, J. P.]{}, 1967, MNRAS 136, 293\
[[Maeder]{}, A. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 1998, AA 334, 1000\
[[Maeder]{}, A. and [Meynet]{}, G.]{}, 2000, ARAA 38, 143
[Maeder]{}, A. and [Meynet]{}, G. and [Hirschi]{}, R. and [Ekstr[ö]{}m]{}, S., 2006, Chemical Abundances and Mixing in Stars in the Milky Way and its Satellites, ESO ASTROPHYSICS SYMPOSIA. ISBN 978-3-540-34135-2. Springer-Verlag, p. 308\
[[Mathis]{}, S. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 2004, AA 425, [229]{}\
[[Mathis]{}, S. and [Palacios]{}, A. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 2004, AA 425, 243\
[[Mathis]{}, S. and [Eggenberger]{}, P. and [Decressin]{}, T. ]{}, 2007, in [EAS Publications Series]{}, Vol. 26, 65\
[[Mathis]{}, S. and [Zahn]{}, J. -.]{}, 2007, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [0706.2446]{},\
[[Mathis]{}, S. and [Palacios]{}, A. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 2007, AA 462, 1063\
[Mathis]{}, S. and [Decressin]{}, T. and [Palacios]{}, A. , 2006, in [Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun]{}, [ESA Special Publication]{}, 624\
[[Maeder]{}, A. and [Meynet]{}, G.]{}, 2003, AA 411, 543\
[[Maeder]{}, A.]{}, 2003, AA 399, 263\
[[Meynet]{}, G. and [Maeder]{}, A.]{}, 2000, AA 361, 101\
[[Mestel]{}, L.]{}, 2003, in ’Stellar astrophysical fluid dynamics’, eds M. J. Thompson, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-81809-5, 2003, p. 75\
[[Michel]{}, E. and [Chevreton]{}, M. and [Goupil]{}, M. J. ]{}, 1995, in 4th SOHO Workshop Helioseismology, vol. 2, 533\
[[Miesch]{}, M. S. and [Brun]{}, A. S. and [DeRosa]{}, M. L. and [Toomre]{}, J]{}, 2007, [American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts]{}, 210, 17\
[[Monnier]{}, J. D. and [Zhao]{}, M. and [Pedretti]{}, E. ]{}, 2007, Science 317, 342\
[Mosser]{}, B. and [Bouchy]{}, F. and [Catala]{}, C. , 2005, AA 431, L13\
Palacios, A., Talon, S., Charbonnel, C., Forestini, M., 2003 AA 399, 603\
[[Pamyatnykh]{}, A. A. and [Handler]{}, G. and [Dziembowski]{}, W. A.]{}, 2004, MNRAS 350, 1022\
[Pamyatnykh]{}, A. A., 2003, PASP 284, 97\
Daszynska-Daszkiewicz, J., Dziembowski, W.A., Pamyatnykh, A.A., 2005, 438, 653\
[Pigulski]{}, A. and [Kopacki]{}, G. and [Kolaczkowski]{}, Z., 2001, [Acta Astronomica]{}, 51, 159\
[[Pijpers]{}, F. P. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 1992, MNRAS 262, L33
[[Pijpers]{}, F. P. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 1994, AA 281, 231\
[[Pijpers]{}, F. P. and [Thompson]{}, M. J.]{}, 1996, MNRAS 279, 498
[Pijpers]{}, F. P., 1997, AA 326, 1235\
[[Pijpers]{}, F. P.]{}, 1998, MNRAS 297, L76 Pigulski, A., 2007, Coast 150, 159\
Poretti, E., Mantegazza, L., Riboni, E., 1992, AA 256, 113\
[[Reese]{}, D.]{}, 2006 , PhD thesis, [AA(Universit[é]{} Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier)]{}\
[[Reese]{}, D. and [Ligni[è]{}res]{}, F. and [Rieutord]{}, M.]{}, 2006, AA 455, 621\
[[Reese]{}, D.]{}, 2007, in [EAS Publications Series]{}, 26, 111\
[Rieutord]{}, M., 2006a, AA 451, 1025\
[Rieutord]{}, M., 2006b, [ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints]{}, [astro-ph/0608431]{}\
[Rieutord]{}, M., 2007, [ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints]{}, [astro-ph/0702384]{}\
[Roxburgh]{}, I. W., 2004, AA 428, 171\
[[Roxburgh]{}, I. W.]{}, 2006, AA 454, 883\
[[Royer]{}, F. and [Grenier]{}, S. and [Baylac]{}, M.-O. and [G[ó]{}mez]{}, A. E. and [Zorec]{}, J.]{}, 2002, AA 393, 897\
[[R[ü]{}diger]{}, G. and [Kitchatinov]{}, L. L. and [Arlt]{}, R.]{}, 2005, AA 444, L53\
[[R[ü]{}diger]{}, G. and [K[ü]{}ker]{}, M. and [Chan]{}, K. L.]{}, 2003, AA 399 743\
Saio H., 1981, ApJ 244, 299\
[[Saio]{}, H.]{}, 2002 in [IAU Colloq. 185: Radial and Nonradial Pulsationsn as Probes of Stellar Physics]{}, [Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series]{}, 259, eds. [Aerts]{}, C. and [Bedding]{}, T. R. and [Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J., p. 177\
Schou, J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Thompson, M.J., 1994a ApJ 433, 389\
[[Schou]{}, J. and [Brown]{}, T. M.]{}, 1994b, Apj 434, 378\
[[Schou]{}, J. and [Antia]{}, H. M. and [Basu]{}, S. ]{}, 1998, ApJ 505, 390\
[[Schutz]{}, B. F.]{}, 1980a, MNRAS 190, 7\
[[Schutz]{}, B. F.]{}, 1980b, MNRAS 190, 21\
[[Simon]{}, R.]{}, 1969, AA 2, 390\
[[Soufi]{}, F. and [Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Dziembowski]{}, W. A.]{}, 1998, AA 334, 911\
[[Su[á]{}rez]{}, J. C. and [Bruntt]{}, H. and [Buzasi]{}, D.]{}, 2005, AA 438, 633\
[[Su[á]{}rez]{}, J. C. and [Garrido]{}, R. and [Goupil]{}, M. J.]{}, 2006a, AA 447, 649 [[Su[á]{}rez]{}, J. C. and [Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Morel]{}, P.]{}, 2006b, AA 449, 673\
[[Su[á]{}rez]{}, J. C. and [Garrido]{}, R. and [Moya]{}, A.]{}, 2007, AA 474, 971
[[Su[á]{}rez]{}, J. C.]{}, 2007, [EAS Publications Series]{}, 26, 121\
[[Suran]{}, M. and [Goupil]{}, M. and [Baglin]{}, A. ]{}, 2001, AA 372, 233\
[[Sweet]{}, P. A.]{}, 1950, MNRAS 110, 548\
[[Talon]{}, S. and [Zahn]{}, J.-P. and [Maeder]{}, A. and [Meynet]{}, G.]{}, 1997, AA 322, 209\
[[Talon]{}, S.]{}, 2006, [Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun]{}, [ESA Special Publication]{}, 624,37\
[[Talon]{}, S.]{}, 2007, in proceedings of the Aussois school “Stellar Nucleosynthesis: 50 years after B2FH” [ArXiv e-prints]{}, vol. 708,\
[[Tassoul]{}, J.-L.]{}, 1978, ’[Theory of rotating stars]{}’, Princeton Series in Astrophysics, Princeton: University Press\
[[Thompson]{}, M. J. and [Toomre]{}, J. and [Anderson]{}, E. ]{}, [Science]{}, 1996, 272, 1300\
Thompson, M. J., J.Christensen-Dalsgaard, M.S. Miesh, J.Toomre, 2003, [*The internal rotation of the Sun*]{} Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 599\
[Unno]{}, W. and [Osaki]{}, Y. and [Ando]{}, H. , 1989, Nonradial oscillations of stars, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1989, 2nd ed.\
[[Vogt]{}, H.]{}, 1929, [Astronomische Nachrichten]{}, 234, [93]{}\
[[von Zeipel]{}, H.]{}, 1924a, MNRAS 84, 665\
[[von Zeipel]{}, H.]{}, 1924b, MNRAS 84, 684\
[[Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 1992, AA 265, 115\
[[Zahn]{}, J.-P.]{}, 2003, in ’Stellar astrophysical fluid dynamics’, eds M.J. Thompson, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-81809-5, 2003, p. 205\
[[Zahn]{}, J.-P. and [Brun]{}, A. S. and [Mathis]{}, S.]{}, 2007, AA 474, 145\
Zima, W., Wright, D., Bentley, P.L. 2006, AA 455, 235\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform energy spectrum analysis of the active turbulence in 3D bulk active nematic using continuum numerical modelling. Specifically, we calculate the spectra of two main energy contributions—kinetic energy and nematic elastic energy—and combine this with the geometrical analysis of the nematic order and flow fields, based on direct defect tracking and calculation of autocorrelations. We show that the active nematic elastic energy is concentrated at scales corresponding to the effective defect-to-defect separation, scaling with activity as $\sim\zeta^{0.5}$, whereas the kinetic energy is largest at somewhat larger scales of typically several 100 nematic correlation lengths. Nematic biaxiallity is shown to have no role in active turbulence at most of length scales, but can affect the nematic elastic energy by an order of magnitude at scales of active defect core size. The work is aimed to provide a contribution towards understanding active turbulence in general three-dimensions, from the perspective of main energy-relevant mechanisms at different length scales of the system.'
author:
- Žiga Krajnik
- Žiga Kos
- Miha Ravnik
title: 'Spectral energy analysis of bulk three-dimensional active nematic turbulence'
---
Introduction
============
Active turbulence is the major result of microscopic activity and nematic orientational ordering in diverse active nematic fluids at low Reynolds numbers, ranging from microfilaments and microtubules, bacterial suspensions to epithelia [@WuK_Science355_2017; @WensinkHH_ProcNatlAcadSci109_2012; @BlanchMercaderC_PhysRevLett120_2018]. It is characterised by the emergence of active topological defects, i.e. regions of lost microscopic order that are steadily generated, annihilated and transformed in time in a complex and irregular manner. Topological defects—in three spatial dimensions: lines, points, loops, or walls—are regions of broken orientational order characterized by a locally discontinuous director (i.e. the direction of the average alignment) and a reduced degree of order [@AlexanderGP_RevModPhys84_2012]. In active materials, the formation and spatio-temporal coherence of topological defects depend strongly on the active material being either extensile or contractile [@ElgetiJ_SoftMatter7_2011] and on the concentration of the active agents [@SokolovA_PhysRevLett98_2007].
Despite the diversity of these systems, there is strongly recurring behaviour of pattern formation [@DombrowskiC_PhysRevLett93_2004; @GiomiL_PhysRevLett106_2011; @CarballidoLandeiraJ_Langmuir31_2015; @SokolovA_PhysRevX9_2019; @KruseK_PhysRevLett92_2004] and the appearance of topological defects [@SankararamanS_PhysRevLett102_2009; @ThampiSP_PhilTransRSocA372_2014; @VicsekT_PhysRevLett75_1995; @TonerJ_PhysRevLett75_1995; @CoparS_PhysRevX9_2019]. Indeed, especially at high activities and densities, the response of active materials becomes generically similar; the active agents start to collectively move in irregular and chaotic time changing patterns, which is known as active turbulence [@WuK_Science355_2017; @ThampiSP_PhilTransRSocA372_2014; @SanchezT_Nature491_2012; @WensinkHH_ProcNatlAcadSci109_2012]. Experimentally, the key challenge is to observe the turbulent time-changing patterns (e.g. of microtubules or bacteria), fast enough and in principle in 3D, as it requires fast dynamic tracking of active agent orientations as well as their motility [@dogicArxiv]. Theoretically, the challenge is in establishing a clear way for analysing such 3D time-changing active nematic fields, as simply plotting velocity or orientational fields of active nematics (typical outputs of the active nematic theory) reveals limited fundamental information [@GiomiL_PhysRevX5_2015].
The dynamics of active systems [@MarchettiMC_RevModPhys85_2013; @DoostmohammadiA_NatCommun9_2018] is closely related to liquid crystal hydrodynamics [@book-deGennes; @VoituriezR_EurophysLett70_2005; @PengC_Science354_2016; @MushenheimPC_SoftMatter10_2013; @sohn2019optically; @C8SM00612A]. Recently, studies of active nematic layers show the importance of geometry and topology in active nematics, as also revealed via active turbulence [@SanchezT_Nature491_2012; @GiomiL_PhysRevX5_2015; @ThampiSP_PhilTransRSocA372_2014]. Spectral densities and correlation functions are used to characterise the systems [@GiomiL_PhysRevX5_2015], with current knowledge on active turbulence primarily based on analysis of 2D and quasi-2D layers of active nematics, with clear interest in full 3D spatial configurations. The chaotic motion of turbulence necessitates a probabilistic description in which a convenient tool, amenable to analysis, is the spectrum of an apparently random process [@book-Frisch]. The motivation of this work is to study active turbulence—in full 3D—by analysing the system’s energy spectra, drawing from the analogies with, though profoundly different, classical high Reynolds number turbulence [@UrzayJ_JFluidMech822_2017], where energy spectrum analysis (such as the renowned Kolmogorov theory [@KolmogorovAN_ProcRSocA434_1991]) proves to be the strongest methodological approach to characterize turbulence. In active turbulence, the system is at low Reynolds numbers with little effects of inertia (which differently, are central in high-Re turbulence) but the analogy is in having to consider irregularly (chaotic) changing material fields, distinctly, the material flow and the orientational order.
In this Article, we study 3D bulk chaotic low Reynolds number dynamic state in an active nematic liquid crystal frequently known as active turbulence, using continuum modelling. We quantify the two main energy mechanisms that determine the active turbulence—the kinetic energy and the nematic elastic energy—across different length scales by computing the corresponding energy spectra. We show that the maximum in the elastic spectrum scales with the effective concentration of defect lines, whereas at small physical scales, the elastic spectrum is up to multiplication by a constant independent of activity and correspond to the molten defect lines. The active nematic elastic energy (of nematic orientational ordering) is mainly contained on scales comparable to the average distance between defect lines, typically of 10–100 nematic correlations lenghts ($\xi$) dependent on activity, as further supported by geometrical analysis. Somewhat differently, the kinetic energy (of the flow field) is largest at scales relatively larger than elastic energy, i.e. of typically several 100 nematic correlation lengths. The role of nematic biaxiallity in 3D active nematic turbulence is also considered showing that it can affect the nematic elastic energy by factor of 10, at length scales comparable to defect core size (i.e. below $10\,\xi$). More generally, the energy spectra analysis of different active materials in the active turbulence regime could be possibly used for associating mutually different active matter systems into common groups, and also serve as the basis for linking experiments with appropriate theoretical (computational) models. Note also that raw data of selected 3D bulk active nematic turbulence simulations presented in this work (time evolution of nematic tensor $Q_{ij}$ and the velocity field $u_i$) is made available in Ref. [@ziga_kos_2019_3541954].
Theory and modelling
====================
Bulk three-dimensional active nematic turbulence is approached by a combination of numerical modelling based on generalised Beris-Edwards equations for active nematics [@book-Beris; @HatwalneY_PhysRevLett92_2004] and material analysis, especially using spectral (Fourier) analysis of the main material fields, as further explained below.
Mesoscopic modelling of active nematics
---------------------------------------
Mesoscopic modelling of active nematic is based on coupled 3D spatially and in-time varying fields for fluid velocity $\vec{u}$, density $\rho$, and the nematic tensor order parameter $\mathbf{Q}$ with the largest eigenvector—the director $\vec{n}$—characterizing the main local ordering axis and the corresponding eigenvalue characterizing the degree of order $S$. This is a rather established approach and was shown in the literature to be able to explain key features in the experiments of active nematics [@ThampiSP_PhilTransRSocA372_2014; @GiomiL_PhilTransRSocA372_2014; @jackArxiv]. The model builds on governing equations for the time evolution equation for nematic order, generalized Navier-Stokes equation and the incompressibility condition: $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t+u_k\partial_k)Q_{ij}-S_{ij}&=&\Gamma H_{ij} ,\label{eqqten} \\
\rho(\partial_t+u_k\partial_k)u_i&=&\partial_j \Pi_{ij}, \label{eqflow}\\
\partial_ku_k&=&0,\label{u_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_t$ is the partial derivative with respect to time, $\partial_i$ is partial derivative with respect to a Cartesian spatial coordinate, and $\Gamma$ is the rotational diffusion coefficient. Summation over repeated indices is assumed. The non-equilibrium dynamics of active nematics is driven by the active stress, which enters into the equation for the total stress tensor $\Pi_{ij} = \Pi_{ij}^\text{active} + \Pi_{ij}^\text{passive}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{ij}^\text{active}&=&-\zeta Q_{ij},\\\label{eqActStress}
\Pi_{ij}^\text{passive}&=&2\eta D_{ij} + 2\lambda(Q_{ij}+\delta_{ij}/3)(Q_{kl}H_{lk})\nonumber\\
&-&\lambda H_{ik}(Q_{kj}+\delta_{kj}/3) -\lambda (Q_{ik}+\delta_{ik}/3)H_{kj}\nonumber\\
&+&Q_{ik}H_{kj}-H_{ik}Q_{kj}-\partial_i Q_{kl}\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}}{\delta\partial_j Q_{lk}}-p\delta_{ij},
\label{active_stress}\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ is the activity parameter, $\eta$ an isotropic contribution to the viscosity, $D_{ij}=(\partial_iu_j+\partial_ju_i)/2$, $\lambda$ is the alignment parameter, $p$ is pressure, and $H_{ij}=-\frac{\delta\mathcal{F}}{\delta Q_{ij}}+(\delta_{ij}/3)\mathrm{Tr}\frac{\delta\mathcal{F}}{\delta Q_{kl}}$ is the molecular field calculated from the free energy $\mathcal{F}$ with density of $$\begin{aligned}
f&=&L(\partial_k Q_{ij})^2/2\\
&+&AQ_{ij}Q_{ji}/2+BQ_{ij}Q_{jk}Q_{ki}/3+C(Q_{ij}Q_{jk})^2/4\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the elastic constant $L$ and material constants $A$, $B$, and $C$. The advection term $S_{ij}$ is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_{ij}=-2\lambda(Q_{ij}+\delta_{ij}/3)(Q_{kl} \partial_{k}u_l)\\
&&+(\lambda D_{ik}-\Omega_{ik})(Q_{kj}+\delta_{kj}/3)\nonumber \\
&&+(Q_{ik}+\delta_{ik}/3)(\lambda D_{kj}+\Omega_{kj}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{ij}=(\partial_i u_j-\partial_j u_i)/2$.
Equations of active nematodynamics (\[eqqten\]–\[u\_eq\]) include two intrinsic length scales that govern the behaviour of the active turbulence. These are the nematic correlation length $\xi$—also present in passive nematics—and active lengthscale $\xi_\zeta$. The nematic correlation length $\xi=\sqrt{\frac{L}{A+BS_\text{eq}+9CS_\text{eq}^2/2}}$ ($S_{eq}$ is the equilibrium nematic degree of order) is given as an effective ratio between nematic elasticity and material ordering (in view of the nematic degree of order) and measures the effective thickness of nematic topological defects. Differently, active length $\xi_\zeta=\sqrt{L/|\zeta|}$ measures the effective ratio between nematic elasticity and the strength of the activity (i.e. active stress). We will be considering a 3D bulk active nematic; but naturally, any geometrically confinement or presence of external fields can also introduce additional length scales relevant in the system. Time evolution of active nematic can be measured in units of nematic intrinsic timescale $\tau_N=\xi_{N}^{2}/ \Gamma L$.
The coupled set of Equations (\[eqqten\]-\[u\_eq\]) is solved by a hybrid lattice Boltzmann method, consisting of a finite difference approach for the Q-tensor time evolution (Eq. \[eqqten\]) and the 19 velocity lattice Boltzmann method with Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook collision operator for the incompressibility and Navier-Stokes equations. The simulations are performed in a rectangular simulation box with a cubic lattice on 405 x 405 x 405 mesh points. Periodic boundary conditions for both $Q_{ij}$ and $u_i$ are used in all three spatial directions. The mesh resolution is $\Delta x=1.5\xi$. The following values for the material parameters were used in the simulation: $A=-0.190\,L/\xi^2$, $B=-2.34\,L/\xi^2$, $C=1.91\,L/\xi^2$, $\rho=0.0275/L\Gamma^2$, $\eta=1.38/\Gamma$, and $\lambda=1$. The starting state for the simulations was a zero initial velocity field. The initial $Q$ field was obtained using the uniaxial approximation $Q_{ij} = \frac{3S_\text{eq}}{2}(n_i n_j - \frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij})$ where $n_i$ was a unit vector with a uniform random distribution in space and $S_\text{eq}=0.533$.\
The simulations were run for $10^5$ time steps (each time step corresponds to $0.0225\,\tau_N$): first 60000 time steps ($1350\,\tau_N$) were used to reach the dynamic steady state (of the active turbulence) and the remaining 40000 steps ($900\,\tau_N$) were used in the calculation of time-averaged quantities.
{width="\textwidth"}
Spectral analysis
-----------------
The ordering and flow profiles of 3D active turbulence patterns can be analysed by using spectral analysis, which gives insight into the material structure over different length scales. Specifically, we analyse the spectra of main energy contributions in the system—kinetic energy and nematic elastic energy—spectra, motivated by the analogy to the kinetic spectra that are used to study inertial (high Reynolds number) turbulence. We should comment that the spectra are introduced as one-dimensional $E(k)$ (although $k$ is the length of the full 3D vector $\bm{k}$), as the active turbulence is isotropic; therefore, the one dimensional spectrum is sufficient as the signal in all directions in $k$ space is equivalent. In non-isotropic systems, full three dimensional spectra $E(\bm{k})$ have to be considered.
The kinetic energy spectrum $E_{kin}$ is implicitly defined as: $$w_{kin} = \int_{0}^{\infty}E_{kin}(k) dk = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho}{V} \int u_i(\mathbf{r})u_i(\mathbf{r}) d^D r, \label{def}$$ where $w_{kin}$ is the average kinetic energy density, $\rho$ is density, $V$ is volume, $u_i(\mathbf{r})$ is velocity in direct space, $k$ is the magnitude of the wave vector in reciprocal space and $D$ is the space dimension. Alternatively, the kinetic energy spectrum can be written in the reciprocal (Fourier) space as: $$E_{kin}(k) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho}{V} \oiint_{|\bm{k'}| = k} u_i(\bm{k'})u_i^*(\bm{k'}) \frac{dS_{\bm{k'}}}{(2\pi)^D},
\label{kin1}$$ where the integration runs over a sphere in reciprocal space with a fixed radius $k$. As an alternative to kinetic energy, enstrophy $\epsilon$ is another measure that is often used to characterise velocity fields. It is defined as: $$\epsilon = \int (\varepsilon_{ijk} \partial_j u_k)^2 d^Dr = \int (\partial_i u_j)^2 d^Dr - \int (\partial_i u_i)^2 d^Dr = \int (\partial_i u_j)^2 d^Dr,$$ where $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita tensor. In reciprocal space, the enstrophy spectrum can be written as: $$E_{ens}(k) = k^2 \oiint_{|\bm{k'}| = k} u_i(\bm{k'})u_i^*(\bm{k'}) \frac{dS_{\bm{k'}}}{(2\pi)^D}.$$ Note that in reciprocal space, the enstrophy is up to a pre-factor, the kinetic spectrum multiplied by $k^2$.
Analogously to the kinetic spectrum, we implicitly define the active nematic elastic spectrum—attributed to effective active nematic elasticity as: $$w_{ela} = \int_{k = 0}^{\infty}E_{ela}(k) dk = \frac{1}{2} \frac{L}{V} \int (\partial_l Q_{ij} (\mathbf{r}))^2d^D r, \label{def2}$$ where $w_{ela}$ is the nematic elastic energy per unit volume of the sample $V$, with the elastic spectrum in the reciprocal form expressed as: $$E_{ela}(k) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{L}{V} k^2 \oiint_{|\bm{k'}|=k} Q_{mn}(\bm{k'}) Q_{mn}^*(\bm{k'}) \frac{dS_{\bm{k'}}}{(2\pi)^D},
\label{ela1}$$ where the surface integral runs over a sphere in reciprocal space with fixed radius $k$.\
To numerically evaluate the spectra we first compute the 3D discrete Fourier transform of $u_i$ or $Q_{ij}$ at a given time step $t$ and calculate the full three dimensional energy spectra $E^t(\bm{k})$ and then reduce it to a one dimensional spectrum by averaging the 3D spectrum over a thin spherical shell in reciprocal space and multiply the result with the volume of the shell. The discrete one dimensional spectrum at time $t$ is thus calculated as: $$E^t(k_i) = \sum_{ ||\bm{k_j}| - k_i| < \Delta k}^{k_{max}} \frac{1}{N_i} {E^t(\bm{k}_j)} 4\pi k_i^2, \quad N_i = \sum_{ ||\bm{k_j}| - k_i| < \Delta k} 1,
\label{discrete}$$ where $k_i$ is the radius of the spherical shell in the reciprocal space, $\bm{k}_j$ are the 3D discrete wave vectors in reciprocal space and $\Delta k = \frac{\pi}{2 M}$ is the half-thickness of the shell ($M$ is the the length of the simulation box). The sum is cut off at $k = k_{max}=\pi/\Delta x$, which corresponds to the Nyquist frequency and ensures that the whole spherical shell is contained in the reciprocal space. The spectra for a given set of parameters are then time averaged to obtain the final energy spectra (presented in the Results section): $$E(k_i) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{t=1}^N {E^t(k_i)}$$ Note that, among other tests, we verified the performance of the above described method also by using the (high Reynolds number) Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database’s *forced isotropic turbulence* dataset [@LiY_JournalofTurbulence9_2008; @Perlman:2007:DET:1362622.1362654] and accompanying spectrum.\
Results
=======
![Time averaged (a) kinetic, (b) elastic and (c) enstrophy spectra of bulk three dimensional active turbulence for different activities. Top axis gives the length $r$ in direct space in units of nematic correlation length $\xi$; bottom axis gives the length in reciprocal (Fourier) space of wave vectors. In kinetic energy spectrum, dotted black line shows a $k^{-5}$ dependence as a guide to the eye. Elastic energy spectrum has a clear maximum whose position shifts with increasing activity as shown in the inset (b). Dotted blue line in the inset of elastic energy density spectra shows $\zeta^{0.5}$ curve (as guide to the eye) and simulation data is presented by black squares. Enstrophy spectra roughly scale with with $\zeta^{2}$, as shown in inset of (c). []{data-label="Fig2"}](figure2.pdf){width="8.7cm"}
The dynamics state of the bulk 3D active nematic turbulence at different activities is shown in Fig. \[Fig1\]. The structure is characterised by a three-dimensional network of nematic defect lines that undergo constant dynamic re-morphing, as a results of constant energy input into the system via the active stress. The structure is irregular with no apparent order neither in the defect network nor in the velocity field and is conditioned by the mutual coupling between the active nematic orientation and the material flow. The defect network is constantly transforming in time, with segments of defect lines reconnecting, merging together and splitting apart, and defect loops undergoing annihilation. In a steady state, the defect density is generally constant and increases with higher activity. Animations of disclination dynamics are available in Supplementary Information (SI Video 1) and raw data of the presented simulations (time evolution of nematic tensor $Q_{ij}$ and the velocity field $u_i$) is made available in Ref. [@ziga_kos_2019_3541954].
![Ratios of elastic energy spectra $E_{full}/E_{uni}$ obtained from using full tensor profiles $Q_{ij}$ and projected-out uniaxial tensor profile $Q_{ij}^{uni}$.[]{data-label="Fig_biaxiality"}](figure3.pdf){width="8.7cm"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Energy spectra of 3D bulk active nematic turbulence
---------------------------------------------------
Time averaged kinetic and elastic energy volume density of a dynamic steady state active turbulent state of three-dimensional active nematic, across the spectrum, and at different activities, are shown in Figure \[Fig2\]. Kinetic energy density $E_{kin}$ (Fig. \[Fig2\]a) exhibits a maximum at scales of the order of hundreds of nematic correlation lengths, showing that the kinetic energy is largest at scales much larger than the typical size (thickness) of the topological defect lines. When approaching smaller length scales (i.e. larger $k$), the kinetic energy spectrum starts to decay with increasing $k$ and shows an approximately $k^{-5}$ power-law dependence. Over the rough range of length scales from cca. $5$–$50\,\xi$ the kinetic energy density decreases strongly, for multiple (cca. five) orders in magnitude. This range of strong approximately power-law type of decrease is also evident from the spectral density of the enstrophy (Fig. \[Fig2\]c). The observed strongly non-monotonous dependence of kinetic energy (and enstrophy) indicates that there is a velocity lengthscale dictating the distribution of structures in the flow field. Varying the activity (from $0.004$ to $0.27\,L/\xi^2$) increases the kinetic energy density spectrum, as well as enstrophy density spectrum, across all length scales due to a broad increase of velocity magnitude. The increase in the kinetic energy density and enstrophy density is observed to scale roughly as $\propto \zeta^2$, in a notable range of length scales, as shown in inset to Fig. \[Fig2\]c. Figure \[Fig2\]b shows the nematic elastic energy density spectrum $E_{el}$, which also exhibits a distinct maximum at all studied activities. Peak position is activity dependent and shifts towards shorter length scales with increasing activity, inline with the anticipated scaling $k_{peak} \propto \zeta^{0.5}$ (see Section \[sec:active\_lengthscale\]).
The profile of the active nematic elastic spectrum at small scales (large wave vectors) is roughly independent of activity up to approximately $6$ nematic correlation lengths, which can be attributed to the effective thickness of the defect lines (i.e. defect cores), which is same at all activities. Increasing the activity effectively only multiplies this small scale (large-$k$) part of the spectrum, which can be understood by more defect lines being formed with increasing activity but of roughly same effective thickness. To provide further insight into this part of the elastic energy spectrum as belonging to molten defect cores, we compare the elastic spectra computed using the full $Q_{ij}$ tensor profiles (obtained directly from numerical calculations of the active turbulence) and the profile of uniaxial tensor $Q_{ij}^{uni}$ of the same data, calculated from the nematic degree of order $S$ and director $n_i$ as $ Q_{ij}^{uni} = \frac{3S}{2}(n_in_j - \frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij})$. Figure \[Fig\_biaxiality\] shows that the full $Q_{ij}$ elastic spectra and uniaxial $Q_{ij}^{uni}$ are different at length scales below cca $10-20\xi$, notably independently of the activity. The difference between the spectra is the result of biaxiallity in the nematic profiles, which is non-negligible only in the defect cores. This analysis further supports that defect lines are of constant width, as explained before.
Active nematic elastic lengthscale analysis {#sec:active_lengthscale}
-------------------------------------------
Figure \[Fig\_extra\] shows—complementary to spectral analysis—the real space profiles of the kinetic and elastic energy densities of the active turbulence. The elastic energy density is highly localised (around the active defect cores) as shown in Fig. \[Fig\_extra\]a and b, whereas the kinetic energy is more spread-out (Fig. \[Fig\_extra\]c and d), which indeed were the general features seen in the Fourier spectra, but in reciprocal space with no direct real-space interpretation. In real space, the maxima of the elastic energy spectra are clearly related to location of the nematic defect lines, directly indicating that the position of the peak in the active nematic elastic energy spectra comes from the effective average separation of topological defects. Complementary, as seen from Fig. \[Fig\_extra\], the maxima in the kinetic energy spectra roughly correspond to the typical separation between the effective local maxima (peaks) in the flow field.
The correspondence between the typical lengths obtained in active nematic elastic spectral analysis (i.e. the spectral maxima) and the effective average separation between the defect lines is independently tested by direct geometrical tracking of the whole defect line network. To geometrically determine the effective separation between the defects lines, the volume fraction of defect cores in a dynamic steady-state of active nematic turbulence is calculated, as shown for different activities in Fig. \[Fig3\]. Specifically, we identify defect cores as regions with reduced nematic degree of order $S<S^\text{thr}$, where $S^\text{thr}= 0.4$ is used for results presented in Fig. \[Fig3\]. As a function of activity, the defect volume fraction in the dynamic steady state of the active turbulence is observed to increase approximately linearly.
![Topological defect volume fraction as function of activity for dynamic steady state of active turbulence in three-dimensional active nematic. Results of numerical calculations and analysis are shown with black squares; dotted blue line shows linear curve $\propto \zeta$. The defect region is defined as volume where the nematic degree of order $S < 0.4$ (bulk equilibrium value $S_\text{bulk} = 0.533$). []{data-label="Fig3"}](figure5.pdf){width="8.7cm"}
![Comparison of elastic length scale (blue) and defect length scale (orange). The constant prefactor of the defect length scale dependence is sensitive to changes of the used defect line cross section. A value of $d_{cs} = 4.1 \xi$ was used for the defect cross section diameter, based on the measured average.[]{data-label="Fig_comp"}](figure6.pdf){width="8.7cm"}
Defect volume fraction is proportional to the total length of the active nematic defect lines $x_d$, which in turn can be used to extract the effective length scale attributed to the defect-to-defect separation $l_d=\sqrt{V/x_d}$, where $V$ is the volume of the active nematic. Within the literature, the scaling of $l_d\propto \zeta^{-0.5}$ is predicted [@HemingwayEJ_SoftMatter12_2016]. Such scaling explains a linear dependence of defect volume fraction on activity, which is appproximately observed in Fig. \[Fig3\]. Finally, the defect lengthscale $l_d$ obtained directly from the defect volume fraction calculation agrees very well with the values extracted from the elastic energy spectra, as shown in Fig. \[Fig\_comp\], indicating that indeed, the effective defect-defect separation performs as an effective length scale in the elastic behaviour of active nematic turbulence.
Active nematic velocity lengthscale analysis
--------------------------------------------
The flow fields of the 3D active nematic turbulence can be analysed in the direct space — complementing the mode analysis in Fig. \[Fig2\] — by considering the autocorrelation functions of the velocity field, inline with the analysis of the 2D active nematic turbulence [@GiomiL_PhysRevX5_2015]. We use the normalized, one-dimensional, zero-mean velocity autocorrelation function $C_{\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{u}}(R) &= \frac{\oiint_{|\mathbf{R}| = R} \Big( \int \tilde{u}_i(\mathbf{r})\tilde{u}_i(\mathbf{r} + \mathbf{R})d^3 r \Big) dS_{\mathbf{R}}}{\int \tilde{u}_i(\mathbf{r}) \tilde{u}_i(\mathbf{r})d^3 r} ,\\
\tilde{u}_i(\mathbf{r}) &= u_i(\mathbf{r}) - \frac{1}{V}\int u_i(\mathbf{r}) d^3r,
\label{utilde}\end{aligned}$$ where bulk integration is performed over the whole system volume $V$ and the surface integral recomputes the full three-dimensional correlation into a one-dimensional radial correlation by averaging over a thin spherical shell, similarly as in Eq. \[discrete\]. Note that subtracting the mean in Eq. (\[utilde\]) only changes the correlation function by a constant factor, where the mean of the velocity field is typically two orders of magnitude smaller then its standard deviation at all activities, $\langle u \rangle / \sqrt{\langle u^2 \rangle} \ll 1$. The normalization and zero mean ensure that the values of the autocorrelation function will be confined to the interval $[-1, 1]$. The velocity autocorrelation is computed via the Fourier convolution theorem.
The velocity autocorrelations of the flow fields of 3D active nematic turbulence are shown for different activities in Fig. \[Fig\_corrf\]. The general trend is that the range of the correlation decreases with increasing activity. The calculated correlation function could be used to provide insight into characteristic lengths in the velocity field of the 3D active turbulence. Selection of the actual length can be me made by selecting some distinct cut-off value of the correlation function, possibly, also in combination with the peak-values of the kinetic energy or enstrophy spectra.
![Velocity autocorrelation function of active turbulence in 3D active nematics for various activities.[]{data-label="Fig_corrf"}](figure7.pdf){width="8.7cm"}
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
We have performed the spectral energy analysis of 3D bulk active nematic turbulence where activity is manifested in a dense tangle of spatially and time-varying active defect lines. We calculate the elastic energy spectrum of active nematic order parameter and kinetic energy spectrum of the flow field, showing that the active nematic elastic energy is concentrated on scales comparable to the average distance between defect lines, typically of 10-100 nematic correlations lengths dependent on activity, whereas the kinetic energy is largest at somewhat larger scales of typically several 100 nematic correlation lengths. We show that the effective defect-defect separation scales with activity as $\sim\zeta^{0.5}$. The role of nematic biaxiality is addressed showing that it is roughly activity independent in the active turbulence but becomes energetically important at scales comparable with defect core size. Velocity autocorrelation is also discussed in view of interpreting the kinetic energy spectra.
A span of diverse active materials—from active biological fibres to bacteria—show the regime of active turbulence, but it is an open interesting question if or to what extend are these seemingly similar irregular material dynamic regimes really equivalent. Using spectral analysis of the main energetic contributions in the system, as shown in this study, could possibly provide such basis for comparison, comparing the characteristic scalings of the energy terms (e.g. with the activity), in view, as if searching for the [“universality classes”]{} of the active matter. As only one consequence, establishing such more unifying understanding of diverse active materials would allow active matter science to move even further from system-specific models and formulate general concepts and approaches, also maturing the field, and making it further accessible to technological ideas and applications. More generally, spectral energy analysis could provide an interesting robust method for mapping experiments to different models of active nematics. One might expect models to separate into classes, characterized by differing scaling laws for various physically motivated quantities, unperturbed by variations of model parameters away from critical values – as also just recently discussed in [@alert2019universal; @bourgoin2019kolmogorovian]. Experimental spectra could then be matched with appropriate theoretical models in a parameter-free manner.
Acknowledgements
================
Authors acknowledge funding from Slovenian Research Agency ARRS grants P1-0099, N1-0124, and L1-8135. M.R. also acknowledges support under EPSRC Grant No. EP/R014604/1 at Isaac Newton Institute, University of Cambridge ([“The mathematical design of new materials”]{} program).
Conflicts of interest
=====================
There are no conflicts to declare.
@ifundefined
[40]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\] \[2\] \[3\] \[3\]
K.-T. Wu, J. B. Hishamunda, D. T. N. Chen, S. J. DeCamp, Y.-W. Chang, A. Fernández-Nieves, S. Fraden and Z. Dogic, *Science*, 2017, **355**, eaal1979 H. H. Wensink, J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, R. E. Goldstein, H. Lowen and J. M. Yeomans, *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*, 2012, **109**, 14308 C. Blanch-Mercader, V. Yashunsky, S. Garcia, G. Duclos, L. Giomi and P. Silberzan, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2018, **120**, 208101 G. P. Alexander, B. G. ge Chen, E. A. Matsumoto and R. D. Kamien, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, 2012, **84**, 497 J. Elgeti, M. E. Cates and D. Marenduzzo, *Soft Matter*, 2011, **7**, 3177 A. Sokolov, I. Aranson, J. Kessler and R. Goldstein, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2007, **98**, 158102 C. Dombrowski, L. Cisneros, S. Chatkaew, R. E. Goldstein and J. O. Kessler, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2004, **93**, 098103 L. Giomi, L. Mahadevan, B. Chakraborty and M. F. Hagan, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2011, **106**, 218101 J. Carballido-Landeira and A. P. Muñuzuri, *Langmuir*, 2015, **31**, 3021 A. Sokolov, A. Mozaffari, R. Zhang, J. J. de Pablo and A. Snezhko, *Phys. Rev. X*, 2019, **9**, 031014 K. Kruse, J. Joanny, F. Jülicher, J. Prost and K. Sekimoto, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2004, **92**, 078101 S. Sankararaman and S. Ramaswamy, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2009, **102**, 118107 S. P. Thampi, R. Golestanian and J. M. Yeomans, *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A*, 2014, **372**, 20130366 T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen and O. Shochet, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1995, **75**, 1226 J. Toner and Y. Tu, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1995, **75**, 4326 S. Čopar, J. Aplinc, Ž. Kos, S. Žumer and M. Ravnik, *Phys. Rev. X*, 2019, **9**, 031051 T. Sanchez, D. T. N. Chen, S. J. DeCamp, M. Heymann and Z. Dogic, *Nature*, 2012, **491**, 431 G. Duclos, R. Adkins, D. Banerjee, M. S. E. Peterson, M. Varghese, I. Kolvin, A. Baskaran, R. A. Pelcovits, T. R. Powers, A. Baskaran, F. Toschi, M. F. Hagan, S. J. Streichan, V. Vitelli, D. A. Beller and Z. Dogic, *arXiv:1909.01381*, 2019 L. Giomi, *Phys. Rev. X*, 2015, **5**, 031003 M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao and R. A. Simha, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, 2013, **85**, 1143 A. Doostmohammadi, J. Ignés-Mullol, J. M. Yeomans and F. Sagués, *Nat. Commun.*, 2018, **9**, 045006 P. G. de Gennes and J. Prost, *The Physics of Liquid Crystals*, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993 R. Voituriez, J. F. Joanny and J. Prost, *Europhys. Lett.*, 2005, **70**, 404 C. Peng, T. Turiv, Y. Guo, Q.-H. Wei and O. D. Lavrentovich, *Science*, 2016, **354**, 882 P. C. Mushenheim, R. R. Trivedi, H. H. Tuson, D. B. Weibel and N. L. Abbott, *Soft Matter*, 2013, **10**, 88 H. R. O. Sohn, C. D. Liu, R. Voinescu, Z. Chen and I. I. Smalyukh, *arXiv:1911.04640*, 2019 N. D. Bade, R. D. Kamien, R. K. Assoian and K. J. Stebe, *Soft Matter*, 2018, **14**, 6867–6874 U. Frisch, *Turbulence: the legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995 J. Urzay, A. Doostmohammadi and J. M. Yeomans, *J. Fluid Mech.*, 2017, **822**, 762 A. N. Kolmogorov, *Proc. R. Soc. A*, 1991, **434**, 9 Ž. Kos, Ž. Krajnik and M. Ravnik, *[Data for three-dimensional active nematic turbulence]{}*, 2019, <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3541954> A. N. Beris and B. J. Edwards, *Thermodynamics of Flowing Systems with Internal Microstructure*, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994 Y. Hatwalne, S. Ramaswamy, M. Rao and R. Simha, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2004, **92**, 118101 L. Giomi, M. J. Bowick, P. Mishra, R. Sknepnek and M. C. Marchetti, *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A*, 2014, **372**, 20130365 J. Binysh, Ž. Kos, S. Čopar, M. Ravnik and G. P. Alexander, *arXiv:1909.07109*, 2019 Y. Li, E. Perlman, M. Wan, Y. Yang, C. Meneveau, R. Burns, S. Chen, A. Szalay and G. Eyink, *Journal of Turbulence*, 2008, **9**, N31 E. Perlman, R. Burns, Y. Li and C. Meneveau, Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, New York, NY, USA, 2007, pp. 23:1–23:11 E. J. Hemingway, P. Mishra, M. C. Marchetti and S. M. Fielding, *Soft Matter*, 2016, **12**, 7943 R. Alert, J.-F. Joanny and J. Casademunt, *arXiv:1906.04757*, 2019 M. Bourgoin, R. Kervil, C. Cottin-Bizonne, F. Raynal, R. Volk and C. Ybert, *arXiv:1911.05780*, 2019
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands'
- 'Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands'
- 'Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands'
author:
- Hua Ma
- Ihor Smal
- Joost Daemen
- Theo van Walsum
title: 'Dynamic Coronary Roadmapping via Catheter Tip Tracking in X-ray Fluoroscopy with Deep Learning Based Bayesian Filtering'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we discuss properties of the KdV equation under periodic boundary conditions, especially those which are important to study perturbations of the equation. Next we review what is known now about long-time behaviour of solutions for perturbed KdV equations.'
address:
- '$^1$ C.M.L.S, École Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France'
- '$^2$ I.M.J, Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7, Paris, France'
author:
- HUANG Guan$^1$ and Sergei KUKSIN$^2$
bibliography:
- 'review\_kdv.bib'
title: KdV equation under periodic boundary conditions and its perturbations
---
Introduction
============
The famous Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation $$u_t=-u_{xxx}+6uu_x, \quad x\in\mathbb{R},$$ was first proposed by Joseph Boussinesq [@bou1871] as a model for shallow water wave propagation. It became famous later when two Dutch mathematicians, Diederik Korteweg and Gustav De Vries [@kdv1895], used it to explain the existence of a soliton water wave, previously observed by John Russel in physical experiments. Their work was so successful that this equation is now named after them. Since the mid-sixties of 20th century the KdV equation received a lot of attention from mathematical and physical communities after the numerical results of Kruskal and Zabusky [@krz1965] led to the discovery that its solitary wave solutions interact in an integrable way. It turns out that in some suitable setting, the KdV equation can be viewed as an integrable infinite dimensional hamiltonian system.
In his “New Methods of Celestial Mechanics", Poincaré calls the task to study perturbations of integrable systems the “General Problem of Dynamics". The great scientist was motivated by the celestial mechanics, where perturbed integrable systems play a very important role[^1]. For a similar reason his maxim is true for mathematical physics, where many important processes are described by suitable perturbations of an integrable PDE, while the unperturbed integrable equations correspond to idealization of physical reality. In particular, no physical process is exactly described by the KdV equation.
In this paper[^2], we focus on the KdV equation with zero mean value periodic boundary condition. It is known since the works of Novikov, Lax, Marcênko, Its-Matveev and McKean-Trubowitz that this system is integrable ([@mar1977; @mct1978; @lax1968; @nov1974]). All of its solutions are periodic, quasi-periodic or almost periodic in time. In Section 1 we discuss the KdV equation in the framework of infinite-dimensional hamiltonian systems, in Section 2 we present some normal form results for finite-dimensional integrable hamiltonian systems and in Section 3 — recent results on KdV which may be regarded as infinite-dimensional versions of those in Section 2. Finally in Section 4 we discuss long-time behavior of solutions for the perturbed KdV equations, under hamiltonian and non-hamiltonian perturbations. Results presented there are heavily based on theorems from Section 3.
As indicated in the title of our work, we restrict our study to the periodic boundary conditions. In this case the KdV equation behaves as a hamiltonian system with countablely-many degrees of freedom and the method of Dynamical Systems may be used for its study (same is true for other hamiltonian PDEs in finite volume, e.g. see [@k06_handb]). The KdV is a good example of an integrable PDE in the sense that properties of many other integrable equations with self-adjoint Lax operators, e.g. of the defocusing Zakharov-Shabat equation (see [@GK]), and of their perturbations are very similar to those of KdV and its perturbations, while the equations with non-selfadjoint Lax operators, e.g. the Sine-Gordon equation, are similar to KdV when we study their small-amplitude solutions (and the KAM-theory for such equation is similar to the KAM theory for KdV without the smallness assumption, see [@kuk2000]). When considered on the whole line with “zero at infinity" boundary condition, due to the effect of radiation, the KdV equation and its perturbations behave differently, and people working on these problems prefer to call them “dispersive systems". To discuss the corresponding results should be a topic of another work.
The number of publications, dedicated to KdV and its perturbations is immense, and our bibliography is hopelessly incomplete.
KdV under periodic boundary conditions as a hamiltonian system
==============================================================
Consider the KdV equation under zero mean value periodic boundary condition: $$u_t+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=0,\quad x\in\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z},\quad \int_{\mathbb{T}}udx=0.\label{kdv1}$$ (Note that the mean-value $\int_{\mathbb{T}}udx$ of a space-periodic solution $u$ is a time-independent quantity, to simplify presentation we choose it to be zero.) To fix the setup, for any integer $p\geqslant0$, we introduce the Sobolev space of real valued functions on $\mathbb{T}$ with zero mean-value: $$\fl
H^p=\Big\{u\in L^2(\mathbb{T},\mathbb{R}):\;||u||_p<+\infty,\;\int_{\mathbb{T}} =0\Big\},\quad
||u||_p^2=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}|2\pi k|^{2p}(|\hat{u}_k|^2+|\hat{u}_{-k}|^2).$$ Here $\hat{u}_k$, $\hat{u}_{-k}$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, are the Fourier coefficients of $u$ with respect to the trigonometric base $$e_k=\sqrt{2}\cos{2\pi kx},\quad k>0\quad \mbox{and}\quad e_k=\sqrt{2}\sin{2\pi kx},\quad k<0,
\label{basis1}$$ i.e. $$u=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\hat{u}_ke_k+\hat{u}_{-k}e_{-k}.
\label{basis2}$$ In particular, $H^0$ is the space of $L^2$-functions on $\mathbb{T}$ with zero mean-value. By $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ we denote the scalar product in $H^0$ (i.e. the $L^2$-scalar product).
For a $C^1$-smooth functional $F$ on some space $H^p$, we denote by $\nabla F$ its gradient with respect to $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$, i.e. $$d F(u)(v)=\langle\nabla F(u),v\rangle,$$ if $u$ and $v$ are sufficiently smooth. So $\nabla F(u)=\frac{\delta F}{\delta u(x)}+const$, where $\frac{\delta F}{\delta u}$ is the variational derivative, and the constant is chosen in such a way that the mean-value of the r.h.s vanishes. See [@kuk2000; @kjp2003] for details. The initial value problem for KdV on the circle $\mathbb{T}$ is well posed on every Sobolev space $ H^p$ with $p\geqslant 1$, see [@sat1976]. The regularity of KdV in function spaces of lower smoothness was studied intensively, see [@Tao; @KT] and references in these works; also see [@Tao] for some qualitative results concerning the KdV flow in these spaces. We avoid this topic.
It was observed by Gardner [@gar1971] that if we introduce the Poisson bracket which assigns to any two functionals $F(u)$ and $G(u)$ the new functional $\{F,G\}$, $$\Big\{ F,G\Big\}(u)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\frac{d}{dx}\nabla F(u(x))\nabla G(u(x))dx \label{poisson1}$$ (we assume that the r.h.s is well defined, see [@kuk2000; @k06_handb; @kjp2003] for details), then KdV becomes a hamiltonian PDE. Indeed, this bracket corresponds to a differentiable hamiltonian function $F$ a vector filed $\mathcal{V}_F$, such that $$\langle\mathcal{ V}_F(u),\nabla G(u)\rangle=\{F,G\}(u)$$ for any differentiable functional $G$. From this relation we see that $
\mathcal{V}_F(u)=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\nabla F(u).
$ So the KdV equation takes the hamiltonian form $$u_t=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\nabla \mathcal{H}(u),
\label{okdveh1}$$ with the KdV Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}(u)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}(\frac{u_x^2}{2}+u^3)dx.\label{kdvh}$$ The Gardner bracket (\[poisson1\]) corresponds to the symplectic structure, defined in $H^0$ (as well as in any space $H^p$, $p\geqslant0$) by the 2-form $$\omega_2^{G}(\xi,\eta)=\big\langle(-\frac{\partial}{\partial x})^{-1}\xi,\eta\big\rangle\quad\mbox{for}\quad\xi,\eta\in H^0.
\label{omega1}$$ Indeed, since $\omega_2^G(\mathcal{V}_F(u),\xi)\equiv-\langle\nabla F(u),\xi\rangle$, then the 2-form $\omega_2^G$ also assigns to a Hamiltonian $F$ the vector field $\mathcal{V}_F$ (see [@arn1989; @kjp2003; @kuk2000; @k06_handb]).
We note that the bracket (\[poisson1\]) is well defined on the whole Sobolev spaces $H^p(\mathbb{T})=H^p\oplus\mathbb{R}$, while the symplectic form $\omega_2^G$ is not, and the affine subspaces $\{u\in H^p(\mathbb{T}):\;\int_{\mathbb{T}}udx=const\}\simeq H^p$ are symplectic leaves for this Poisson system. We study the equation only on the leaf $\int_{\mathbb{T}}udx=0$, but on other leaves it may be studied similarly.
Writing a function $u(x)\in H^0$ as in (\[basis2\]) we see that $\omega_2^G=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k^{-1}d\hat{u}_k\wedge\hat{u}_{-k}$ and that $\mathcal{H}(u)=H(\hat{u}):=\Lambda(\hat{u})+G(\hat{u})$ with $$\fl
\qquad\quad
\Lambda(\hat{u})=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}(2\pi k)^2\big(\frac{1}{2}\hat{u}_k^2+\frac{1}{2}\hat{u}_{-k}^2\big),
\qquad G(\hat{u})=\sum_{k,l,m\neq 0,k+l+m=0}\hat{u}_k\hat{u}_l\hat{u}_m.$$ Accordingly, the KdV equation may be written as the infinite chain of hamiltonian equations $$\frac{d}{dt}\hat{u}_j=-2\pi j\frac{\partial H(\hat{u})}{\partial \hat{u}_{-j}},\quad j=\pm1,\;\pm2,\dots.$$
Finite dimensional integrable systems
=====================================
Classically, integrable systems are particular hamiltonian systems that can be integrated in quadratures. It was observed by Liouville that for a hamiltonian system with $n$ degrees of freedom to be integrable, it has to possess $n$ independent integrals in involution. This assertion can be understood globally and locally. Now we recall corresponding finite-dimensional definitions and results.
Liouville-integrable systems
----------------------------
Let $Q\subset \mathbb{R}^{2n}_{(p,q)}$ be a $2n$-dimensional domain. We provide it with the standard symplectic form $\omega_0=dp\wedge dq$ and the corresponding Poisson bracket $$\{f,g\}=\nabla_p f\cdot\nabla_qg-\nabla_qf\cdot\nabla_pg,$$ where $g,f\in C^1(Q)$ and $``\cdot"$ stands for the Euclidean scalar product in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (see [@arn1989]). If $\{f,g\}=0$, the functions $f$ and $g$ are called [*commuting*]{}, or [*in involution*]{}. If $h(p,q)$ is a $C^1$-function on $Q$, then the hamiltonian system with the Hamiltonian $h$ is $$\dot{p}=-\nabla_q h,\quad \dot{q}=\nabla_p h.\label{hfinite}$$
(Liouville-integrability). The hamiltonian system (\[hfinite\]) is called integrable in the sense of Liouville if its Hamiltonian $h$ admits $n$ independent integrals in involution $h_1,\dots,h_n$. That is, $\ \{h,h_i\}=0$ for $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$; $\{h_i,h_j\}=0$ for $1\leqslant i,\;j\leqslant n$, and $dh_1\wedge\cdots\wedge dh_n\neq0$.
A nice structure of an Liouville-integrable system is assured by the celebrated Liouville-Arnold-Jost theorem (see [@arn1989; @MoS]) It claims that if an integrable systems is such that the level sets $T_c=\{(p,q)\in Q: h_1(p,q)=c_1,\dots,h_n(p,q)=c_n\}$, $c=(c_1,\dots,c_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n$ are compact, then each non-empty set $T_c$ is an embedded $n$-dimensional torus. Moreover for a suitable neighborhood $O_{T_c}$ of $T_c$ in $Q$ there exists a symplectomorphism $$\Theta:\;O_{T_c}\to O\times\mathbb{T}^n=\{(I,\varphi)\},\quad O\subset\mathbb{R}^n,$$ where the symplectic structure in $O\times\mathbb{T}^n$ is given by the 2-form $dI\wedge d\varphi$. Finally, there exists a function $\bar{h}(I)$ such that $ h(p,q)=\bar{h}(\Theta(p,q)).$ This result is true both in the smooth and analytic categories.
The coordinates $(I,\varphi)$ are called the [*action-angle variables*]{} for (\[hfinite\]). Using them the hamiltonian system may be written as $$\dot{I}=0,\quad\dot{\varphi}=\nabla_I \bar{h}(I).
\label{laj1}$$ Accordingly, in the original coordinates $(p,q)$ solutions of the system are $$(p,q)(t)=\Theta^{-1}(I_0,\varphi_0+\nabla_I\bar{h}(I_0)t).$$
On $O\times\mathbb{T}^n$, consider the 1-form , then . For any vector $I\in O$, and for $j=1,\dots,n$, denote by $C_j(I)$ the cycle . Then $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{C_j}Id\varphi=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{C_j}I_jd\varphi_j=I_j.$$ Consider a disc $D_j\subset O\times\mathbb{T}^n$ such that $\partial D_j=C_j$. For any 1-form $\omega_1$, satisfying $d\omega_1=dI\wedge d\varphi$, we have $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{C_j}(Id\varphi-\omega_1)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{D_j}d(Id\varphi-\omega_1)=0.$$ So $$I_j=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{C_j(I)}\omega_1,\quad \mbox{if}\quad d\omega_1=dI\wedge d\varphi.\label{arnold1}$$ This is the [*Arnold formula for actions*]{}.
Birkhoff Integrable systems
---------------------------
We denote by $\mathbb{J}$ the standard symplectic matrix $
\mathbb{J}=\mbox{diag}\Big\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & -1 \\1 & 0\end{array}\right)\Big\},
$ operating in any $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ (e.g. in $\mathbb{R}^2$). Assume that the origin is an elliptic critical point of a smooth Hamiltonian $h$, i.e. $\nabla h(0)=0$ and that the matrix $\mathbb{J}\nabla^2h(0)$ has only pure imagine eigenvalues. Then there exists a linear symplectic change of coordinates which puts $h$ to the form $$h=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i(p_i^2+q_i^2)+h.o.t, \qquad \lambda_j\in\mathbb{R} \quad\forall j.$$ If the frequencies $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ satisfy some non-resonance conditions, then this normalization process can be carried out to higher order terms. The result of this normalization is known as the [*Birkhoff normal form for the Hamiltonian $h$.*]{}
The frequencies $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are non-resonant up to order $m\geqslant1$ if $\sum_{i=1}^nk_i\lambda_i\neq0$ for each $k\in\mathbb Z^n$ such that $1\leqslant \sum_{i=1}^n|k_i|\leqslant m$. They are called non-resonant if $k_1\lambda_1+\dots+k_n\lambda_n=0$ with integers $k_1,\dots,k_n$ only when all $k_j$’s vanish.
(Birkhoff normal form, see [@mos1968; @MoS]) Let $H=N_2+\cdots$ be a real analytic Hamiltonian in the vicinity of the origin in $(\mathbb{R}^{2n}_{(p,q)},dp\wedge dq )$ with the quadratic part $N_2=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i(q_i^2+p_i^2)$. If the (real) frequencies $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are non-resonant up to order , then there exists a real analytic symplectic trasformation $\Psi_m=Id+\cdots$, such that $$H\circ\Psi_m=N_2+N_4+\dots+N_m+h.o.t.$$ Here $N_i$ are homogeneous polynomials of order $i$, which are actually smooth functions of variables $p_1^2+q_1^2,\dots,p_n^2+q_n^2$. If the frequencies are non-resonant, then there exists a formal symplectic transformation $\Psi=Id+\cdots$, represented by a formal power series, such that $H\circ\Psi=N_2+N_4+\cdots$ (this equality holds in the sense of formal series). \[Birkhoff\]
If the transformation, converting $H$ to the Birkhoff normal form, was convergent, then the resulting Hamiltonian would be integrable in a neighborhood of the origin with the integrals $p_1^2+q_1^2,\dots,p_n^2+q_n^2$. These functions are not independent when $p_i=q_i=0$ for some $i$. So the system is not integrable in the sense of Liouville. But it is integrable in a weaker sense:
Functions $f_1,\dots,f_k$ are functionally independent if their differentials $df_1,\dots,df_k$ are linearly independent on a dense open set. A $2n$-dimensional Hamiltonian is called Birkhoff integrable near an equilibrium , if it admits $n$ functionally independent integrals in involution in the vicinity of $m$.
Birkhoff normal form provides a powerful tool to study the dynamics of hamiltonian PDEs, e.g. see [@kup1996; @bmg2006] and references in [@bmg2006] . However, in this paper we shall not discuss its version for KdV, since for that equation there exists a stronger normal form. Now we pass to its counterpart in finite dimension.
Vey theorem
-----------
The results of this section hold both in the $C^{\infty}$-smooth and analytic categories.
Consider a Birkhoff integrable system, defined near an equilibrium , with independent commuting integrals $F=(F_1,\dots,F_n)$. Its Poisson algebra is the linear space $\,
\mathcal{A}(F)=\Big\{G: \{G,F_i\}=0,\;i=1,\dots,n\Big\}.$
Note that although the integrals of an integrable system are not defined in a unique way, the corresponding algebra $\mathcal{A}(F)$ is.
A Poisson algebra $\mathcal{A}(F)$ is said to be non-resonant at a point $m\in {\mathbb R}^{2n}$, if it contains a Hamiltonian with a non-resonant elliptic critical point at $m$ (i.e., around $m$ one can introduce symplectic coordinates $(p,q)$ such that the quadratic part of that Hamiltonian at $m$ is $\sum\lambda_j(p_j^2+q_j^2)$, where the real numbers $\lambda_j$ are non-resonant).
It is easy to verify that if some $F_1\in\mathcal{A(F)}$ is elliptic and non-resonant at the equilibrium $m$, then all other functions in $\mathcal{A(F)}$ are elliptic at $m$ as well.
(Vey’s theorem). Let $F=(F_1,\dots,F_n)$ be n functionally independent functions in involution in a neighbourhood of a point $m\in {\mathbb R}^{2n}$. If the Poisson algebra $\mathcal{A}(F)$ is non-resonant at $m$, then one can introduce around $m$ symplectic coordinates $(p,q)$ so that $\mathcal{A}(F)$ consists of all functions, which are actually functions of . \[th-vey\]
[**Example.**]{} Let $F=(f_1,\dots, f_n)$ be a system of smooth commuting Hamiltonians, defined in the vicinity of their joint equilibrium $m\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, such that the hessians $\nabla^2f_i(m)$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$, are linear independent. Then the theorem above applies to the Poisson algebra $\mathcal{A}(F)$.
In [@vey1978] Vey proved the theorem in the analytic case with an additional non-degeneracy condition, which was later removed by Ito in [@ito1989]. The results in [@vey1978; @ito1989] also apply to non-elliptic cases. The smooth version of Theorem \[th-vey\] is due to Eliasson [@eli1990]. There exists an infinite dimensional extension of the theorem, see [@kpe2010].
Integrability of KdV
====================
The KdV equation (\[kdv1\]) admits infinitely many integrals in involution, and there are different ways to obtain them, see [@gar1971; @miu1968; @mgk1968; @lax1968; @zmn1984]. Below we present an elegant way to construct a set of Poisson commuting integrals by considering the spectrum of an associated Schrödinger operator, due to Piter Lax [@lax1968] (see [@lax1996] for a nice presentation of the theory).
Lax pair {#s_Lax}
--------
Let $u(x)$ be a $L^2$-function on $\mathbb{T}$. Consider the differential operators $L_u$ and $B_u$, acting on $2$-periodic functions[^3] $$L_u=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+u(x),\quad B_u=-4\frac{d^3}{dx^3}+3u(x)\frac{d}{dx}+3\frac{d}{dx}u(x),$$ where we view $u(x)$ as a multiplication operator $f\mapsto u(x)f$. The operators $B_u$ and $L_u$ are called the [*Lax pair*]{} for KdV. Calculating the commutator $[B_u,L_u]=B_uL_u-L_uB_u$, we see that most of the terms cancel and the only term left is $-u_{xxx}+6uu_x$. Therefore if $u(t,x)$ is a solution of (\[kdv1\]), then the operators $L(t)=L_{u(t,\cdot)}$ and $B(t)=B_{u(t,\cdot)}$ satisfy the operator equation $$\frac{d}{dt}L(t)=[B(t),L(t)].\label{laxpair1}$$ Note that the operator $B(t)$ are skew-symmetric, $B(t)^*=-B(t)$. Let $U(t)$ be the one-parameter family of unitary operators, defined by the differential equation $$\frac{d}{dt}U=B(t)U, \quad U(0)={\rm Id}.$$ Then $\ L(t)=U^{-1}(t)L(0)U(t)$. Therefore, the operator $L(t)$ is unitary conjugated to $L(0)$. Consequently, its spectrum is independent of $t$. That is, the spectral data of the operator $L_u$ provide a set of conserved quantities for the KdV equation (\[kdv1\]). Since $L_u$ is the strurm-Liouville operator with a potential $u(x)$, then in the context of this theory functions $u(x)$ are called [*potentials*]{}.
It is well known that for any $L^2$-potential $u$ the spectrum of the Sturm-Liouville operator $L_u$, regarded as an unbounded operator in $L^2(\mathbb{R}/2\mathbb{Z})$, is a sequence of simple or double eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j: j\geqslant 0\}$, tending to infinity: $$\mbox{spec}(u)=\{\lambda_0<\lambda_1\leqslant\lambda_2<\cdots\nearrow \infty\}.$$ Equality or inequality may occur in every place with a “$\leqslant$” sign (see [@mar1977; @kjp2003]). The segment $[\lambda_{2j-1},\lambda_{2j}]$ is called the [*$n$-th spectral gap*]{}. The asymptotic behaviour of the periodic eigenvalues is $$\lambda_{2n-1}(u),\;\lambda_{2n} (u)=n^2\pi^2+[u]+l^2(n),$$ where $[u]$ is the mean value of $u$, and $l^2(n)$ is the $n$-th number of an $l^2$ sequence. Let $g_n(u)=\lambda_{2n}(u)-\lambda_{2n-1}(u)\geqslant0$, $n\geqslant 1$. These quantities are conserved under the flow of KdV. We call $g_n$ the [*$n$-th gap-length*]{} of the spectrum. The $n$-th gap is called [*open*]{} if $g_n>0$, otherwise it is [*closed*]{}. However, from the analytic point of view the periodic eigenvalues and the gap-lengths are not satisfactory integrals, since $\lambda_n$ is not a smooth function of the potential $u$ when $g_n=0$. Fortunately, the squared gap lengths $g_n^2(u)$, $n\geqslant 1$, are real analytic functions on $L^2$, which Poisson commute with each other (see [@mct1976; @lax1996; @kjp2003]). Moreover, together with the mean value, the gap lengths determine uniquely the periodic spectrum of a potential, and their asymptotic behavior characterizes the regularity of a potential in exactly the same way as its Fourier coefficients [@mar1977; @gat1984].
This method applies to integrate other hamiltonian systems in finite or infinite dimension. It is remarkably general and is referred to as the [*method of Lax pair.*]{}
Action-angle coordinates
------------------------
We denote by $\mbox{Iso}(u_0)$ the isospectral set of a potential $u_0\in H^0$: $$\mbox{Iso}(u_0)=\Big\{u\in H^0: \quad \mbox{spec}(u)=\mbox{spec}(u_0)\Big\}.$$ It is invariant under the flow of KdV and may be characterized by the gap lengths $$\mbox{Iso}(u_0)=\Big\{u\in H^0:\quad g_n(u)=g_n(u_0),\;n\geqslant 1\Big\}.$$ Moreover, for any $n\geqslant1$, $u_0\in H^n$ if and only if $\mbox{Iso}(u_0)\subset H^n$.
In [@mct1976], McKean and Trobwitz showed that the $\mbox{Iso}(u_0)$ is homemorphic to a compact torus, whose dimension equals the number of open gaps. So the phase space $H^0$ is foliated by a collection of KdV-invariant tori of different dimensions, finite or infinite. A potential $u\in H^0$ is called [*finite-gap*]{} if only a finite number of its spectral gaps are open. The finite-dimensional KdV-invariant torus Iso$(u_0)$ is called a [*finite-gap torus*]{}. For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ let us set $$\mathcal{J}^n=\Big\{u\in H^0:\;\;g_j(u)=0\;\;\mbox{if}\;\;j>n\Big\}.
\label{finite-gap}$$ We call the sets $\mathcal{J}^n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the finite-gap manifolds.
For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the finite gap manifold $(\mathcal{J}^n,\omega^G_2)$ is a smooth symplectic $2n$-manifold, invariant under the flow of KdV (\[kdv1\]), and $$T_0\mathcal{J}^n=\Big\{u\in H^0:\;\;\hat{u}_k=0\;\;\mbox{if}\;\; |k|\geqslant n+1\Big\},$$ (see (\[basis2\])). Moreover, the square gap lengths $g_k^2(u)$, $k=1,\dots,n$, form $n$ commuting analytic integrals of motions, non-degenerated everywhere on the dense domain .
Therefore, the Liouville-Arnold-Jost theorem applies everywhere on $\mathcal{J}_0^n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Furthermore, the union of the finite gap manifolds $\cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{J}^n$ is dense in each space $H^s$ (see [@mar1977]). This hints that on the spaces $H^s$, $s\geqslant0$, it may be possible to construct global action-angle coordinates for KdV. In [@flm1976], Flaschka and McLaughlin used the Arnold formula (\[arnold1\]) to get an explicit formula for action variables of KdV in terms of the 2-period spectral data of $L_u$. To explain their construction, denote by $y_1(x,\lambda,u)$ and $y_2(x,\lambda,u)$ the standard fundamental solutions of the equation $\ -y^{\prime\prime}+uy=\lambda y$, defined by the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
y_1(0,\lambda,u)=1,\quad y_2(0,\lambda,u)=0,\\
y_1^{\prime}(0,\lambda,u)=0,\quad y_2^{\prime}(0,\lambda,u)=1.\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\triangle(\lambda,u)=y_1(1,\lambda,u)+y_2^{\prime}(1,\lambda,u)$ is called the [*discriminant*]{}, associated with this pair of solutions. The periodic spectrum of $u$ is precisely the zero set of the entire function $\triangle^2(\lambda,u)-4$, for which we have the explicit representation (see e.g. [@zmn1984; @mct1976]) $$\triangle^2(\lambda,u)-4=4(\lambda_0-\lambda)\prod_{n\geqslant1}\frac{(\lambda_{2n}-\lambda)(\lambda_{2n-1}-\lambda)}{n^4\pi^4}.$$ This function is a spectral invariant. We also need the spectrum of the differential operator $L_u=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+u$ under Dirichlet boundary conditions on the interval $[0,1]$. It consists of an unbounded sequence of single Dirichlet eigenvalues $$\mu_1(u)<\mu_2(u)<\dots\nearrow \infty,$$ which satisfy $\lambda_{2n-1}(u)\leqslant \mu_n(u)\leqslant \lambda_{2n}(u)$, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus, the $n$-th Dirichlet eigenvalue $\mu_n$ is always contained in the $n$-th spectral gap. The Dirichlet spectrum provides coordinates on the isospectral sets (see [@mct1976; @mar1977; @kjp2003]). For any $z\in\mathbb{T}$, denote by $\{\mu_j(u,z),\;j\geqslant1\}$ the spectrum of the operator $L_u$ under the shifted Dirichlet boundary conditions $y(z)=y(z+1)=0$ (so $\mu_j(u,0)=\mu_j(u)$); still $\lambda_{2n-1}\leqslant \mu_n(u,z)\leqslant\lambda_{2n}(u)$. Jointly with the spectrum $\{\lambda_j\}$, it defines the potential $u(x)$ via the remarkable [*trace formula*]{} (see [@zmn1984; @DMN1976; @kjp2003; @mct1976]): $$u(z)=\lambda_0(u)+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}(\lambda_{2j-1}(u)+\lambda_{2j}(u)-2\mu_j(u,z)).$$
Define $$f_n(u)=2\log(-1)^ny^{\prime}_2(1,\mu_n(u),u),\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Flashka and McLaughlin [@flm1976] observed that the quantities $\{\mu_n,f_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ form canonical coordinates of $H^0$, i.e. $$\{\mu_n,\mu_m\}=\{f_n,f_m\}=0,\quad \{\mu_n,f_m\}=\delta_{n,m},\quad \forall n, m\in \mathbb{N}.$$ Accordingly, the symplectic form $\omega_2^G$ (see (\[omega1\])) equals $d\omega_1$, where $\omega_1$ is the 1-form $\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}f_nd\mu_n$. Now the KdV action variables are given by the Arnold formula (\[arnold1\]), where $C_n$ is a circle on the invariant torus $\mbox{Iso}(u)$, corresponding to $\mu_n(u)$. It is shown in [@flm1976] that $$I_n=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{\lambda_{2n-1}}^{\lambda_{2n}}\lambda\frac{\dot{\triangle}(\lambda)}{\sqrt{\triangle^2(\lambda)-4}}d\lambda,\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ The analytic properties of the functions $u\mapsto I_n$ and of the mapping $u\mapsto I=(I_1,I_2,\dots)$ were studied later by Kappeler and Korotyaev (see references in [@kjp2003; @kor2006] and below). In particular, it was shown that $I_n(u)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, are real analytic functions on $H^0$ of the form $I_n=g_n^2+$ [*higher order terms*]{}, and $I_n=0$ if and only if $g_n=0$, see in [@kjp2003]. For any vector $I=(I_1,I_2,\dots)$ with non-negative components we will denote $$\label{tor}
T_I=\{u(x)\in H^0: I_n(u)=I_n\quad \forall\, n\}.$$
The angle-variables $\varphi^n$ on the finite-gap manifolds $\mathcal{J}^n$ were found in 1970’s by Soviet mathematicians, who constructed them from the Dirichlet spectrum $\{\mu_j(u)\}$ by means of the Abel transform, associated with the Riemann surface of the function $\sqrt{\triangle^2-4}$, see [@DMN1976; @mar1977; @zmn1984], and see [@IM; @Dub; @Kr; @BBE] for the celebrated explicit formulas for angle-variables $\varphi^n$ and for finite-gap solutions of KdV in terms of the theta-functions.
In [@kuk1989] and [@kuk2000], Section 7, the action-angle variables $(I^n, \varphi^n)$ on a finite-gap manifold $\mathcal{J}^n$ and the explicit formulas for solutions of KdV on manifolds $\mathcal{J}^N$, $N\ge n$, from the works [@Dub; @Kr; @BBE] were used to obtain an analytic symplectic coordinate system $(I^n, \varphi^n, y)$ in the vicinity of $\mathcal{J}^n$ in $H^p$. The variable $y$ belongs to a ball in a subspace $Y\subset H^p$ of co-dimention $2n$, and in the new coordinates the KdV Hamiltonian (\[kdvh\]) reads $$\label{SKNF}
{\cal H}= {\rm const} + h^n(I^n)+\langle A(I^n)y,y\rangle + O(y^3).$$ The selfadjoint operator $A(I^n)$ is diagonal in some fixed symplectic basis of $Y$. The nonlinearity $O(y^3)$ defines a hamiltonian operator of order one. That is, the KdV’s linear operator, which is an operator of order three, mostly transforms to the linear part of the new hamiltonian operator and “does not spread much" to its nonlinear part. This is the crucial property of (\[SKNF\]). The normal form (\[SKNF\]) is instrumental for the purposes of the KAM-theory, see below Section \[skam\].
McKean and Trubowitz in [@mct1976; @mct1978] extended the construction of angles on finite-gap manifolds to the set of all potentials, thus obtaining angle variables $\varphi=(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\dots)$ on the whole space $H^p$, $p\geqslant0$. The angles $(\varphi_k(u),k\ge1)$ are well defined Gato-analytic functions of $u$ outside the locus $$\label{game}
\Game = \{u(x): g_j(u)=0\; {\rm for\ some} \; j\} ,$$ which is dense in each space $H^p$. The action-map $u\mapsto I$ was not considered in [@mct1976; @mct1978], but it may be shown that outside $\Game$, in a certain weak sense, the variables $(I,\varphi)$ are KdV’s action-angles (see the next section for a stronger statement). This result is nice and elegant, but it is insufficient to study perturbations of KdV since the transformation to the variables $(I,\varphi)$ is singular at the dense locus $\Game$.
Birkhoff coordinates and nonlinear Fourier transform
----------------------------------------------------
In a number of publications (see in [@kjp2003]), Kappeler with collaborators proved that the Birkhoff coordinates $v=
\{v_n,\;n=\pm1,\pm2,\dots\}$, associated with the action-angles variables $(I,\varphi)$, $$v_n=\sqrt{2I_n}\cos(\varphi_n),\quad v_{-n}=\sqrt{2I_n}\sin(\varphi_n),\quad \forall n\in\mathbb{N},
\label{v-variable}$$ are analytic on the whole of $H^0$ and define there a global coordinate system, in which the KdV Hamiltonian (\[kdvh\]) is a function of the actions only. This remarkable result significantly specifies the normal form (\[SKNF\]). To state it exactly, for any $p\in\mathbb{R}$, we introduce the Hilbert space $h^p$, $$\fl
h^p:=\Big\{ v=(\mathbf{v}_1,\mathbf{v}_2,\cdots): |v|_p^2=\sum_{j=1}^{+\infty}(2\pi j)^{2p+1}|\mathbf{v}_j|^2<\infty,\;\mathbf{v}_j=(v_j,v_{-j})^t\in \mathbb{R}^2,\; j\in\mathbb{N}\Big\},$$ and the weighted $l^1$-space $h^p_I$, $$h^p_I:=\Big\{I=(I_1,\dots)\in\mathbb{R}^{\infty}:|I|^{\sim}_p=2\sum_{j=1}^{+\infty}(2\pi j)^{2p+1}|I_j|<+\infty\Big\}.$$ Define the mappings $$\pi_I:\; h^p\to h_I^p,\quad v\mapsto I=(I_1,I_2,\dots), \;\; {\rm where}\;\;
I_k=\frac{1}{2}| {\mathbf{v}}_k|^2
\quad \forall\, k,$$ $$\fl
\qquad\eqalign{
{}\qquad\qquad
\pi_\varphi :\; h^p \to {\mathbb T}^\infty, \quad v\mapsto \varphi&=(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\dots),\;\;
{\rm where}\;\; \varphi_k=\arctan(\frac{v_{-k}}{v_k})\;\;
\cr
& {\rm if } \;\; \mathbf{v}_k\ne0,\;\; {\rm and }\;\; \varphi_k=0\;\; {\rm if } \;\; \mathbf{v}_k=0.
}$$ Since $|\pi_I(v)|_p^{\sim}=|v|_p^2$, then $\pi_I$ is continuous. Its image $h^p_{I+}=\pi_I(h^p)$ is the positive octant in $h_I^p$. When there is no ambiguity, we write $I(v)=\pi_I(v)$.
Consider the mapping $$\Psi: u(x)\mapsto v=(\mathbf{v}_1,\mathbf{v}_2,\dots),\quad \mathbf{v}_n=(v_n,v_{-n})^t\in\mathbb{R}^2,$$ where $v_{\pm n}$ are defined by (\[v-variable\]) and $\{I_n(u)\}$, $\{\varphi_n(u)\}$ are the actions and angles as in Section 3.2. Clearly $\pi_I \circ\Psi(u)=I(u)$ and $\pi_\varphi \circ\Psi(u)=\varphi(u)$. Below we refer to $\Psi$ as to the [*nonlinear Fourier transform*]{}.
(see [@kjp2003; @kmt2005]) \[t\_kapp\] The mapping $\Psi$ defines an analytical symplectomorphism $\Psi:(H^0,\omega^G_2)\to(h^0,\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}dv_k\wedge dv_{-k})$ with the following properties:
1. \(i) For any $p\in[-1,+\infty)$, it defines an analytic diffeomorphism $\Psi : H^p \mapsto h^p$.
2. \(ii) (Percival’s identity) If $v=\Psi(u)$, then $|v|_0=||u||_0$.
3. \(iii) (Normalisation) The differential $d\Psi(0)$ is the operator $\sum u_se_s\mapsto v$, where $v_s=|2\pi s|^{-1/2}u_s$ for each $s$.
4. \(iv) The function $\hat{H}(v)=\mathcal{H}(\Psi^{-1}(v))$ has the form $\hat{H}(v)=H_K(I(v))$, where the function $H_K(I)$ is analytic in a suitable neighborhood of the octant $h^1_{I+}$ in $h^1_I$, such that a curve $u\in C^1(0,T;H^0)$ is a solution of KdV if and only if $v(t)=\Psi(u(t))$ satisfies the equations $$\dot{\mathbf{v}}_j=\mathbb{J}\frac{\partial H_K}{\partial I_j}(I)\mathbf{v}_j , \quad\mathbf{v}_j=(v_j,v_{-j})^t\in\mathbb{R}^2,\;j\in \mathbb{N}.
\label{bnf-e}$$
\[Thbnf1\]
The assertion (iii) normalizes $\Psi$ in the following sense. For any $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2,\dots)\in\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$ denote by $\Phi_{\theta}$ the operator $$\Phi_{\theta}v=v^{\prime}, \quad \mathbf{v}^{\prime}_j=\bar{\Phi}_{\theta_j}\mathbf{v}_j,\quad \forall j\in\mathbb{N},
\label{phi-rotation}$$ where $\bar{\Phi}_{\alpha}$ is the rotation of the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ by the angle $\alpha$. Then $\Phi_{\theta}\circ\Psi$ satisfies all assertions of the theorem except (iii). But the properties (i)-(iv) jointly determine $\Psi$ in a unique way.
The theorem above can be viewed as a global infinite dimensional version of the Vey Theorem \[th-vey\] for KdV, and eq. (\[bnf-e\]) – as a global Birkhoff normal form for KdV. Note that in finite dimension a global Birkhoff normal form exists only for very exceptional integrable equations, which were found during the boom of activity in integrable systems, provoked by the discovery of the method of Lax pair.
The map $\Psi$ simultaneously transforms all Hamiltonians of the KdV hierarchy to the Birkhoff normal form. The [*KdV hierarchy*]{} is a collection of hamiltonian functions $\mathcal{J}_l$, $l\geqslant0$, commuting with the KdV Hamiltonian, and having the form $$\mathcal{J}_l(u)= \int%_{\mathbb{T}}
\Big(\frac12 (u^{(l)})^2+ J_{l-1}(u)\Big)dx.$$ Here $J_{-1}=0$ and $J_{l-1}(u),\ l\ge1$, is a polynomial of $u,\dots,u^{(l-1)}$. The functions from the KdV hierarchy form another complete set of KdV integrals. E.g. see [@DMN1976; @kjp2003; @lax1996]. \[remark-laws\]
Properties of the nonlinear Fourier transform $\Psi$ may be specified in two important respects. One of this specifications – the quasilinearity of $\Psi$ – is presented in the theorem below. Another one – its behaviour at infinity – is discussed in the next section.
The nonlinear Fourier transform $\Psi$ is quasi-linear. Precisely,
If $m\geqslant0$, then the map $\Psi-d\Psi(0):$ $H^m\to h^{m+1}$ is analytic. \[quasi-l\]
That is, the non-linear part of $\Psi$ is 1-smoother than its linearisation at the origin. See [@kpe2010] for a local version of this theorem, applicable as well to other integrable infinite-dimensional systems, and see [@KST1; @KST2] for the global result. We note that the transformation to the normal form (\[SKNF\]) also is known to be quasi-linear, see [@kuk1989; @kuk2000].
Does the mapping $\Psi-d\Psi(0)$ analytically maps $H^m$ to $h^{m+1+\gamma}$ with $\gamma>0$? \[p.smoothing\]
It is proved in [@kpe2010] that for $\gamma>1$ the answer to this problem is negative and is conjectured there that it also is negative for $\gamma>0$.
Behaviour of $\Psi$ near infinity and large solutions of KdV
------------------------------------------------------------
By the assertion (ii) of Theorem \[Thbnf1\], $|\Psi(u)|_0=||u||_0$. It was established by Korotyayev in [@kor2006] that higher order norms of $u$ and $v=\Psi(u)$ are related by both-sides polynomial estimates:
For any $m\in\mathbb{N}$, there are polynomials $\mathcal{P}_m(y)$ and $\mathcal{Q}_m(y)$ such that if $u\in H^m$ and $v=\Psi(u)$, then $$|v|_m\leqslant \mathcal{P}_m(||u||_m),\quad||u||_m\leqslant \mathcal{Q}_m(|v|_m).$$ \[t.kor\]
The polynomials $\mathcal{P}_m$ and $\mathcal{Q}_m$ are constructed in [@kor2006] inductively. From a personal communication of Korotyayev we know that one can take $$\mathcal{P}_m(y)=C_my(1+y)^{\frac{2(m+2)}{3}}.
\label{kor1}$$ Estimating a potential $u(x)$ via its actions[^4] is more complicated. Corresponding polynomials $\mathcal{Q}_m$ may be chosen of the form $$\mathcal{Q}_m(y)=C^{\prime}_my(1+y)^{a_m},
\label{kor2}$$ where $a_1=\frac{5}{2}$, $a_2=3$ and $a_m$ has a factorial growth as $m\to\infty$.
Prove that there exist polynomials $\mathcal{P}^1_m$ and $\mathcal{Q}^1_m$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$, such that for any $u\in H^m$, we have $$||d\Psi(u)||_{m,m}\leqslant \mathcal{P}^1_m(||u||_m),\quad ||d\Psi^{-1}(v)||_{m,m}\leqslant \mathcal{Q}^1_m(||v||_m),$$ where $v=\Psi(u)$. Prove similar polynomial bounds for the norms of higher differentials of $\Psi$ and $\Psi^{-1}$. \[p.kor\]
It seems that to solve the problem a new proof of Theorem \[Thbnf1\] has to be found (note that the existing proof is rather bulky and occupies half of the book [@kjp2003]).
The difficulty in resolving the problem above streams from the fact that $\Psi(u)$ is constructed in terms of spectral characteristics of the Strum-Liouville operator $L_u$, and their dependence on large potentials $u(x)$ is poorly understood. Accordingly, the following question seems to be very complicated:
Let $u(t,x)=u(t,x;\lambda)$ be a solution of (\[kdv1\]) such that $u(0,x)=\lambda u_0(x)$, where $u_0\not\equiv0$ is a given smooth function with zero mean-value, and $\lambda>1$ is a large parameter. The task is to study behaviour of $u(t,x;\lambda)$ when $\lambda\to\infty$. \[p.ll\]
Let $u(t,x)$ be as above. Then $||u(0,x)||_m=\lambda C(m,u_0)$. By Theorem \[t.kor\], $|v(0)|_m\leqslant \mathcal{P}_m(\lambda C(m,u_0))$. Since $|v(t)|_m$ is an integral of motion, then using again the theorem we get that $$||u(t)||_m\leqslant \mathcal{Q}_m\Big(\mathcal{P}_m(\lambda C(m,u_0))\Big).$$ In particular, by (\[kor1\]) and (\[kor2\]) we have $\
||u(t)||_1\leqslant C(1+\lambda)^{21/2}.
$ A lower bound for the Sobolev norms comes from the fact that $||u(t)||_0$ is an integral of motion. So $$||u(t)||_m\geqslant ||u(0)||_0=\lambda C(0,u_0).$$ We have demonstrated:
Let $u(t,x)$ be a solution of (\[kdv1\]) such that $u(0,x)=\lambda u_0(x)$, where $ 0\not\equiv
u_0\in C^{\infty}\cap H^0$ and $\lambda\geqslant1$. Then for $m\ge1$ we have $$\fl
\hspace{40pt}
1+(\lambda C(m,u_0))^{A_m}\geqslant\limsup_{t\to\infty}||u(t)||_m\geqslant\liminf_{t\to\infty}||u(t)||_m\geqslant c(u_0) \lambda,\quad
\label{star-3}$$
for a suitable $A_m>1$. E.g. $A_1=21/2$.
The third estimate in (\[star-3\]) is optimal up to a constant factor as $$\liminf_{t\to\infty}||u(t)||_m\leqslant \lambda C(m,u_0),$$ since the curve $u(t)$ is almost periodic. The first estimate with the exponent $A_m$ which follows from Theorem \[t.kor\] certainly is not optimal. But the assertion that $\limsup_{t\to\infty}||u(t)||_m$ grows with $\lambda$ as $\lambda^{A_m}$, where $A_m$ goes to infinity with $m$, is correct. It follows from our next result:
Let $k\geqslant4$. Then there exists $\alpha>0$ and, for any $\lambda>1$ there exists $t_{*}=t_{*}(u_0,\lambda)$ such that $$||u(t_{*})||_k\geqslant c_{u_0}^{\prime}\lambda^{1+\alpha k}.
\label{gafa}$$ \[t.gafa\]
In [@kgafa99] (see there Theorem 3 and Appendix 2), the theorem is proved for a class of non-linear Schrödingier equations which includes the defocusing Zakharov-Shabat equation. The proof applies to KdV. See [@bir2004], where the argument is applied to the multidimensional Burgers equation, similar to KdV for the proof of this result. We mention that (in difference with majority of results in this work) the assertion of Theorem \[t.gafa\] remains true for other boundary conditions.
Problem \[p.ll\] may be scaled as the non-dispersive limit for KdV. Indeed, let us substitute $u=\lambda w$ and pass to fast time $\tau=\lambda t$. Then the function $w(\tau,x;\lambda)$ satisfies $$w_{\tau}+\lambda^{-1}w_{xxx}-6ww_x=0,\quad w(0,x)=u_0(x),
\label{LL-1}$$ and we are interested in $w(\lambda t,x;\lambda)$ when $\lambda\to\infty$. For $\lambda=\infty$ the equation above becomes the Hopf equation. Since $u_0(x)$ is a periodic non-constant function, then the solution of (\[LL-1\])$_{\lambda=\infty}$ developes a shock at time $\tau_{*}$, $0<\tau_{*}<\infty$. Accordingly, the elementary perturbation theory allows to study solutions of (\[LL-1\]) when $\lambda\to\infty$ for $\tau<\tau_{*}$, but not for $\tau\geqslant\tau_{*}$. The problem to study this limit for $\tau\geqslant \tau_{*}$ is addressed by the Lax-Levermore theory (mostly for the case when $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $u_0(x)$ vanishes at infinity). There is vast literature on this subject, e.g. see [@LL; @dvz1997] and references in [@dvz1997]. The existing Lax-Levermore theory does not allow to study solutions $w(\tau,x)$ for $\tau\sim\lambda^{-1}$, as is required by Problem \[p.ll\].
Properties of frequency map
---------------------------
Let us denote $$W(I)=(W_1(I),\;W_2(I),\dots),\quad W_i(I)=\frac{\partial H_K}{\partial I_i},\quad i\in\mathbb{N}.
\label{frequency}$$ This is the [*frequency map for KdV.*]{} By Theorem \[Thbnf1\] each its component is an analytic function, defined in the vicinity of $h^1_{I+}$ in $h^1_I$.
a\) For $i,j\ge1$ we have $\partial^2W(0) /\partial I_i \partial I_j=-6\delta_{i,j}$.
b\) For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, if $I_{n+1}=I_{n+2}=\dots=0$, then $$\det\Big(\big(\frac{\partial W_i}{\partial I_j}\big)_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant n}\Big)\neq0.$$ \[lem-nd\]
For a) see [@bok1991; @kjp2003; @kuk2000]. For a proof of b) and references to the original works of Krichever and Bikbaev-Kuksin see Section 3.3 of [@kuk2000].
Let $l^{\infty}_i$, $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, be the Banach spaces of all real sequences $l=(l_1,l_2,\dots)$ with norms $$|l|^{\infty}_i=\sup_{n\geqslant 1} n^i|l_n|<\infty.$$ Denote $\boldsymbol{\kappa}=(\kappa_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}},$ where $\kappa_n=(2\pi n)^3$. For the following result see [@kjp2003], Theorem 15.4.
The normalized frequency map $\ I\mapsto W(I)-{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}$ is real analytic as a mapping from $h^1$ to $l^{\infty}_{-1}$. \[lem-reg\]
From these two lemmata we known that the Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$ of KdV is non-degenerated in the sense of Kolmogorov and its nonlinear part is more regular than its linear part. These properties are very important to study perturbations of KdV.
Convexity of Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$
---------------------------------
By Theorem \[Thbnf1\], the dynamics of KdV is determined by the Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$. To understand the properties of the latter is an important step toward the study of perturbations of KdV.
Denote by $P_j$ the moments of the actions, given by $$P_j=\sum_{i\geqslant1}(2\pi n)^jI_i,\quad j\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ Due to Theorem \[Thbnf1\], the linear part of $H_K(I)$ at the origin $dH_K(0)(I)$ equals to $\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{T}}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\Psi^{-1}v))^2dx=P_3$. So we can write $H_K(I)$ as $$H_K(I)=P_3(I)-V(I), \quad V(I)=\mathcal{O}(|I|^2_1).$$ (The minus-sign here is convenient since, as we will see, $V(I)$ is non-negative.) For any $N\geqslant 1$, denote $\tilde{l}^N\subset l^2$ the $N$-dimensional subspace $$\tilde{l}^N=\{l=(l_1,\dots)\in\mathbb{R}^{\infty}: l_n=0,\;\forall n>N\},$$ and set $\tilde{l}^{\infty}=\cup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\tilde{l}^N$. Clearly the function $V$ is analytic on each octant $\tilde{l}^N_+$. So it is Gato-analytic on the octant $\tilde{l}^{\infty}_+$. That is, it is analytic on every interval $\{(ta+(1-t)c)\in\tilde{l}_+^{\infty}: 0\le t\le1 \}$, where $a,c\in\tilde{l}^{\infty}_+$.
By Lemma \[lem-nd\] a), $d^2V(0)(I)=6||I||_2^2$. This suggests that the Hilbert space $l^2$ rather than the Banach space $h_I^1$ (which is contained in $l^2$) is a distinguished phase space for the Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$. This guess is justified by the following result:
(see [@kok2011]). (i) The function $V: \tilde{l}_+^{\infty}\to \mathbb{R}$ extends to a non-negative continuous function on the $l^2$-octant $l^2_+$, such that $V(I)=0$ for some $I\in l^2_+$ iff $I=0$. Moreover $\ 0\leqslant V(I)\leqslant 8P_1P_{-1}.$
\(ii) For any $I\in l^2_+$, the following estimates hold true: $$\frac{\pi}{10}\frac{||I||_2^2}{1+2P_{-1}^{1/2}}\leqslant V(I)\leqslant (8^3(1+P_{-1}^{1/2})^{1/2}P_{-1}^2+6\pi e^{P_{-1}^{1/2}/2}||I||_2)||I||_2.$$ (iii) The function $V(I)$ is convex on $l_+^2$. \[th-convex\]
Note that the assertion (iii) follows from (i) and Lemma \[lem-nd\]. Indeed, since $V(I)$ is analytic on $\tilde{l}^N_+$, then Lemma \[lem-nd\] assures that the Hessian $\{\frac{\partial^2V}{\partial I_i\partial I_j}\}_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant N}$ is positive definite on $\tilde{ l}_+^N$. Thus $V$ is convex on $\tilde{l}_+^N$, for each $N\in\mathbb{N}$. Then the assertion (iii) is deduced from the fact the $\tilde{l}_+^{\infty}=\cup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\tilde{l}_+^N$ is dense in $l^2_+$, where $V(I)$ is continuous.
Assertion ii) of the theorem shows that $l^2$ is the biggest Banach space on which $V(I)$ is continuous[^5]. Jointly with the convexity of $V(I)$ on $l^2$, this hints that $l^2$ is the natural space to study the long-time dynamics of actions $I(u(t))$ for solutions $u(t)$ of a perturbed KdV.
This theorem and the analyticity of the KdV Hamiltonian (\[kdvh\]) do not leave much doubts that $V(I)$ is analytic on $l^2_+$. If so, then by Lemma \[lem-nd\], this function is strictly convex in a neighbourhood of the origin in $l^2$. Most likely, it is strictly convex everywhere on $l^2_+$.
In difference with $V(I)$, the total Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$ is not continuous on $l^2_+$ since its linear part $P_3(I)$ is there an unbounded linear functional. But $P_3(I)$ contributes to equation (\[bnf-e\]) the linear rotation $\dot{\mathbf{v}}_k=\mathbb{J}(2\pi n)^3 \mathbf{v}_k$, $ k\in\mathbb{N}$. So the properties of equation (\[bnf-e\]) essentially are determined by the component $V(I)$ of the Hamiltonan. Note that since $P_3(I)$ is a bounded linear functional on the space $h^1\subset l^2$, then the Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$ is concave in $h^1$.
Is it true that the function $V(I)-3|I|_{l^2}^2$ extends analytically (or continuously) to a space, bigger than $l^2$?
Perturbations of KdV
=====================
In the theory of integrable systems in finite dimension, there are two types of perturbative results concerning long-time stability of solutions. The first type is the KAM theory. Roughly, it says that among a family of invariant tori of the unperturbed system, given by the Liouville-Arnold-Jost theorem, there exists (under generic assumptions) a large set of tori which survive under sufficiently small hamiltonian perturbations, deforming only slightly. In particular, the perturbed system admits plenty of quasi-periodic solutions [@AKN; @arn1963]. Results of the second type are obtained by the techniques of averaging which applies to a larger class of dynamical systems, characterized by the existence of fast and slow variables. This method has a much longer history which dates back to the epoch of Lagrange and Laplace, who applied it to the problems of celestial mechanics, without proper justifications. Only in the last fifty years rigorous mathematical justification of the principle has been obtained, see in [@nei1975; @AKN; @lom1988]. If the unperturbed system is hamiltonian integrable, then for the slow-fast variables one can choose the action-angle variables. The averaging theorems say that under appropriate assumptions, the action variables, calculated for solutions of the perturbed system, can be well approximated by solutions of a suitable averaged vector field, over an extended time interval. If the perturbation is hamiltonian, then the averaged vector filed vanishes. The strongest result in this direction is due to Nekhoroshev [@nek1972; @loc1992], who proved that in the hamiltonian case the action variables vary just a bit over exponentially long time intervals.
Concerning instability of solutions, also two types of phenomena are known. One is called the Arnold diffusion. In [@arn1964], Arnold observed that despite most of the phase space of near integrable hamiltonian systems with more than two degrees of freedom is foliated by invariant KAM tori, still there can exist solutions such that their actions admit increments of order one during sufficiently long time. Arnold conjectured that this phenomenon is generic. Though there are many developments in this direction in the last ten years, the mechanism of the Arnold diffusion still is far from being well understood. Another instability mechanism is known as the capture in resonance. The essence of this phenomenon is that a solution of a perturbed system reaches a resonant zone and begins drifting along it in such a way that the resonance condition approximately holds. Therefore, solutions of the original perturbed system and the averaged one diverge by a quantity of order one on a time interval of order $\epsilon^{-1}$ (see e.g. [@nei2005]).
Now return to PDEs. Two types of perturbations of the KdV equation (\[kdv1\]) have been considered: when the boundary condition is perturbed but the equation is not, and other way round. Problems of the first type lie outside the scope of our work, and very few results (if any) are proved there rigorously, see [@Kr] for discussion and some related statements. Problems of the second type are much closer to the finite-dimensional situation and they are discussed below. Several attempts were made to establish stability results for perturbed integrable PDEs, e.g. for perturbed KdV, analogous to those in finite dimension. Among them, the KAM theory was the most successful [@Craig]. The first results in this direction are due to Kuksin [@kuk1987; @kuk1989] and Wayne [@way1990]. Despite there are no rigorously proven instability results for the perturbed KdV, we mention our believe that to study the instability, Theorem \[Thbnf1\], \[quasi-l\] and \[th-convex\] should be important.
KAM theorem for perturbed KdV {#skam}
-----------------------------
Consider the hamiltonian perturbation of KdV, corresponding to a Hamiltonian $H_{\epsilon}=\mathcal{H}(u)+\epsilon F(u)$: $$\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x-\epsilon \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\nabla F(u)=0,\quad u(0)\in H^1.\label{pkdvh1}$$ Here $F(u)$ is an analytic functional on $H^1$ and $\nabla F$ is its $L^2$-gradient in $u$. Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$, and $\Gamma\subset \mathbb{R}_+^n$ be a compact set of positive Lebesgue measure. Consider a family of the $n$-gap tori: $$\mathcal{T}_{\Gamma}=\cup_{I\in\Gamma}\mathcal{T}^n_I\subset\mathcal{J}^n,\quad
\mathcal{T}^n_I=T_{(I,0,\dots)},
%\Psi^{-1}(\mathbb{T}^n_I),$$ where $I=(I_1,\dots,I_n)$, see (\[finite-gap\]) and (\[tor\]). It turns out that most of them persist as invariant tori of the perturbed equation (\[pkdvh1\]):
For some $M\geqslant1$, assume that the Hamiltonian $F$ analytically extends to a complex neighbourhood $U^c$ of $\mathcal{T}_{\Gamma}$ in $H^M \oplus\mathbb C$ and satisfies there the regularity condition $$\nabla F: U^c
\to H^M \otimes\mathbb C
,\quad \sup_{u\in U^c} (|F(u)|+ ||\nabla F(u)||_M)\leqslant1.$$ Then, there exists an $\epsilon_0>0$ and for $\epsilon<\epsilon_0$ there exist
\(i) a nonempty Cantor set $\Gamma_{\epsilon}\subset \Gamma$ with $\mbox{mes}(\Gamma\setminus\Gamma_{\epsilon})\to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$;
\(ii) a Lipshcitiz mapping $\ \Xi: \mathbb{T}^n\times\Gamma_{\epsilon}\to U\cap H^M$, such that its restriction to each torus $\mathbb{T}^n\times I$, $I\in\Gamma_{\epsilon}$, is an analytical embedding;
\(iii) a Lipschitz map $\chi: \Gamma_{\epsilon}\to \mathbb{R}^n$, $|\chi-\mbox{Id}|\leqslant Const\cdot \epsilon$,
such that for every $(\varphi,I)\in \mathbb{T}^n\times\Gamma_{\epsilon}$, the curve $u(t)=\Xi(\varphi+\chi(I)t,I)$ is an quasi-periodic solution of (\[pkdvh1\]) winding around the invariant torus $\Xi(\mathbb{T}^n\times\{I\})$. Moreover, these solutions are linearly stable. \[kdv-kam\]
[*Proof:*]{}In the coordinates $v$ as in Theorem \[Thbnf1\], the Hamiltonian $H_{\epsilon}$ becomes $H_K(I)+\epsilon F(v)$. For any $I_0\in h_I^M$, using Taylor’s formula, we write $$\fl
\qquad\eqalign{H_K(I_0+I)&=H_K(I_0)+\sum_{i\geqslant1}\frac{\partial H_K}{\partial I_i}(I_0)I_i+\int_0^1(1-t)\sum\frac{\partial^2 H_K}{\partial I_i\partial I_j}I_iI_jdt\cr
&:=const+\sum_{i\geqslant1}W_i(I_0)I_i+Q(I_0,I),}
\label{h-exp}$$ where $W$ is the frequency map, see (\[frequency\]). Now we introduce the symplectic polar coordinates around the tori in the family $\mathcal{T}_{\Gamma}$. Namely, for each $\xi_0\in\Gamma$, we set $$\cases{v_i=\sqrt{\xi_0+y_i}\cos\varphi,\quad v_{-i}=\sqrt{\xi_0+y_i}\sin\varphi, &$1\leqslant i\leqslant n,$\\ b_i=v_i, \quad b_{-i}=v_{-i}, & $i\geqslant n+1.$\\}$$ Denote $b=(b_{n+1},b_{-n-1},\dots)$. The transformation above is real analytic and symplectic on $$D(s,r)=\{|{\rm Im}\,\varphi |<s\}\times\{|y|<r^2\}\times\{|b|_M<r\},$$ for all $s>0$ and $r>0$ small enough. Using the expansion (\[h-exp\]), setting $I_0=(\xi_0,0)$ and neglecting an irrelevant constant we see that the integrable Hamiltonian in new coordinates is given by $$H_K=N+Q=N(y,\xi_0,b)+Q(y,\xi_0,b),$$ where $N=\sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant n}W_i(\xi_0)y_i+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\geqslant 1} W_{n+i}(b_{n+i}^2+b_{-n-i}^2),$ with $I_i=y_i$ for $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$, and $2I_i=b_i^2+b_{-i}^2$ for $i>n$. Then the whole Hamiltonian of the perturbed equation (\[pkdvh1\]) can be written as $$H_{\epsilon}=N+Q+\epsilon F.
\label{pkdvhnf}$$ We consider the new perturbation term $P=Q+\epsilon F$. By Lemma \[lem-reg\] and the regularity assumption, if $r^2=\sqrt{\epsilon}$, then $$\sup_{D(s,r)}||X_P||_{M-1}\leqslant c\sqrt{\epsilon}.$$ Using the non-degeneracy Lemma \[lem-nd\], we can take the vector $\{W_i(\xi_0), 1\le i\le n\}$ for a free $n$-dimensional parameter of the problem and apply an abstract KAM theorem (see Theorem 8.3 in [@kuk2000] and Theorem 18.1 in [@kjp2003]) to obtain the statements of the theorem. For a complete proof, see [@kuk2000; @kjp2003]. $\square$
[*Example.*]{} The theorem applies if (\[pkdvh1\]) is the hamiltonian PDE with the local Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}(u)+ \epsilon \int_{\mathbb{T}} g(u(x),x)\,dx
=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\big(\frac{u_x^2}{2}+u^3+ \epsilon g(u(x) ,x) \big)\,
dx,$$ where $g(u,x)$ is a smooth function, periodic in $x$ and analytic in $u$. In this case in (\[pkdvh1\]) we have $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\nabla F(u(\cdot))(x)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x} g_u(u(x),x)$. $\quad\square$
It is easy to see that for the proof of Theorem \[kdv-kam\], explained above, the normal form (\[SKNF\]) (weaker and much simpler than that in Theorem \[Thbnf1\]) is sufficient, see [@kuk1989; @kuk2000]. Normal forms, similar to (\[SKNF\]), exist for integrable PDEs for which a normal form as in Theorem \[Thbnf1\] does not hold, e.g, for the equations, see [@kuk2000].
[**Remark**]{}. Recently Berti and Baldi announced a KAM-theorem, similar to Theorem \[kdv-kam\], which applies to perturbations of KdV, given by operators of order higher than one.
Theorem \[kdv-kam\] allows to perturb a set of KdV-solutions which form a null-set for any reasonable measure in the function space (in difference with the finite-dimensional KAM theory which insures the persistence of a set of almost-periodic solutions which occupy the phase space up to a set of measure $\lesssim \epsilon^{\gamma},$ $\gamma>0$). It gives rise to a natural question:
Do typical tori $T_I$ as in (\[tor\]), where $I=(I_1,I_2,\dots)\in h^p_I$, $p<\infty$, persist in the perturbed equation (\[pkdvh1\])? If they do not, what happens to them?
Though there are KAM-theorems for perturbations of infinite-dimensional invariant tori, e.g. see [@pos1990; @bou1996], they are not applicable to the problem above since, firstly, those works do not apply to KdV due to the strong nonlinear effects and long-range coupling between the modes and, secondly, they only treat invariant tori corresponding to the actions $I_1,I_2, \dots$, decaying very fast (faster than exponentially).
Averaging for perturbed KdV
----------------------------
Compare to KAM, averaging type theorems for perturbed KdV are more recent and less developed. Their stochastic versions, which we discuss in Section \[s\_stoch\], are significantly stronger than corresponding deterministic statements in Section \[s\_determ\]. We will explain reasons for that a bit later. Let us start with the ‘easiest’ case, where KdV is stabilized by small dissipation: $$\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=\epsilon u_{xx}, \quad u(0)\in H^3.
\label{pkdvp1}$$ A simple calculation shows that a solution $u(t)$ satisfies $$||u(t)||_0\leqslant e^{-\epsilon t}||u(0)||_0.$$ So $u(t)$ becomes negligible for $t\gg\epsilon^{-1}$. But what happens during time intervals of order $\epsilon^{-1}$? Let us pass to the slow time $\tau=\epsilon t$ and apply to equation (\[pkdvp1\]) the nonlinear Fourier transform $\Psi$, denoting for $k=1,2,\dots$, $\Psi_k(u)=\mathbf{v}_k$ if $\Psi(u)=v=(\mathbf{v}_1,\dots)$: $$\fl
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathbf{v}_k=\epsilon^{-1}\mathbb{J}W_k(I)\mathbf{v}_k+d\Psi_k(\Psi^{-1}(v))(\triangle \Psi^{-1}(v))=: \epsilon^{-1}\mathbb{J}W_k(I)\mathbf{v}_k+ P_k(v),
\;\; k\in\mathbb{N}.
\label{pkdvp1-v}$$ Since $I_k=\frac{1}{2}|\mathbf{v}_k|^2$ is an integral of motion for KdV, then $$\frac{d}{d\tau}I_k=\big(%d\Psi_k\big(\Psi^{-1}(v)\big)(\triangle \Psi^{-1}(v)),
P_k(v),
\mathbf{v}_k\big):=F_k(v),\quad k\in\mathbb{N},
\label{pkdvp1-i}$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ stands for the Euclidian scalar product in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Using (\[pkdvp1-v\]) we get $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\varphi_k=\epsilon^{-1}W_k(I)+\langle \mbox{term of order 1}\rangle,\;\mbox{if}\; \mathbf{v}_k\neq0,\; k\in\mathbb{N}.
\label{pkdvp1-a}$$ We have written equation (\[pkdvp1\]) in the action-angle variables $(I,\varphi)$. Consider the [*averaged equation for actions:*]{} $$\fl
\frac{d}{d\tau}J_k=\langle F_k\rangle (J),\quad \langle F_k\rangle(J) =\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}F_k(J,\varphi)d\varphi, \quad k\in\mathbb{N},\quad J(0)=I(u(0))\,,
\label{pkdvp1-av}$$ where $F_k(I,\varphi)=F_k(v(I,\varphi))$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, and $d\varphi$ is the Haar measure on the infinite dimensional torus $\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$. The main problem of the averaging theory is to see if the following holds true:
[**Averaging principle**]{}: Fix any $T>0$. Let $(I(\tau),\varphi(\tau))$ be a solution of (\[pkdvp1-i\]), (\[pkdvp1-a\]), and $J(\tau)$ be a solution of (\[pkdvp1-av\]). Then (either for all or, for ’typical’ initial data $u(0)$) we have $$||I(\tau)-J(\tau)||\leqslant \rho(\epsilon),\quad \forall\, 0\leqslant \tau\leqslant T,$$ where $||\cdot||$ is a suitable norm, and $\rho(\epsilon)\to 0$ with $\epsilon\to0$.
The main obstacles to prove this for the perturbed equation (\[pkdvp1\]) are the following:
1. \(1) The KdV-dynamics on some tori is resonant.
2. \(2) The well-posedness of the averaged equation (\[pkdvp1-av\]) is unknown.
3. \(3) Equations (\[pkdvp1-a\]) are singular at the locus $\Game$ (see (\[game\])).
To handle the third difficulty observe that eq. (\[pkdvp1-a\]) with a specific $k$ is singular when $I_k$ is small. But then $v_k$ is small, the $k$-th mode does not affect much the dynamics, so the equation for $\varphi_k$ may be excluded from the considereation. Concerning the second difficulty, in [@kuk2010] the second author of this work established that the averaged equation (\[pkdvp1-av\]) may be lifted to a regular system in the space $h^p$, which is well posed, at least locally. More specifically, note that equation (\[pkdvp1-av\]) may be written as follows: $$\frac{d}{d\tau}J_k=\langle F_k\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}(\bar{\Phi}_{\theta_k}\mathbf{v}_k, \;P_k(\Phi_{\theta}v))d\theta=(\mathbf{v}_k,\;R_k(v)),
\label{effective-r}$$ $$R_k=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}\bar\Phi_{-\theta_k}P_k(\Phi_{\theta}v)d\theta,$$ where the maps $\Phi_{\theta}$ and $\bar{\Phi}_{\theta_k}$ are defined in (\[phi-rotation\]). Now consider equation $$\frac{d}{d\tau} v=R(v).%,\quad k\in\mathbb{N}.
\label{effective-e}$$ Then relation (\[effective-r\]) implies:
If $v(\tau)$ satisfies (\[effective-e\]), then $I(v(\tau))$ satisfies (\[pkdvp1-av\]).
Equation (\[effective-e\]) is called the [*effective equation*]{} for the perturbed KdV equation (\[pkdvp1\]). It is rotation-invariant: if $v(\tau)$ is a solution of (\[effective-e\]), then for each $\theta\in\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$, $\Phi_{\theta}(v(\tau))$ also is a solution. Since the map $\Psi$ is quasilinear by Theorem \[quasi-l\], we may write $R(v)$ more explicitly. Namely, denote by $\hat{\triangle}$ the Fourier-image of the Laplacian, $\hat{\triangle}=\mbox{diag}\{-k^2,\;k\in\mathbb{N}\}$, and set $$L=d\Psi(0),\; \;\Psi_0=\Psi-L,\; \; G=\Psi^{-1}=L^{-1}+G_0.$$ Then $G_0: h^s\to H^{s+1}$ is analytic for any $s\geqslant0$, and direct calculation shows that $$R(v)=\hat{\triangle}v+R_0(v),$$ where $$R_0(v)=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}[\Phi_{-\theta}L\triangle(G_0\Phi_{\theta}v)+\Phi_{-\theta}d\Psi_0(G\Phi_{\theta}v)\triangle(G\Phi_{\theta}v)]d\theta.$$ Hence $R_0(v)$ is an operator of order one and the effective equation (\[effective-e\]) is a Fourier transform of a quasi-linear heat equation with a non-local nonlinearity of first order. Such equations are locally well posed. Due to the direct relation between the effective equation and the averaged equation, the former can be used to study the latter.
The first difficulty is serious. Sometime it cannot be overcome, and then the averaging fails. A way to handle it is discussed in the next section.
Stochastic averaging. {#s_stoch}
-----------------------
A way to handle the first obstacle – the resonant tori – is to add to the perturbed equation (\[pkdvp1\]) a random force which would shake solutions $u(t)$ off a resonant torus (as well as off any other invariant torus $T_I$). So let us consider a randomly perturbed KdV: $$\label{pkdvp-r}
\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=\epsilon u_{xx}+\sqrt{\epsilon}\, \eta(t,x),\quad u(0)=u_0\in C^{\infty}\cap H^0,$$ $$\eta(t,x)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_0}b_j\beta_j(t)e_j(x).$$ Here $\mathbb{Z}_0$ is the set of all non-zero integers, $\{e_j(x)\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_0}$ is the basis (\[basis1\]) and
- all $b_j>0$ and decay fast when $|j|\to \infty$.
- $\{\beta_j(t)\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_0}$ are independent standard Wiener processes (so $\beta_j(t)=\beta_j^{\omega}(t)$, where $\omega$ is a point in a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbf{P})$).
The scaling factor $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ in the r.h.s is natural since only with this scaling do solutions of equation (\[pkdvp-r\]) remain of order one when $t\to\infty$ and $\epsilon\to0$. To simplify formulas we assume that $b_j=b_{-j}$ for all $j$.
In [@kpi2008; @kuk2010], Kuksin and Piatnitski justified the averaging principle for the stochastic equation (\[pkdvp-r\]). To explain their result we pass to the slow time $\tau=\epsilon t$ and use Itô’s formula (e.g. see in [@kar1991]) to write the corresponding equation for the vector of actions $I(u(\epsilon^{-1}\tau))=I^{\omega}(\tau)$: $$\frac{dI_k}{d\tau}= F_k(I,\varphi)+K_k(I,\varphi)+\sum_j G_k^j(I,\varphi)\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\beta_j(\tau),\quad k\ge1.
\label{pkdvpr-i}$$ Here $F$ is defined as in (\[pkdvp1-i\]), $K$ is the Ito term $$K_k=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_0}b_j^2\big((d^2\Psi_k(u)[e_j,e_j],\mathbf{v}_k)+|d\Psi_k(u)e_j|^2\big),$$ and $G$ is the dispersion matrix, $G_k^j=b_jd\Psi_k(u)e_j$.
Let us average the equation above: $$\frac{dJ}{d\tau}=\langle F\rangle (J)+\langle K\rangle(J)+\sum_j\langle G^j\rangle(J)\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\beta_j(\tau).
\label{pkdvpr-av}$$ Here $\langle F\rangle$ are the same as in (\[pkdvp1-av\]), $\langle K\rangle$ is the average of $K$ and $\langle G^j\rangle(J)$, $j\in\mathbb{Z}_0$, are column-vectors, forming an infinite matrix $\langle G\rangle (J)$. The latter is defined as a square root of the averaged diffusion matrix $\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}G(J,\varphi)G^{T}(J,\varphi)d\varphi,$ where $G(J,\varphi)$ is formed by the columns $G^j(J,\varphi)$. Similar to Section 4.2, equation (\[pkdvp-r\]) also admits an effective equation of the form $$\frac{d\mathbf{v}_k}{d\tau}=-k^2\mathbf{v}_k+R^{\prime}_k(v)+\sum_{j}(R^{\prime\prime})^j_k(v)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\beta_j(\tau),
\qquad k\ge1,
%\label{effective-rr}$$ where $R^{\prime}(v)$ is an operator of first order, $R^{\prime\prime}(v)$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt matrix, which is an analytic function of $v$, and $\{\beta_j(\cdot), j\geqslant1\}$ are standard independent Wiener processes. This is a quasilinear stochastic heat equation with a non-local nonlinearity, written in the Fourier coordinates. It is well posed in the spaces $h^p, p\ge1$.
Similar to above, if $v(\tau)$ is a solution of (\[effective-r\]), then $I(v(\tau))$ is a weak solution of (\[pkdvpr-av\]). See [@kpi2008; @kuk2010] for details.
We recall (e.g. see [@kar1991]) that a random process $J=J^{\omega}(\tau)$ is a [*weak solution (in the sense of stochastic analysis)*]{} of equation (\[pkdvpr-av\]), if for almost every $\omega$ it satisfies the integrated version of equation (\[pkdvpr-av\]), where the processes $\beta_j$’s are replaced by some other independent standard Brownian motions $\hat{\beta}_j$’s: $$J^{\omega}(\tau)=\int_0^{\tau}(\langle F\rangle+\langle K\rangle)
(J^{\omega}(s))ds+\int_0^{\tau}\sum_j\langle G^j\rangle (J^{\omega}(s))d\hat{\beta}^{\omega}_j(s),\quad \forall \tau\in[0,T].$$
Fix any $T>0$. Let $u^{\epsilon}(t)$, $0\leqslant t\leqslant \epsilon^{-1}T$, be a solution of (\[pkdvp-r\]). Introduce slow time $\tau=\epsilon t$ and denote $I^{\epsilon}(\tau)=I(u^{\epsilon}(\epsilon^{-1}\tau))$. Consider the distribution of this random process. This is a measure in the space $C([0,T],h^p_I)$. We assume $p\geqslant 3$.
\(i) The limiting measure $lim_{\epsilon\to0}\mathcal{D}(I^{\epsilon}(\cdot))$ exists. It is the law of a weak solution $I^0(\tau)$ of (\[pkdvpr-av\]) with the initial data $I^0(0)=I(u_0)$.
(ii)The law $\mathcal{D}(I^0(\tau))$ equals to that of $I(v(\tau))$, where $v(\tau)$, $0\leqslant \tau\leqslant T$, is a regular solution of the corresponding effective system (\[effective-r\]) with the initial data $v_0=\Psi(u_0)$.
\(iii) Let $f\geqslant0$ be a continuous function such that $\int_0^Tf(s)ds=1$. Then the measure $\int_0^Tf(\tau)\mathcal{D}(I^{\epsilon}(\tau),\varphi^{\epsilon}(\tau))d\tau$ on the space $h^p_I\times\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$ weakly converges, as $\epsilon \to 0$, to the measure $ \Big(\int_0^Tf(\tau)
\mathcal{D}(I^0(\tau))ds \Big)
\times d\varphi $. In particular, the measure $\int_0^Tf(\tau)\mathcal{D}(\varphi^{\epsilon}(\tau))ds$ weakly converges to $d\varphi$, where $d\varphi$ is the Haar measure on the infinite dimensional torus $\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$.
\(iv) Every sequence $\epsilon^{\prime}_j\to 0$ contains a subsequence $\epsilon_j\to0$ such that the double limit $\lim_{\epsilon_j\to0}\lim_{t\to \infty}\mathcal{D}\big(\Psi(u^{\epsilon}(t))\big)
$ exists for any solution $u^{\epsilon}(t)$ and is a stationary measure[^6] for the effective equation (\[effective-r\]). \[thpkdvpr\]
For the proof see [@kpi2008; @kuk2010]. For the last assertion also see the argument Section 4 in [@kuk2011]. The proof of the theorem applies to other stochastic perturbations of KdV. In particular, assertions (i)-(iii) hold for equations $$\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=\epsilon g(u(x),x)
+\sqrt{\epsilon}\, \eta,$$ where $\eta$ is the same as in (\[pkdvp-r\]) and $g$ is a smooth function, periodic in $x$, which has at most a linear growth in $u$, and is such that $g(u(\cdot), x)\in H^p$ if $u\in H^p$ (this holds e.g. if $g(u,x)$ is even in $u$ and odd in $x$).
The key to the proof of Theorem \[thpkdvpr\] is the following result (see Lemma 5.2 in [@kpi2008]), where for any $m\in\mathbb{N}$, $K>0$ and $\delta>0$ we denote $$\label{Omega}
\fl
\qquad\eqalign{
\Omega(\delta,m,K):=\big\{I: |W_1(I) k_1+& \dots+W_m(I)k_m|<\delta,
\cr
&\mbox{for some}\;k\in\mathbb{Z}^m\; \mbox{such that} \; 1\leqslant |k|\leqslant K\big\}.
}$$
For any $m\in\mathbb{N}$, $K>0$, $T>0$ and $\delta>0$ we have $$\int_0^T \mathbf{P}\{I(\tau)\in\Omega(\delta,m,K)\}d\tau\leqslant \kappa(\delta,K,m,T),$$ where $\kappa(\delta,K, m, T)$ goes to zero with $\delta$, for any fixed $K$, $m$ and $T$. \[lem-nonresonance\]
This lemma assures that in average, solutions of (\[pkdvp-r\]) do not spend much time in the vicinity of resonant tori. The stochastic nature of the equation is crucial for this result.
Deterministic averaging. {#s_determ}
--------------------------
It is plausible that the averaging principle also holds for equation (\[pkdvp1\]). But without randomness, it is unclear how to assure that solutions of (\[pkdvp1\]) ‘pass the resonant zone quickly’ (in analogy with Lemma \[lem-nonresonance\]). This naturally leads to the question: for which deterministic perturbations of KdV it is possible to prove the property of fast crossing the resonant zones and verify the averaging principle? Some results in this direction are obtained by the first author in [@hg2013; @hg20132]. Now we discuss them.
Consider a deterministically perturbed KdV equation: $$\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=\epsilon f(u), \quad x\in\mathbb{T}, \;\;u\in H^p,
\label{pkdvdp}$$ where $p\geqslant 3$ and the perturbation $f(u)=f(u(\cdot))$ may be non-local. I.e., $f(u)(x)$ may depend on values of $u(y)$, where $|y-x|\ge \varkappa>0$. We are going to discuss solutions of (\[pkdvdp\]) on time-intervals of order $\epsilon^{-1}$. Accordingly we fixe some $\zeta_0\le0$, $p\geqslant 3$, $T>0$ and make the following assumption:
[**Assumption A**]{}.
*(i) There exists $p'=p^{\prime}(p)<p$, such that for any $q\in [p^{\prime},p]$ the perturbation in (\[pkdvdp\]) defines an analytic mapping of order $\zeta_0$: $$%\mathcal{P}:
H^{q}\to H^{q-\zeta_0},\quad u(\cdot) \mapsto f(u(\cdot)).$$*
\(ii) For any $u_0\in H^p$, there exists a unique solution $u(t)\in H^p$ of (\[pkdvdp\]) with $u(0)=u_0$. For $0\le t \leqslant T\epsilon^{-1}$ its norm satisfies $
||u(t)||_p\leqslant C(T,p,||u_0||_p)$.
It will be convenient for us to discuss equation ([\[pkdvdp\]]{}) in the $v$-variables. We will denote $$B_p(M)=\{v\in h^p: |v|_p\leqslant M\}.$$ With some abuse of notation we will denote by $S_t$, $0\leqslant t\leqslant T\epsilon^{-1}$, the flow-maps of equation ([\[pkdvdp\]]{}), both in the $u$- and in the $v$-variables.
1\) A Borelian measure $\mu$ on $h^p$ is called regular if for any analytic function $g\not\equiv0$ on $h^p$, we have $\mu(\{v\in h^p:\;g(v)=0\})=0$.
2\) A measure $\mu$ on $h^p$ is said to be [*$\epsilon$-quasi-invariant*]{} for equation (\[pkdvdp\]) if it is regular and for any $M>0$ there exists a constant $C(T,M)$ such that for every Borel set $A\subset B_p(M)$ we have [^7] $$\fl
\quad\quad\quad\quad e^{-\epsilon t C(T,M) }\mu(A)\leqslant \mu(S^t(A))\leqslant e^{\epsilon t C(T,M)}\mu(A),\quad \forall \;
0\le t \leqslant \epsilon^{-1}T.
\label{quasi-invariant}$$
Similarly, these definitions can be carried to measures on the space $H^p$ and the flow maps of equation (\[pkdvdp\]) on $H^p$.
For an $\epsilon$-perturbed finite-dimensional hamiltonian system the Lebesgue measure is $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant by the Liouville theorem. This fact is crucial for the Anosov approach to justify the classical averaging principle (see in [@AKN; @lom1988]). In infinite dimension there is no Lebesgue measure, and existence of an $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measure is a serious restriction.
If equation (\[pkdvdp\]) has an $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measure $\mu$, then the argument, invented by Anosov for the finite dimensional averaging, insures the required analogy of Lemma \[lem-nonresonance\] for equation (\[pkdvdp\]). Indeed, let us define the resonant subset $ \mathcal{B}$ of $h^p\times\mathbb{R}$ as $$\mathcal{B}:=\big\{(v,t): v\in B_p(M),\;\; t\in[0,\epsilon^{-1}T]\;\;\mbox{and}\;\; S^{t}v\in\Omega(\delta,m,K)\big\}$$ (see (\[Omega\])), and consider the measure ${\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}$ on $h^p\times \mathbb{R}$, where $d {\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}=d\mu dt$. Then by (\[quasi-invariant\]) we have $$\fl\quad\quad{{\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}}(\mathcal{B})=\int_0^{\epsilon^{-1}T}\mu\Big(B_p(M)\cap S^{-t}\big(\Omega(\delta,m,K)\big)\Big)dt\leqslant \epsilon^{-1}Te^{C(T,M)}\mu(\Omega(\delta,m,K)).$$ For any $v\in B_p(M)$, define $Res(v)$ as the set of resonant instants of time for a trajectory, which starts from $v$: $$Res(v)=\{\tau\in[0,\epsilon^{-1}T]:\;\;S^{t}(v)\in\Omega(\delta,m,K)\}.$$ Then $${{\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}}(\mathcal{B})=\int_{B_p(M)}mes\big(Res(v)\big)d\mu(v)$$ by the Fubini theorem, where $mes(\cdot)$ stands for the Lebesgue measure on $[0,\epsilon^{-1}T]$. If for $\rho>0$ we denote $$\mathcal{V}\mbox{Res}(\rho):=\{v\in B_p(M): mes\,(Res(v))>\epsilon^{-1}\rho\}\,,$$ then in view of the Chebyshev inequality $$\mu(\mathcal{V}\mbox{Res}(\rho))
\leqslant \frac{\epsilon}{\rho} {\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}} (\mathcal{B})
\leqslant \frac{Te^{C(M,T)}}{\rho}\mu(\Omega(\delta,m,K)).$$ By Theorem \[t\_kapp\] the functions $v \mapsto W_1(I(v))k_1+\dots+W_m(I(v))k_m$, $k\in{\mathbb Z}^m\setminus\{0\}$, are analytic on $h^p$. Since they do not vanish identically by Lemma \[lem-nd\] and the measure $\mu$ is regular, then $\mu(\Omega(0,m,K))=0$. Accordingly $\mu(\Omega(\delta,m,K))$ goes to zero with $\delta$, and $$\label{analogy}
\mu(\mathcal{V}\mbox{Res}(\rho))\to0 \quad \mbox{as}\quad \delta\to0,$$ for any $\rho$. This gives us a sought for analogy of Lemma \[lem-nonresonance\] for deterministic perturbations of KdV which have $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measures.
The averaged equation for actions, corresponding to (\[pkdvdp\]), reads $$\frac{dJ_k}{d\tau}=\langle F_k\rangle(J),\quad k=1,2,\dots,
\label{pkdvdp-a}$$ where $F_k=\big(d\Psi_k(\Psi^{-1}(v))(f(\Psi^{-1}(v)(\cdot)),\mathbf{v}_k\big)$ (cf. (\[pkdvp1-i\])). Due to item (i) of Assumption A, the r.h.s. of (\[pkdvdp-a\]) defines a Lipschitz vector filed on $h^p_I$, so the averaged equation is well posed locally on $h^p_I$. We denote by $J_{I_0}(\tau)$ a solution of (\[pkdvdp-a\]) with an initial data $J_{I_0}(0)=I_0\in h^p_I$. It is shown in [@hg2013; @hg20132] that relation (\[analogy\]) and the well-posedness of the averaged equation jointly allow to establish an averaging theorem for equation (\[pkdvdp\]), provided that it has an $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant mesure.
In the statement below $u^\epsilon(t)$ stand for solutions of equation (\[pkdvdp\]) and $v^\epsilon(\tau)$ – for these solutions, written using the $v$-variables and slow time $\tau=\epsilon t$. By Assumption A, for $\tau\in[0,T]$ we have $ |I(v^{\epsilon}(\tau))|_p^{\sim}\leqslant C_1\big(T,|I(v^{\epsilon}(0))|^{\sim}_p\big).$ Denote $$\tilde{T}(I_0):=\min\{\tau\in\mathbb{R}_+: |J_{I_0}(\tau)|_p^{\sim}\geqslant C_1(T,|I_0|_p^{\sim})+1\}.$$
Fix some $M>0$. Suppose that Assumption A has an $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measure $\mu$ on $h^p$ such that $\mu(B_p(M))>0$. Then
\(i) For any $\rho>0$ and any $q<p-\frac{1}{2}\max\{\zeta_0,-1\}$, there exist $ \epsilon_{\rho,q}>0$ and a Borel subset $\Gamma_{\rho,q}^{\epsilon}\subset B_p(M)$, satisfying $\ \lim_{\epsilon\to0}\mu(B_p(M)\setminus \Gamma_{\rho,q}^{\epsilon})=0$, with the following property:\
if $\epsilon\leqslant \epsilon_{\rho,q}$ and $ v^{\epsilon}(0)\in \Gamma_{\rho,q}^{\epsilon}$, then $$|I(v^{\epsilon}(\tau))-J_{I_0^\epsilon}(\tau)|_q^{\sim}\leqslant \rho \quad\mbox{for} \quad0\leqslant\tau\leqslant \min\{T,\tilde{T}(I^{\epsilon}_0)\},
\label{aver}$$ where $I_0^\epsilon=I(v^{\epsilon}(0))$.
\(ii) Let $\lambda_{\epsilon}^{v_0}$ be a probability measure on $\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$, defined by the relation $$\fl\quad\quad\int_{\mathbb{T}^{\infty}}f(\varphi)\,d\lambda_{\epsilon}^{v_0}(d\varphi)=
%\frac{1}{\mu\big(B_p(M)\big)}\int_{B_p(M)}
\frac{1}{T}\int_0^Tf(\varphi(v^{\epsilon}(\tau))d\tau, %d\mu(v^{\epsilon}(0)),
\quad \forall f\in C(\mathbb{T}^{\infty}),$$ where $v_0:=v^\epsilon(0)\in B_p(M)$. Then the measure $ {\mu\big(B_p(M)\big)}^{-1} \int_{B_p(M)} \lambda_{\epsilon}^{v_0}d\mu(v_0 ) $ converges weakly, as $\epsilon\to0$, to the Haar measure $d\varphi$ on $\mathbb{T}^{\infty}$[^8] \[thmpkdvdp\]
\[prop\] If Assumption A holds with $\zeta_0<0$, then for $\rho<1$, $p\leqslant q$ and $\epsilon\leqslant \epsilon_{\rho,q}$, we have $\tilde T:= \tilde{T}\big(I(v^{\epsilon}(0))\big)>T$ for $v^{\epsilon}(0)\in\Gamma_{\rho,q}^{\epsilon}$. So (\[aver\]) holds for $0\le\tau\le T$.
[*Proof:*]{} Assume that $\tilde{T} \leqslant T$. By (\[aver\]) for $0\le\tau\le\tilde T$ we have $|I^{\epsilon}(\tau)-J_{I^{\epsilon}_0}(\tau)|_p^{\sim}\leqslant \rho$. Therefore $|J_{I_0^{\epsilon}}(\tau )|_p^{\sim}\leqslant C_1(T,|I_0^{\epsilon}|_p^{\sim})+\rho<C_1(T,|I_0^{\epsilon}|_p^{\sim})+1$. This contradicts the definition of $\tilde{T}$, so $\tilde{T}> T$.$\square$
[**Remark**]{}. Assume that $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measure $\mu$ depends on $\epsilon$, i.e., $\mu=\mu_\epsilon $, and a) $\mu_{\epsilon}(\Omega(\delta,m,K))$ goes to zero with $\delta$ uniformly in $\epsilon$,
b\) the constants $C(T,M)$ in (\[quasi-invariant\]) are bounded uniformly in $\epsilon$.\
Then assertion (i) holds with $\mu$ replaced by $\mu_{\epsilon}$. For assertion (ii) to hold, more restrictions should be imposed, see [@hg20132].
Theorem \[thmpkdvdp\] gives rise to the questions:
\[p.aver\] Does a version of the averaging theorem above holds without assuming the existence of an $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measure?
\[p.qim\] Which equations (\[pkdvdp\]) have $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measures?
See the next subsection for some results in this direction.
\[higher\_order\] Find an averaging theorem for equations (\[pkdvdp\]), where the nonlinearity defines an unbounded operator, i.e. in Assumption A(i) we have $\zeta_0>0$ (note that in the equation from Example in Section \[skam\] we have $\zeta_0=1$, and in equation (\[pkdvp1\]) $\zeta_0= 2$).
It is unlikely that the assertion of Theorem \[thmpkdvdp\] holds for all initial data, and we believe that the phenomenon of capture in resonance happens for some solutions of (\[pkdvdp\]):
Prove that (\[aver\]) does not hold for some solutions of (\[pkdvdp\]).
Existence of $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measures
------------------------------------------------
Clearly every regular measure, invariant for equation (\[pkdvdp\]), is $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant. Gibbs measures for some equations of the KdV type are regular and invariant, they were studied by a number of people (e.g., see [@Bo94; @Zhi01]). However, for generic hamiltonian perturbations of KdV it is difficult, probably impossible, to construct invariant measures in higher order Sobolev spaces due to the lack of high order conservation laws. Below we give some examples of $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measures for smoothing perturbations of KdV, which are Gibbs measures of KdV (so they are KdV-invariant). Note that some of these perturbed equations do not have non-trivial invariant measures. For example, our argument applies to equations which in the $v$-variables read as $$\dot{\mathbf{v}}_j=\mathbb{J}W_j(I)\mathbf{v}_j -\epsilon j^{-\rho}{\mathbf{v}}_j\,,\qquad
\;j\in \mathbb{N},$$ where $\rho>1$. But all trajectories of this equation converge to zero, so the only its invariant measure is the $\delta$-measure at the origin. That is, for averaging in the perturbed KdV (\[pkdvdp\]) (various) Gibbs measures of KdV play the same role as the Lebesgue measure plays for the classical averaging.
For any $\zeta_0^{\prime}<-1$, a Gaussian measure $\mu_0$ on the Hilbert space $h^p$ is called $\zeta^{\prime}_0$-admissible if it has zero mean value and a diagonal correlation operator , where $0<j^{\zeta^{\prime}_0}/\sigma_j\leqslant Const$ for each $j$.
For any $\zeta_0^{\prime}<-1$ a $\zeta_0^{\prime}$-admissible measure $\mu_0$ is a well-defined probability measure on $h^p$, which can be formally written as $$\mu_0=\prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{(2\pi j)^{1+2p}}{2\pi\sigma_j}\exp\{-\frac{(2\pi j)^{1+2p}|\mathbf{v}_j|^2}{2\sigma_j}\}d\mathbf{v}_j,
\label{gaussian}$$ where $d\mathbf{v}_j$, $j\geqslant 1$, is the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mathbf{v}_j }$. It is known that (\[gaussian\]) is a well-defined measure on $h^p$ if and only if $\sum \sigma_j<\infty$ (see [@Bogachev]). It is regular and non-degenerate in the sense that its support equals $h^p$ (see [@Bogachev; @bom2013]). Writing KdV in the $v$-variables we see that $\mu_0$ is invariant under the KdV flow. Note that $\mu_0$ is a Gibbs measure for KdV, written in the form (\[bnf-e\]), since formally it may be written as $\mu_0=Z^{-1}\exp\{-\langle Qv,v\rangle\}dv$, where $\langle Q v,v\rangle=\sum c_j|\mathbf{v}_j|^2$ is an integrals of motion for KdV (the statistical sum $Z=\infty$, so indeed this is a formal expression).
For a perturbed KdV (\[pkdvdp\]) we define $\mathcal{P}(v)=d\Psi(u)(f(u))$, where $u=\Psi^{-1}(v)$. A non-complicated calculation (see in [@hg2013]) shows that:
If Assumption A holds and\
$(i)^{\prime}$ the operator $\mathcal{P}$ analytically maps the space $h^p$ to $h^{p-\zeta_0^{\prime}}$ with some $\zeta_0^{\prime}<-1$,\
then every $\zeta_0^{\prime}$-admissible Gaussian measure on $h^p$ is $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant for equation (\[pkdvdp\]) on the space $h^p$. \[quasi-measure1\]
However, due to the complexity of the nonlinear Fourier transform $\Psi$, it is not easy to verify the condition $(i)^{\prime}$ of Theorem \[quasi-measure1\] for specific equation (\[pkdvdp\]). Now we will give other examples of $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant measures on the space $H^p$, by strengthening the restrictions in Assumption A. Suppose that there $ p\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $\mu_p$ be the centered Gaussian measure on $H^p$ with the correlation operator $\triangle^{-1}$. Since $\triangle^{-1}$ is an operator of the trace type, then $\mu_p$ is a well-defined probability measure on $H^p$.
We recall (see Remark \[remark-laws\]) that KdV has infinitely many conservation laws $\mathcal{J}_n(u)$, $n\geqslant0$, of the form $\mathcal{J}_n=\frac{1}{2}||u||_n^2+J_{n-1}(u)$, where $J_{-1}(u)=0$ and for $n\geqslant1$, $$\fl\quad\quad\quad\quad
J_{n-1}(u)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\big\{c_nu(\partial_x^{n-1}u)^2+\mathcal{Q}_n(u,\dots,\partial^{n-2}_xu)\big\}dx\,.
\label{law-form}$$ Here $c_n$ are real constants and $\mathcal{Q}_n$ are polynomial in their arguments. From (\[law-form\]), we know that the functional $J_p$ is bounded on bounded sets in $H^p$. We consider a Gibbs measure $\eta_p$ for KdV, defined by its density against $\mu_p$, $$\eta_p(du)=e^{-J_p(u)}\mu_p(du).$$ It is regular and non-degenerated in the sense that its support contains the whole space $H^p$ (see [@Bogachev]). Moreover, it is invariant for KdV [@Zhi01]. The following theorem was shown in [@hg20132]:
If Assumption A holds with $\zeta_0\leqslant -2$, then the measure $\eta_p$ is $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant for perturbed KdV (\[pkdvdp\]) on the space $H^p$.
If $\zeta_0\leqslant -2$, then the assertions of Theorem \[thmpkdvdp\] hold with $\mu=\eta_p$, and we have $\tilde T>T$. \[coro-th\]
In particular, this corollary applies to the equation $$\dot{u}+u_{xxx}-6uu_x=\epsilon f(x), \quad x\in\mathbb{T}, \;\;u\in H^p,
%\label{smoothing}$$ where $f(x)$ is a smooth function with zero mean-value. This equation may be viewed as a model for shallow water wave propagation under small external force. Note that the KAM-Theorem \[kdv-kam\] also applies to it.
Besides the class of $\zeta^{\prime}_0$-admissible Gaussian measures and Gibbs measure $\eta_p$, there are many other KdV-invariant measures. How to check if a measure like that is $\epsilon$-quasi-invariant for a given $\epsilon$-perturbation of KdV?
Nekhoroshev type results (long-time stability)?
------------------------------------------------
In the finite dimensional case, the strict convexity of the unperturbed integrable Hamiltonian assures the long-time stability of solutions for perturbed hamiltonian equations ([@nek1972; @loc1992; @jpo1993]). Theorem \[th-convex\] tells us the the KdV Hamiltonian $H_K(I)$ is convex in $l^2$ and hints that it is strictly convex (at least) in a neighborhood of the origin in $l^2$. This suggests that an Nekhoroshev type stability may hold for perturbed KdV under hamiltonian perturbations (see equation (\[pkdvh1\])), at least for initial data in a neighborhood of the origin, where the strict convexity should hold. But at the moment of writing no exact statement is available.
There are several [*ad hoc*]{} quasi-Nekhoroshev theorems for hamiltonian PDEs, see [@bam1999-2; @bou2000] and references therein. However, these results only apply in a small (of the size of the perturbation) neighborhood of the origin. Nonetheless, we believe that the corresponding technique and the results in Theorem \[th-convex\] will lead to results on long-time stability (at least in time interval of order $\epsilon^{-p}, p\ge1$,) for some solutions of perturbed KdV (\[pkdvh1\]). Note that Theorem \[thmpkdvdp\] and Corollary \[coro-th\] imply such a stability for $p=1$ and for typical initial data, if the perturbation $f$ is smoothing. Stability on time-intervals of order $\epsilon^{-2}$ seems to be a much harder question.
Is it possible to prove a long-time stability result for perturbed KdV under hamiltonian perturbations, e.g. for equation (\[pkdvh1\]), that holds for all ‘smooth’ initial data?
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} This work was supported by l’Agence Nacionale de la Recherche, grant ANR-10-BLAN 0102.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: For example, the solar system, regarded as a system of 8 interacting planets rotating around the Sun, is a small perturbation of the Kaplerian system. The latter is integrable
[^2]: Based on the courses, given by the second author in Saint-Etienne de Tinée in February 2012 and in the High School for Economics (Moscow) in April 2013.
[^3]: note the doubling of the period.
[^4]: Note that any $|v|_m^2$ is a linear combinations of the actions $I_j$, $j\geqslant1$.
[^5]: That is, if $V(I)$ continuously extends to a Banach space $\mathcal{B}$ of the sequences $(I_1,I_2,\dots)$, then $\mathcal{B}$ may be continuously embedded in $l^2$.
[^6]: For this notion and its discussion see [@KS]. We are certain that eq. (\[pkdvp-r\]) has a unique stationary measure. When this is proven, it would imply that the convergence in (iv) holds as $\epsilon\to0$.
[^7]: This specifies the usual definition of a quasi-invariant measure. We recall that if a flow $\{S_t\}$ of some equation exists for all $t\ge0$ (or for all $t\in \mathbb R$), then a measure $m$ is called quasi-invariant for this equation if the measures $S_t\circ m$ are absolutely continuous with respect to $m$ for all $t\ge0$ (respectively for all $t\in\mathbb R$).
[^8]: In [@hg2013] a stronger assertion was claimed. Namely, that the measure $\lambda_{\epsilon}^{v_0}$ converges to $d\varphi$ for $\mu$-a.a. $v_0$ in $B_p(M)$. Unfortunately, the proof in [@hg2013] contains a gap which we still cannot fix.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, the finite-rate-of-innovation (FRI) based continuous domain restoration is emerging as an alternative to the conventional on-the-grid compressed sensing (CS) MRI restoration due to its ability to alleviate the basis mismatch between the true support of the shape in the continuous domain and the discrete grid. In this paper, we propose a new off-the-grid approach for the CS-MRI reconstruction. Following the recent works on two dimensional FRI, we assume that the discontinuities/edges of the image are localized in the zero level set of a band-limited periodic function. This assumption induces the linear dependencies among the Fourier samples of the gradient of the image, which leads to a low rank two-fold Hankel matrix. We further observe that the singular value decomposition of a low rank Hankel matrix corresponds to an adaptive tight frame system which can represent the image with a few nonzero canonical coefficients. Based on this observation, we propose a data driven tight frame based off-the-grid CS-MRI reconstruction model for the MR image reconstruction. To solve the nonconvex and nonsmooth model, a proximal alternating minimization algorithm with a guaranteed global convergence is adopted. Finally, the numerical experiments show that our proposed data driven tight frame based approach outperforms the existing approaches.'
author:
- 'Jian-Feng Cai[^1]'
- 'Jae Kyu Choi[^2]'
- 'Ke Wei[^3]'
title: '[[Off-the-Grid Compressed Sensing MRI Reconstruction via Data Driven Tight Frame Regularization]{}]{}[^4]'
---
Magnetic resonance imaging, finite-rate-of-innovation, structured low rank matrix completion, (tight) wavelet frames, data driven tight frames, proximal alternating schemes
42B05, 65K15, 65R32, 68U10, 90C90, 92C55, 94A12, 94A20
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the most widely used medical imaging modality in clinical diagnosis [@E.M.Haacke1999]. It is non-radioactive, non-invasive, and has excellent soft tissue contrasts such as T1 and T2 with high spatial resolution [@Y.Liu2015]. Among these merits, the availability of high spatial resolution images, which will be the focus of this paper, facilitates early diagnosis by enabling the detection and characterization of clinically important lesions [@G.Ongie2015; @E.VanReeth2012]. However, since the so-called k-space data acquisition is limited due to physical (gradient amplitude and slew-rate) and physiological (nerve stimulation) constraints [@C.M.Hyun2018; @Y.Liu2015; @M.Lustig2007], there has been increasing demand for methods which can reduce the amount of acquired data without degrading the image quality [@M.Lustig2007].
When the k-space data is undersampled, the Nyquist sampling criterion is violated, and this inevitably leads to the aliasing in the reconstructed image [@M.Lustig2007]. In the literature, the famous compressed sensing (CS) MRI can be viewed as a sub-Nyquist sampling method which exploits the sparse representation of an image to compensate the undersampled k-space data [@E.J.Candes2006; @Donoho2006; @C.M.Hyun2018; @M.Lustig2007]. A typical $\ell_1$ norm based CS-MRI model restores the MR image $\bu$ on the grid $\OO\subseteq\Z^2$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CSType}
\min_{\bu}~\f{1}{2}\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bmsF\bu-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\lambda\left\|\Ph\bu\right\|_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bmsF$ is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT), $\bsf$ is the undersampled k-space data on $\MM\subseteq\OO$, and $\bmP_{\MM}$ is the projection onto $\MM$. In addition, $\Ph$ is some sparsifying linear transformation, for example, by computing the discrete gradient [@M.Lustig2007] or the wavelet frame coefficients [@Y.Liu2015] of an image. The “on-the-grid” restoration model is widely used for regularizing smooth image components while preserving image singularities such as edges, ridges, and corners.
Even though the CS-MRI model \[CSType\] has shown strong ability to reduce the data acquisition time and thus received a lot of attention over the past few years [@Y.Liu2015], it has to be further improved as the k-space data is a discrete (and truncated) sampling of a Fourier transform of an underlying function in the *continuous domain* [@E.M.Haacke1999]. This means that, \[CSType\] will work well when the singularities of the image $\bu$ are well aligned with the grid $\OO$. However, even in the case of piecewise constant function whose (distribution) gradient is sparse in the continuous domain, its singularities may not necessarily agree with the discrete grid $\OO$, leading to the problem of *basis mismatch* [@Y.Chi2010; @G.Ongie2016; @J.Ying2017]. Such a basis mismatch between the true singularities and the discrete grid may result in the loss of sparsity of $\Ph\bu$, and thus degrades the performance of \[CSType\] [@J.Ying2017].
The direct restoration of continuous domain signal is emerging as a powerful alternative to the discrete domain CS approach [@B.N.Bhaskar2013; @E.J.Candes2014; @Y.Chen2014; @G.Ongie2018]. The ability of these “off-the-grid” schemes to allieviate the basis mismatch makes them especially attractive in signal restorations from partial Fourier samples [@G.Ongie2018]. One of the most successful examples is the finite-rate-of-innovation (FRI) framework [@T.Blu2008] which extends the Prony’s method [@Kay1988; @S.M.Kay1981; @Prony1795; @P.Stoica1997] to the so-called nonuniform “Dirac streams” with unknown knot locations. In addition, the recovery of Dirac streams from a few Fourier samples can be achieved by the atomic norm minimization [@E.J.Candes2013; @E.J.Candes2014; @G.Tang2015], which can be viewed as the continuous domain generalization of the CS framework. While these frameworks work well for one dimensional piecewise constant signals [@E.J.Candes2013] and two dimensional Dirac streams [@W.Xu2014], the extension to the (piecewise smooth) image restoration is not straightforward [@G.Ongie2016]. This is because the image singularities such as the edges and ridges in general form a continuous curve in a two dimensional domain, which violates the separation condition [@E.J.Candes2014] for the recovery guarantee.
Recently, there are several extensions of the FRI framework to the two dimensional continuous domain image restoration. Such extensions include the piecewise holomorphic complex image restoration [@H.Pan2014] and the piecewise constant real image restorations [@G.Ongie2018; @G.Ongie2015a; @G.Ongie2015; @G.Ongie2016]. These approaches are commonly based on the assumption that the singularity curves, i.e. the supports of the (real/complex) derivatives of a target image, lie in the zero level set of a band-limited periodic function, called the *annihilating polynomial*. The annihilation relation of the Fourier transform of the derivatives by convolution with the Fourier coefficients of the annihilating polynomial is then derived to recover the image singularities and eventually the image [@G.Ongie2016]. In addition, the authors in [@G.Ongie2016] established the necessary and sufficient conditions for the restoration of the edge set and the edge set aware recovery of the piecewise constant images from a finite number of uniformly sampled low frequency k-space data.
Given that the edges lie in the zero level set of an annihilating polynomial, the continuous domain image restoration is based on the fact that the structured matrix (Hankel/Toeplitz matrix) constructed from the Fourier samples of piecewise constant images is low rank [@G.Ongie2018; @G.Ongie2015; @G.Ongie2016]. Hence, we can apply the following structured low rank matrix completion model [@Y.Chen2014; @G.Ongie2017] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LRSMCompletion}
\min~~\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)~~~~~~~\text{subject to}~~\bmP_{\MM}\bsv=\bsf\end{aligned}$$ to restore the fully sampled k-space data (the discrete sample of the Fourier transform of a piecewise constant function). Here, $\bmH$ is an operator that constructs a so-called two-fold Hankel matrix, and $\La$ is a weight matrix derived from the Fourier transform of $\na$ (the detailed definitions will be postponed until \[Preliminaries\]). By restoring the k-space data first, we can directly utilize the property of the underlying function in the continuous domain, thus achieving the better restoration results over \[CSType\] by reducing the basis mismatch.
Though \[LRSMCompletion\] is an NP-hard problem in general [@E.J.Candes2009], numerous tractable relaxation approaches have been proposed in the literature. One of them is the convex nuclear norm relaxation method (e.g. [@J.F.Cai2016; @M.Fazel2013]), together with the theoretical restoration guarantees (e.g. [@G.Ongie2018]). In addition, the iterative reweighted least squares (IRLS) approaches for the Schatten $p$-norm minimization are proposed in [@M.Fornasier2011; @K.Mohan2012; @G.Ongie2017], which can avoid the high computational cost of the SVD related to the rank minmization and the convex nuclear norm relaxation. Apart from these approaches, the nonconvex alternating projection methods based on the different parametrizations of the underlying low rank matrix structure are proposed and studied in [@J.F.Cai2018a; @J.F.Cai2019]. These nonconvex methods are reported to be superior to the other relaxation methods in terms of the computational efficiency while theoretical restoration guarantees are still available.
In this paper, we propose a new off-the-grid approach for the CS-MRI reconstruction based on the data driven tight frame [@J.F.Cai2014]. To this end, we first note that the SVD of a Hankel matrix induces a tight frame filter bank due to its underlying convolutional structure. More precisely, if we can associate a signal with a low rank Hankel matrix, its right singular vectors form a tight frame filter bank which allows us to represent the signal with a small number of nonzero canonical coefficients. Based on this observation, we develop the sparse regularization model via data driven tight frames [@J.F.Cai2014] for the CS-MRI restoration problem. Even though the data driven tight frame approach has been discussed for the sparse approximation of an image [@J.F.Cai2014; @J.K.Choi2018; @J.Wang2015; @R.Zhan2016], to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that applies this approach for the MRI restoration based on a continuous image model. Finally, the numerical experiments show that our data driven tight frame approach outperforms the structured low rank matrix approaches based on \[LRSMCompletion\], leading to the state-of-the-art performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We first briefly review the related concepts, including (data driven) tight frames and structured low rank matrix approaches for CS-MRI, in \[Preliminaries\]. Then we present the off-the-grid CS-MRI reconstruction approach based on data driven tight frames and the alternating minimization algorithm in \[ModelandAlgorithm\], followed by the convergence of the algorithm. In \[Experiments\], experimental results are reported to demonstrate the performance of our new CS-MRI restoration method, and \[Conclusion\] concludes this paper with a few future directions.
Preliminaries and related works {#Preliminaries}
===============================
Introduction on tight frames {#TightFrames}
----------------------------
Here we provide a brief introduction on tight wavelet frames and data driven tight frames. Interested readers may consult [@J.F.Cai2008; @B.Dong2013; @B.Dong2015; @A.Ron1997; @Shen2010] for details on tight wavelet frames, and [@C.Bao2015; @J.F.Cai2014] for details on data driven tight frames. For the sake of simplicity, we only discuss the real valued wavelet tight frame systems, but note that it is not difficult to extend the idea to the complex case.
Denote by $\msH$ a Hilbert space and let $\la\cdot,\cdot\ra$ be the inner product defined on $\msH$. A countable set $\{\bvphi_n:n\in\Z\}\subseteq\msH$ is called a tight frame on $\msH$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TightFrame}
\|\bu\|^2=\sum_{n\in\Z}|\la\bu,\bvphi_n\ra|^2~~~~~\text{for all}~~~\bu\in\msH.\end{aligned}$$ Given $\{\bvphi_n:n\in\Z\}\subseteq\msH$, we define the analysis operator $\bsW:\msH\to\ell_2(\Z)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\bu\in\msH\mapsto \bsW\bu=\{\la\bu,\bvphi_n\ra:n\in\Z\}\in\ell_2(\Z).\end{aligned}$$ The synthesis operator $\bsW^T:\ell_2(\Z)\to\msH$ is defined as the adjoint of $\bsW$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bc\in\ell_2(\Z)\mapsto\bsW^T\bc=\sum_{n\in\Z}\bc[n]\bvphi_n\in\msH.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\{\bvphi_n:n\in\Z\}$ is a tight frame on $\msH$ if and only if $\bsW^T\bsW=\bsI$ where $\bsI$ is the identity on $\msH$. It follows that, for a given tight frame $\{\bvphi_n:n\in\Z\}$, we have the following canonical expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\bu=\sum_{n\in\Z}\la\bu,\bvphi_n\ra\bvphi_n,\end{aligned}$$ with $\bsW\bu=\{\la\bu,\bvphi_n\ra:n\in\Z\}$ being called the canonical tight frame coefficients. Hence, the tight frames are extensions of orthonormal bases to the redundant systems. In fact, a tight frame is an orthonormal basis if and only if $\|\bvphi_n\|=1$ for all $n\in\Z$.
One of the most widely used class of tight frames is the discrete wavelet frame generated by a set of finitely supported filters $\{\bq_1,\cdots,\bq_m\}$. In this paper, we only discuss the undecimated wavelet frames, which are also known as the translation invariant wavelet frame. For $\bq\in\ell_1(\Z)$, define a convolution operator $\bsS_{\bq}:\ell_2(\Z)\to\ell_2(\Z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DiscreteConv}
(\bsS_{\bq}\bu)[n]=(\bq\ast\bu)[n]=\sum_{k\in\Z}\bq[n-k]\bu[k]~~~~~\text{for}~~~\bu\in\ell_2(\Z).\end{aligned}$$ Given a set of finitely supported filters $\{\bq_1,\cdots,\bq_m\}$, define the analysis operator $\bsW$ and the synthesis operator $\bsW^T$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\bsW&=\left[\bsS_{\bq_1[-\cdot]}^T,\bsS_{\bq_2[-\cdot]}^T,\cdots,\bsS_{\bq_m[-\cdot]}^T\right]^T,\label{AnalConv}\\
\bsW^T&=\left[\bsS_{\bq_1},\bsS_{\bq_2},\cdots,\bsS_{\bq_m}\right],\label{SyntConv}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Then, the direct computation can show that the rows of $\bsW$ form a tight frame on $\ell_2(\Z)$ (i.e. $\bsW^T\bsW=\bsI$) if and only if the filters $\{\bq_1,\cdots,\bq_m\}$ satisfy the following [*unitary extension principle*]{} (UEP) condition [@B.Han2011]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SomeUEP}
\sum_{l=1}^m\sum_{k\in\Z}\bq_l[n+k]\bq_l[k]=\dde_n=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1~&\text{if}~n=0,\vspace{0.4em}\\
0~&\text{if}~n\neq0.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, once the one dimensional filters generate a wavelet tight frame on $\ell_2(\Z)$, the higher dimensional wavelet tight frame could be obtained via the tensor product of the one dimensional filters.
In the literature, wavelet frames are widely used for the sparse approximation of an image. This is due to the multiscale structure of the wavelet frame systems, short supports of the framelet functions with varied vanishing moments, and the presence of both low pass and high pass filters in the wavelet frame filter banks, which are desirable in sparsely approximating piecewise smooth functions [@B.Dong2017]. For better sparse approximation of an image, the authors in [@J.F.Cai2014] proposed a *data driven tight frame* approach. Specifically, given an image $\bu$, a tight frame system $\bsW$ defined as in \[AnalConv\], which is generated by a set of finitely supported $p\times p$ filters $\{\bq_1,\cdots,\bq_{p^2}\}$ satisfying , is constructed via the following minimization $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DDTFModel}
\min_{\bc,\bsW}~\|\bc-\bsW\bu\|_2^2+\lambda^2\|\bc\|_0~~~~~\text{subject to}~~~~\bsW^T\bsW=\bsI,\end{aligned}$$ with the $\ell_0$ norm $\|\bc\|_0$ encoding the number of nonzero entries in the coefficient vector $\bc$.
Given that each filter is supported on a $p\times p$ grid, we can reformulate \[DDTFModel\] the following way. Reshape all $p\times p$ patches of $\bu$ into $\bU\in\R^{p^2\times m}$ where $m$ denotes the number of total patches. Let $\bsD\in\R^{p^2\times p^2}$ be the matrix generated by concatenating filters $\{\bq_1,\cdots,\bq_{p^2}\}$ into $p^2\times 1$ column vectors $\{\vec{\bq}_1,\cdots,\vec{\bq}_{p^2}\}$. Denote by $\bC\in\R^{p^2\times m}$ the frame coefficients. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bu&\Leftrightarrow\bU=(\vec{\bu}_1,\cdots\,\vec{\bu}_m)\in\R^{p^2\times m},\\
\bsW&\Leftrightarrow\bsD=\left(\vec{\bq}_1,\cdots,\vec{\bq}_{p^2}\right)\in\R^{p^2\times p^2},\\
\bc&\Leftrightarrow\bC=(\vec{\bc}_1,\cdots,\vec{\bc}_m)\in\R^{p^2\times m}.\end{aligned}$$ After making these substitutions and relaxing \[SomeUEP\] into $\bsD\bsD^T=p^{-2}\bsI$, \[DDTFModel\] can be reformulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DDTFModelModi}
\min_{\bC,\bsD}~\|\bC-\bsD^T\bU\|_F^2+\lambda^2\|\bC\|_0~~~~~\text{subject to}~~~~\bsD\bsD^T=p^{-2}\bsI,\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_F$ is the Frobenius norm of a matrix. To solve \[DDTFModelModi\], the alternating minimization method with closed form solutions for each stage is presented in [@J.F.Cai2014]. In addition, the proximal alternating minimization (PAM) scheme with global convergence to critical points is proposed in [@C.Bao2015].
Structured low rank matrix approaches in CS-MRI {#SRLACSMRI}
-----------------------------------------------
We begin with introducing some notation. All two dimensional images will be denoted by the bold faced lower case letters and all matrices will be denoted by the bold faced upper case letters. Note that a two dimensional images can also be identified with a vector whenever convenient. We denote by $\OO=\left\{-N/2,\cdots,N/2-1\right\}^2$ with $N\in2\N$ the set of $N\times N$ grid, and the space of complex valued functions on $\OO$ is denoted by $\mI_2\simeq\C^{|\OO|}$. Given two rectangular grids $\KK$ and $\MM$, the contraction $\KK:\MM$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\KK:\MM=\left\{\bk\in\KK:\bk-\bsj\in\KK~\text{for all}~\bsj\in\MM\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\bsv\in\mI_2$ and let $\KK$ be a rectangular $K_1\times K_2$ grid. The corresponding Hankel matrix $\bmH\bsv$ is an $M_1\times M_2$ matrix ($M_1=|\OO:\KK|$ and $M_2=|\KK|$) generated by concatenating $K_1\times K_2$ patches of $\bsv$ into row vectors. With a slight abuse of notation, we also use $\bmH\w=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\left(\bmH\w_1\right)^T&\left(\bmH\w_2\right)^T
\end{array}\right]^T$ to denote the $2M_1\times M_2$ two-fold Hankel matrix constructed from $\w=\left(\w_1,\w_2\right)\in\mI_2\times\mI_2$; see \[BlockHankelIllustrate\] for an illustration.
![Illustration of generating a two-fold Hankel matrix $\bmH\w$ from $\w=\left(\w_1,\w_2\right)\in\mI_2\times\mI_2$. Here, $K_1=K_2=2$.[]{data-label="BlockHankelIllustrate"}](BlockHankelIllustrate.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The conventional CS-MRI approach aims to directly restore the MR image $\bu$ on $\OO$ from the undersampled k-space $\bsf$ satisfying the following two dimensional Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MRForward}
\bsf[\bk]=\wh{u}(L^{-1}\bk)=\int_{\R^2}u(\x)e^{-2\pi i\x\cdot\bk/L}\rd\x,~~~~~~\bk\in\MM,\end{aligned}$$ where $\MM$ is the sampling grid, $L>0$ is the length of field-of-view (FOV), and $u\in L_1(\R^2)$ is the proton spin density distribution in $\R^2$ [@E.M.Haacke1999]. Note that when $\MM=\OO$, i.e. the fully sampled case, $\bu$ is obtained from the inverse DFT $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MRInverse}
\bu[\bp]=\left(\bmsF^{-1}\bsf\right)[\bp]=\f{1}{N^2}\sum_{\bk\in\OO}\bsf[\bk]e^{2\pi i\bp\cdot\bk/N},~~~~~~~\bp\in\OO.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the conventional CS-MRI approach is based on the DFT $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DFT}
\bsf[\bk]=\left(\bmsF\bu\right)[\bk]=\sum_{\bp\in\OO}\bu[\bp]e^{2\pi i\bp\cdot\bk/N},~~~~~~~\bk\in\MM.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that this approach is the on-the-grid scheme, as we only consider the information on $\OO$. In other words, we can apply the sparse regularization effectively provided that the singularities of the image $\bu$ are well aligned with $\OO$. However, since the k-space data actually comes from the Fourier transform of a continuous domain function, there exists a basis mismatch between the singularities of $u$ in the continuous domain and the discrete grid $\OO$. Such a basis mismatch would destroy the sparsity structure, leading to a degradation of the restoration performance.
Instead of directly restoring the discrete MR image, the off-the-grid approaches attempt to first restore the fully sampled k-space data $\bsv$ from its undersampled version $\bsf$ modeled as in \[MRForward\]. In other words, we first $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OurProblem}
\text{find}~~\bsv~~~\text{such that}~~\bsv=\msF(u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}~~\text{and}~~\bmP_{\MM}\bsv=\bsf,\end{aligned}$$ and then compute $\bu=\bmsF^{-1}\bsv$; see \[CSMRIComparisons\] for the schematic comparison.
![Comparison between the conventional CS-MRI and the off-the-grid CS-MRI approach.[]{data-label="CSMRIComparisons"}](CSMRIComparisons.pdf){width="95.00000%"}
Generally, it is impossible to directly solve \[OurProblem\] without any further information. Nevertheless, by imposing the prior information of $u$ (in the continuous domain) into \[OurProblem\], we can achieve the continuous domain restoration, and reduce the basis mismatch. For this purpose, we follow [@G.Ongie2016] and consider the piecewise constant function model of the proton density $u$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uModel}
u(\x)=\sum_{j=1}^J\alpha_j1_{\Om_j}(\x),~~~~~~~\x\in\R^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_j\in\C$ and $1_{\Om}$ denotes the characteristic function on a set $\Om$: $1_{\Om}(\x)=1$ if $\x\in\Om$, and $0$ otherwise. Here, we assume that each $\Om_j$ lies in $[-L/2,L/2)^2$. We further assume that \[uModel\] is expressed with the smallest number of characteristic functions such that $\Om_j$’s are pairwise disjoint. Under this setting, the discontinuities of $u$ agrees with $\Gamma=\bigcup_{j=1}^J\p\Om_j$, which is called the *edge set* of $u$ [@G.Ongie2016].
In the sense of distribution, the gradient of $u$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gradu}
\na u=\left(\p_1 u,\p_2 u\right)=\sum_{j=1}^J\alpha_j\rd\nnu_j,~~~~~~~\text{where}~~~\rd\nnu_j=-\bn_j\rd\ssi\big|_{\p\Om_j},\end{aligned}$$ with $\bn_j$ being the outward normal vector on $\p\Om_j$ and $\ssi$ being the surface measure. Since $|\bn_j|=1$ a.e. on $\p\Om_j$ and $\ssi(\Om_j)<\infty$, $\na u$ in \[Gradu\] defines a finite Radon vector measure on $\R^2$ supported on $\Gamma$. In addition, since \[Gradu\] holds in the sense of tempered distribution, we can compute $\msF(\na u)(\xxi)$ as a Fourier transform of a measure (e.g. [@Folland1999]). Namely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FouGradu}
\msF(\na u)(\xxi)=\left(\msF(\p_1u)(\xxi),\msF(\p_2u)(\xxi)\right)=\sum_{j=1}^J\alpha_j\int_{\p\Om_j}e^{-2\pi i\xxi\cdot\x}\rd\nnu_j(\x).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\varphi\in\msS$, where $\msS$ is the space of Schwartz functions (e.g. [@Folland1999]). Then the direct computation shows that $\left(\msF(\na u)\ast\wh{\varphi}\right)(\xxi)=\left(\left(\msF(\p_1u)\ast\wh{\varphi}\right)(\xxi),\left(\msF(\p_2u)\ast\wh{\varphi}\right)(\xxi)\right)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FouGraduConv}
\begin{split}
\left(\msF(\na u)\ast\wh{\varphi}\right)(\xxi)=\sum_{j=1}^J\alpha_j\int_{\p\Om_j}e^{-2\pi i\xxi\cdot\x}\varphi(\x)\rd\nnu_j(\x).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ From \[FouGraduConv\], it is easy to see that if $\Gamma\subseteq\left\{\x\in\R^2:\varphi(\x)=0\right\}$, then $\msF(\na u)\ast\wh{\varphi}=0$.
We further assume that there exists a finite (rectangular and symmetric) index set $\KK$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MajorAssumption}
\Gamma\subseteq\left\{\x\in\R^2:\varphi(\x)=0\right\}~~~~~\text{with}~~\varphi(\x)=\sum_{\bk\in\KK}\a[\bk]e^{2\pi i\bk\cdot\x/L}.\end{aligned}$$ For such $\varphi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FouGradConvSemiDiscrete}
\left(\msF(\na u)\ast\wh{\varphi}\right)(\xxi)=\sum_{\bk\in\KK}\msF(\na u)(\xxi-L^{-1}\bk)\a[\bk]=0,~~~~~~~\xxi\in\R^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is referred to as the *linear annihilation relation* [@G.Ongie2015; @G.Ongie2016]. The trigonometric polynomial $\varphi$ in \[MajorAssumption\] is called the *annihilating polynomial*, $\a$ is called the *annihilating filter* with support $\KK$, and $\Gamma$ satisfying \[MajorAssumption\] is called the *trigonometric curves* [@G.Ongie2016]. It is proved in [@G.Ongie2016] that trigonometric curves can always be described as the zero set of a *real valued* trigonometric polynomial, using the tool of algebraic geometries.
In MRI, the Fourier transform of $u$ is sampled on the grid $L^{-1}\OO$ [@E.M.Haacke1999], so \[FouGradConvSemiDiscrete\] becomes the finite system of linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FouGradConvDiscrete}
\sum_{\bk\in\KK}\msF(\na u)(L^{-1}(\bsl+\bk))\a[-\bk]=0,~~~~~~~\bsl\in\OO:\KK.\end{aligned}$$ In the matrix-vector multiplication form, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RankDeficientHankel}
\bmH\left(\msF(\na u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}\right)\a[-\cdot]=\0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $\varphi$ in \[MajorAssumption\] is the minimal polynomial with the support $\KK$ (i.e. $\KK$ has the smallest linear dimension) and $\KK'$ is the assumed filter support strictly containing $\KK$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RankUB}
\rank\left(\bmH\left(\msF(\na u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}\right)\right)\leq|\KK'|-|\KK':\KK|.\end{aligned}$$ Roughly speaking, \[RankUB\] means that if $\varphi$ in \[MajorAssumption\] is the minimal polynomial with $\a$ satisfying \[FouGradConvDiscrete,RankDeficientHankel\], so does the translation $\a[\cdot-\bm]$ for all $\bm\in\KK'\setminus\left(\KK':\KK\right)$, or equivalently, $e^{2\pi i\bm\cdot\x}\varphi(\x)$ is also an annihilating polynomial. See [@G.Ongie2015; @G.Ongie2016] for details.
Note that \[RankUB\] means the two-fold Hankel matrix constructed by $\msF(\na u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}$ is *rank deficient*. Based on this observation, we can formulate \[OurProblem\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LRSMCompletionRevist}
\min~~\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)~~~~~~~\text{subject to}~~\bmP_{\MM}\bsv=\bsf.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\La\in\C^{2|\OO|\times|\OO|}$ is a weight matrix defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lambda}
\La=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\La_1&\La_2
\end{array}\right]^T=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\operatorname{diag}\left(2\pi ik_1/L\right)&\operatorname{diag}\left(2\pi ik_2/L\right)
\end{array}\right]_{\bk=(k_1,k_2)\in\OO}^T,\end{aligned}$$ which is derived from $\msF\left(\na u\right)(\xxi)=2\pi i\xxi\wh{u}(\xxi)$. Hence, the piecewise constant property of $u$ in the continuous domain can be transformed to the low rank property of $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)$.
Proposed off-the-grid reconstruction model {#ModelandAlgorithm}
==========================================
Model and algorithm {#ProposedModelandAlgorithm}
-------------------
Denote by $\bsv\in\mI_2$ the k-space data on the grid $\OO$, which is to be restored from a given data $\bsf$ undersampled on $\MM$. Consider a two-fold Hankel matrix $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\in\C^{2M_1\times M_2}$ with $\La$ defined as \[Lambda\]. Note that for $\bq\in\C^{M_2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\bq=\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bq[-\cdot]:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\left(\La_1\bsv\right)\ast\bq[-\cdot]\vspace{0.25em}\\
\left(\La_2\bsv\right)\ast\bq[-\cdot]
\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the two dimensional discrete convolution $\ast$ is performed by reformulating $\bq\in\C^{M_2}$ into a $K_1\times K_2$ filter. Then for an orthogonal matrix $\bY\in\C^{M_2\times M_2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)=\sum_{j=1}^{M_2}\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\bY^{(:,j)}\right)\left(\bY^{(:,j)}\right)^*=\sum_{j=1}^{M_2}\left(\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]\right)\left(\bY^{(:,j)}\right)^*.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, it is not hard to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\bmH^*\left(\w\bq^*\right)=\w\ast\overline{\bq}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\w_1\ast\overline{\bq}\vspace{0.25em}\\
\w_2\ast\overline{\bq}
\end{array}\right]~~~~~~\text{for}~~~\w=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\w_1\vspace{0.25em}\\
\w_2
\end{array}\right]\in\C^{2M_1}~~\text{and}~~\bq\in\C^{M_2},\end{aligned}$$ and the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $\bmH$ is proportional to $\bmH^*$. Hence, for an orthogonal matrix $\bY\in\C^{M_2\times M_2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HankelTightFrame}
\La\bsv\propto\sum_{j=1}^{M_2}\left(\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]\right)\ast\overline{\bY}^{(:,j)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\propto$ means the pointwise proportionality.
We further introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\bsW&=\left[\bsS_{\bq_1[-\cdot]}^T,\bsS_{\bq_2[-\cdot]}^T,\cdots,\bsS_{\bq_{M_2}[-\cdot]}^T\right]^T,\label{OurAnalysis}\\
\bsW^*&=\left[\bsS_{\overline{\bq}_1},\bsS_{\overline{\bq}_2},\cdots,\bsS_{\overline{\bq}_{M_2}}\right],\label{OurSynthesis}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bq_j=M_2^{-1/2}\bY^{(:,j)}$, and $\bsS_{\bq}$ is defined as in \[DiscreteConv\]. Then up to an appropriate scaling, we can rewrite \[HankelTightFrame\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OrthogonalFilterBanks}
\La\bsv=\sum_{j=1}^{M_2}\bsS_{\overline{\bq}_j}\left(\bsS_{\bq_j[-\cdot]}\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)=\bsW^*\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the orthogonal matrix $\bY\in\C^{M_2\times M_2}$ indeed generates a set of filter banks of a tight frame system.
To reconstruct $\bsv=\msF(u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}$ corresponding to a piecewise constant function $u$ in \[uModel\], we assume that $\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)=r\ll2M_1\wedge M_2$, following \[SRLACSMRI\]. Consider its SVD $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HankelSVD}
\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\bmH\left(\La_1\bsv\right)\\
\bmH\left(\La_2\bsv\right)
\end{array}\right]=\bX\Sig\bY^*=\sum_{j=1}^r\Sig^{(j,j)}\bX^{(:,j)}\left(\bY^{(:,j)}\right)^*,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Sig^{(1,1)}\geq\Sig^{(2,2)}\geq\cdots\geq\Sig^{(r,r)}>0$ and $\Sig^{(j,j)}=0$ for $j>r$. Since we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HankelSVDConv}
\Sig^{(j,j)}\bX^{(:,j)}=\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\bY^{(:,j)}=\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot],\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HankelSVDSparse}
\begin{split}
\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]&\neq\0,~~~~~~~j=1,\cdots,r,\vspace{0.25em}\\
\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]&=\0,~~~~~~~j=r+1,\cdots,M_2,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LowRankHankelSVD}
\La\bsv\propto\sum_{j=1}^r\left(\left(\La\bsv\right)\ast\bY^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]\right)\ast\overline{\bY}^{(:,j)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if we define $\bsW$ and $\bsW^*$ as in \[OurAnalysis,OurSynthesis\] using $\bY\in\C^{M_2\times M_2}$ in \[HankelSVD\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TightFrameSparse}
\begin{split}
\bsS_{\bq_j[-\cdot]}\left(\La\bsv\right)&\neq\0,~~~~~~~j=1,\cdots,r,\vspace{0.25em}\\
\bsS_{\bq_j[-\cdot]}\left(\La\bsv\right)&=\0,~~~~~~~j=r+1,\cdots,M_2,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which finally leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LowRankHankelTightFrame}
\La\bsv=\sum_{j=1}^r\bsS_{\overline{\bq}_j}\left(\bsS_{\bq_j[-\cdot]}\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)=\bsW^*\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right).\end{aligned}$$ This means that, if $\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)=r$, then its SVD constructs a tight frame such that $\La\bsv$ has only $r$ *nonzero* canonical coefficients.
Based on these observations, we can consider constructing an *adaptive* tight frame under which $\La\bsv$ has a small number of canonical nonzero coefficients, instead of directly minimizing $\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)$. However, it is in general difficult to directly impose such an idea on the reconstruction model for the following reasons: 1) it is an NP-hard problem to minimize the number of nonzero coefficients that represents/approximates $\La\bsv$ even under a given tight frame; 2) the penalization on canonical coefficients in general requires an iterative solver, which will be too expensive in constructing an adaptive tight frame [@J.F.Cai2014]; 3) the available k-space data is always corrupted by the noise in practice, which makes \[LowRankHankelTightFrame\] only approximately true in practice. Nevertheless, \[LowRankHankelTightFrame\] implies that there exists an adaptive tight frame under which $\La\bsv$ can be *sparsely approximated*, so we can adopt the idea of data driven tight frames [@J.F.Cai2014]. In particular, we propose the following data driven tight frame (DDTF) based continuous domain CS-MRI reconstruction model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ProposedCSMRIModel}
\begin{split}
&~~~\min_{\bsv,\bc,\bsW}~\f{1}{2}\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bsv-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\f{\mu}{2}\left\|\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)-\bc\right\|_2^2+\gamma\left\|\bc\right\|_0\\
&\text{subject to}~~\bsv\in\mC~~\text{and}~~\bsW^*\bsW=\bsI
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ to reconstruct the fully sampled k-space data $\bsv$ and then obtain the MR image by $\bu=\bmsF^{-1}\bsv$. Here, $\bsW$ is a tight frame transform defined as in \[OurAnalysis\] whose filter banks have to be learned, and $\mC$ is a constraint set imposing the boundedness of $\bsv$. In this paper, we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ConstraintSet}
\mC=\left\{\bsv\in\mI_2:|\bsv[\bk]|\leq R~~~\text{for all}~~\bk\in\OO\right\}\simeq\DD_R^{N^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\DD_{R}=\left\{v\in\C:|v|\leq R\right\}$ with a sufficiently large $R>0$.
\[RK1\] The choice of the constraint set $\mC$ comes from the following: if $u\in L_1(\R^2)$ is modeled as in \[uModel\], then from \[FouGradu\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\msF(\na u)(\xxi)\right|\leq\sum_{j=1}^J|\alpha_j|\ssi(\Om_j)<\infty~~~~~\text{for all}~~\xxi\in\R^2.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $\wh{u}(\xxi)$ decays at infinity in the sense that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\xxi\in\R^2}\left|\xxi\right|\left|\wh{u}(\xxi)\right|<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and this implies that $\wh{u}(\xxi)$ (and whence $\bsv[\bk]$ since we want $\bsv=\msF(u)\big|_{L^{-1}\OO}$) has to be bounded. In addition, as we shall see in \[ConvergenceAnalysis\], the boundedness constraint is required for the convergence analysis of the proximal alternating scheme to solve \[ProposedCSMRIModel\]. That being said, numerically, the constraint set has a very minor effect on the restoration results provided that $R>0$ is sufficiently large. In fact, the proximal alternating minimization seems to converge even without using $\mC$.
In \[ProposedCSMRIModel\], the sparsity promoting $\ell_0$ norm $\left\|\bc\right\|_0$ is used as a relaxation of \[TightFrameSparse\] (or equivalently, \[HankelSVDSparse\]), and the tight frame constraint $\bsW^*\bsW=\bsI$ is related to \[LowRankHankelTightFrame\]. Finally, the term $\left\|\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)-\bc\right\|_2^2$ is to provide the flexibility in sparse approximation. Namely, given that $\bsW$ is a tight frame, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)-\bc\right\|_2^2=\left\|\bsW^*\bc-\La\bsv\right\|_2^2+\left\|\left(\bsI-\bsW\bsW^*\right)\bc\right\|_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ which yields a balanced approach (e.g. [@J.F.Cai2008; @R.H.Chan2003]). In this work, we choose this balanced approach for the following two reasons. Firstly, the k-space data is in general corrupted by the (thermal) noise [@E.M.Haacke1999] and $\La$ amplifies the noise in the high frequency, which always hampers $\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)$ from being sparse (or $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)$ being low rank). Secondly, the direct penalization on the canonical coefficient $\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)$ requires an iterative solver, which will be too expensive in constructing an adaptive tight frame [@J.F.Cai2014]. Therefore, by promoting the distance between $\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)$ and $\bc$, we expect to achieve a better sparse approximation of $\La\bsv$ (and thus a better low rank approximation of $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)$) with a low computational complexity.
To solve \[ProposedCSMRIModel\], we use the proximal alternating minimization (PAM) algorithm introduced in [@H.Attouch2010]. We initialize $\bsv_0=\bmP_{\mC}\left(\bmP_{\MM}\bsf\right)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ProjectOntoC}
\bmP_{\mC}\left(\bsv\right)[\bk]=\min\left\{\left|\bsv[\bk]\right|,R\right\}\exp\left\{i\arg\bsv[\bk]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The initializations of $\bsW_0$ and $\bc_0$ are obtained from the SVD of $\bmH\left(\La\bsv_0\right)=\bX_0\Sig_0\bY_0^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Initialize}
\bsW_0=M_2^{-1/2}\bY_0~~~~~\text{and}~~~~~\bc_{0,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
M_2^{-1/2}\left(\La\bsv_0\right)\ast\bY_0^{(:,j)}[-\cdot]~&j=1,\cdots,r,\vspace{0.4em}\\
\0~&j=r+1,\cdots,M_2,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is an estimated rank. After the initializations, we optimize $(\bsv,\bc,\bsW)$ alternatively, as summarized in \[Alg1\].
It is easy to see that each subproblem in \[Alg1\] has a closed form solution. The solution to \[vsubprob\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vsubexplicit}
\begin{split}
\bsv_{n+1/2}&=\left(\bmP_{\MM}+\mu\La^*\La+\beta_1\bsI\right)^{-1}\left(\bmP_{\MM}\bsf+\mu\La^*\bsW_n^*\bc_n+\beta_1\bsv_n\right),\\
\bsv_{n+1}&=\bmP_{\mC}\left(\bsv_{n+1/2}\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bmP_{\mC}$ is defined as \[ProjectOntoC\]. It is worth noting that since $\bmP_{\MM}+\mu\La^*\La+\beta_1\bsI$ is a diagonal matrix, no matrix inversion is needed.
To solve \[Wsubprob,csubprob\], we introduce the following substitutions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PatchReformulation}
\left(\La\bsv,\bc,\bsW\right)\Leftrightarrow\left(\bsH,\bC,\bsD\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bsH=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\bsH_1&\bsH_2
\end{array}\right]$ with each $\bsH_j$ for $j=1$ and $2$ generated by using $K_1\times K_2$ patches of $\La_j\bsv$. Then \[Wsubprob,csubprob\] can be reformulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\bC_{n+1}&={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}~\gamma\left\|\bC\right\|_0+\f{\mu}{2}\left\|\bC-\bsD_{n}^T\bsH_{n+1}\right\|_F^2+\f{\beta_2}{2}\left\|\bC-\bC_n\right\|_F^2,\label{Cupdate}\\
\bsD_{n+1}&={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{\bsD\bsD^*=M_2^{-1}\bsI}~\f{\mu}{2}\left\|\bsD^T\bsH_{n+1}-\bC_{n+1}\right\|_F^2+\f{\beta_3}{2}\left\|\bsD-\bsD_n\right\|_F^2,\label{Dupdate}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The closed form solution to \[Cupdate\] is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{csubexplicit}
\bC_{n+1}=\bmT_{\sqrt{2\gamma/(\mu+\beta_2)}}\left(\f{\mu\bsD_{n}^T\bsH_{n+1}+\beta_2\bC_n}{\mu+\beta_2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bmT_{\gamma}$ is a hard thresholding; $\bmT_{\gamma}\left(\bC\right)[m,n]=\bC[m,n]$ if $|\bC[m,n]|>\gamma$, and $0$ otherwise. To solve \[Dupdate\], we use the following closed form formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Wsubexplicit}
\bsD_{n+1}=M_2^{-1/2}\bX_n\bY_n^*~~~\text{where}~~\bX_n\Sig_n\bY_n^*=\overline{\bsH}_{n+1}\bC_{n+1}^T+\f{\beta_3}{\mu}\bsD_n~~\text{is the SVD}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we only compute the SVD of an $M_2\times M_2$ matrix $\overline{\bsH}_{n+1}\bC_{n+1}^T+\left(\beta_3/\mu\right)\bsD_n$, leading to the computational efficiency over directly minimizing the rank of a $2M_1\times M_2$ matrix $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)$.
We further mention that it is not necessary to explicitly perform \[PatchReformulation\]. Noting that $\bsH$ is the transpose of $\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)$, we can compute $\bsD_{n}^T\bsH_{n+1}$ in \[csubexplicit\] and $\overline{\bsH}_{n+1}\bC_{n+1}^T$ in \[Wsubexplicit\] by using $3M_2$ ($M_2$ for $\bsD_{n}^T\bsH_{n+1}$ and $2M_2$ for $\overline{\bsH}_{n+1}\bC_{n+1}^T$) fast Hankel matrix-vector multiplications/two dimensional convolutions directly from $\La\bsv_{n+1}$, requiring $O(M_2N^2\log N)$ floating point operations. In addition, since $\bmT_{\gamma}$ is an elementwise operator, we can update each column of $\overline{\bsH}_{n+1}\bC_{n+1}^T+\left(\beta_3/\mu\right)\bsD_n$ in \[Wsubexplicit\] directly after updating each row of $\bC_{n+1}$ by \[csubexplicit\].
Convergence analysis {#ConvergenceAnalysis}
--------------------
In this subsection, we focus on the convergence analysis of the sequence $\left(\bsv_n,\bc_n,\bsW_n\right)$ generated by \[Alg1\] based on the frameworks in [@H.Attouch2010; @C.Bao2016; @J.Bolte2014; @Kurdyk1998; @Lojasiewicz1995; @Y.Xu2013] for the nonconvex and nondifferentiable optimization. To do this, we begin with introducing some basic notation and definitions.
Let $f:\R^n\to\R\cup\{\infty\}$ be a proper and lower semicontinuous (lsc) function.
**
1. The domain of $f$, denoted $\dom(f)$, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\dom(f)=\{\bu\in\R^n:f(\bu)<\infty\}.\end{aligned}$$
2. For each $\bu\in\dom(f)$, the Fréchet subdifferential of $f$ at $\bu$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\p_Ff(\bu)=\left\{\bs\in\R^n:\liminf_{\bsv\to\bu}\f{f(\bsv)-f(\bu)-\la\bs,\bsv-\bu\ra}{\|\bsv-\bu\|}\geq0\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\bu\notin\dom(f)$, then we set $\p_Ff(\bu)=\emptyset$.
3. The (limiting-) subdifferential of $f$ at $\bu$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\p f(\bu)=\left\{\bs\in\R^n:\exists \bu_n~\text{s.t.}~f(\bu_n)\to f(\bu)~\&~\bs_n\in\p_Ff(\bu_n)\to\bs\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The domain of $\p f$ is defined as $\dom(\p f)=\left\{\bu\in\R^n:\p f(\bu)\neq\emptyset\right\}$.
4. $\bu\in\dom(f)$ is a critical point of $f$ if $\0\in\p f(\bu)$.
\[RK3\] Since the minimization of a real-valued complex variable objective function in \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] is based on the Wirtinger calculus (i.e. by identifying $\C\simeq\R^2$), the theoretical results on the proximal schemes for the optimization on the real vector space are still applicable.
The global convergence of \[Alg1\] is based on the Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz (KL) property in [@Kurdyk1998; @Lojasiewicz1995]. It is in general difficult to directly verify whether a given function $f$ satisfies the KL property by the definition. Instead, we can verify this through several special types of functions which are proven to satisfy the KL property, such as analytic functions and semi-algebraic functions (e.g. [@H.Attouch2010; @C.Bao2016; @J.Bolte2014; @Y.Xu2013]).
For the notational simplicity, we introduce $\z=\left(\bsv,\bc,\bsW\right)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
P(\z)=\f{1}{2}\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bsv-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\f{\mu}{2}\left\|\bsW\left(\La\bsv\right)-\bc\right\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\mC\simeq\DD_{R}^{N^2}$ as in \[ConstraintSet\], and we introduce $$\begin{aligned}
\mD=\left\{\bsW\in\C^{M_2N^2\times N^2}:\bsW^*\bsW=\bsI_{N^2\times N^2}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using this notation, we reformulate \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ObjectModi}
\min_{\z}~H(\z):=P(\z)+\gamma\left\|\bc\right\|_0+\imath_{\mC}(\bsv)+\imath_{\mD}(\bsW),\end{aligned}$$ where $\imath_{\mA}$ is the indicator function of a set $\mA$: $\imath_{\mA}(\z)=0$ if $\z\in\mA$, and $\infty$ otherwise.
It is not hard to verify that the indicator functions are analytic, and $\left\|\cdot\right\|_0$ is a semi-algebraic function. Since the remaining term $P(\z)$ is merely a polynomial, we can conclude that the function $H(\z)$ in \[ObjectModi\] satisfies the KL-property. Under this formulation, we can present the following result on the global convergence of \[Alg1\].
\[Th1\] Let $H(\z)$ be defined as \[ObjectModi\]. Then the sequence $\{\z_n:n\in\N\}$ generated by \[Alg1\] is globally convergent, and its limit is a critical point of $H$. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FiniteLength}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left\|\z_{n+1}-\z_n\right\|_2<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the sequence $\{\z_n:n\in\N\}$ satisfies the finite length property.
Since the proof of \[Th1\] follows the framework given in [@C.Bao2016 Theorem 3.7.], we only need to mention the key component. Since $H(\z)\geq0$ satisfies the KL property, it can be easily verified that it satisfies the first condition in [@C.Bao2016 Theorem 3.7]. Interested readers may refer to [@C.Bao2016] for the details. Hence, we can complete the proof provided that we can verify that the sequence $\left\{\z_n:n\in\N\right\}$ generated by \[Alg1\] is bounded. In fact, since the constraints $\mC$ and $\mD$ are compact sets, it suffices to show that $\bc_n$ is bounded.
\[Lemma1\] Let $H(\z)$ be defined as in . For the sequence $\left\{\z_n:n\in\N\right\}$ generated by \[Alg1\], there exists a constant $C>0$ independent on $n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bc_n\right\|_2\leq C~~~~~~~\text{for all}~~~n\in\N.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\bc_n$ is bounded.
Since $\bsv_n\in\mC$ for all $n\geq0$, we have $\left\|\bsv_n\right\|_2\leq RN$ for all $n\geq0$. Hence, the proof is completed by mathematical induction. For $n=0$, \[Initialize\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bc_0\right\|_2\leq\left\|\bsW_0\left(\La\bsv_0\right)\right\|_2=\left\|\La\bsv_0\right\|_2\leq\left\|\La\right\|\left\|\bsv_0\right\|_2\leq\left\|\La\right\|RN,\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\|\La\right\|$ denotes the spectral norm of $\La$, and the equality comes from the fact that $\bsW_0\in\mD$.
For the mathematical induction, we assume that $\left\|\bc_n\right\|_2\leq C:=\left\|\La\right\|RN$. Due to the hard thresholding in \[csubexplicit\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bc_{n+1}\right\|_2&\leq\left\|\f{\mu\bsW_{n}\left(\La\bsv_{n+1}\right)+\beta_2\bc_n}{\mu+\beta_2}\right\|_2\\
&\leq\f{\mu}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\bsW_{n}\left(\La\bsv_{n+1}\right)\right\|_2+\f{\beta_2}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\bc_n\right\|_2\\
&=\f{\mu}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\La\bsv_{n+1}\right\|_2+\f{\beta_2}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\bc_n\right\|_2\\
&\leq\f{\mu}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\La\right\|\left\|\bsv_{n+1}\right\|_2+\f{\beta_2}{\mu+\beta_2}\left\|\bc_n\right\|_2\leq\left\|\La\right\|RN=C,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality again comes from the fact that $\bsW_n\in\mD$ for all $n\in\N$. This completes the proof.
Experimental results {#Experiments}
====================
In this section, we present the experimental results on the phantom image and the real MR image used in [@G.Ongie2016], to compare the proposed DDTF based CS-MRI model \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] with several existing methods. Note that the major focus of this paper is to reconstruct a piecewise constant MR image from a given undersampled k-space data. For this purpose, we choose to compare with the total variation (TV) model [@M.Lustig2007] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TVModel}
\min_{\bu}~\f{1}{2}\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bmsF\bu-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\gamma\left\|\Na\bu\right\|_1,\end{aligned}$$ and the Haar framelet (Haar) model (e.g. [@J.F.Cai2012]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HaarModel}
\min_{\bu}~\f{1}{2}\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bmsF\bu-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\left\|\gga\cdot\bsW\bu\right\|_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gga=\left\{\gamma 2^{-l}:l=0,\cdots,L-1\right\}$. Both \[TVModel,HaarModel\] are solved by the split Bregman method [@J.F.Cai2009/10; @T.Goldstein2009]. We also compare with the following Schatten $p$-norm minimization model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Schatten}
\min_{\bsv\in\mC}~\left\|\bmP_{\MM}\bsv-\bsf\right\|_2^2+\gamma\left\|\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right\|_p^p,\end{aligned}$$ with $p=0$, $0.5$, and $1$, solved by the generic iterative reweighted annihilating filters (GIRAF) method [@G.Ongie2017] based on the split Bregman algorithm, which are referred to as “GIRAF$0$”, “GIRAF$0.5$”, and “GIRAF$1$”, respectively. All experiments are implemented on MATLAB $\mathrm{R}2014\mathrm{a}$ running on a laptop with $64\mathrm{GB}$ RAM and Intel(R) Core(TM) CPU $\mathrm{i}7$-$8750\mathrm{H}$ at $2.20\mathrm{GHz}$ with $6$ cores.
Dataset Model $K$ $r$ $\mu$ $\gamma$ $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $\beta_3$
--------------- ----------------------------- --------- --------- -------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --
TV \[TVModel\] $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $10$ $0.05$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
Haar \[HaarModel\] $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $10$ $0.025$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
GIRAF \[Schatten\] $25$ $\cdot$ $4$ $10^{-6}$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
DDTF \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] $25$ $500$ $0.1$ $10$ $10^{-4}$ $10^{-4}$ $10^{-4}$
\*[Real MR]{} TV \[TVModel\] $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $10$ $0.01$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
Haar \[HaarModel\] $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $10$ $0.025$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
GIRAF \[Schatten\] $33$ $\cdot$ $2$ $10^{-6}$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$
DDTF \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] $33$ $871$ $0.05$ $5$ $10^{-4}$ $10^{-4}$ $10^{-4}$
: Parameter selection for each dataset. For TV \[TVModel\], Haar \[HaarModel\], and GIRAF \[Schatten\], $\mu$ refers to the internal parameter for the split Bregman algorithm.[]{data-label="TableParameter"}
In all cases, we choose $R=|\bsf[\0]|$ if $\0\in\MM$ and $R=10^8$ otherwise for the constraint set $\mC$ in \[ConstraintSet\]. We use the forward difference for the discrete gradient $\Na$ in \[TVModel\], and $\bsW$ in \[HaarModel\] is chosen to be the undecimated tensor product Haar framelet transform with $1$ level of decomposition [@B.Dong2013]. Both \[ProposedCSMRIModel,Schatten\] use the $K\times K$ square patch to generate the two-fold Hankel matrix for simplicity. As a rule of a thumb, we choose $K$ to be around $9\sim13\%$ of $N$, and we choose $r\approx0.8K^2$ for the initialization \[Initialize\] of \[ProposedCSMRIModel\], both of which depend on the geometry of the target image. The detailed choice of the remaining regularization parameters are summarized in \[TableParameter\]. Empirically, we observe that $\mu\approx0.01\gamma$ is an appropriate choice for \[ProposedCSMRIModel\], and we further observe that when $\mu$ is large, the restored k-space data $\bsv$ has a faster decay than smaller $\mu$. Hence, the parameters are manually tuned so that we can achieve the optimal restoration of both the low frequencies and high frequencies. For the on-the-grid approaches \[TVModel,HaarModel\], the stopping criterion is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{StoppingOntheGrid}
\f{\left\|\bu_{n+1}-\bu_n\right\|_2}{\left\|\bu_n\right\|_2}\leq{\varepsilon}:=2\times10^{-4},\end{aligned}$$ and for the off-the-grid approaches \[ProposedCSMRIModel,Schatten\], we use $$\begin{aligned}
\label{StoppingOfftheGrid}
\f{\left\|\bsv_{n+1}-\bsv_n\right\|_2}{\left\|\bsv_n\right\|_2}\leq{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ We also set the maximum allowable number of iterations to be $600$. To measure the quality of restored images, we compute the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the high frequency error norm (HFEN) [@S.Ravishankar2011] of the restored images. Note that for the off-the-grid approaches \[ProposedCSMRIModel,Schatten\], the restored image is computed via the inverse DFT of the restored k-space data; see \[CSMRIComparisons\].
Phantom experiments {#PhantomExperiments}
-------------------
For the piecewise constant phantom experiments, we first compute the fully sampled k-space data from the analytical frequency domain expressions of the MR phantoms, as performed in [@M.Guerquin-Kern2012]. Then using the variable density random sampling method in [@M.Lustig2007], we generate $20\%$ undersampled k-space data. The complex white Gaussian noise is also added so that the resulting SNR of the samples is approximately $25\mathrm{dB}$ (See \[PhantomDataSet\]).
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------------
$p=0$ $p=0.5$ $p=1$
SNR $9.23$ $20.29$ $20.99$ $21.12$ $20.88$ $17.13$ $\textbf{26.69}$
HFEN $0.5490$ $0.0992$ $0.0904$ $0.0948$ $0.0999$ $0.1828$ $\textbf{0.0572}$
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------------
: Comparison of signal-to-noise ratio and high frequency error norm for the phantom experiments.[]{data-label="PhantomTable"}
\[PhantomTable\] summarizes the SNR and the HFEN of the aforementioned restoration models, and \[PhantomResults\] displays the visual comparisons with the zoom-in views in \[PhantomResultsZoom\] and the error maps in \[PhantomResultsErrorMap\], respectively. We can see that the proposed data driven tight frame model \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] consistently outperforms both the on-the-grid approaches (\[TVModel,HaarModel\]) and the existing off-the-grid approaches \[Schatten\] with a smaller error map in \[PhantomDDTFError\]. Noting that \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] is an off-the-grid approach, the experimental results also suggest that the off-the-grid approaches have better performance in the CS-MRI due to its ability to reducing the basis mismatch between the true support (or the true singularity) in continuum and the discrete grid. In fact, due to this basis mismatch, we can see from \[PhantomTV,PhantomHaar,PhantomTVZoom,PhantomHaarZoom\] that the on-the-grid approaches lead to the distortions of three small ellipses, and the errors concentrate on the edges (\[PhantomTVError,PhantomHaarError\]) compared to the off-the-grid approaches.
It is also worth noting that among the off-the-grid approaches, the proposed DDTF model introduces less artifacts near the edges. In the literature, the noise in the k-space data affects $\rank\left(\bmH\left(\La\bsv\right)\right)$ even in the fully sampled case as the weight matrix $\La$ amplifies the noise in the high frequencies. Hence under such an amplified noise, it is likely that the direct rank minimization leads to the artifacts near the edges corresponding to the high frequencies in the frequency domain, as shown in \[PhantomGIRAF0,PhantomGIRAFHalf,PhantomGIRAF1,PhantomGIRAF0Zoom,PhantomGIRAFHalfZoom,PhantomGIRAF1Zoom,PhantomGIRAF0Error,PhantomGIRAFHalfError,PhantomGIRAF1Error\]. In contrast, the sparse approximation of $\La\bsv$ can achieve the denoising effect in spite of the amplified noise, leading to the better restoration results with less artifacts near the edges.
For further comparisons, we also present the restored k-space data (in the log scale) in \[PhantomResultsk\]. Note that since the sampling is dense in the low frequencies while the high frequencies are loosely sampled, the restoration qualities depend heavily on the restoration accuracy of high frequency k-space data. Indeed, we can see from \[PhantomTVk,PhantomHaark\] that the restored k-space data by \[TVModel,HaarModel\] decays faster than the original one, which also leads to the inferior restoration results. Even though the GIRAF models are in general able to restore the high frequency part better than the on-the-grid approaches, they still fail to restore the dominant structures on the high frequencies, as shown in \[PhantomGIRAF0k,PhantomGIRAFHalfk,PhantomGIRAF1k\]. In contrast, the proposed model \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] is able to restore the high frequency k-space data in spite of the loose sampling, which also results in the improvements over the existing approaches. In summary, our proposed DDTF CS-MRI model shows the overall better restoration quality in both the indices (SNR and HFEN) and the visual quality.
\
\
\
\
Real MR image experiments {#RealMRExperiments}
-------------------------
The real MR image experiments use the k-space data which is obtained from a fully sampled $4$-coil acquisition, and then compressed into a single virtual coil using the SVD technique in [@T.Zhang2013]. Since the data from the single virtual coil is complex-valued in the image domain with smoothly varying phase, we further correct the phase using the method described in [@G.Ongie2016]. More concretely, we first perform the inverse DFT of the zero padded k-space data, canceling out the phase in the image domain, and passing back to the frequency domain. Then as in the phantom experiments, we generate $20\%$ undersampled k-space data using the variable density sampling, and further add the complex white Gaussian noise so that the resulting SNR of the samples is approximately $25\mathrm{dB}$; see \[RealDataSet\].
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------------
$p=0$ $p=0.5$ $p=1$
SNR $11.09$ $14.27$ $14.31$ $15.36$ $15.21$ $13.25$ $\textbf{16.15}$
HFEN $0.6050$ $0.3477$ $0.3393$ $0.2924$ $0.3049$ $0.4409$ $\textbf{0.2521}$
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------------
: Comparison of signal-to-noise ratio and high frequency error norm for the real MR experiments.[]{data-label="RealTable"}
\[RealTable\] summarizes the SNR and the HFEN of the restoration results. For visual comparisons, the restored images, the error maps, and the restored k-space data are presented in \[RealResults,RealResultsk,RealResultsErrorMap\], respectively. Overall, we can see that the pros and the cons of the restoration methods are similar to the phantom experiments, and our proposed model \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] again consistently outperforms the other restoration methods. It is also worth noting that the proposed DDTF model restores more structured k-space data than the other models. In fact, the real k-space data is in general contaminated by the thermal noise [@E.M.Haacke1999], which makes the fully sampled k-space data less structured than the piecewise constant phantom. Together with the noise amplification by $\La$ on the high frequency part, even the fully sampled k-space data may not correspond to a low rank two-fold Hankel matrix. Nevertheless, we can observe that despite such noise amplifications, the sparse approximation by the data driven tight frame is likely to achieve better denoising than other models, leading to the better restoration results. Finally, we list some zoom-in views in \[RealResultsZoom\] to illustrate that our model \[ProposedCSMRIModel\] can restore structures better than the other existing methods.
\
\
\
\
Conclusion and future directions {#Conclusion}
================================
In this paper, we propose a new off-the-grid CS-MRI reconstruction model for the piecewise constant image restoration in the two dimensional FRI framework [@G.Ongie2016]. Our proposed model is inspired by the observation that the SVD of a Hankel matrix to some extent corresponds to an adaptive tight frame system which can represent a given image with a small number of nonzero canonical coefficients. This motivates us to adopt the sparse approximation by the data driven tight frames as an alternative to the structured low rank matrix completion. Finally, the numerical experiments show that our approach outperforms both the conventional on-the-grid approaches and the existing the low rank Hankel matrix models and their relaxations. To solve the nonconvex and nondifferentiable model, a proximal alternating minimization algorithm is presented, which has guaranteed global convergence to a critical point.
For the future work, we plan to provide a rigorous theoretical framework on our observations. Specifically, we need to rigorously analyze whether the data driven tight frame can indeed reflect the true frequency information of spectrally sparse signals (Such signals correspond to low rank Hankel matrices). In addition, it is also likely to extend the idea in this paper to the piecewise smooth image restoration framework, such as the total generalized variation [@K.Bredies2010] and the combined first and second order TV model [@M.Bergounioux2010; @K.Papafitsoros2014], by considering the higher order derivatives. It would be also interesting to find other pseudodifferential operators/Fourier integral operators which can provide more insightful information on the rank of the structured matrix constructed from the Fourier transform of a piecewise constant function. For example, we can attempt to find transformations under which the rank of the structured matrix is related to $J$ in \[uModel\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Dr. Greg Ongie in the Department of Statistics at the University of Chicago, an author of [@G.Ongie2018; @G.Ongie2015; @G.Ongie2016; @G.Ongie2017], for making the data sets as well as the MATLAB toolbox available so that the experiments can be implemented.
[10]{}
, [*Proximal alternating minimization and projection methods for nonconvex problems: an approach based on the [K]{}urdyka-[L]{}ojasiewicz inequality*]{}, Math. Oper. Res., 35 (2010), pp. 438–457, <https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1100.0449>.
, [*Dictionary learning for sparse coding: algorithms and convergence analysis*]{}, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 38 (2016), pp. 1356–1369, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2487966>.
, [*Convergence analysis for iterative data-driven tight frame construction scheme*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 38 (2015), pp. 510–523, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2014.06.007>.
, [*A second-order model for image denoising*]{}, Set-Valued Var. Anal., 18 (2010), pp. 277–306, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11228-010-0156-6>.
, [*Atomic norm denoising with applications to line spectral estimation*]{}, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 61 (2013), pp. 5987–5999, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2013.2273443>.
, [ *Sparse sampling of signal innovations*]{}, IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 25 (2008), pp. 31–40, <https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2007.914998>.
, [*Proximal alternating linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems*]{}, Math. Program., 146 (2014), pp. 459–494, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-013-0701-9>.
, [*Total generalized variation*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 3 (2010), pp. 492–526, <https://doi.org/10.1137/090769521>.
, [*A framelet-based image inpainting algorithm*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 24 (2008), pp. 131–149, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2007.10.002>.
, [*Image restoration: total variation, wavelet frames, and beyond*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 25 (2012), pp. 1033–1089, <https://doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-2012-00740-1>.
, [*Data-driven tight frame construction and image denoising*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 37 (2014), pp. 89–105, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2013.10.001>.
, [*Split [B]{}regman methods and frame based image restoration*]{}, Multiscale Model. Simul., 8 (2009/10), pp. 337–369, <https://doi.org/10.1137/090753504>.
, [*Robust recovery of complex exponential signals from random [G]{}aussian projections via low rank [H]{}ankel matrix reconstruction*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 41 (2016), pp. 470–490, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2016.02.003>.
, [*Spectral compressed sensing via projected gradient descent*]{}, SIAM J. Optim., 28 (2018), pp. 2625–2653, <https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1141394>.
, [*Fast and provable algorithms for spectrally sparse signal reconstruction via low-rank [H]{}ankel matrix completion*]{}, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 46 (2019), pp. 94–121, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2017.04.004>.
, [*Super-resolution from noisy data*]{}, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 19 (2013), pp. 1229–1254, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-013-9292-3>.
, [*Towards a mathematical theory of super-resolution*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 67 (2014), pp. 906–956, <https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.21455>.
, [*Exact matrix completion via convex optimization*]{}, Found. Comput. Math., 9 (2009), pp. 717–772, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-009-9045-5>.
, [*Robust uncertainty principles: exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information*]{}, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 52 (2006), pp. 489–509, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2005.862083>.
, [*Wavelet algorithms for high-resolution image reconstruction*]{}, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 24 (2003), pp. 1408–1432, <https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827500383123>.
, [*Robust spectral compressed sensing via structured matrix completion*]{}, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 60 (2014), pp. 6576–6601, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2014.2343623>.
, [*Sensitivity to basis mismatch in compressed sensing*]{}, in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, March 2010, pp. 3930–3933, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2010.5495800>.
, [*P[ET]{}-[MRI]{} joint reconstruction by joint sparsity based tight frame regularization*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 11 (2018), pp. 1179–1204, <https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1131453>.
, [*M[RA]{}-based wavelet frames and applications*]{}, in Mathematics in Image Processing, vol. 19 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013, pp. 9–158.
, [*Image restoration: a data-driven perspective*]{}, in Proceedings of the 8th [I]{}nternational [C]{}ongress on [I]{}ndustrial and [A]{}pplied [M]{}athematics, Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2015, pp. 65–108.
, [*Image restoration: a general wavelet frame based model and its asymptotic analysis*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 49 (2017), pp. 421–445, <https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1064969>.
, [*Compressed sensing*]{}, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory., 52 (2006), pp. 1289–1306, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2006.871582>.
, [*Hankel matrix rank minimization with applications to system identification and realization*]{}, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 34 (2013), pp. 946–977, <https://doi.org/10.1137/110853996>.
, [*Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications*]{}, Pure and Appl. Math., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2nd ed., 1999.
, [*Low-rank matrix recovery via iteratively reweighted least squares minimization*]{}, SIAM J. Optim., 21 (2011), pp. 1614–1640, <https://doi.org/10.1137/100811404>.
, [*The split [B]{}regman method for [$L1$]{}-regularized problems*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 2 (2009), pp. 323–343, <https://doi.org/10.1137/080725891>.
, [ *Realistic analytical phantoms for parallel magnetic resonance imaging*]{}, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., 31 (2012), pp. 626–636, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2011.2174158>.
, [ *Magnetic Resonance Imaging : Physical Principles and Sequence Design*]{}, Wiley, 1st ed., June 1999.
, [*Adaptive multiresolution analysis structures and shearlet systems*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 49 (2011), pp. 1921–1946, <https://doi.org/10.1137/090780912>.
, [*Deep learning for undersampled [MRI]{} reconstruction*]{}, Phys. Med. Biol., 63 (2018), p. 135007, <https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aac71a>.
, [*Modern Spectral Estimation: Theory and Application*]{}, Prentice-Hall Signal Processing Series: Advanced monographs, PTR Prentice Hall, 1988.
, [*Spectrum analysis?a modern perspective*]{}, Proceedings of the IEEE, 69 (1981), pp. 1380–1419, <https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1981.12184>.
, [*On gradients of functions definable in o-minimal structures*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 48 (1998), pp. 769–783, <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=AIF_1998__48_3_769_0>.
, [ *Balanced sparse model for tight frames in compressed sensing magnetic resonance imaging*]{}, PLOS ONE, 10 (2015), pp. 1–19, <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119584>.
, [*On semi-analytic and subanalytic geometry*]{}, in Panoramas of Mathematics ([W]{}arsaw, 1992/1994), vol. 34 of Banach Center Publ., Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 1995, pp. 89–104.
, [*Sparse [MRI]{}: the application of compressed sensing for rapid [MR]{} imaging*]{}, Magn. Reson. Med., 58 (2007), pp. 1182–1195, <https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21391>.
, [*Iterative reweighted algorithms for matrix rank minimization*]{}, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 13 (2012), pp. 3441–3473.
, [*Convex recovery of continuous domain piecewise constant images from nonuniform [F]{}ourier samples*]{}, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 66 (2018), pp. 236–250, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2017.2750111>.
, [*Recovery of piecewise smooth images from few fourier samples*]{}, in 2015 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA), May 2015, pp. 543–547, <https://doi.org/10.1109/SAMPTA.2015.7148950>.
, [*Super-resolution [MRI]{} using finite rate of innovation curves*]{}, in 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), April 2015, pp. 1248–1251, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2015.7164100>.
, [*Off-the-grid recovery of piecewise constant images from few [F]{}ourier samples*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 9 (2016), pp. 1004–1041, <https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1042280>.
, [*A fast algorithm for convolutional structured low-rank matrix recovery*]{}, IEEE Trans. Comput. Imag., 3 (2017), pp. 535–550, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TCI.2017.2721819>.
, [*Sampling curves with finite rate of innovation*]{}, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 62 (2014), pp. 458–471, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2013.2292033>.
, [*A combined first and second order variational approach for image reconstruction*]{}, J. Math. Imaging Vision, 48 (2014), pp. 308–338, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-013-0445-4>.
, [*Essai expérimental et analytique: sur les lois de la dilatabilite des fluids elastiques et sur celles della force expansive de la vapeur de l’eau et de la vapeur de l’alkool, à differentes temperatures*]{}, J. Ec. Polytech. Paris, 1 (1795), pp. 24–76.
, [*Mr image reconstruction from highly undersampled k-space data by dictionary learning*]{}, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., 30 (2011), pp. 1028–1041, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2010.2090538>.
, [ *Super-resolution in magnetic resonance imaging: [A]{} review*]{}, Concept. Magn. Reson. A, 40A (2012), pp. 306–325, <https://doi.org/10.1002/cmr.a.21249>.
, [*Affine systems in [$L_2(\bold R^d)$]{}: the analysis of the analysis operator*]{}, J. Funct. Anal., 148 (1997), pp. 408–447, <https://doi.org/10.1006/jfan.1996.3079>.
, [*Wavelet frames and image restorations*]{}, in Proceedings of the [I]{}nternational [C]{}ongress of [M]{}athematicians. [V]{}olume [IV]{}, Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010, pp. 2834–2863.
, [*Introduction to Spectral Analysis*]{}, Prentice Hall, 1997.
, [*Near minimax line spectral estimation*]{}, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 61 (2015), pp. 499–512, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2014.2368122>.
, [*Data-driven tight frame for multi-channel images and its application to joint color-cepth image reconstruction*]{}, J. Oper. Res. Soc. China, 3 (2015), pp. 99–115, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40305-015-0074-2>.
, [*Precise semidefinite programming formulation of atomic norm minimization for recovering d-dimensional (d ≥ 2) off-the-grid frequencies*]{}, in 2014 Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA), Feb 2014, pp. 1–4, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ITA.2014.6804267>.
, [*A block coordinate descent method for regularized multiconvex optimization with applications to nonnegative tensor factorization and completion*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 6 (2013), pp. 1758–1789, <https://doi.org/10.1137/120887795>.
, [*Hankel matrix nuclear norm regularized tensor completion for [$N$]{}-dimensional exponential signals*]{}, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 65 (2017), pp. 3702–3717, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2017.2695566>.
, [*C[T]{} image reconstruction by spatial-[R]{}adon domain data-driven tight frame regularization*]{}, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 9 (2016), pp. 1063–1083, <https://doi.org/10.1137/16M105928X>.
, [*Coil compression for accelerated imaging with cartesian sampling*]{}, Magn. Reson. Med., 69 (2013), pp. 571–582, <https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24267>, <https://arxiv.org/abs/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mrm.24267>.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clearwater Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China ().
[^2]: Corresponding Author. School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai, 200092 China ().
[^3]: Corresponding Author. School of Data Science, Fudan University, 220 Handan Road, Shanghai, 200433 China ().
[^4]: Submitted to the editors DATE.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by recent developments in conformal field theory (CFT), we devise a Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method to calculate the moments of the partially transposed reduced density matrix at finite temperature. These are used to construct scale invariant combinations that are related to the [*negativity*]{}, a true measure of entanglement for two intervals embedded in a chain. These quantities can serve as witnesses of criticality. In particular, we study several scale invariant combinations of the moments for the 1D hard-core boson model. For two adjacent intervals unusual finite size corrections are present, showing parity effects that oscillate with a filling dependent period. These are more pronounced in the presence of boundaries. For large chains we find perfect agreement with CFT. Oppositely, for disjoint intervals corrections are more severe and CFT is recovered only asymptotically. Furthermore, we provide evidence that their exponent is the same as that governing the corrections of the mutual information. Additionally we study the 1D Bose-Hubbard model in the superfluid phase. Remarkably, the finite-size effects are smaller and QMC data are already in impressive agreement with CFT at moderate large sizes.'
author:
- 'Chia-Min Chung'
- Vincenzo Alba
- Lars Bonnes
- Pochung Chen
- 'Andreas M. Läuchli'
title: 'Entanglement negativity via replica trick: a Quantum Monte Carlo approach'
---
#### Introduction.— {#introduction. .unnumbered}
The quest for universality has long been a driving research theme at the border between condensed matter and quantum field theory. Recently, much progress has been achieved due to the deep relation between conformal field theory (CFT) and quantum entanglement [@osterloh2002; @holzhey1994; @vidal2003; @calabrese2004].
Given a bipartition of a system (in a pure state $|\psi\rangle$) into two parts $A$ and $B$, a measure of their mutual entanglement is the von Neumann entropy $S_1\equiv\operatorname{tr}\rho_A\log\rho_A$, with $\rho_A
\equiv\operatorname{tr}_B|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ the reduced density matrix for $A$. Alternatively, the so-called Renyi entropy $S_{n}\equiv-1/(n-1)
\log\operatorname{tr}\rho_A^{n}$ [@amico2008; @eisert2010; @calabrese2009c] are also valid entanglement measures.
It is now well established that the entropies contain [*universal*]{} information about 1D critical systems, namely the central charge [@holzhey1994; @vidal2003; @calabrese2004; @cardy2010a] of the underlying CFT. Moreover, if subsystem $A$ consists of two (or many) disjoint intervals, as $A\equiv A_1\cup A_2$, the mutual information, $I_{A_1:A_2}\equiv S_{A_1}+
S_{A_2}-S_{A_1\cup A_2}$, depends on the full operator content of a CFT [@caraglio2008; @furukawa2009; @calabrese2009a; @calabrese2009b; @calabrese2009c; @igloi2010; @fagotti2010; @fagotti2011; @fagotti2012; @alba2010; @alba2011; @calabrese2011; @coser2013].
However, as the subsystem $A_1\cup A_2$ is generally in a mixed state, the mutual information is not a measure of their entanglement but of all (quantum and classical) correlations between $A_1$ and $A_2$ [@wolf08]. Their entanglement, instead, can be quantified via the logarithmic [*negativity*]{} ${\cal E}$ [@vidal2002] $${\cal E}\equiv\log||\rho_A^{T_2}||=\log\operatorname{tr}|\rho_A^{T_2}|.$$ Here $\rho_A^{T_2}$ is the partially transposed reduced density matrix with respect to $A_2$ (formally $\langle\varphi_1\varphi_2|\rho_A^{T_2}
|\varphi_1'\varphi_2'\rangle\equiv\langle\varphi_1\varphi'_2|\rho_A|
\varphi_1'\varphi_2\rangle$, with $\{\varphi_1\}$, $\{\varphi_2\}$ being a basis for $A_1,A_2$).
Unlike the entropy, which contains non universal contributions, the negativity ${\cal E}$ is [*fully*]{} universal at a quantum critical point and, therefore, a useful tool to distinguish between different universality classes. This was originally argued on the basis of DMRG calculations [@wichterich2009; @wichterich2010], and it has been shown analytically only recently using CFT techniques [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a]. Furthermore, the negativity is attracting increasing attention in $D>1$ as an alternative indicator of topological order [@lee2013; @claudio2013].
In this work we investigate the scaling behavior of $\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n$, i.e. the $n-$th moment of $\rho_A^{T_2}$, from which the negativity can in principle be obtained as the analytic continuation [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a] ${\cal E}=\lim_{n\to 1}\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^{n}$ ($n\in{\mathbb N}$ even). Although not being proper entanglement measures, in 1D they provide universal information about critical systems. Specifically, for two adjacent intervals (cf. Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (a)) their scaling behavior depends solely on the central charge, whereas for disjoint ones (Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (c)) it can potentially reveal complete information about a CFT [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a].
#### Summary of results.— {#summary-of-results. .unnumbered}
We provide a novel Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) scheme to calculate the moments of the transposed density matrix, $\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n$, at finite temperature, using the replica trick (similarly to Monte Carlo approaches for the Renyi entropies [@caraglio2008; @alba2010; @gliozzi2010; @alba2011; @alba2013; @hastings2010; @melko2010; @singh2011; @isakov2011; @kaul2012; @inglis2013; @iaconis2013; @humeniuk2012; @chung13]). Our scheme generalizes that proposed in Ref. using [*classical*]{} Monte Carlo. While only universal features can be accessed easily via classical simulations, in QMC both universal and non universal aspects can be accessed directly. For instance, temperature is a tunable parameter in QMC, whereas this is not possible, in an easy manner, within the classical Monte Carlo scheme. Thus, the QMC approach is ideal for benchmarking future finite temperature CFT results. Interestingly, it should also be possible (in principle) to reconstruct the spectrum of $\rho_A^{T_2}$ (and hence the negativity), as we have demonstrated recently for the reduced density matrix in Ref. (see also Ref. ).
Instead of considering $\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n$, we introduce the combinations $r_n$ and $R_n$ (respectively for adjacent and disjoint intervals, see below for their definitions). These are scale invariant at a critical point and can be used as witnesses of exotic (topological) critical behaviors (similarly to Binder cumulants [@binder1981] for standard criticality).
To be specific, here we consider 1D hard-core bosons (at half and quarter filling) and the Bose-Hubbard chain in the superfluid phase. Both are special instances of the Luttinger liquid, which is a $c=1$ CFT. Surprisingly, for hard-core bosons, despite integrability, it is a formidable challenge to calculate analytically $\rho_A^{T_2}$ (in contrast with the case of free bosons [@audenaert2002]).
At low enough temperature, we find that $r_n$ is in excellent agreement with CFT [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a] for large enough chains, while at small sizes [*unusual*]{} (in the sense of Ref. [@cardy2010b]) corrections are present. These arise from the [*local*]{} breaking of conformal invariance near the endpoints of the intervals, and are generic for entanglement-related quantities and show parity oscillations alike standard Renyi entropies [@nienhuis2009; @calabrese2010a; @calabrese2010b]. Detailed knowledge of these corrections is imperative with respect to the application of entanglement related tools as indicators of critical behavior. For hard-care bosons we provide convincing evidence that the leading exponent of these corrections in the two-interval case – where unusual contributions are generally stronger – is $\omega'_n=2/n$. This suggests that $\omega'_n=2K_L/n$ in a generic Luttinger liquid (here $K_L$ is the Luttinger parameter) wich is the same as for the mutual information [@alba2010; @alba2011]. Finally, in the Bose-Hubbard chain scaling corrections are smaller and we find perfect agreement with CFT predictions already at finite but large enough lattices.
![Geometrical setup (chain partitions) used in this work: two adjacent intervals ($A_1$, $A_2$) of equal length $\ell$ embedded in a chain (of length $L$) with periodic (a) and open (b) boundary conditions. (c) Two disjoint intervals. []{data-label="fig1:geometry"}](figure1){width="0.92\columnwidth"}
#### Models & observables.— {#models-observables. .unnumbered}
We mainly consider the (integrable) 1D hard-core boson (at most one particle per lattice site) model with $L$ sites, which is defined by the Hamiltonian ${\mathcal H} = -t\sum_{i} (b_i^\dagger b_{i+1} +h.c.)$. Here $b_i$ are bosonic annihilation operators and $t=1$ is the hopping amplitude. In particular we work at half and quarter fillings. We also consider the 1D Bose-Hubbard model given by the Hamiltonian ${\mathcal H} = -t\sum_{i=1}
(b_i^\dagger b_{i+1} +h.c.) + U/2 \sum_{i} n_i ( n_i-1)$, where $U$ is the interaction strength. Specifically we restrict ourselves to the superfluid phase at unit filling and fix $U=2$ (the Mott-superfuid transition being at $U\approx 3.38$ [@kuhner1998]). The low energy properties of both models are captured by a gapless Luttinger liquid. For hard-core boson model the Luttinger parameters $K_L=1$, while for Bose-Hubbard model $K_L\approx 3.125$ at $U=2$ [@rachel2012; @lauchli2013]. For two adjacent intervals \[cf. Fig. \[fig1:geometry\](a),(b)\] we define (following [@calabrese2012]) the ratios $r_n$ ($n\in{\mathbb N}$) $$\label{rn}
r_n(z)\equiv\log\left[\frac{\operatorname{tr}(\rho^{T_2=\ell}_{A_1\cup A_2})^n}
{\operatorname{tr}(\rho^{T_2=L/4}_{A_1\cup A_2})^n}\right],$$ with $z\equiv\ell/L$ [^1]. Here the notation $\rho^{T_2=\ell}$ means that the partial transposition is done with respect to the degrees of freedom of subsystem $A_2$ of length $\ell$ (see Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (a)(b)). For two disjoint intervals it is convenient to define $R_n$ as $$\label{Rn}
R_n(y)\equiv \frac{\operatorname{tr}(\rho^{T_2}_{A_1\cup A_2})^n}
{\operatorname{tr}\rho_{A_1\cup A_2}^n},$$ where $y$ is the four point ratio $y\equiv|(x_2-x_1)(x_4-x_3)|/
|(x_3-x_1)(x_4-x_2)|$ \[see Fig. \[fig1:geometry\](c)\], and one has $|x_i-x_j|\to L/\pi\sin(\pi|x_i-x_j|/L)$ (chord length) for finite chains. By construction, all the length scales and non universal factors cancel in Eqs. and . As a consequence $r_n(z)$ and $R_n(y)$ are scale invariant quantities (for any $n,z,y$) at criticality apart from scaling corrections at finite $L,\ell$. Moreover, while $r_n(z)$ depends only on the central charge, much more universal information is contained in $R_n(y)$.
![Replica trick scheme for calculating the $n$th moment (here $n=3$) of $\rho_A^{T_2}$ in Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations. Left: three disconnected replicas (of area $L\times
\beta$). On each replica periodic boundary conditions are used along the imaginary time direction $\hat\tau$. Right: Topology of ${\mathcal K}_3$ for two adjacent intervals. Colored links now connect points on different replicas. Regions corresponding to different intervals $A_1,A_2$ (see Fig. \[fig1:geometry\]) are shaded with different colors. []{data-label="fig2:wld"}](figure2){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
#### The moments of $\rho_A^{T_2}$: QMC algorithm.— {#the-moments-of-rho_at_2-qmc-algorithm. .unnumbered}
The moments of the partially transposed reduced density matrix $\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n$ can be measured in Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations by exploiting a suitable replica representation. Given a generic lattice model, one has [@calabrese2012] $$\label{replica_rep}
\operatorname{tr}(\rho_{A_1\cup A_2}^{T_2})^n =\frac{Z_n^{T_2}(A_1\cup A_2)}{Z^n},$$ where $Z=\operatorname{tr}\exp(-\beta H)$ is the partition function at temperature $T=1/\beta$, while $Z_n^{T_2}$ is defined over an [*ad hoc*]{} surface ${\mathcal K}_n$, obtained by “gluing” $n$ disconnected replicas. For $n=3$ and two adjacent intervals ${\mathcal K}_n$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig2:wld\] (right), and is formally obtained by introducing an equal-time branch cut (lying along subsystem $A$) at $\tau=k\beta,
k=1,2,\dots,n$ on each replica. Links crossing the branch cuts (colored links in Fig. \[fig2:wld\] (right)) connect sites on different replicas. The “gluing” scheme is different for the two intervals $A_1,A_2$, reflecting the partial transposition on $A_2$.
The ratio in Eq. can be sampled using a world-line based QMC. Here we use a continuous time world algorithm [@prokofev98a; @prokofev98b; @Pollet2007] (extensions to other QMC schemes are straightforward), supplementing the standard world line update with a non-local move. Given that the system is on $\mathcal{K}_n$ \[cf. Fig. \[fig2:wld\] (right)\], the move tries to cut all the world lines at $k\beta^{+}$ and $k\beta^{-}$, creating new ones connecting sites at $k\beta^{+}$ and $(k+1)\beta^{-}$, as in Fig. \[fig2:wld\] (left) (note the periodicity in imaginary time). If the move is possible, the global topology is changed from $\mathcal{K}_n$ to $n$ disconnected sheets. The inverse move from $n$ disconnected sheets to $\mathcal{K}_n$ is performed in a similar fashion. Finally, one measures $\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n=\langle N^{c}_A/N^{dis}_{A}
\rangle$, where $N^{c}_{A}$ and $N^{dis}_A$ are the total number of QMC steps happening on the connected replicas ${\mathcal K}_n$ and disconnected sheets respectively, and $\langle\cdot\rangle$ is the Monte Carlo average.
Upon increasing the length of $A$ as well as the replica index $n$ the transition probabilities in the global update become small, severely limiting the performance of the algorithm. To circumvent these issues we use the so called *increment tricks* [@hastings2010; @chung13].
#### Two adjacent intervals.— {#two-adjacent-intervals. .unnumbered}
![ Two adjacent intervals: We show QMC data for $r_3$ versus $z\equiv\ell/L$ for a periodic chain of length $L=150$ of hard-core bosons at half filling for different temperatures. The dashed-dotted line is the zero temperature CFT result. Note that the crossing at $z=1/4$ is merely due to the definition of $r_n$. Inset: $\ell^{-1}S_3^{T_2}$ versus $z$ (QMC data) showing that the transposed Renyi entropy exhibits a volume law already at $T \sim 1$. []{data-label="fig3:r3"}](figure3){width="0.93\columnwidth"}
As a benchmark of the algorithm we first focus on two adjacent (equal-size) intervals \[cf. Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (a,b)\], discussing the scaling invariant ratios $r_n$ ($n=3,4$). Fig. \[fig3:r3\] plots $r_3$ as function of $z\equiv \ell/L$ (data for a periodic hard-core boson chain of length $L=150$ and several temperatures). At $T=0$, $r_n(z)$ (for any $n$) can be obtained analytically using Eq. and in any CFT one has [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a; @calabrese2013b] $$\begin{aligned}
& \nonumber\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^{n_e} \propto (\ell_1\ell_2)^{-\frac{c}{6}
(\frac{n_e}{2}-\frac{2}{n_e})}(\ell_1+\ell_2)^{-\frac{c}{6}(\frac{n_e}{2}+
\frac{1}{n_e})}\\
& \operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^{n_o} \propto (\ell_1\ell_2(\ell_1+\ell_2))^{-
\frac{c}{12}(n_o-\frac{1}{n_o})},
\label{adjacent_scal}\end{aligned}$$ with $\ell_i$ the two intervals lengths, $n_e$($n_o$) an even(odd) integer, and $c$ the central charge. The resulting theoretical curve (after replacing $\ell_i\to L/\pi\sin(\pi\ell_i/L)$ in Eq. ) is plotted in Fig. \[fig3:r3\] as a dashed-dotted line. At $T=0.006$, QMC data perfectly agree with CFT (i.e. scaling corrections are small). Interestingly, $r_3$ provides an effective way of extracting $c$. Indeed, fitting QMC data to Eq. , one obtains $c=0.98(5)$, fully compatible with $c=1$. On the other hand, finite temperature effects are already visible at $T=0.02$.
![Scaling corrections of $r_3$ and $r_4$: parity and boundary effects. $r_3$ (top) and $r_4$ (bottom) from QMC as function of $z\equiv\ell/L$ at fixed $L=48$ and $T=0.01$ for a periodic chain of hard-core bosons at half (circles) and quarter (squares) filling. The dashed-dotted line is the zero temperature CFT result (same as in Fig. \[fig3:r3\]). Inset: same as in the main figure but for open boundary conditions. The amplitude of the corrections is enhanced. []{data-label="fig4:r3open"}](figure4){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
It is also instructive to consider the “transposed entropy” $S_n^{T_2}
\equiv-\log\operatorname{tr}(\rho_A^{T_2})^n$ (see the inset in Fig. \[fig3:r3\]). At $T\to\infty$ one expects (for the infinite chain) a thermodynamic volume law $S_n=S_n^{T_2}=2\ell\log 2,\forall n$. This is already visible at $T\sim 10$ reflecting that $\rho_A$ is almost diagonal. Since at high temperature only classical correlations survive, this implies that $S_n^{T_2}$ is not a good entanglement measure.
#### Unusual scaling corrections.— {#unusual-scaling-corrections. .unnumbered}
One intriguing feature of entanglement related quantities is that they exhibit unusual finite size scaling corrections [@cardy2010b]. These arise from conical singularities near the endpoints of the subsystems, and can depend on both irrelevant and [*relevant*]{} operators (in the renormalization group sense) of the theory, whereas usual corrections are due only to irrelevant ones.
For Luttinger liquid unusual corrections lead to parity oscillations of the Renyi entropies that can be given as [@calabrese2010a; @calabrese2010b] $$\label{scal_ansatz}
S_n(\ell)-S_n^{CFT}(\ell)= f_n\cos(2k_F\ell)\ell^{-\omega_n},$$ with $f_n$ a nonuniversal amplitude and $k_F$ the Fermi momentum. Notably, $\omega_n$ depends on the Luttinger parameter $K_L$ as well as on the Renyi index (and thus on the global geometry) as $\omega_n=(2)K_L/n$ for the open (periodic) case. It is natural to expect similar corrections for $S_n^{T_2}$ (and for $r_n(z)$ thereof). This is supported in Fig. \[fig4:r3open\] plotting QMC data for $r_3$ and $r_4$ as function of $z$ showing data for both periodic and open boundary conditions at fixed $L=48$, and half and quarter filling ($k_F=\pi/2$ and $k_F=\pi/4$). Clearly, scaling corrections oscillate consistently with $\sim\cos 2k_F\ell$ (for both open and periodic boundary conditions), in agreement with a generalization of Eq. to the case of two intervals. Interestingly, as for the standard entropies [@laflorencie2006; @affleck2009], the corrections amplitude is enhanced (for $r_3$ by a factor $\sim 10$) with open boundary conditions (cf. insets in Fig. \[fig4:r3open\]).
![1D hard-core bosons: the ratio $R_3(y)$. QMC data at half-filling, chain lengths $L=24,48,96$ (periodic boundary conditions), and temperatures $T=0.24/L$. (a) $R_3(y)$ vs cross ratio $y$. The dotted line highlights the oscillating behavior. The dashed-dotted line is the zero temperature CFT result. Inset: $d_3\equiv
R^{CFT}_3-R_3$ (at fixed $y$) versus $\ell^{-2/3}$, $\ell$ being the intervals size. Dashed lines are one parameter fits to $\sim\ell^{-2/3}$. (b) Amplitude $d_3 \ell^{2/3}$ of the corrections plotted versus $y$. Note the data collapse with the functions $g_3^{(q)}(y)$, $q$ being the parity of $\ell$. []{data-label="fig5:R3"}](figure5){width="0.92\columnwidth"}
#### Two disjoint intervals.— {#two-disjoint-intervals. .unnumbered}
We now turn to the more complicated situation of two disjoint intervals in a periodic chain (see Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (c)), focusing on the ratio $R_3(y)$ (see Eq. ). In the asymptotic limit (after sending all the length scales to infinity), for any model described by a CFT it is given as [@calabrese2012; @calabrese2013a] $$\label{Rn_CFT}
R^{CFT}_n(y) =(1-y)^{\frac{c}{3}(n-\frac{1}{n})}\frac{
\mathcal{F}_n(y/(y-1))}{\mathcal{F}_n(y)}$$ with $y$ the four point ratio, $c$ the central charge, and ${\mathcal F}_n(x)$ a [*universal*]{} scaling function, which depends on the full operator content of the underlying CFT. The analytical form of ${\mathcal F}_n(x)$ is known only for the Luttinger liquid and the 1D Ising universality class (see Refs. [@alba2010; @calabrese2009a; @calabrese2011] for their precise expression).
$R_3(y)$ versus $y$ for hard-core bosons at quarter and half filling is shown in Fig. \[fig5:R3\] (a) Different values of $y$ on $x$-axis are obtained by varying the length of the two intervals at fixed $d=L/2$ (cf. Fig. \[fig1:geometry\] (c)). The dashed-dotted line is the asymptotic CFT result from Eq. . In the limit $y\to 0$, i.e. two intervals far apart ($d-\ell\to\infty$ in Fig. \[fig1:geometry\]), one has $\rho_{A_1\cup A_2}
\approx\rho_{A_1}\otimes\rho_{A_2}$, implying $R_n\to 1$. Oppositely, at $y\to 1$ the case of two adjacent intervals is recovered, and from Eq. one has $R_n\to 0$.
For finite chains we find oscillating corrections that are similar to those of the mutual information between two disjoint intervals [@alba2010; @fagotti2010; @alba2011; @maurizio2011; @fagotti2011; @fagotti2012]). Under general assumptions, for any $n$ their behavior can be given as $$\label{corr}
R_n(y)=R_n^{CFT}(y)+ g^{(q)}_n(y)\ell^{-\omega'_n}+\dots,$$ with $\omega'_n$ being the corrections exponent, and $g^{(q)}_n(y)$ their amplitude, which depends on both $y$ and the parity $q$ of the interval length (the dots in Eq. denote more irrelevant terms).
![Bose-Hubbard chain in the superfluid phase: scale invariant ratio $R_3(y)$ versus the cross ratio $y$. QMC data are for a periodic chain at $U=2$ (corresponding to Luttinger parameter $K_L\approx 3.125$), and temperatures $T=0.96/L$. The dashed-dotted line is the asymptotic zero temperature CFT result. []{data-label="fig6:R3BH"}](figure6){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
A standard finite size scaling analysis, fitting QMC data at fixed $y=1/2$ to $\sim1/\ell^{\omega'_3}$, gives $\omega'_3=0.6(1)$, which is consistent with $\omega'_3=\omega_3=2K_L/3=2/3$ (see Eq. ). This is further supported in Fig. \[fig5:R3\] (inset) plotting $d_3\equiv R_3^{CFT}-R_3$ at fixed $y$ versus $\ell^{-2/3}$. Dashed lines are one parameter fits to $\sim\ell^{-2/3}$. The amplitudes $g^{(q)}_3(y)$ (extracted as $g_3^{(q)}\equiv
d_3\ell^{2/3}$) are shown in Fig. \[fig5:R3\] (b), and are rapidly vanishing at $y\to 0$. Also, data for different sizes collapse on the two curves, confirming [*a posteriori*]{} the correctness of our analysis.
Finally, to demonstrate the versatility of our QMC approach, we discuss $R_3(y)$ in the superfluid Bose-Hubbard model on a periodic chain. Already at $L=96$ QMC data are in impressive agreement (at any $0\le y\le 1$) with the asymptotic CFT result (dashed-dotted line in the Fig. \[fig6:R3BH\]). This confirms that scaling corrections to $R_n(y)$ become smaller upon increasing the Luttinger parameter, (similarly to what has been observed in Ref. ).
#### Summary & discussion.— {#summary-discussion. .unnumbered}
We presented a Quantum Monte Carlo scheme for calculating the moments of the partially transposed reduced density matrix, both at zero and finite temperature. These are the main ingredients in CFT to calculate the logarithmic negativity. We considered several combinations ($r_n,R_n$) of the moments that are scale invariant at a 1D quantum critical point, and, not relying on any local order parameter, could be useful to detect exotic (topological) critical behavior. After taking into account unusual (oscillating) scaling corrections, their behavior is in full agreement with recent CFT results, for both 1D hard-core bosons and the 1D Bose-Hubbard model.
Our results pave the way to many possible research directions. First, it would be interesting to apply the method to higher dimensions, especially to investigate the behavior of $r_n,R_n$ in topologically ordered phases of matter.
Also, it should be possible to obtain high-temperature series expansions (in any dimension) for the moments of $\rho_A^{T_2}$ and the negativity itself. Our QMC scheme could then be used as a useful benchmark method.
#### Acknowledgements.— {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
We acknowledge support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the SFB FoQuS (FWF Project No. F4018-N23). We acknowledge financial support and allocation of CPU time from NSC and NCTS Taiwan. This work was supported by the Austrian Ministry of Science BMWF as part of the UniInfrastrukturprogramm of the Forschungsplattform Scientific Computing at LFU Innsbruck.
[57]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/416608a) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90402-2) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.227902) [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2004/06/P06002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8121/42/50/500301) [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/10/P10004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/11/076) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.170602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2009/11/P11001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/42/50/504005) [****, ()](\doibase doi:10.1209/0295-5075/89/40001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/04/P04016) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2011/01/P01017) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1209/0295-5075/97/17007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.060411) [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2011/06/P06012) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2011/01/P01021) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.070502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.010304) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032311) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.130502) [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2013/02/P02008) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.042319) [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/01/P01002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2013/05/P05013) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.157201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.100409) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.135701) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2036) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-030212-184215) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.013306) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.195134) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.235116) @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.693) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.042327) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/04/P04023) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2009/02/P02063) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.095701) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2010/08/P08029) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.R14741) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.116401) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1134/1.558661) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0375-9601(97)00957-2) @noop [****, ()]{} [ ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2013/05/P05002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.100603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/42/50/504009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2011/01/P01017)
[^1]: Choosing $\ell=L/4$ in the denominator of the definition of $r_n(z)$ ensures that non-universal contributions cancel in the thermodynamic limit [@calabrese2012]. This covention leads, for instance, to a crossing of $r_3$ at $z=1/4$ (see Fig. \[fig3:r3\]) that must not be taken as an indicator of universality at this specific value of $z$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Deep Convolution Neural Networks (DCNNs) are capable of learning unprecedentedly effective image representations. However, their ability in handling significant local and global image rotations remains limited. In this paper, we propose Active Rotating Filters (ARFs) that actively rotate during convolution and produce feature maps with location and orientation explicitly encoded. An ARF acts as a virtual filter bank containing the filter itself and its multiple unmaterialised rotated versions. During back-propagation, an ARF is collectively updated using errors from all its rotated versions. DCNNs using ARFs, referred to as Oriented Response Networks (ORNs), can produce within-class rotation-invariant deep features while maintaining inter-class discrimination for classification tasks. The oriented response produced by ORNs can also be used for image and object orientation estimation tasks. Over multiple state-of-the-art DCNN architectures, such as VGG, ResNet, and STN, we consistently observe that replacing regular filters with the proposed ARFs leads to significant reduction in the number of network parameters and improvement in classification performance. We report the best results on several commonly used benchmarks [[^1]]{}.'
author:
- Yanzhao Zhou
- Qixiang Ye
- Qiang Qiu
- Jianbin Jiao
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Oriented Response Networks
---
Introduction
============
The problem of orientation information encoding has been extensively investigated in hand-crafted features, , Gabor features [@Haley1995; @Han2007], HOG [@Dalal2005], and SIFT [@Lowe1999]. In Deep Convolution Neural Networks (DCNNs), the inherent properties of convolution and pooling alleviate the effect of local transitions and warps; however, lacking the capability to handle large image rotation limits DCNN’s performance in many visual tasks including object boundary detection [@Hallman2015; @Maninis2016], multi-oriented object detection [@Cheng2016], and image classification [@Jaderberg2015; @Laptev2016].
![ An ARF is a filter of the size $W \times W\times N$, and viewed as N-directional points on a $W \times W$ grid. The form of the ARF enables it to effectively define relative rotations, , the head rotation of a bird about its body. An ARF actively rotates during convolution; thus it acts as a virtual filter bank containing the canonical filter itself and its multiple unmaterialised rotated versions. In this example, the location and orientation of birds in different postures are captured by the ARF and explicitly encoded into a feature map. []{data-label="fig:cover"}](NewCover.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Due to the lack of ability in fully understanding rotations, the most straightforward way for DCNN to decrease its loss is “learning by rote”. The visualization of convolutional filters [@Erhan2009; @Zeiler2014] indicates that different rotated versions of one identical image structure are often redundantly learned in low-level, middle-level, and relatively high-level filters, such as those in the VGG-16 model trained on ImageNet [@Deng2009]. When object parts rotate relatively to objects themselves, , bird’s head to its body, it requires learning multiple combinations of each orientation-distinct component with more convolutional filters. In such cases, the network could give up understanding the concept of the whole object and tend to use a discriminative part of it to make the final decisions [@Zhou2015]. The learning-by-rote strategy needs a larger number of parameters to generate orientation-redundant filters, significantly increasing both the training time and the risk of network over-fitting. Besides, the training data is not sufficiently utilized since the limited instances are implicitly split into subsets, which could increase the possibility of filter under-fitting. To alleviate such a problem, data augmentation, , rotating each training sample into [multi-oriented versions]{}, is often used. Data augmentation improves the learning performance by extending the training set. However, it usually requires more network parameters and higher training cost.
In this paper, we propose Active Rotating Filters (ARFs) and leverage Oriented Response Convolution (ORConv) to generate feature maps with orientation channels that explicitly encode the location and orientation information of discriminative patterns. Compared to conventional filters, ARFs have an extra dimension to define the arrangement of oriented structures. During the convolution, each ARF rotates and produces feature maps to capture the response of receptive fields from multiple orientations, as shown in Fig. \[fig:cover\]. The feature maps with orientation channels carry the oriented response along with the hierarchical network to produce high-level representations, endowing DCNNs the capability of capturing global/local rotations and the generalization ability for rotated samples never seen before.
Instead of introducing extra functional modules or new network topologies, our method implements the prior knowledge of rotation to the most basic element of DCNNs, , the convolution operator. Thus, it can be naturally fused with modern DCNN architectures, upgrading them to more expressive and compact Oriented Response Networks (ORNs). With the orientation information that ORNs produce, we can either apply SIFT-like feature alignment to achieve rotation invariance or perform image/object orientation estimation. The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
We specified Active Rotating Filters and Oriented Response Convolution, improved the most fundamental module of DCNN and endowed DCNN the capability of explicitly encoding hierarchical orientation information. We further applied such orientation information to rotation-invariant image classification and object orientation estimation.
We upgraded successful DCNNs including VGG, ResNet, TI-Pooling and STN to ORNs, achieving state-of-the-art performance with significantly fewer network parameters on popular benchmarks.
Related Works
=============
Hand-crafted features.
----------------------
Orientation information has been explicitly encoded in classical hand-crafted features including Weber’s Law descriptor [@Chen2010], Gabor features [@Haley1995; @Han2007], SIFT [@Lowe1999], and LBP [@Ojala2002; @Ahonen2006]. SIFT descriptor [@Lowe1999] and its modification with affine-local regions [@Lazebnik2004] find the dominant orientation of a feature point, according to which statistics of local gradient directions of image intensities are accumulated to give a summarizing description of local image structures. With dominant orientation based feature alignment, SIFT achieves invariance to rotation and robustness to moderate perspective transforms [@Bicego2006; @Goesele2007]. Starting from the gray values of a circularly symmetric neighbor set of pixels in a local neighborhood, LBP derives an operator that is by definition invariant against any monotonic transformation of the gray scale [@Ojala2002; @Ahonen2006]. Rotation invariance is achieved by minimizing the LBP code value using the bit cyclic shift. Other representative descriptors including CF-HOG [@Skibbe2012] that uses orientation alignment and RI-HOG [@Liu2014] that leverages radial gradient transform to be rotation invariant.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.
-----------------------------------
Deep Convolution Neural Networks have the capability of processing transforms including moderate transitions, scale changes, and small rotations. Such capability is endowed with the inherent properties of convolutional operations, redundant convolutional filters, and hierarchical spatial pooling [@Scherer2010; @Jaderberg2015]. More general pooling operations [@Lee2016] permit to consider invariance to local deformation that however does not correspond to specific prior knowledge.
**Data augmentation.** Given rich, and often redundant, convolutional filters, data augmentation can be used to achieve local/global transform invariance [@VanDyk2012]. Despite the effectiveness of data augmentation, the main drawback lies in that learning all the possible transformations of augmented data usually requires more network parameters, which significantly increases the training cost and the risk of over-fitting. Most recent TI-Pooling [@Laptev2016] alleviates the drawbacks by using parallel network architectures for the considered transform set and applying the transform invariant pooling operator on their outputs before the top layer. The essence of TI-Pooling comprises multi-instance learning and weight sharing which help to find the most optimal canonical instance of the input images for training, as well as reducing the redundancy in learned networks. Nevertheless, with built-in data augmentation, TI-Pooling requires significantly more training and testing cost than a standard DCNN.
**Spatial Transform Network.** Representatively, the spatial transformer network (STN) [@Jaderberg2015] introduces an additional network module that can manipulate the feature maps according to the transform matrix estimated with a localisation sub-CNN. STN contributes a general framework for spatial transform, but the problem about how to precisely estimate the complex transform parameters by CNN remains not being well-solved [@Goodfellow2014; @Radford2015]. In [@Kivinen2011; @Schmidt2012], the Convolutional Restricted Boltzmann Machine (C-RBM) induces transformation-aware filters, , it yields filters that have a notion with which specific image transformation they are used. From the view of group theory, Cohen [@Cohen2016] justified that the spatial transform of images could be reflected in both feature maps and filters, providing a theoretical foundation for our work. Most recent works [@Wu2015; @Marcos2016] have tried rotating conventional filters to perform rotation-invariant texture and image classification; however, without upgrading conventional filters to multi-oriented filters with orientation channels, their capability about capturing hierarchical and fine-detailed orientation information remains limited.
Oriented Response Networks
==========================
Oriented Response Networks (ORNs) are deep convolutional neural networks using Active Rotating Filters (ARFs). An ARF is a filter that actively rotates during convolution to produce a feature map with multiple orientation channels. Thus, an ARF acts as a virtual filter bank with only one filter being materialized and learned. With ARFs, ORNs require significantly fewer network parameters with negligible computation overhead and enable explicitly hierarchical orientation information encoding.
In what follows, we address three problems in adopting ARFs in DCNN. First, we construct a two-step technique to efficiently rotate an ARF based on the circular shift property of Fourier Transform. Second, we describe convolutions that use ARFs to produce feature maps with location and orientation explicitly encoded. Third, we show how all rotated versions of an ARF contribute to its learning during the back-propagation update stage.
Active Rotating Filters {#sec:ARF}
-----------------------
An Active Rotating Filter (ARF) is a filter of the size $W \times W \times N$ that actively rotates $N-1$ times during convolution to produce a feature map of $N$ orientation channels, Fig. \[fig:RotARF\]. Therefore, an ARF $\mathcal{F}$ can be virtually viewed as a bank of $N$ filters ($N \times W \times W \times N$), where only the canonical filter $\mathcal{F}$ itself is materialized and to be learned, and the remaining $N-1$ filters are its unmaterialized copies. The $n$-th filter in such [a]{} filter bank, $n \in [1, N-1]$, is obtained by clockwise rotating $\mathcal{F}$ by $\frac{2\pi n}{N}$.
An ARF contains $N$ orientation channels and is viewed as $N$-directional points on a $W \times W$ grid. Each element in an ARF $\mathcal{F}$ can be accessed with $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{ij}}^{(n)}$ where $0 \leq |i|,|j| \leq \frac{W-1}{2}, 0 \leq n \leq N-1, i,j,n \in \mathbb{N}$. An ARF $\mathcal{F}$ is clockwise rotated by $\theta$ to yield its rotated variant $\mathcal{F}_{\theta}$ through the following two steps, coordinate rotation and orientation spin.
**Coordinate Rotation**. An ARF rotates around the origin $O$, Fig. \[fig:RotARF\], and the point at $(p,q)$ in $\mathcal{F}_{\theta}$ is calculated from four neighbors around $(p',q')$ in $\mathcal{F}$, $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}p'&q'\end{smallmatrix}\right)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}p&q\end{smallmatrix}\right)
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}cos(\theta)&sin(\theta)\\-sin(\theta)&cos(\theta)\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, using bilinear interpolation $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}} &= (1-\mu)(1-\omega)\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{uv}} +
(1-\mu)\omega\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{u,v+1}} \\
&+ \mu(1-\omega)\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{u+1,v}} + \mu\omega\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{u+1,v+1}},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Interpolation}$$ where $u=\lfloor p' \rfloor, v=\lfloor q' \rfloor, \mu = p'-u, \omega = q'-v$. Note that points outside the inscribed circle are padded with 0.
**Orientation Spin**. As discussed, an ARF can be viewed as $N$-directional points on a grid. Each $N$-directional point $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}}$ is the $N$-points uniform sampling of a desired oriented response $\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}(\alpha)$, which is a continuous periodic function of angle $\alpha$ with period $2\pi$. After the coordinates rotation, it still requires a clockwise spin by $\theta$ to yield $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{\theta, pq}}$, which is, in fact, the quantization of $\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}(\alpha-\theta)$, [Fig. \[fig:RotARF\]]{}. Therefore, such spin procedure can be efficiently tackled in Fourier domain by using the circular shift property of Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFT), $$\begin{aligned}
X(k) &\equiv \mathbf{DFT}\{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}}^{(n)}\} \\
&= \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \overrightarrow{\mathcal{F'}_{\theta, pq}}^{(n)} e^{-j k \frac{2\pi n}{N}},
{\scriptstyle k=0,1,...,N-1}, \\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Spin}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{\theta, pq}}^{(n)} &\equiv \mathbf{IDFT}\{X(k)e^{-j k \theta}\} \\
&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}X(k)e^{j k (\frac{2\pi n}{N} - \theta) }, {\scriptstyle n=0,1,...,N-1}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Spin2}$$
To smoothly process all rotation angles, ARFs require a considerable amount of orientation channels. In practice, thanks to the orientation ‘interpolation’ by multi-layer pooling operations, we can use a limited amount of orientations to guarantee the accuracy. The successful practice of DCNNs, , VGG [@Simonyan2014] and ResNet [@He2015; @He2016], shows that the stacks of multiple small filters are more expressive and parameters-efficient than large filters. Moreover, when using the combination of small filters and a limited number of orientation channels, the computational complexity of rotating ARF can be further reduced, since both the coordinate rotation and the orientation spin can be calculated by the circular shift operator and implemented via high-efficient memory mapping under reasonable approximations. Take a $3\times3\times8$ ARF $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$ as an example, calculations of its $\theta$ clockwise rotated version $\hat{\mathcal{F}_{\theta}}$ are formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}'}_{\theta, \langle i \rangle}} &= \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}'}_{\langle (i-k)\
\mathbf{mod}\ N \rangle}}, {\scriptstyle i \in \mathcal{I}}, \\
\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{\theta}}^{(n)} &= \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}'}_{\theta}}^{((n-k)\
\mathbf{mod}\ N)}, {\scriptstyle n=0,1,...,N-1},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:SmallARF}$$ where $\forall{k} \in \mathbb{N}, \theta = k \frac{2\pi}{N}, N = 8$ and $\mathcal{I} = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}7&0&1\\6&
&2\\5&4&3\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is a mapping table that defines the index of each surrounding element, which means $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{\langle 0 \rangle}} \equiv \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{0,1}}$, $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{\langle 1 \rangle}} \equiv \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{1,1}}$, $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{\langle 2 \rangle}} \equiv \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{1,0}}$, $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{\langle 3 \rangle}} \equiv \overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{F}}_{1,-1}}$ and so on.
Given the above, we use $1\times1$ and $3\times3$ ARFs with $4$ and $8$ orientation channels in most experiments.
![ Example feature maps produced by one ARF at each layer of an ORN trained on the rotated MNIST dataset, with digit ‘4’ in different rotations as the inputs (one network layer per row, one input per column). The right-most column magnifies sample regions in feature maps. It clearly shows that a feature map explicitly encodes position and orientation. At the second layer, an image is extended to an omnidirectional map to fit ORConv. At the second-to-last (ORConv4) layer, deep features are observed in similar values but in different orientations, which demonstrates that orientation information is extracted by ORNs. The last (ORAlign) layer performs SIFT-like alignment to enable rotation-invariance (Best viewed zooming on screen). []{data-label="fig:OFTM"}](OTFMs.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Oriented Response Convolution
-----------------------------
An ARF actively rotates $N-1$ times during convolution to produce a feature map of $N$ orientation channels, and such feature map explicitly encodes both location and orientation information. As an ARF is defined as the size $W \times W \times N$, both an ARF $\mathcal{F}$ and an $N$-channel feature map $\mathcal{M}$ can be viewed as $N$-directional points on a grid. With ARF, we define the Oriented Response Convolution over $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{M}$, denoted as $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} = \mathbf{ORConv}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{M})$. The output feature map $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ consists of $N$ orientation channels and the $k$-th channel is computed as $$\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{(k)} = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\mathcal{F}_{\theta_k}^{(n)} \ast \mathcal{M}^{(n)},
\theta_k = k\frac{2\pi}{N}, {\scriptstyle k=0,...,N-1},
\label{eq:ORConv}$$ where $\mathcal{F}_{\theta_k}$ is the clockwise $\theta_k$-rotated version of $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{F}_{\theta_k}^{(n)}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{(n)}$ are the $n$-th orientation channel of $\mathcal{F}_{\theta_k}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ respectively.
According to (\[eq:ORConv\]), the $k$-th orientation channel of the output feature map $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ is generated by $\theta_k$ rotated versions of the materialised ARF. It means that in each oriented response convolution, the ARF proactively captures image response in multiple directions and explicitly encodes its location and orientation into a single feature map with multiple orientation channels, visualized in Fig. \[fig:OFTM\]. (\[eq:ORConv\]) also demonstrates that each orientation channel of the ARF contributes to the final convolutional response respectively, endowing ORNs the capability of capturing richer and more fine-detailed patterns than a regular CNN.
Updating Filters
----------------
During the back-propagation, error signals $\delta^{(k)}$ of all rotated versions of the ARF are aligned to $\delta^{(k)}_{-\theta_k}$ using (\[eq:Interpolation\]) and (\[eq:Spin\]), and aggregated to update the materialised ARF, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{(k)} &= \frac{\partial L}{\partial \mathcal{F}_{\theta_k}}, \theta_k = k\frac{2\pi}{N}, {\scriptstyle k=0,1,...,N-1}, \\
\mathcal{F} &\leftarrow \mathcal{F} - \eta\sum_0^{N-1} \delta^{(k)}_{-\theta_k},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Backprop}$$ where $L$ stands for training loss and $\eta$ for learning rate. An ARF acts as a virtual filter bank containing the materialized canonical filter itself and unmaterialised rotated versions. According to (\[eq:Backprop\]), the back-propagation collectively updates the materialised filter only, so that training errors of appearance-like but orientation-distinct samples are aggregated. In low-level layers, such collective updating contributes more significantly, as in a single image there exist many appearance-like but orientation-distinct patches that can be exploited. The collective updating also helps when only limited training samples are given. One example of a collectively updated ARF is shown in Fig. \[fig:ARF-Channels\].
![ A $31\times31\times16$ ARF learned from a texture dataset. It is shown in the N-directional points form (left) and further visualized as one orientation channel per image (right). The ARF clearly defines a texture pattern through a combination of multi-oriented edges (Best viewed zooming on screen). []{data-label="fig:ARF-Channels"}](Texture-ARF-Channels.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Rotation Invariant Feature Encoding {#sec:rot-inv-encoding}
-----------------------------------
Feature maps in ORNs are not rotation-invariant as orientation information are encoded instead of being discarded. When within-class rotation-invariance is required, we introduce two strategies, ORAlign and ORPooling, at the top layer of ORNs. For simplicity, we choose a DCNN architecture, where the size of a feature map gradually shrinks to $1 \times 1 \times N$. $N$ is the number of orientation channels. Each [feature map]{} of the last ORConv layer has a receptive field of image size and stands for the oriented response of high-level representative patterns.
The first strategy is the ORAlign. Without loss of generality, let us denote the $i$-th [feature map]{} of the last ORConv layer as $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}$ and each oriented response in it as $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}^{(n)}, 0 \leq n \leq N-1$. $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}$ is an $N$ dimension tensor records the response from different directions, with which we perform SIFT-like alignment to achieve rotation robustness. This is done by first calculating the dominant orientation (the orientation with the strongest response) as $D = {\underset{d}{\mathrm{argmax}}}\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}^{(d)}$ and spin the feature by $-D\frac{2\pi}{N}$, Fig. \[fig:OFTM\]. The second strategy is the ORPooling, which is done via simply pooling a $\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}$ to a scalar $\max(\overrightarrow{\hat{\mathcal{M}}\{i\}}^{(j)}),0<j<N-1$. This strategy reduces the feature dimension but loses feature arrangement information.
Experiments
===========
ORNs are evaluated on three benchmarks. In Sec. \[sec:MNIST-rot\], experiments on the MNIST dataset [@Liu2003] and its $[0,2\pi]$ randomly rotated versions are conducted, showing the advantage of ORNs through encoding rotation-invariant features, and reducing network parameters. ORNs are further tested on a small sample set of $[0,2\pi]$ rotated MNIST [@Larochelle2007] to validate its generalization ability on rotation. In Sec. \[sec:MNIST-estimate\], on a weakly-supervised orientation estimate task, the vast potential of directly taking advantage of the orientation information extracted by ORNs is demonstrated. In Sec. \[sec:CIFAR\], we upgrade the VGG [@Simonyan2014], ResNet [@He2015], and the WideResNet [@Zagoruyko2016] to ORNs, and [train]{} them on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 [@Krizhevsky2009], showing the state-of-the-art performance on the natural image classification task.
Rotation Invariance {#sec:MNIST-rot}
-------------------
Method time(s) params(%) original(%) rot(%) rot+(%) original $\rightarrow$ rot(%)
------------------------------- --------- ----------- ------------------ --------------- ---------- -------------------------------
Baseline CNN 16.4 100.00 0.73 2.82 2.19 56.28
STN(affine)[@Jaderberg2015] 18.5 100.40 0.61 2.52 1.82 56.44
STN(rotation)[@Jaderberg2015] 18.7 100.39 0.66 2.88 1.93 55.59
TIPooling(x8)[@Laptev2016] 126.7 100.00 $0.97^{\dagger}$ not permitted 1.26 not permitted
ORN-4(None) 7.9 15.91 0.63 1.88 1.55 59.67
ORN-4(ORPooling) 8 7.95 0.59 1.84 1.33 27.74
ORN-4(ORAlign) 8.1 15.91 **0.57** 1.69 1.34 27.92
ORN-8(None) 17.5 31.41 0.79 1.57 1.33 58.98
ORN-8(ORPooling) 17.9 12.87 0.66 **1.37** 1.21 16.67
ORN-8(ORAlign) 17.8 31.41 0.59 1.42 **1.12** **16.21**
![Comparison of network topologies.[]{data-label="fig:Topologies"}](Topologies.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
**Rotated MNIST.** We randomly rotate each sample in the MNIST dataset [@Liu2003] between $[0, 2\pi]$ to yield *MNIST-rot*. To assess the effect of data augmentation on different models, we further rotate each sample in the *MNIST-rot* training set to eight directions with 45-degree intervals, which means that the training set is augmented eightfold. The augmented data set is identified as *MNIST-rot*+.
We set up a baseline CNN with four convolutional layers and multiple 3x3 filters, Fig. \[fig:Topologies\]. With the baseline CNN, we generate different ORNs, as well as configuring the STNs [@Jaderberg2015] and the TI-Pooling network [@Laptev2016] for comparison. STNs are created by inserting a Spatial Transformer with affine or rotation transform to the entry of the baseline CNN. TIPooling network is constructed by duplicating the baseline CNN eight times to capture different augmented rotated versions of inputs, and a transform-invariant pooling layer before the output layer. ORNs are built by upgrading each convolution layer in the baseline CNN to Oriented Response Convolution layer using Active Rotating Filters (ARFs) with 4 or 8 orientation channels. Considering that ARFs are more expressive than conventional filters, the number of ARFs in each layer is decreased to one-eighth of those in the baseline. Corresponding to the strategies proposed in Sec. \[sec:rot-inv-encoding\], we use ORAlign, ORPooling or none of them to encode rotation-invariant features. The network topologies are shown in Fig. \[fig:Topologies\].
In network training, we use the same hyper-parameters as TI-Pooling [@Laptev2016], , 200 training epochs using the turning-free convergent adadelta algorithm [@Zeiler2012], 128 batch size, and 0.5 dropout rate for the fully-connected layer. For each dataset, we randomly selected 10,000 samples from the training set for validation and the remaining 50,000 samples for training. The best model selected by 5-fold cross-validation is then applied to the test set, and the final results are [presented]{} in Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\].
![Visualization of features in cross-generalization evaluation, corresponding to the last column of Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\].[]{data-label="fig:FeatureVis"}](Feat-joint.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
The second column of Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\] shows that ORN keeps high training efficiency. The ORN-4 (4 orientation channels) uses only 50% training time while ORN-8 uses similar training time with the baseline CNN. In [contrast]{}, TIPooling increases the time by about eight times as each sample is augmented to 8 orientations. From the third to the last column of Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\], it can be seen that ORNs can use significantly fewer network parameters (7.95%-31.4%) to consistently improve the performance. Even on the original dataset without sample rotations, it achieves 22% error rate decrease (0.57% vs 0.73%), as the digit curvatures are well modeled by ORN. Compared with the data augmentation strategy (baseline CNN on *rot+*), ORN (on *rot*) not only reduces network parameters and training cost but also achieves significant lower error rate (1.37% vs 2.19%).
Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\] also shows that different rotation-invariant encoding strategies have different advantages. ORPooling can further compress the feature dimension and network parameters, while ORAlign retains the complete feature structure thus achieves higher performance. Even without rotation-invariant encoding, ORNs outperforms the baseline on the *rot* and *rot+*, because ARFs can explicitly capture the response in different directions so that a pattern and its rotated versions can be encoded in the same feature map with orientation channels, Fig. \[fig:OFTM\]. It also can be seen in Fig. that the t-SNE [@Maaten2008] 2D mapping of features produced by ORN-8(None) constitutes clear clusters.
In Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\], the state-of-the-art spatial transform network, STN, has minor improvement on the *rot* while slightly increasing the number of parameters. The visualization of calibrated images shows that it often outputs wrong transform parameters. This validates our previous viewpoint: the conventional CNN used in STN lacks the capability to precisely estimate rotation parameters. In Sec. \[sec:MNIST-estimate\], we will show that ORN can better solve such a problem.
The last column of Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot\] presents the results of cross-generalization evaluation that trains models on the *MNIST-original* and tests them on the *MNIST-rot*. ORNs show impressing performance with 71% improvement over the baseline. Fig. shows that ORN-8(ORAlign) produces much clearer feature distribution in manifold than other networks.
An interesting experiment comes from the digit class ‘6’ and ‘9’. It can be seen in Fig. \[fig:RotFeatureVis\] that both CNN and STN have large within-class differences as the same digit with different angles produce various radii. Moreover, features generated by CNN and STN have apparently $180^o$ symmetrical distribution, which means that they can barely tell the difference between upside-down 6 and 9. In contrast, ORN-8(ORAlign) generates within-class rotation-invariant deep features, while maintaining inter-class discrimination.
Method Error(%)
-------------------------------------------- ----------
ScatNet-2 [@Bruna2013] 7.48
PCANet-2 [@Chan2015] 7.37
TIRBM [@Sohn2012] 4.2
CNN 4.34
ORN-8(ORAlign) **2.25**
TIPooling(with augmentation) [@Laptev2016] 1.93
OR-TIPooling(with augmentation) **1.54**
: Classification error rates on the *MNIST-rot-12k*.[]{data-label="tab:MNIST-rot-small"}
![ Visualization of features encoding of digit class ‘6’ and ‘9’ from *MNIST-rot*. Each point ($r, \theta$) corresponds to a sample where radius *r* is the 1-D tSNE feature mapping, and $\theta$ is the angle of the sample. ORN-8(ORAlign) produces within-class rotation-invariant deep features while maintaining inter-class discrimination. (Best viewed in color.) []{data-label="fig:RotFeatureVis"}](map_feat_rot-joint.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
**Rotated Small Sample Set.** A smaller dataset can better test the generalization capability of a learning model. We consider the *MNIST-rot-12k* dataset [@Larochelle2007] which contains 12,000 training samples and 50,000 test samples from the *MNIST-rot* dataset. Among them, 2000 training samples are used as the validation set and the remaining 10,000 samples as the training set.
In the dataset, we test the ORN-8 model that uses 8-orientation ARFs and an ORAlign operator. We also test the OR-TIPooling network, which is constructed by upgrading its parallel CNNs to ORN-8(None)s. The reason why we do not use ORAlign or ORPooling is that TIPooling itself has the invariant encoding operator. Tab. \[tab:MNIST-rot-small\] shows that ORN can decrease the state-of-the-art error rate from 4.2% to 2.25% using only 31% network parameters of the baseline CNN. Combined with TIPooling, ORN further decreases the error rate to 1.54%, achieving state-of-the-art performance, which shows that ORNs have good generalization capability for such reduced training sample cases.
Orientation Estimation {#sec:MNIST-estimate}
----------------------
ORN is evaluated on the weakly image orientation estimation problem, using the STN [@Jaderberg2015] as the baseline. The training images have only class labels but lack orientation annotation, which is estimated during learning. We upgrade the localisation sub-network of STN from a conventional CNN to ORN by converting Conv layers to ORConv layers which use ARFs with eight orientation channels. The STN model is simplified to process rotation only, which means that its localisation network estimates only a rotation parameter.
Method Std Error(%)
---------------------- ----------- ----------
STN [@Jaderberg2015] 0.745 3.38
OR-STN(ORAlign) 0.749 3.61
OR-STN **0.397** **2.43**
: Orientation estimation performance. The second column describes the standard deviation of calibrated orientations and the third column describes the classification error rates. []{data-label="tab:MNIST-orientation-estimate"}
![Orientation estimation. (a) is a mini-batch of samples from *MNIST-half-rot* and (b)-(d) are their rotation-rectified results.[]{data-label="fig:Estimation"}](Calibrate-joint.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
STN, OR-STN and OR-STN(ORAlign) are trained on the *MNIST-half-rot* dataset which is built by randomly rotating each sample in the MNIST dataset in the range $[-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}]$ (half the circle). All the networks use hyper-parameters as Sec. \[sec:MNIST-rot\] and are trained by only 80 epochs to make the localisation sub-network converge. The orientation estimation results are presented in Tab. \[tab:MNIST-orientation-estimate\], the rotation-rectified images are shown in Fig. \[fig:Estimation\], and angle statistics of rotation-rectified images are shown in Fig. \[fig:Distribution\]. It can be seen in Fig. that STN cannot effectively handle the large-angle rotation problem, because the localisation sub-network itself is a conventional CNN, lacking the ability to explicitly process significant rotation. When upgrading the localisation network of STN to ORN (without ORAlign), it can be seen in Fig. that most digit orientations are correctly estimated. In Fig. \[fig:Distribution:b\], it can be seen that the OR-STN(ORAlign) performs even worse than the baseline on orientation estimation, because after the feature alignment, features become rotation-invariant and thus lose orientation information. Tab. \[tab:MNIST-orientation-estimate\] shows that upgrading localisation sub-network to ORN significantly improves the performance. Such experiments validate that the ARFs can capture the orientation information of discriminative patterns and explicitly encode them into feature maps with orientation channels, which are effective for image orientation estimation.
Natural Image [Classification]{}
--------------------------------
Method depth-k params CIFAR10(%) CIFAR100(%)
--------------------------- -------------------- -------- ------------ -------------
NIN [@Lin2014] - - 8.81 35.67
DSN [@Lee2015] - - 8.22 34.57
Highway [@Srivastava2015] - - 7.72 32.39
ELU [@Clevert2015] - - 6.55 24.28
VGG [@Simonyan2014] 16 20.1M 6.32 28.49
**OR-VGG** 16-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ 10.1M 5.47 27.03
ResNet [@He2015] 110 1.7M 6.43 25.16
**OR-ResNet** 110-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ 0.9M 5.31 -
110 1.1M 6.37 -
164 1.7M 5.46 24.33
1001 10.3M 4.92 22.71
40-4 8.9M 4.53 21.18
16-8 11.0M 4.27 20.43
28-10 36.5M 3.89 18.85
40-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ 1.1M 4.34 23.19
40-2 4.5M 3.43 18.82
28-5 18.2M **2.98** **16.15**
: Results on the natural image classification benchmark. In the second column, $k$ is the widening factor corresponding to the number of filters in each layer. []{data-label="tab:CIFAR"}
\[sec:CIFAR\] Although most objects in natural scene images are upright, rotations could exist in small and/or medium scales (from edges to object parts). It is interesting to validate whether ORNs are effective to handle such partial object rotation or not. CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets [@Krizhevsky2009] consist of 32x32 real-world object images drawn from 10 and 100 classes split into 50,000 training and 10,000 testing images. Three DCNNs including VGG [@Simonyan2014], ResNet [@He2015] and WideResNet [@Zagoruyko2016], are used as baselines on these datasets. Promoting the baselines to ORNs is done by converting each Conv layer to an ORConv layer that uses ARFs with eight orientation channels, and using an additional ORAlign layer to encode rotation invariant representations.
Following the **V2** settings of WideResNet [@Zagoruyko2016], image classification results, Tab. \[tab:CIFAR\], show that ORNs consistently improved baselines with much fewer parameters. For example, OR-VGG uses about 50% parameters of the baseline to achieve better results. OR-WideResNet-40-2 (without dropout) uses only 12% parameters (4.5M vs 36.5M) to outperform the state-of-the-art WideResNet-28-10 (with dropout) on CIFAR10. OR-WideResNet-28-5 (with dropout) uses about 50% parameters of the baselines yet significantly improve the state-of-the-arts on both CIFAR10 and CIFAR100.
![Sample images that contain rotated objects/parts falsely classified by the ResNet but correctly recognized by the proposed ORNs in CIFAR10.[]{data-label="fig:CIFAR-Vis"}](CIFAR-Vis.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The top-3 improved classes of CIFAR10 are **frog** (31% higher than baseline ResNet), **bird** (30.7%) and **deer** (27.3%), which happen to involve significant local and/or global rotations, Fig. \[fig:CIFAR-Vis\]. This further demonstrates the capability of ORN to process local and global image rotations.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we proposed a simple but effective strategy to explicitly encode hierarchical orientation information of discriminative patterns and handle the global/local rotation problem. The primary contribution is designing Active Rotating Filters (ARFs), as well as upgrading the state-of-the-art DCNN architectures, , VGG, ResNet, STN, and TI-Pooling, to Oriented Response Networks (ORNs). Experimentally, ORNs outperform the baseline DCNNs while using significantly fewer (12%-50%) network parameters, which indicates that the usage of model-level rotation prior is a key factor in training compact and effective deep networks.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are very grateful for support by NSFC grant 61671427, BMSTC grant Z161100001616005, STIFCAS grant CXJJ-16Q218, and NSF.
[^1]: \[fn:SourceCode\]Source code is publicly available at [yzhou.work/ORN](http://yzhou.work/ORN/)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a group. A subset $X$ of $G$ is a set of pairwise non-commuting elements if $xy\not=yx$ for any two distinct elements $x$ and $y$ in $X$. If $|X|\geq |Y|$ for any other set of pairwise non-commuting elements $Y$ in $G$, then $X$ is said to be a maximal subset of pairwise non-commuting elements. In this paper we determine the cardinality of a maximal subset of pairwise non-commuting elements for finite minimal non-abelian groups.'
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Arak University, Arak 38156-8-8349, Iran.'
- 'Faculty of Mathematical Sciences and Computer, Kharazmi University, 50 Taleghani Ave., Tehran 1561836314, Iran.'
- 'Faculty of Mathematical Sciences and Computer, Kharazmi University, 50 Taleghani Ave., Tehran 1561836314, Iran.'
author:
- 'S. Fouladi , R. Orfi and A. Azad'
title: 'maximal subset of pairwise non-commuting elements of finite minimal non-abelian groups'
---
Let $G$ be a non-abelian group and let $X$ be a maximal subset of pairwise non-commuting elements of $G$. The cardinality of such a subset is denoted by $\omega(G)$. Also $\omega(G)$ is the maximal clique size in the non-commuting graph of a group $G$. Let $Z(G)$ be the center of $G$. The non-commuting graph of a group $G$ is a graph with $G \backslash Z(G)$ as the vertices and join two distinct vertices $x$ and $y$, whenever $xy\neq yx$. By a famous result of B. H. Neumann [@Neumann], answering a question of P. Erd$\ddot{o}$s, the finiteness of $\omega (G)$ in $G$ is equivalent to the finiteness of the factor group $G/Z(G)$. Pyber [@Pyber] has shown that there is some constant $c$ such that $|G : Z(G)|\leq c^{\omega
(G)}$.Moreover various attempts have been made to find $\omega(G)$ for some groups $G$, see for example [@Abdollahi], [@Azad], [@AFO], [@Chin], [@Fouladi] and [@Fo].\
In this paper we find $\omega(G)$ for any finite minimal non-abelian group. A minimal non-abelian group is a non-abelian group such that all its proper subgroups are abelian. A useful structure of these groups is given in \[\[Huppert\], Aufgaben III. 5.14\], which states that the order of a minimal non-abelian group $G$ has at most two distinct prime divisors and if $G$ is not a $p$-group, then only one of its sylow subgroup is normal in $G$. Following [@Berk Lemma 116.1 (a)], we see that $\omega(G)=p+1$ for any finite minimal non-abelian $p$-group $G$. Therefore in this paper we assume that $G$ is a finite minimal non-abelian group, which is not a $p$-group and we show that $\omega(G)=|Q|+1$, where $Q$ is the normal $q$-Sylow subgroup of $G$.\
Throughout this paper we use the following notation. $p$ denotes a prime number. ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(x)$ is the centralizer of an element $x$ in a group $G$. A group $G$ is called an $AC$-group if the centralizer of every non-central element of $G$ is abelian.
First we state two following lemmas that are needed for the main result of this paper.
\[1\] The following conditions on a group $G$ are equivalent.
- $G$ is an $AC$-group.
- If $[x,y]=1$ then ${\mathcal{C}}_G(x)={\mathcal{C}}_G(y)$, where $x,y\in G\backslash Z(G)$.
This is straightforward. See also \[\[R\], Lemma 3.2\].
\[2\] [@AFO Lemma 2.3] Let $G$ be an $AC$-group.
- If $a, b \in G\backslash Z(G)$ with distinct centralizers, then ${\mathcal{C}}_G(a)\cap {\mathcal{C}}_G(b)=Z(G)$.
- If $G=\cup_{i=1}^k {\mathcal{C}}_G(a_i)$, where ${\mathcal{C}}_G(a_i)$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_G(a_j)$ are distinct proper subgroups of $G$ for $1\leq i<j\leq k$, then $\{a_1\dots a_k\}$ is a maximal set of pairwise non-commuting elements in $G$.
Now we find $\omega(G)$, for a finite minimal non-abelian group $G$ in which $G$ is not a $p$-group.\
The following theorem gives a structure for finite minimal non-abelian groups which play an important role in our proof of the main Theorem.
\[4\]. Let $G$ be a finite minimal non-abelian group. Then
- the order of $G$ has at most two distinct prime divisors,
- if $|G|$ is not a power of a prime then $G=PQ$, where $P$ is a cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ and $Q$ is the elementary abelian minimal normal $q$-Sylow subgroup of $G$.
\[7\] Let $G$ be a finite minimal non-abelian group and $G=PQ$, where $P$ is a cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ and $Q$ is the elementary abelian minimal normal $q$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. Then
- $G'=Q$,
- $G'\cap Z(G)=1$ and so $Z(G)$ is a $p$-subgroup of $G$,
- ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(P)={\mathcal{N}}_{G}(P)=P$,
- ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)=Z(G)\times Q$ for any $1\neq b \in Q$.
\(i) $G'\leq Q$ since $G/Q\cong P$. Now the result follows from the fact that $Q$ is minimal normal subgroup of $G$.\
(ii) We have $G'\cap Z(G)=Q \cap Z(G)$ is normal in $G$ and if $Q\leq Z(G)$, then $G$ is abelian which is impossible. This yields that $Q \cap Z(G)=1$ and so $Z(G)$ is a $p$-subgroup of $G$.\
(iii) If $P\lneqq {\mathcal{N}}_{G}(P)$, then there exists $ x \in
{\mathcal{N}}_{G}(P)$ of order $q$. Hence $x \in Q$. Let $P={\langle}a {\rangle}$, then $[a, x] \in P$ and so $[a, x]=1$ by (i). This implies that $x \in
Z(G)$. Therefore $x=1$ by (ii) and so ${\mathcal{N}}_{G}(P)=P$. The rest is obvious.\
(iv) If $1\neq b \in Q$, then by (ii), $b \in Q\setminus Z(G)$ and so ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)\lneqq G$ is abelian. Since $
Q \leq {\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$, we may write ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b) \cong Q\times P_{0}$, where $P_{0}$ is the $p$-Sylow subgroup of ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$. Therefore $[P_{0}, Q]=1$. Moreover $P_{0}\leq P^g$ for some $g \in G$ and $G=P^{g}Q$, which implies that $P_{0}\leq Z(G)$. Furthermore $Z(G)\leq P_{0}$ by (ii) and the fact that $Z(G)\leq {\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$. This complete the proof.
\[8\] Let $G$ be a finite minimal non-abelian group and $G=PQ$, where $P$ is a cyclic $p$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ and $Q$ is the elementary abelian minimal normal $q$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. Then $\omega(G)=|Q|+1$.
Let $|G|=p^{\alpha}q^{\beta}$ and $P_{1}=P,
P_{2} , \dots , P_{m}$ be all distinct $p$-Sylow subgroups of $G$ and $P_{i}={\langle}a_{i} {\rangle}$ for $1\leq i \leq m$. Obviously $m=q^{\beta}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{i})=P_{i}$ by Lemma \[7\](iii) and so $a_{i} \notin Z(G)$ since $G=P_{i}Q$. Now let $1\neq b \in Q
$, then $ b \notin Z(G)$ by Lemma \[7\](ii). Moreover for $1\leq
i \leq m$ we have ${\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{i})\neq{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$, for otherwise we see that $b \in Z(G)$, which is a contradiction. Now we calculate the order of $A={\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{1})\cup\dots
\cup{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{m})\cup{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$. By Lemma \[2\](i) and the fact that $G$ is an AC-group, we see that $|A|=\sum_{i=1}^m
(|{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_i)|-|Z(G)|)+|{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)|$. Moreover by Lemma \[7\](iii), (iv) we have $|{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{i})|=|P_{i}|=p^{\alpha}$ and $|{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)|=|Z(G)| q^{\beta}$. Therefore $|A|=|G|.$ This yields that $G={\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{1})\cup\dots\cup{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(a_{m})\cup{\mathcal{C}}_{G}(b)$, and so $\omega(G)=|Q|+1$ by Lemma \[2\](ii).
[99]{}
A. Abdollahi, A. Akbari and H. R. Maimani, Non-commuting graph of a group, [*J. Algbera*]{} [**298**]{} (2006), no. 2, 468-492.
A. Azad, Cheryl E. Praeger, Maximal subsets of pairwise non-commuting elements of three-dimensional general linear groups, [*Bull. Aus. Math. Soc.*]{} [**80**]{} (2009), no. 1, 91-104.
A. Azad, S. Fouladi and R. Orfi, Maximal subsets of pairwise non-commuting elements of some finite $p$-groups, [ *Bull. Iran. Math. Soc.*]{} (to be appear)
\[Berkovich\] Y. Berkovich, [*Groups of Prime Power Order*]{} Vol. 1, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008.
Y. Berkovich and Z. Janko, [*Groups of Prime Power Order*]{} Vol. 3, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2011.
E. A. Bertram, Some applications of graph theory to finite groups, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**44**]{} (1983), no. 1, 31-43.
A. M. Y. Chin, On non-commuting sets in an extraspecial $p$-group, [*J. Group Theory*]{} [**8**]{} (2005), no. 2, 189-194.
S. Fouladi and R. Orfi, Maximal subsets of pairwise non-commuting elements of some $p$-groups of maximal class, [ *Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*]{} [**84**]{} (2011), no.3, 447-451.
S. Fouladi and R. Orfi, Maximum size of subsets of pairwise non-commuting elements in finite metacyclic $p$-groups, [ *Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*]{} (to be appear)
\[Huppert\]B. Huppert, [*Endliche Gruppen, I*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1967).
M. Mashkouri and B. Taeri , On a graph associated to groups, [*Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc.*]{} (2) [**34**]{} (2011), no. 3, 553-560.
B. H. Neumann, A problem of Paul Erd$\ddot o$s on groups, [*J. Aust. Math. Soc. Ser. A*]{} [**21**]{} (1976), no. 4, 467-472.
L. Pyber, The number of pairwise non-commuting elements and the index of the centre in a finite group, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**35**]{} (1987), no. 2, 287-295.
\[R\] D. M. Rocke, $p$-groups with abelian centralizers, [*Proc. London math. Soc.*]{} [**30**]{} (1975), no. 3, 55-57.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
E. A. Calzetta$^1$ and B. L. Hu$^2$ [^1]\
$^1$[Departamento de Fisica, FCEyN Universidad de Buenos Aires Ciudad Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina]{}\
$^2$[Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA]{}
date: '[(Second revision June 18, 2003; First revision Jan 18, 2003. Original version Aug 28, 2002. umdpp 03-006)]{}'
title: 'BEC Collapse, Particle Production and Squeezing of the Vacuum'
---
[*Phenomena associated with the controlled collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate described in the experiment of Donley et al [@JILA01b] are explained here as a consequence of the squeezing and amplification of quantum fluctuations above the condensate by the condensate dynamics. In analyzing the changing amplitude and particle contents of these excitations, our simple physical picture provides excellent quantitative fits with experimental data on the scaling behavior of the collapse time and the amount of particles emitted in the jets.*]{}
In the experiment described by Donley et al. [@JILA01b], a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in a cold ($3$nK) gas of Rubidium atoms is rendered unstable by a sudden inversion of the sign of the interaction between atoms. This is done by altering the binding energy at Feshbach resonance with an external magnetic field. After a waiting time $t_{collapse},$ the condensate implodes (called Bose-Nova), and a fraction of the condensate atoms are seen to oscillate within the magnetic trap which contains the gas. These atoms are said to belong to a ‘burst’. After a time $\tau _{evolve}$ the interaction is suddenly turned off. For a certain range of values of $%
\tau _{evolve},$ new emissions of atoms from the condensate are observed. They are called ‘jets’. Jets are distinct from bursts: they are colder, weaker, and have a characteristic disk-like shape. [^2]
The model is based on the Hamiltonian operator for $N$ interacting atoms with mass $M$ in a trap potential $V\left( \mathbf{r}\right)
=(\omega _{z}^{2}z^{2}+\omega _{\rho }^{2}\rho ^{2})/2$, with radial $\rho $ and longitudinal $z$ coordinates measured in units [^3]. of $%
a_{ho,}$ where $a_{ho}$ is a characteristic length of the trap, with associated (dimensionless) frequencies $\omega _{z}=\omega
_{axial}/\omega \sim 1/2$ and $\omega _{\rho }=\omega
_{radial}/\omega \sim \sqrt{2}.$ The interaction is assumed to be short ranged. We introduce a dimensionless field operator $\mathbf{\Psi }\left( r\right) \equiv a_{ho}^{-3/2}\Psi \left(
x\right) $, and a dimensionless coupling constant $u=\left( \hbar
\omega a_{ho}^{3}\right) ^{-1}U=4\pi \left( a/a_{ho}\right) $.
$\Psi $ obeys the equation of motion $\dot{\Psi}=i\left[\hat{H},\Psi \right] $ and satisfies the equal time commutation relations $\left[ \Psi \left(
t,\mathbf{r}\right) ,
\Psi ^{\dagger }\left( t,\mathbf{r^{\prime }}%
\right) \right] =\delta ^{\left( 3\right) }\left( \mathbf{r}-\mathbf{%
r^{\prime }}\right) .$ We decompose the Heisenberg operator $\Psi =\Phi (%
\mathbf{r},t)+\psi (\mathbf{r},t)$ into a c-number condensate amplitude $%
\Phi $ and a q-number noncondensate amplitude $\psi $, consisting of the fluctuations or excitations. We obtain the equation of motion for the fluctuation field by subtracting from the full Heisenberg equation the Gross - Pitaievsky equation (GPE) governing its own expectation value under the self-consistent mean field approximation, $\psi ^{\dagger }\psi \simeq
\left\langle \psi ^{\dagger }\psi \right\rangle ={\tilde{n}}$, $\psi ^{2}\simeq \left\langle \psi ^{2}\right\rangle
={\tilde{m}}$ and $\psi
^{\dagger }\psi ^{2}\simeq 0$. We next parametrize the wave functions as $%
\Phi =\Phi _{0}e^{-i\Theta },$ $\psi =\psi _{0}e^{-i\Theta }$, where $\Phi _{0}$ and $\Theta $ are real. During the early stages of evolution, we may regard the condensate density as time independent, and the condensate phase as homogeneous, $\Phi
_{0}=\Phi _{0}\left( r\right) ,$ $\Theta =\Theta \left( t\right)
$. We may then write the equation for the fluctuation field $$\left[ i\frac \partial {\partial t}-H+E_0\right] \psi _0+u\Phi _0^2\left(
\psi _0+\psi _0^{\dagger }\right) =0$$ where $E_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\left( \omega _{z}+2\omega _{\rho }\right)
$. To solve this equation[^4] we decompose it into a self-adjoint and an anti-adjoint part $\psi _{0}=\xi +i\eta $, each part satisfying an equation $$\frac{\partial \xi }{\partial t}=\left[ H-E_{0}\right] \eta
\label{treintaydos}$$
$$\frac{\partial \eta }{\partial t}+\left[ H-E_0-2u\Phi _0^2\right] \xi =0.
\label{treintaytres}$$
Since the trap Hamiltonian is time - independent, we have
$$\frac{\partial ^2\xi }{\partial t^2}+\left[ H-E_0\right] H_{eff}\xi =0.
\label{treintaycuatro}$$
Here $H_{eff}=H-E_{0}-2u\Phi _{0}^{2}$. To have an unstable condensate it is necessary that at least one of the eigenvalues of $H_{eff}$ is negative; the boundary of stability occurs when the lowest eigenvalue is exactly zero. One further consideration is that we are interested in the part of the fluctuation field which remains orthogonal to the condensate, since fluctuations along the condensate mode may be interpreted as condensate fluctuations rather than particle loss [@M99]. The ground state of $%
H_{eff}$ is certainly not orthogonal to the condensate, since neither have nodes.
If we adopt the values $\omega _{z}=1/2,$ $\omega _{\rho
}=\sqrt{2},$ relevant to the JILA experiment, then instability occurs when $\kappa =N_{0}a_{crit}/a_{ho}=0.51$. This result compares remarkably well with the experimental value $\kappa
=0.55$ [@JILA01b; @JILA03], as well as with the theoretical estimate presented in Ref. [@GTT01]. This agreement may be seen as natural, as the equations we postulate for the fluctuations may be obtained from the linearization of the GPE, discarding both ${\tilde{n}}$ and ${%
\tilde{m}}$. In both calculations, the geometry of the trap plays a fundamental role.
#### Scaling of $t_{collapse}$ and Critical Dynamics
As we have already noted, even for condensate densities above the stability limit, no particles are seen to be lost from the condensate during a waiting time $t_{collapse}.$ Experimentally, $t_{collapse}$ is seen to get very large when the threshold of stability is approached from above, in a way which closely resembles the *critical slowing down* near the transition point characteristic of critical dynamics. In our problem, the quantity which plays the role of relaxation time is the characteristic time $\varepsilon ^{-1}$ of exponential growth for the first unstable mode. This quantity diverges at the stability threshold, which in our analogy corresponds to the critical point. By dimensional analysis, we are led to the estimate $t_{collapse}\sim \varepsilon ^{-1}.$ Close to the critical point, we find
$$t_{collapse}=t_{crit}\left( \frac{a}{a_{cr}}-1\right) ^{-1/2}
\label{scaling}$$
The power law Eq. (\[scaling\]) describes with great accuracy the way $%
t_{collapse}$ scales with the scattering length; the best fit to the experimental data is obtained for $t_{crit}\sim 5$ms.
{height="4cm"}
In Fig. 1 we plot the scaling law (\[scaling\]) (full line) derived here and compare it with the experimental data for $N_{0}=6000$ as reported in Refs. [@JILA01b] (small black points), the $t_{NL}\sim \left( uN_{0}\right) ^{-1}$ prediction (suitably scaled) as given in [@Y02; @TBJ00] (dashed line) and the results of numerical simulations reported in [@SU03] (large grey dots). While all three theoretical predictions may be considered satisfactory, the $t_{NL}\sim \left( uN_{0}\right)
^{-1}$ behavior fails to describe the divergence of $t_{collapse}$ as the critical point is approached, and the results of numerical simulations reported in [@SU03] based on an improved Gross-Pitaevskii equation tend to be systematically above the experimental results, which may be a further indication of the quantum origin of this phenomenon.
#### Bursts and Jets as Amplified Quantum Fluctuations
We now consider the evolution of quantum fluctuations, treated as a test field riding on the collapsing condensate whose dynamics is extracted from experiment. The initial state is defined by the condition that $u=0$ for $t<0;$ we shall take it to be the particle vacuum $\left| 0\right\rangle$, defined by $\psi _0\left(
x,0\right) \left| 0\right\rangle =0$ everywhere.
One can introduce a mode decomposition of the $\xi $ operator based on the eigenfunctions of $\left[ H-E_{0}\right] H_{eff}$. For short wavelengths $\lambda $, since $H\sim \lambda
^{-2}>>2u\Phi _{0}^{2}$, we expect these eigenfunctions will approach the trap eigenmodes. The fact that particles in bursts are seen to oscillate with the trap frequencies [@JILA01b] also suggests that their dynamics is determined by the trap Hamiltonian. Based on these observations we can assume a homogeneous condensate $2u\Phi _{0}^{2}\sim \kappa ^{-1}a\omega
_{z}N_{0}\left( t\right) $, where $N_{0}\left( t\right) $ is the instantaneous total number of particles in the condensate. In practice, $%
\kappa ^{-1}$ is a measure of the overlap between the condensate and the excitation modes. Therefore, the approximation may be improved by adjusting $%
\kappa $ according to the range of modes where it will be applied.
Let $\bar N_0$ be the initial number of particles in the condensate, and $%
a_{cr}=\kappa /\bar N_0$ the corresponding critical scattering length. Trap eigenfunctions $\psi _{\vec n}\left( r\right) $ are labelled by a string of quantum numbers $\vec n=\left( n_z,n_x,n_y\right) .$ The eigenvalues of the trap Hamiltonian are (with the zero energy already subtracted) $E_{\vec
n}=\omega _zn_z+\omega _\rho \left( n_x+n_y\right) $. There are two kinds of modes, stable (oscillatory, or thawed) modes if $E_{\vec n}>\left( \frac
a{a_{cr}}\right) \omega _z,$ and unstable (growing, or frozen) modes if not. In the former case we find that, although we assume vacuum initial conditions, these modes do not remain empty. Up to $t_{collapse}$, when the number of particles in the condensate is constant, the density
$${\tilde n}\left( r,t\right) =\frac 18\left( \frac a{a_{cr}}\right) ^2\omega
_z^2\sum_{\vec n}\psi _{\vec n}^2\left( r\right) \frac{\sin ^2\omega _{\vec n}t}{\omega
_{\vec n}^2}\ \label{thawed}$$
(where $\omega _{\vec{n}}=\sqrt{E_{\vec{n}}\left[ E_{\vec{n}}-\left( \frac{a}{%
a_{cr}}\right) \omega _{z}\right] }$) has a constant term and an oscillatory term. This oscillatory term is responsible for the appearance of ‘**bursts**’ of particles oscillating within the trap observed in the Bose-Nova experiment [@JILA01b]. In the WKB limit it describes a swarm of particles moving along classical trajectories in the trap potential.
In the opposite case $E_{\vec n}\le \left( \frac a{a_{cr}}\right)
\omega _z,$ the formulae for the density is obtained by the replacement of $\omega _{\vec n}$ in (\[thawed\]) by $i\sigma
_{\vec n}$, thus $\omega _{\vec n}^{-1}\sin \omega _{\vec
n}t\rightarrow \sigma _{\vec n}^{-1}\sinh \sigma _{\vec n}t.$ Physically their difference is immense. In the first place, the density is growing exponentially, but unlike the previous case, there is no oscillatory component, and these particles do not oscillate in the trap, in the sense described above. These modes come alive at $\tau _{evolve}$ (as the scattering length is set to zero), whence they become ordinary trap modes which oscillate in the trap in the same way as the the burst modes . To the observer, they appear as a new ejection of particles from the core of the condensate, which makes up the so-called ‘**jets**’. The sudden activation of a frozen mode (we are borrowing the language and concept of cosmological structure formation) by turning off the particle - particle interaction may be described as a “thaw”.
Observe that in this picture several conspicuous features of jets become obvious. Jets may only appear if the turn - off time $\tau
_{evolve}$ is earlier than the formation time of the remnant. Once the condensate becomes stable again, there are no more frozen modes to thaw. On the other hand, jets will appear (as observed) for $\tau _{evolve}<t_{collapse}$, when the condensate has not yet shed any particles. Also jets must be less energetic than bursts, since they are composed of lower modes.
Beyond $t_{collapse}$ the number of particles in the condensate, and therefore the instantaneous frequency of the excited modes, becomes time dependent. If we confine ourselves to the early stages of collapse we may assume nevertheless that the condensate remains homogeneous. Shifting the origin of time to $t_{collapse}$ for simplicity, we write $N_0\left(
t\right) =\bar N_0\mathrm{exp}\left( -t/\tau \right) $ (see Fig. 2).
{height="3cm"}
After expanding in trap eigenmodes we find the two kinds of behavior described above. If $E_{\vec n}>\left( \frac{a\omega _z}{\bar a}\right) ,$ the mode is always oscillatory. If $E_{_{\vec n}}<\left( \frac{a\omega _z}{%
\bar a}\right) ,$ the mode is frozen at $t_{collapse},$ but thaws when $%
\mathrm{exp}\left( -t/\tau \right) \sim E_{\vec n}\bar a/a\omega _z$. During the frozen period, the modes are amplified, but they only contribute to bursts after thawing. If the evolution is interrupted while still frozen, they appear as a jet. We therefore conclude that the number of particles $N_{jet}$ in a jet at time $\tau _{evolve}$ is essentially the total number of particles in all frozen modes at that time. This is plotted in Fig 3, for $\bar{N}_{0}=16,000,$ $\omega _{radial}=110$ Hz, $\omega _{axial}=42.7$ Hz, $a=36a_{0},$ and $%
\kappa =0.46$ , and compared to the corresponding results as reported in [@JILA01b].
{height="4cm"}
We see that the agreement is excellent at early times (up to about $6$ms). For later times, this model overestimates the jet population. This is due to the fact that, by not considering the shrinking of the condensate, we are overestimating the overlap between the condensate and the fluctuations, thus delaying the thaw. It nevertheless reproduces the overall slope of particle number with $\tau _{evolve},$. It should also be remembered that we are computing the expected number of particles, but in the highly squeezed state which results from the frozen period, the fluctuations in particle number are comparable to the mean number itself.
In this letter, we have presented a new viewpoint towards understanding the salient features in the physics of controlled collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate described in the experiment of [@JILA01b], i.e, in terms of quantum vacuum fluctuations parametrically amplified by the condensate dynamics. Our way of thinking here is influenced by insights from the quantum field theory of particle creation and structure formation in cosmological spacetimes as well as theories of spinodal instability in phase transitions. One can conceivably design experiments with BEC dynamics to test out certain basic mechanisms and specific features of quantum proceses in the early universe, thus opening a new venue for performing ‘laboratory cosmology’. **Acknowledgement** We are obliged to E. Donley and S. Kokkelmans for their prompt and informative responses to our queries on some details of these experiments and for communicating key unpublished data. EC also acknowledges discussions with Eric Bolda. This research and EC’s visits to UMD are supported in part by a NSF grant PHY98-00967, a NIST grant and by CONICET, UBA, Fundacion Antorchas and ANPCyT under grant PICT99 03-05229.
[99]{} E. Donley et. al., Nature 412, 295 (2001); N. Claussen, Ph. D. Thesis, U. of Colorado (2003).
J. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5109 (1998); S. Cornish et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).
N. Claussen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 10401 (2002); E. Donley et al., Nature 417, 529 (2002).
S. Kokkelmans and M. Holland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 180401 (2002); M. Mackie, K. Suominen and J. Javainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 180403 (2002); cond-mat/0209083; M. Mackie et al., physics/0210131.
N. Claussen et al., cond-mat/0302195; S. Kokkelmans, private communication.
E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, cond-mat/0207289 v2.
C. Savage, N. Robins and J. Hope, cond-mat/0207308.
R. Duine and H. Stoof, cond-mat/0211514.
Yu. Kagan and L. Maksimov, Phys. Rev. A64, 53610 (2001).
V. A. Yurovsky, Phys. Rev. A65, 33605 (2002). V. A. Yurovsky A. Ben-Reuven, cond-mat/0205267
S. A. Morgan et al., Phys. Rev. A 57, 3818 (1998).
A. Gammal, T. Frederico and L. Tomio, Phys. Rev. A64, 55602 (2001).
M. Trippenbach, Y. Band and P. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A62, 23608 (2000).
H. Saito and M. Ueda, cond-mat/0305242.
[^1]: Emails: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: We call attention to the distinction between the ’Bose-Nova’ [@JILA01b] experiment studied here and other BEC collapse experiments [@JILA98; @JILA02a]. At magnetic fields around $160$G, where the effective scattering length is of the order of $500a_{0}$ (and positive)($%
a_{0}=0.529$ $10^{-10}$m is the Bohr radius) it is possible to observe oscillations between the usual atomic condensate and the molecular state [@JILA02a] with a frequency of oscillations of hundreds of KHz [@KGB02]. By contrast, in the ’Bose-Nova’ experiment [@JILA01b] typical fields were around $167$G, the scattering length was only tens of Bohr radii (and negative) and the frequency of atom - molecule oscillations may be estimated as well over ten MHz [@JILA03]. While coherent resonance between the atoms and the molecules is expected to exist for all of these experiments, and has been shown to play an important role in the outcomes of some [@JILA03], we deem it unlikely that it plays a dominant role in this experiment other than renormalizing the scattering length (For details, see [@CHBosenova]). Indeed no oscillations are reported in the original experimental paper. Instead, as this letter shows, the primary mechanism for the Bose Nova phenomena is the parametric amplification of quantum fluctuations by the condensate dynamics, resulting in bursts and jets as particle production from (the squeezing of) the vacuum. Recent numerical simulations [@Savage] and rigorous theoretical investigations [@DS02] indicating the inadequacy of mean field theory seem to corroborate this view.
[^3]: We use a sign convention such that the effective coupling constant is positive for an attractive interaction, and a system of units where the length $a_{ho}$, time $t_{ho}$ and energy scale $E_{ho}=\hbar \omega =M\omega ^{2}a_{ho}^{2}$ are defined with reference to the average frequency $\omega $. We work with units such that these three scales take the value $1$.
[^4]: The squeezing of quantum unstable modes and its back reactions on the condensate has been considered before, e.g., as a damping mechanism for coherent condensate oscillations [@KM01], but the application to the description of condensate collapse has up to now been mostly qualitative [@Y02].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- gaosoriol
date: February 2020
title: 'V2.0 Assessing the dynamical stability of power grids through percolation methods'
---
Introduction
============
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Lyapounov Functions of closed Cone Fields: from Conley Theory to Time Functions.\
**]{}
—–
[2]{}
Patrick Bernard [^1],\
PSL Research University,\
École Normale Supérieure,\
DMA (UMR CNRS 8553)\
45, rue d’Ulm\
75230 Paris Cedex 05, France\
`[email protected]`\
Stefan Suhr ,\
PSL Research University,\
École Normale Supérieure,\
DMA (UMR CNRS 8553)\
45, rue d’Ulm\
75230 Paris Cedex 05, France\
`[email protected]`\
[ Current address:\
Fachbereich Mathematik,\
Universität Hamburg\
Bundesstraße 55,\
20146 Hamburg,\
Germany\
`[email protected]`\
]{}
—–
**Abstract.** We propose a theory “à la Conley” for cone fields using a notion of relaxed orbits based on cone enlargements, in the spirit of space time geometry. We work in the setting of closed (or equivalently semi-continuous) cone fields with singularities. This setting contains (for questions which are parametrization independent such as the existence of Lyapounov functions) the case of continuous vector-fields on manifolds, of differential inclusions, of Lorentzian metrics, and of continuous cone fields. We generalize to this setting the equivalence between stable causality and the existence of temporal functions. We also generalize the equivalence between global hyperbolicity and the existence of a steep temporal functions.
—–
**Résumé.** On développe une théorie à la Conley pour les champs de cones, qui utilise une notion d’orbites relaxées basée sur les élargissements de cones dans l’esprit de la géométrie des espaces temps. On travaille dans le contexte des champs de cones fermés (ou, ce qui est équivalent, semi-continus), avec des singularités. Ce contexte contient (pour les questions indépendantes de la paramétrisation, comme l’existence de fonctions de Lyapounov) le cas des champs de vecteurs continus, celui des inclusions différentielles, des métriques Lorentziennes, et des champs de cones continus. On généralise à ce contexte l’équivalence entre la causalité stable et l’existence d’une fonction temporale. On généralise aussi l’équivalence entre l’hyperbolicité globale et l’existence d’une fonction temporale uniforme.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement 307062. ]{}
Introduction
------------
Lyapounov functions play an important role in dynamical systems. Their existence is related to basic dynamical behaviors such as stability and recurrence. The second aspect was made precise by Conley, who showed an equivalence between the existence of Lyapounov functions and the absence of chain recurrence. This result was extended by Hurley, see [@Hu1; @Hu2], to non compact spaces. See also [@Pa] for a different point of view based on Mather-Fathi theory.
On the other hand the causality theory of space times studies (among other things) time functions on Lorentzian manifold, see [@ms1] for example. The existence of continuous time functions for smooth stably causal space times was proved in [@geroch] and [@hawking]. The condition of stable causality of space time is analogous to the absence of chain recurrence in Conley’s theory. Still in the context of smooth space times. the equivalence between stable causality and the existence of a smooth temporal function (a regular Lyapounov functions in the terminology of the present paper) was proved in [@besa3]. Motivated by solutions to the Einstein equations with low regularity the problem has been revisited in [@chrgra], [@cgm] and [@saem] where continuous metrics are studied. The existence of smooth time functions for continuous stably causal cone fields (hence in particular for continuous, stably causal, Lorentzian metrics) was proved in [@fasi] and [@Fa2] by methods inspired from weak-KAM theory.
In the present paper, we propose a theory “à la Conley” for cone fields. Such a program was already carried out in [@Mo] in the case of Lorentzian metrics, but our approach is different. We use a notion of relaxed orbits based on cone enlargements, in the spirit of space time geometry. This notion has the advantage of not resting on the choice of an auxiliary metric and its bypasses some technical difficulties related to the non continuity of the length. It allows us to work without difficulty in the very general setting of closed (or equivalently semi-continuous) cone fields with singularities. This setting contains (for questions which are parametrization independent such as the existence of Lyapounov functions) the case of continuous vector-fields on manifolds, of differential inclusions, of Lorentzian metrics, and of continuous cone fields. One drawback of our approach is that it requires a manifold structure on the phase space, but the associated advantage is that we directly deal with smooth Lyapounov (or time) functions. We generalize to this setting the equivalence between stable causality and the existence of temporal functions. We also prove that every globally hyperbolic cone field admits a steep Lyapounov function. The term [*steep temporal function*]{} was introduced in [@musa], see section \[secglhy\] for the definition and a discussion. We finally recover classical statements on the relation between Lyapounov functions and asymptotic stability in their most general setting, as obtained in [@CLS; @ST; @ST2]. Since our original motivation was to prove the existence of steep temporal functions in a generalized setting, we work with the usual convention of space time geometry and consider Lyapounov functions which are non decreasing along orbits.
We work on a complete Riemannian manifold $M$.
A convex cone of the vector space $E$ is a convex subset $C\subset E$ such that $tx\in C$ for each $t> 0$ and $x\in C$. It is convenient to exclude the case $C=\{0\}$, we however include the case $C=\emptyset$. We will also call this cone degenerate. All the other cones are called non degenerate. Cones may or not contain the origin. We say that the cone $C'$ is wider than the cone $C$, noted $C\prec C'$ if $C\cup \{0\}\subset C'\cup \{0\}$. A cone is called singular if it contains a straight line. In the case of an open cone, this implies that $C=E$. Cones which are not singular are called regular. The cone $C$ is regular if and only there exists a linear form $p$ on $E$ such that $p\cdot v>0$ for each non zero vector $v\in C$.
A closed cone field on $M$ is a closed subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ of $TM$ such that the set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x):=\{v\in T_xM, (x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}\}$ is a convex closed cone for each $x$. It is easy to see that continuous cone fields as considered for example in [@fasi] are closed, hence our setting is more general. We say that $x$ is a regular (resp. singular) point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ is a regular (resp. singular) cone. The set of singular points of a closed cone field is closed.
As a first example, we can associate to each continuous vector-field $V$ on $M$ a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_V$ defined by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_V(x)={\mathbb{R}}^+\cdot V(x)$ if $V(x)\neq 0$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_V(x)=T_xM$ if $V(x)=0$. The point $x$ is singular for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_V$ if and only if it is singular for $V$ (*i.e.* if $V(x)=0$). Already this simple example shows the usefulness of allowing non continuous and singular closed cone fields. This example also motivate our terminology for singular points.
An open cone field on $M$ is an open subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of $TM$ such that the set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x):=\{v\in T_xM, (x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\}$ is a convex open cone of $T_xM$ for each $x\in M$. The set of singular points of an open cone field (the points $x$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)=T_xM$) is open.
We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ the domain of the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, which is the set of non degenerate points of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. Open cone fields have open domains, and closed cone fields have closed domains. A cone field is said non degenerate if is has no degenerate point *i.e.* if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})=M$.
The cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}'$ is said [ to be]{} wider than the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}'(x)$ is wider than ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ for each $x$. We use the notation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}'$. We say that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}'$ is an enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if there exists an open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}'$. An open enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is just an open cone field wider than ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$.
The closure (as a subset of $TM$) of a cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ is noted $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$, it is a closed cone field. Note that $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)}\subset \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$, but with equality only at continuity points of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$.
Given an open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$, we say that the curve $\gamma:I\lto M$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike (or just timelike) if it is piecewise smooth (we shall see later that this regularity can be relaxed) and if $\dot \gamma(t) \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(\gamma(t))$ for all $t$ in $I$ (at nonsmooth points, the inclusion is required to hold for left and right differentials). The chronological future ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(x)$ of $x$ is the set of points $y\in M$ such that there exists a non constant timelike curve $\gamma:[0,T]\lto M$ satisfying $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(T)=y$. The chronological past ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)$ is the set of points $x'\in M$ such that $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x')$. Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}_{-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)$. More generally, for each subset $A\subset M$, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A):= \cup_{x\in A}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}} (x)$ the chronological future and past of $A$. They are open subsets of $M$. We have the inclusion ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(x)$ if $y \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(x)$.
Given a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, we say that the curve $\gamma:I\lto M$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal (or just causal) if it is Lipschitz and if the inclusion $\dot \gamma(t) \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(\gamma(t))$ holds for almost all $t\in I$. The causal future ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)$ of $x$ is the set of points $y\in M$ such that there exists a (possibly constant) causal curve $\gamma:[0,T]\lto M$ satisfying $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(T)=y$. The causal past ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^-(x)$ is the set of points $x'\in M$ such that $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^{+}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x')$. More generally, for each subset $A\subset M$, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(A):= \cup_{x\in A}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (x)$ the causal future and past of $A$. We have the inclusion ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)$ if $y \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)$.
The smooth function $\tau:M\lto {\mathbb{R}}$ is called a Lyapounov function for the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if $d\tau_x\cdot v\geq 0$ for each $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ and if, at each regular point $x$ of $\tau$ (which means that $d\tau_x\neq 0$), we have $d\tau_x\cdot v>0$ for each $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$. When ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the cone field associated to a vector-field $V$, a Lyapounov function for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the same as a Lyapounov function for $V$.
Note that if the cone field is induced by a time orientable Lorentzian metric a smooth Lyapounov function without critical points is a temporal function for the Lorentzian metric. In the same vein time/temporal function were considered in [@fasi] for continuous cone fields.
Given a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, we define $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x):= \{x\}\cup \bigcap_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\succ{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(x)$$ where the intersection is taken on all open enlargements ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. We call it the stable future of $x$. A point $x$ is said to be [*stably recurrent*]{} (for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$) if, for each open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, there exists a closed ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curve passing through $x$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ the set of stably recurrent points. Let us state our first result, which will be proved in Section \[sec-ex\].
\[thm1\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a closed cone field.
The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)
$ is the set of point $x'\in M$ such that $\tau(x')\geq \tau(x)$ for each smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ (it is thus a closed set).
The point $x$ is stably recurrent if and only if all smooth Lyapounov functions $\tau$ satisfy $d\tau_x=0$ (hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is closed).
Two points $x$ and $x'$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ are called stably equivalent if $x'\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$ and $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x')$; this is an equivalence relation on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$. The classes of this equivalence relation are called stable classes.
Following the terminology of general relativity, we call a closed cone field [*stably causal*]{} if it is without stably recurrent points. The following statement is also proved in Section \[sec-ex\].
\[thm2\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a closed cone field. There exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ with the following properties:
- The function $\tau$ is regular at each point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
- Two points $x$ and $x'$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ belong to the same stable class if and only if $\tau(x')=\tau(x)$.
- If $x$ and $x'$ are two points of $M$ such that $x' \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$ and $x \not\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x')$, then $\tau(x')>\tau(x)$.
This implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is a closed set, as well as the stable components.
We recover the classical fact that a closed cone field is stably causal if and only if it admits a smooth temporal function (in our terminology, a smooth Lyapounov function without critical points). This result has a long history and several variants. To our knowledge, the most general known variant is due to Fathi and Siconolfi in [@fasi], in the context of continuous cone fields. Our variant is more general, since we allow closed (equivalently : semi-continuous) cone fields with singularities, and our proof is completely different.
We now present some more specific applications of our methods:
Hyperbolic cone fields {#secglhy}
----------------------
Following the terminology of space time geometry, we say that the cone field $\mathcal{C}$ on $M$ is [*globally hyperbolic*]{} if
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is closed and non degenerate.
- $\mathcal{C}$ is causal, which means that that all closed Lipschitz ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal curves are constant and all points are regular.
- The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K'):= \mathcal{J}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(K)\cap \mathcal{J}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^-(K')$ is compact for each compact sets $K$ and $K'$.
We stress that stable causality is not assumed here, as it is in [@fasi] (it will be indirectly proved to be a consequence of hyperbolicity). In the classical context of Lorentzian metrics, the definition was given in a weaker form where \[GH2\] is replaced by
- The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x,y)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x) \cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^-(y)$ is compact for each $x$ and $y$ in $M$.
Our definition is equivalent in the Lorentzian case, as follows from:
\[hypclosed\] If the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is wider than a non degenerate open cone field and satisfies \[GH3\], then it satisfies \[GH2\].
Our assumption is that there exist a non degenerate open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. It follows from Lemma \[lemvf\] below that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ contains a smooth vector-field $V(x)$. This vector-field can be assumed complete by reparametrization, we denote by $\phi^t$ its flow. Let $K$ and $K'$ be two compact sets. We consider a sequence $z_n\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K')$, $z_n\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x_n,y_n)$ with $x_n \in K$ and $y_n \in K'$. We can assume that the sequences $x_n$ and $y_n$ have limits $x$ and $y$ in $K$ and $K'$, respectively. For each $t>0$, $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x))$ and $y \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\phi^t(y))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^t(y))$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x))$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^t(y)) $ are open, $x_n \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x))$ and $y_n \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\phi^t(y))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^t(y))$ when $n$ is large enough, hence $z_n \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x),\phi^t(y))$, which is a compact set by \[GH3\]. We can thus assume by taking a subsequence that $z_n$ has a limit $z$ which is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^{-t}(x),\phi^t(y))$ for each $t>0$. By \[GH3\], the set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\phi^{-1}(x),z)$ is compact and it contains $\phi^{-t}(x)$ for each $t\in ]0,1[$, hence it contains $x$. This implies that $z\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$. We prove similarly that $z\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^-(y)$.
The Lyapounov function $\tau$ is said to be [ *steep*]{} if the inequality $$d\tau_x\cdot v\geq |v|_x$$ holds for each $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. Recall that we work with a complete Riemannian metric. The following statement extends a classical result (see [@musa], [@mi15]) to our more general setting:
\[thm3\] The non degenerate closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is globally hyperbolic if and only if it admits a smooth steep Lyapounov function. Then, the relations ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ are identical.
Note that the definition of global hyperbolicity does not involve the metric. We deduce that, if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is globally hyperbolic and if $\tilde g$ is a (not necessarily complete) metric, then there exists a Lyapounov function which is steep with respect to $\tilde g$. This follows from the theorem applied to the complete metric $g+\tilde g$ (where $g$ is a complete metric on $M$).
At this point a comment on the definition of steep Lyapounov functions is in order. A similar notion appears in [@musa] as the sharp criterion for the isometric embeddability of space times into Minkowski space. There a function $\tau$ on the space time $(M,g_L)$ is steep if $d\tau\cdot v\ge \sqrt{|g_L(v,v)|}$ for all future pointing vectors $(x,v)\in TM$. The existence of steep smooth temporal functions for globally hyperbolic space times is proved in [@musa] and [@mi15]. Theorem \[thm3\] implies the existence of steep temporal functions on space times as the Riemannian metric $g$ can be chosen to satisfy $g(v,v)\ge |g_L(v,v)|$ on all tangent vectors, especially the future pointing ones.
The conclusion of Theorem \[thm3\] is false if \[GH2\] is replaced by \[GH3\] without assuming that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ has non empty interior. Any vector-field admitting non trivial recurrence provides a counter-example. We have the following corollaries:
Each globally hyperbolic cone field admits a globally hyperbolic enlargement.
In particular, hyperbolicity implies stable causality. The splitting theorem, see [@besa2; @besa3], also holds in our setting:
\[cor3\] Let $(M,\mathcal{C})$ be globally hyperbolic. Then there exists a manifold $N$ and a diffeomorphism $\psi:M\lto {\mathbb{R}}\times N$ whose first component is a steep time function on $M$.
Let $\tau$ be a steep time function. We consider the vector-field $V(x)=\nabla \tau/|\nabla \tau |^2$, it has the property that $d\tau_x \cdot V(x)=1$. Note that $|d\tau_x|\geq 1$ hence $|\nabla \tau_x|\geq 1$ hence $|V(x)|\leq 1$. As a consequence, the flow $\varphi^t$ of $V$ is complete. Setting $N=\tau^{-1}(0)$, the map $(t,x)\lmto \varphi^t(x)$ is a diffeomorphism from ${\mathbb{R}}\times N$ to $M$. The inverse diffeomorphism $\psi $ is as desired.
As was noticed in [@chenem], if $M$ is moreover assumed contractible, it is then diffeomorphic to a Euclidean space.
A Lemma of Sullivan
-------------------
We start with the definition of complete causal curves, which are the analogs in our setting of maximal solutions of vector fields.
\[compdef\] The causal curve $\gamma$ is called complete if it is defined on an open (possibly unbounded) interval $]a,b[$ and if the two following conditions hold:
- Either $\gamma_{|[s,b[}$ has infinite length for each $s\in ]a,b[$ or $\lim_{t\lto b} \gamma(t)$ is a singular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ (we say that $\gamma$ is forward complete).
- Either $\gamma_{|]a,s]}$ has infinite length for each $s\in ]a,b[$ or $\lim_{t\lto a} \gamma(t)$ is a singular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ (we say that $\gamma$ is backward complete).
We have:
\[prop-sul\] Let $(M, {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ be a closed cone field and let $F\subset M$ be a closed set. Let $Z\subset F$ be the union of all complete causal curves contained in $F$. Then, there exists a Lyapounov function $\tau$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $M$ which is regular on $F-Z$.
We consider the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_F$ which is equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $F$ and degenerate outside of $F$. Each curve which is causal and complete for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_F$ is causal and complete for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. The proposition follows from Theorem \[thm2\] and the observation that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_F)\subset Z$, which follows from Corollary \[cor-R\] below, applied to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_F$.
In the case where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the cone field generated by a continuous vector field $X$, where $F$ is compact, and where $Z$ is empty, we recover a famous Lemma of Sullivan, [@sul]:
*If $X$ is a continuous vector field on $M$, and if $K$ is a compact set which does not contain any full orbit of $X$, then there exists a Lyapounov function for $X$ which is regular on $K$, *i.e.* $d\tau_x\cdot X(x)>0$ for each $x\in K$.*
The proof of Sullivan in [@sul] was based on Hahn-Banach Theorem, a more elementary proof was given in [@LS]. Proposition \[prop-sul\] extends this result to the non compact case, and also to the case where some full orbits exist.
Asymptotic stability
--------------------
We consider a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. A compact set $Y\subset M$ is called [ *asymptotically stable*]{} if, for each neighborhood $U$ of $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $V\subset U$ of $Y$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(V)\subset U$ and if each forward complete causal curve starting in $V$ converges to $Y$ (which means that the distance to $Y$ converges to zero). If $Y=\{y\}$ is a point, then this requires that $y$ be singular (or degenerate).
We can recover in our setting the following restatement of several known results on converse Lyapounov theory for differential inclusions, see [@CLS] for the case where $Y$ is a singular point, and [@ST; @ST2] for the general case. Our setting in terms of cone fields is parametrization-invariant, in contrast to the formulation in terms of differential inclusions used in these papers. Since both properties of being asymptotically stable and of admitting a Lyapounov function are parametrization invariant, these settings are equivalent. Note that our sign convention for Lyapounov functions is non standard: they increase along orbits.
Let $Y\subset M$ be a compact set and let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a closed cone field which is non degenerate in a neighborhood of $Y$. The following properties are equivalent:
1. \[AS1\] $Y$ is asymptotically stable.
2. \[AS2\] ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)=Y$ and there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ such that each backward complete causal curve $\gamma$ contained in $U$ is contained in $Y$.
3. \[AS3\] ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)=Y$ and there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap U\subset Y$.
4. \[AS4\] There exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ which is non positive, null on $Y$, and regular on $U-Y$, where $U$ is a neighborhood of $Y$.
$\ref{AS1}\Rightarrow \ref{AS2}$. The asymptotic stability implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)\subset U$ for each neighborhood $U$ of $Y$, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)\subset Y$. Let $U_0$ be a compact neighborhood of $Y$ which has the property that all forward complete curves contained in $U_0$ converge to $Y$. Let us suppose that there exists a backward complete causal curve $\gamma:]-T,0]\lto U_0$ such that $\gamma(0)$ does not belong to $Y$. Let $U_1$ be a compact neighborhood of $Y$ which does not contain $\gamma(0)$. There exists an open neighborhood $V_1$ of $Y$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(V_1)\subset U_1$, which implies that $\gamma$ does not enter $V_1$ on $]-T,0]$. Since $U_0-V_1$ does not contain singular points of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, the curve $\gamma$ has infinite length, we parametrize it by arclength, $\gamma:(-\infty, 0]\lto M$. By Ascoli Theorem, there exists a sequence $t_n\lto -\infty$ such that the curves $t\lmto \gamma(t-t_n)$ converge, uniformly on compact intervals, to a Lipschitz curve $\eta:{\mathbb{R}}\lto U_0-V_1$. By Lemma \[proplim\], the curve $\eta$ is causal and forward complete. This implies that $\eta$ converges to $Y$, which is a contradiction since $\eta ({\mathbb{R}}) \subset U_0-V_1$.
$\ref{AS2}\Rightarrow \ref{AS3}$. Let $U$ be the neighborhood with property \[AS2\], and $W$ be a compact neighborhood of $Y$ contained in $U$. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)$ was not contained in $W$, then there would exists a backward complete causal curve contained in $W$ but not in $Y$, by Corollary \[cor-back\]. This contradiction implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)\subset W$, and, since this holds for each compact neighborhood $W$ of $Y$ contained in $U$, that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)\subset Y$. The part of the statement concerning ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ follows immediately from Corollary \[cor-R\].
$\ref{AS3}\Rightarrow \ref{AS4}$. It is a direct consequence of Proposition \[proplyapnulcomp\].
$\ref{AS4}\Rightarrow \ref{AS1}$ Let $U$ be a compact neighborhood of $Y$ such that $ \tau$ is regular on $U-Y$. For each neighborhood $W$ of $Y$ contained in $U$, we set $a=\max_{\partial W}\tau$ (by compactness, $a<0$) and $V:= \{x\in W, \tau(x)\geq a/2\}$. We have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (V)\subset V\subset U$. Let $\gamma:[0,T[\lto V$ be a complete causal curve parametrized by arclength. The function $\tau \circ \gamma$ is increasing, hence is converges to $b\in ]a/2,0]$. We have to prove that $b=0$. The set $V^b:= \{x\in V, \tau(x)\leq b\}$ is compact. If $b<0$, then $\tau$ is regular on $V^b$, hence there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d\tau_x \cdot v\geq \delta |v|$ for each $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}, x\in V^b$. This implies that $\tau\circ \gamma(t)\geq \tau \circ \gamma(0)+\delta t$, hence that $T\leq (b-a)/\delta$ is finite. The complete causal curve $\gamma$ has finite length, hence it converges to a limit $x\in V^b$ which is a singular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ hence a critical point of $\tau$, a contradiction.
Preliminaries
=============
On cone fields
--------------
We state here useful results on cone fields.
If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a closed cone field and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ an open cone field, then the set of point $x\in M$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$ is open.
It is the projection on $M$ of the open set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$.
A standard partition of the unity argument implies:
\[lemvf\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be a non degenerate open cone field (${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)\neq \emptyset$ for [each]{} $x$). Then there exists a smooth vector-field $V$ such that $V(x)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$ for each $x$. Moreover, given $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$, the vector field $V$ can be chosen such that $V(x)=v$. In particular, there exists a smooth curve $\gamma(t): {\mathbb{R}}\lto U$ which is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike and such that $(\gamma(0), \dot \gamma(0))=(x,v)$.
Note that $V(x)\neq 0$ if $x$ is a regular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. This implies that a non degenerate open cone field on a manifold must admit singular points if the Euler characteristic is not zero.
A smooth function $\tau$ defined near $x$ is called a [*local time function*]{} at $x$ if $d\tau_x\neq 0$ and $d\tau_x\cdot v>0$ for each non zero vector $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$. This property then holds in a neighborhood of $x$. Local time functions at $x$ exist if and only if $x$ is a regular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. The cone ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ is the set of vectors $v\in T_xM$ such that $d\tau_x \cdot v \geq 0$ for each local time function $\tau $ at $x$.
Let $C$ be a closed cone and $\Omega \succ C$ be an open cone. Then there exists an open cone $\Omega'$ such that $C\prec \Omega' \prec \bar \Omega' \prec \Omega$. Given a diffeomorphism onto its image $\phi: N\lto U\subset M$ and a cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $M$, we denote by $\phi^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}:=(T\phi)^{-1}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ the preimage of the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, where $T\phi$ is the tangent map $(x,v) \lmto (\phi(x), d\phi_x\cdot v)$. We define similarly the forward image $\phi_*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}:=T\phi({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ of a cone field on $N$, this is a cone field on $U=\phi(N)$. We denote by $Q_s, s\geq 0$ the standard open cone $$Q_s:=\{(y,z)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times {\mathbb{R}}:z> s|y|\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d.$$ The following Lemma on the local structure of open cone fields is obvious, but very useful:
\[localcone\]
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be open cone field and let $x_0$ be a point which is non degenerate for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ and regular for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. There exists a chart $\phi: B^{d-1}\times ]-1,1[\lto M$ at $x_0$ such that $$Q_1\prec \phi^* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y,z)\prec \phi^* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y,z)\prec Q_0$$ for each $(x,y)\in B^{d-1}\times ]-1,1[$.
Let $\tau$ be a local regular Lyapounov function for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ such that $\tau(x_0)=0$. Let $V$ be a vector contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x_0)$ and $\psi:M\lto {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}$ be a smooth local map sending $x_0$ to $0$ and such that the kernel of $d\psi_{x_0}$ is ${\mathbb{R}}V$. For each $a>0$, the map $\Psi:=(a\tau, \psi)$ is a local diffeomorphism, such that $d \Psi_{x_0}\cdot V=(ad\tau_{x_0}\cdot V, 0)$ and $\Psi_* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(0,0)\prec Q_0$. If $a>0$ is small enough, we have $Q_{1/2} \prec \Psi_* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(0,0)$. As a consequence, there exists $s>0$ such that $$Q_1\prec \Psi_* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec \Psi_* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec Q_0$$ on $B^{d-1}(s)\times ]-s,s[$. The inverse map $\phi$ of $\Psi/s$ then satisfies the conclusions of the statement.
\[closure\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be two open cone fields such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1$. For each $A\subset M$, we have $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\bar A)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}(A).$$
It is enough to prove that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}(A)$ for each $x\in \bar A$. Considering an ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curve $\gamma(t)$ satisfying $\gamma(0)=x$, it is enough to prove that $\gamma(t)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}(A)$ for $t>0$ small enough. Working in a chart at $x$, we can assume that $M={\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $x=0$. We consider an open cone $\Omega$ such that $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(0)}\prec \Omega \prec \bar \Omega \prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1(0)$. The inclusions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y)\prec \Omega \prec \bar \Omega \prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1(y)$ then also hold for all $y$ in an open ball $U$ centered at $0$. Since $0$ is in the closure of $A$, we deduce that $\Omega\cap U\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}( A)$. On the other hand, we have $\gamma(t)\in \Omega$ for $t>0$ small enough, hence $\gamma(t)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}(A)$.
In the sequel we will need the notion of sums of convex cones or cone fields. The sum of a family of convex cones is defined as the convex envelop of their union. The sum of cone fields is defined pointwise.
The sum ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}=\sum _{\alpha} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{\alpha}$ of an arbitrary family of open cone fields is an open cone field.
Let $(x,v)$ be a point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. We can assume that $M={\mathbb{R}}^d$ by working in a chart at $x$. The vector $v$ belongs to the convex closure of the union $\cup_{\alpha} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{\alpha}(x)$, hence it is a finite sum of elements of this union: There exists a finite set $J$ of indices such that $v=\sum_{i\in J} v_i$ with $v_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(x)$. Let $B_i\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(x)$ be a compact neighborhood of $v_i$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. For each $i\in J$, there exists a neighborhood of $x$ on which $B_i\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(y)$. As a consequence, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $B_i \subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(y)$ for each $y\in U$ and each $i\in J$. We conclude that $(\sum_i B_i) \times U\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$.
The sum of two nonempty closed cones $C$ and $C'$ is equal to $\{v+v', v\in \Omega, v'\in \Omega'\}$.
It is not always true that the sum of two closed cones is closed. This is however true in the case where there exists an open half plane $Q$ containing both.
\[sum\] Let $\Omega$ be an open cone and let $C_i$ be finitely many closed cones such that $C_i\prec \Omega$. Then there exists an open cone $\Omega'$ such that $\sum C_i \prec \Omega' \prec \bar \Omega'\prec \Omega$.
In the case where $\Omega ={\mathbb{R}}^d$, we can take $\Omega'=\Omega$. Otherwise we can assume that $\Omega \prec Q_0$ (the open upper half space). Each of the closed cones $C_i$ then satisfies $C_i\prec Q_{s_i}$ for some $s_i>0$. We can take $\Omega'=Q_s$ with $s=\min s_i$.
\[intermediate\] If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ is an open enlargement of the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, then there exists an open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'$ such that $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}' \prec \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}.$$
For each $x_0\in M$, there exists a chart $\phi:B^{d-1}\times ]-1,1[\lto M$ at $x_0$ and an open cone $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $\phi^* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)\prec \Omega \prec \bar \Omega \prec \phi^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y,z)$ for each $(y,z)\in B^{d-1}\times ]-1,1[\lto M$ . We take a locally finite covering of $M$ by open sets $U_i$ which are of the form $\phi_i(B^{d-1}(1/2)\times ]-1/2,1/2[)$ for such charts, and denote by $\Omega_i$ the corresponding open cones. We consider the open cone fields ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i$ which are equal to $\phi_* \Omega_i$ on $U_i$ and which are empty outside of $U_i$. The closure $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i$ is the cone field equal to $\phi_* \bar \Omega_i$ on $\bar U_i$ and empty outside of $\bar U_i$. Then we consider the open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'=\sum_i {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i$. For each $x\in M$, there exists $i$ such that $x\in U_i$, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'(x)$.
Let us now prove that $\bar{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$ for each $x\in M$. Let $J(x)$ be the finite set of indices such that $x$ belongs to the closure of $U_i$. For each $i\in J(x)$, $ \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$. Lemma \[sum\] implies the existence of a convex open cone $\Omega'\subset T_xM$ such that $$\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(x)\prec\Omega'\prec \bar \Omega' \prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$$ for each $i\in J(x)$. Extending locally $\Omega'$ to a continuous open cone field , we obtain that $$\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_i(y)\prec\Omega'(y)\prec \bar \Omega' (y)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y)$$ for each $i\in J(x)$ and for $y$ close to $x$. This implies that $ \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'(x)\prec \bar \Omega'\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x).
$
\[decrease\] There exists a sequence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ of open cone fields which is strictly decreasing to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, which means that $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n+1}\prec{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ for each $n$ and that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}=\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$. Such a sequence has the property that, for each open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ and each compact set $K\subset M$, there exists $n$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$ for each $x\in K$.
For each point $(x,v)\in TM-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, there exists an open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ which is disjoint from a neighborhood $U$ of $(x,v)$. We can cover the complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ in $TM$ by a sequence $U_i$ of open sets such that, for each $i$, there exists an open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'_i$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ disjoint from $U_i$. We define inductively the open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n}$ as an enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ satisfying $$\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}'_n \cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n-1}.$$ It is obvious from the construction that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}=\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$. Finally, let $K\subset M$ be compact and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be an open enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. For each $x\in K$, there exists $n_x$ such that $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n_x}(x)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n_x-1}(x) \prec{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$. Then the inclusion $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{n_x}(y) \prec{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y)$ holds on an open neighborhood of $x$. We can cover $K$ by finitely many such open sets, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n(y)\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y)$ for each $y\in K$ when $n$ is large enough.
Clarke differential, causal and timelike curves
-----------------------------------------------
We will use the notion of Clarke differential of curves and functions, see [@C:90] for example.
The Clarke differential of a Lipschitz function $f:{\mathbb{R}}\lto {\mathbb{R}}$ at a given point $x$ is the compact interval $$\partial f(x) =\left[\liminf _{y_2\rightarrow x, y_1\rightarrow x, y_2>y_1}
\frac{f(y_2)-f(y_1)}{y_2-y_1},
\limsup _{y_2\rightarrow x, y_1\rightarrow x, y_2>y_1}
\frac{f(y_2)-f(y_1)}{y_2-y_1}\right].$$ The interval $\partial f(x)=[p_-,p_+]$ can be characterized in the following way: for $p<p_-$, the function $t\lmto f(t)-pt$ is increasing near $t=x$, it is decreasing for $p>p_+$, and it is not monotone in any neighborhood of $x$ for $p\in ]p_-,p_+[$.
The Clarke differential of a Lipschitz curve $\gamma:{\mathbb{R}}\lto M$ at a given time $t$ is the compact convex subset $\partial \gamma(t)\subset T_{\gamma(t)} M$ defined as the convex hull of limit points of sequences of the form $(\gamma(t_n), \dot \gamma(t_n))$ in $TM$, where $t_n$ is a sequence of differentiability points of $\gamma$, see [@C:90]. It satisfies the equality $$df_{\gamma(t)}\cdot \partial \gamma(t) =\partial(f\circ \gamma )(t)$$ for each smooth function $f$, and this characterizes $\partial \gamma(t)$. In other words, $v\in \partial \gamma(t)$ if and only if $
df_{\gamma(t)}\cdot v \in \partial(f\circ \gamma )(t)
$ for each smooth function $f$.
\[lem-causal\] Given a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $M$, the following statements are equivalent for a locally Lipschitz curve $\gamma:I\lto M$:
- $\dot \gamma(t)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(\gamma(t))$ for almost every $t\in I$.
- $\partial \gamma(t) \subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(\gamma(t))$ for each $t\in I$.
- For each $t\in I$ and each local time function $\tau$ at $\gamma(t)$, the function $\tau \circ \gamma$ is non decreasing in a neighborhood of $t$.
We call the corresponding Lipschitz curves ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal.
The second point implies the first one since $\gamma'(s)$ exists almost everywhere, and then is contained in $\partial \gamma(s)$.
Assume the first point. For each $t\in I$ and each local time function $\tau$ at $\gamma(t)$, we consider a neighborhood of $\gamma(t)$ such that $\tau$ is a regular Lyapounov function on $U$. We have $\gamma(s)\in U$ for $s$ close to $t$. Then, for almost every point $s$ in a neighborhood of $t$, the derivative $(\tau\circ \gamma)'(s)=d\tau_{\gamma(s)}\cdot \gamma'(s)$ exists and it is non negative. This implies that the Lipschitz function $\tau \circ \gamma$ is non decreasing near $t$.
If the second point does not hold at some time $t$, then there exists $w\in \partial \gamma(t)$ and a local time function $\tau$ at $\gamma(t)$ such that $d\tau_{\gamma(t)}\cdot w<0$. This implies that $\partial (\tau \circ \gamma)(t)$ contains a negative value, hence that $\tau\circ \gamma$ is not non decreasing near $t$.
If $\gamma$ is a Lipschitz curve and $g$ a Lipschitz function, then we have the chain rule (see [@C:90], Theorem 2.3.9 ) $$\partial (g\circ \gamma)(t_0)\subset [\inf_{p,v}p\cdot v, \sup_{p,v} p\cdot v]$$ where the $\sup$ and $\inf$ are taken on $p\in \partial g(\gamma(t_0)),
v\in \partial \gamma(t_0)$. This inclusion is an equality if $\gamma$ or $g$ are smooth, but may be strict in general.
Limit curve Lemma
-----------------
Let us consider a sequence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ of open cone fields strictly decreasing to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$.
\[lem-limit\] Let $\gamma_n:I\lto M$ be an equi-Lipschitz sequence of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves converging to $\gamma:I\lto M$ uniformly on compact subintervals of $I$, then $\gamma$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal.
Note first that $\gamma$ is Lipschitz. Let $t\in I$ be given, and let $\tau$ be a local time function at $\gamma(t)$. In view of Lemma \[lem-causal\], it is enough to prove that $\tau \circ \gamma$ is non decreasing near $t$.
Let $U$ be a compact neighborhood of $\gamma(t)$ such that $\tau$ is a non degenerate Lyapounov function on $U$. Then $\tau$ is still a non degenerate Lyapounov function on $U$ for the closed cone field $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ for $n\geq n_0$. There exists a neighborhood $J$ of $t$ and $n_1\geq n_0$ such that $\gamma_n(s)\in U$ for each $s\in J$, $n\geq n_1$. These properties imply that $\tau\circ \gamma_n$ is non decreasing on $J$ provided $n\geq n_1$. At the limit, we deduce that $\tau\circ \gamma$ is non decreasing on $J$.
It is useful to control the length of the limit curve:
\[lemlength\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a closed cone field and $\gamma:[0,1]\lto M$ be a ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal curve which does not contain any singular point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. There exists $L>0$ such that:
For each $T\in ]0,1[$, there exists $\epsilon>0$ and an open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that each ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curve $\eta:[0,T]\lto M$ satisfying $d(\gamma(t), \eta(t))\leq \epsilon $ for each $t\in [0,T]$ has a length less than $L$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ be a sequence of open cone fields strictly decreasing to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, and let $\gamma$ be as in the statement. We denote by $\ell(\gamma)$ the length of a curve.
We cover the image of $\gamma$ by finitely many bounded open sets $U_1, \ldots, U_k$ each of which has the property that there exists a time function $\tau_i$ on an open neighborhood $V_i$ of $\bar U_i$, which satisfies $
|v|_x/2\delta_i\geq d(\tau_i)_x \cdot v\geq 2\delta_i |v|_x
$ for some $\delta_i>0$, and for each $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x), x\in U_i$. We set $\delta:=\min \delta_i$ and prove the statement with $L=(1+\ell(\gamma)/\delta)/\delta$. We consider a sequence $\eta_n:[0,1[\lto M$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves converging, uniformly on compact subsets of $[0,1[$, to $\gamma$. We have to prove that $\ell(\eta_{n|[0,T]})\leq L$ for $n$ large enough.
Given $T\in]0,1[$, there exists a finite increasing sequence of times $0=t_0<t_1< \cdots <t_N=T$ such that $\gamma_{[t_j,t_{j+1]}]}$ is contained in one of the open sets $U_i$ for each $j$. Then for $n$ large enough, this is also true for $\eta_{n|[t_j,t_{j+1}]}$ and $|\tau_i(\eta(t))-\tau_i(\gamma(t))|\le\frac{1}{2N}$. We obtain, for $n$ large enough : $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \ell(\eta_{n|[t_j,t_{j+1}]})
&\leq \tau_i(\eta_n(t_{j+1}))-\tau_i(\eta_n(t_j))
\leq \tau_i(\gamma(t_{j+1}))-\tau_i(\gamma(t_j))+1/N\\
&\leq 1/N + \ell(\gamma_{|[t_j,t_{j+1}]})/\delta.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the sum, we obtain that the inequality $$\delta \ell(\eta_{n|[0,T]})\leq 1 +\ell(\gamma )/\delta$$ holds for $n$ large enough, which ends the proof.
\[proplim\] Let $\gamma_n:[0, a_n[\lto M$ be a sequence of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves parametrized by arclength, such that $\gamma_n(0)$ is bounded and $a_n\lto \infty$. Then along a subsequence, the sequence $\gamma_n$ converges, uniformly on compact intervals of $[0,\infty)$, to a limit $\gamma:[0,\infty)\lto M$ which is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal and complete.
Since the curves $\gamma_n$ are $1$-Lipschitz, Ascoli Arzela’s Theorem gives, for each $T>0$, the existence of a subsequence along which $\gamma_n$ converge uniformly on $[0,T]$. By a diagonal extraction, we get a subsequence along which $\gamma_n$ converge uniformly on compact intervals. By Lemma \[lem-limit\], the limit $\gamma$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal. Let us prove that this limit is complete. If it was not complete, it would have finite length and a regular limit $y$ at infinity. Since the set of regular points is open, there would exit $T>0$ such that $\gamma([T,\infty])$ contains only regular points. We could reparameterize $\gamma$ on $[T,\infty)$ to a curve $\tilde \gamma=\gamma\circ \lambda:[0,1[\lto M$, and extend $\tilde \gamma$ to a causal curve $\tilde \gamma:[0,1]\lto M$. Lemma \[lemlength\], applied to the causal curve $\tilde \gamma$ and the sequence $\tilde \gamma_n=\gamma_n \circ \lambda$, gives $L>0$ such that, for each $S\in ]0,1[$, the curve $\tilde \gamma_{n|[0,S]}$ has length less than $L$ for $n$ large enough. Observing that $\ell(\tilde \gamma_{n|[0,S]})=\lambda(S)-T$, this would imply that $\lambda(S)\leq T+L$ for each $S\in ]0,1[$. This is a contradiction since $\lambda$ maps $[0,1[$ onto $[T,\infty)$.
\[cor-R\] For each $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$, there exists a complete causal curve $\gamma$ passing through $x$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ be a sequence of open cone fields strictly decreasing to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. For each $n$, there exists a closed ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curve passing through $x$, that we see as a periodic ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curve $\gamma_n:{\mathbb{R}}\lto M$ satisfying $\gamma_n(0)=x$. The curve $\gamma_n$ is periodic and not constant, hence it has infinite length. At the limit, we obtain a complete causal curve passing through $x$.
The same method also yields:
\[cor-back\] Let $Y\subset K$ be two compact sets. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)$ is contained in the interior of $K$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)$ is not contained in $K$, then there exists a backward complete causal curve $\gamma:]-T,0]\lto M$ contained in $K$ and such that $\gamma(0)\in \partial K$.
For each $n$, there exists an ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curve $\gamma_n:]-T_n,0]\lto K$ such that $\gamma_n(0)\in \partial K$ and $\gamma_n(-T_n)\in Y$, parametrized by arclength. If the sequence $T_n$ was bounded, then at the limit we would obtain a ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$-causal curve joining a point of $Y$ to a point of $\partial K$, which contradicts the hypothesis that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(Y)$ is contained in the interior of $K$. We deduce that $T_n$ is unbounded, and at the limit we obtain the desired backward complete causal curve.
Direct Lyapounov theory
=======================
We consider a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ and explain how to deduce information about stable causality from the existence of appropriate smooth Lyapounov functions. More precisely we prove the following parts of Theorem \[thm1\], and some variations:
- If there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x')<\tau(x)$, then $x'\notin {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$.
- If there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $d \tau_x\neq 0$, then $x\notin {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
We say that the open set $A$ is a [ *trapping domain*]{} for the open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)\subset A$. We say that $A$ is a trapping domain for the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if it is a trapping domain for some open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$.
If $A$ is a trapping domain for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, then there exists an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(\bar A)\subset A$, in particular, $
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(\bar A)\subset A.
$
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be an open enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)\subset A$ and let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1$ be an open cone field such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1\prec \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1\prec {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. By Lemma \[closure\], ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1}(\bar A)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)\subset A$.
\[lem-trap\] Let $f$ be a $C^1$ function, and $a\in {\mathbb{R}}$. If the inequality $df_x\cdot v>0$ holds for each $x\in f^{-1}(a)$ and $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$, then $\{f>a\}$ is a trapping domain.
In particular, if $a$ is a regular value of the smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$, then $\{\tau>a\}$ is a trapping domain.
Let us consider the open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ defined by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)=T_xM$ if $f(x)\neq a$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)=\{v\in T_xM: df_x\cdot v>0\}$ if $f(x)=a$. Our hypothesis on $f$ is that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ in an enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. If $\gamma(t)$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curve, then $f\circ \gamma$ is increasing near each time $t$ such that $\gamma(t)=a$. As a consequence, if $f\circ \gamma(t)>a$, then $f\circ \gamma(s)>a$ for each $s>t$. This implies that $\{f>a\}$ is a trapping domain.
Let $\tau$ be a Lyapounov function. If $\tau(x')<\tau(x)$, then $x'\not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$.
Let $a\in ]\tau(x'), \tau(x)[$ be a regular value (there exists one by Sard’s theorem). We have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(\{\tau > a\})\subset \{\tau >a\}$.
\[recreg\] Let $\tau$ be a smooth Lyapounov function and $x$ a regular point of $\tau$. Then there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tilde \tau$ which has the same critical set as $\tau$, and such that $\tilde \tau (x)$ is a regular value of $\tilde \tau$. This implies that $x$ is not stably recurrent.
Given a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ on which $\tau$ is regular, let $f$ be a smooth function supported in $U$ and such that $f(x)=1$. For $\delta>0$ small enough, the function $\tau+sf$ is a smooth Lyapounov function, which is regular on $U$ for each $s\in ]-\delta, \delta[$. The interval $]\tau(x)-\delta,\tau(x)+ \delta[$ contains a regular value $a$ of $\tau$. The function $\tilde \tau:= \tau +(a-\tau(x))f$ is a smooth Lyapounov function which is regular on $U$. The number $a:=\tilde \tau(x)$ is a regular value of $\tilde \tau$ : If $\tilde \tau(y)=a$, then either $y\in U$ and then $d\tilde \tau_y\neq 0$ or $y$ does not belong to the support of $f$, and then $d\tilde \tau_y=d\tau_y\neq 0$ since $a$ is a regular value of $\tau$.
Smoothing
=========
The goal of the present section is to prove the following regularization statement, which is one of our main technical tools to prove the existence of Lyapounov functions. We work with a fixed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on the manifold $M$.
\[prop-Areg\] Let $A_0$ be a trapping domain, let $F_i$ be a closed set contained in $A_0$, let $F_e$ be a closed set disjoint from $\bar A_0$, and let $\theta_0$ be a point in the boundary of $A_0$.
Then there exists a smooth (near ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$) trapping domain $A'_0$ which contains $F_i$, whose boundary contains $\theta_0$, and whose closure is disjoint from $F_e$.
Local properties of trapping domains
------------------------------------
We say that the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is [*strictly entering*]{} $A$ at $x\in \partial A$ if there exists an open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ which contains $\{x\}\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ and such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(A)\subset A$. The cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ may have degenerate points. Given an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A$ at $x$ if and only if it is strictly entering $U\cap A$ at $x$.
\[lem-loc\] The open set $A$ is a trapping domain for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ if and only if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A$ at each point $x\in \partial A$.
If $A$ is a trapping domain, then there exists an open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}( A)\subset A$. This implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A$ at each point of $\partial A$.
Let us now prove the converse. For each point $x\in \partial A$, there exists an open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_x$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_x(x)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_x}(A)\subset A$. The inclusion ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_x(y)$ then holds for all $y$ in an open neighborhood $U_x$ of $x$ in $\partial A$. We consider a sequence $x_i$ such that the open sets $U_{x_i}$ form a locally finite covering of $\partial A$. For each $x\in \partial A$, we denote by $J(x)$ the finite set of indices such that $x\in \bar U_{x_i}$. Since the covering is locally finite, there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $x$ in $\partial A$ which is disjoint from $U_{x_i}$ for each $i\notin J(x)$. We define, for each $x\in \partial A$, the open cone ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x):= \bigcap _{i\in J(x)} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{x_i}(x)$. For $x\notin \partial A$, we set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)=T_xM$. We claim that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}:= \bigcup_{x\in M} \{x\}\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)$ is an open cone field. Indeed, for each $x\in A$, the intersection $ \bigcap_{i\in J(x)} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{x_i}$ is an open cone field which is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ in a neighborhood of $x$, and equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ at $x$.
By construction, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ is an enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. Let us verify that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)\subset A$. If not, there exists a ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curve $\gamma$ such that $\gamma(t)\in A$ on $[0,T[$ and $\gamma(T) \in \partial A$. We have $\dot \gamma(T)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(\gamma(T))\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{x_i}(T))$ for some $i$ (any $i$ such that $\gamma(T)\in U_{x_i})$. For this fixed $i$, the curve $t\mapsto\gamma(t)$ is then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{x_i}$-timelike on $[S,T[$ for some $S<T$. This contradicts the inclusion ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_{x_i}}(A)\subset A$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ be an open cone field, and $A$ be a trapping domain for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. Then $\bar{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_x$ is regular for all $x\in \partial A$. Thus at each point $x\in \partial A$, there exists a chart $\phi: B^{d-1}(2)\times ]-2,2[\lto M$ which sends $(0,0)$ to $x$ and has the property that $$Q_1\prec \phi^* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(y,z)\prec Q_0$$ for all $(y,z)\in B^{d-1}(2)\times ]-2,2[$. We recall that $B^d(r)$ is the open ball of radius $r$ centered at $0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and that $Q_s, s\geq 0$ is the open cone $Q_s=\{(y,z)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times {\mathbb{R}}:z> s|y|\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$.
\[lembox\] There exists a $1$-Lipschitz function $g: B^{d-1}(2)\lto ]-2,2[$ such that $\phi^{-1}(A)$ is the open epigraph $\{z>g(y)\}$, hence $\phi^{-1}(\partial A)$ is the graph of $g$. Note that $g(0)=0$.
Let us define the function $g(y)= \inf \{ z\in ]-2,2[: \phi_i(y,z)\in A\}$ (we decide to set $g(y)=2$ if the infimum is taken on the empty set). Then $\phi(y,g(y))\in \bar A$ for each $y\in B^{d-1}(2)$. The curve $t\lmto \phi(y,z+t)$ is $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-causal hence the set $\{(y,z): z<g(y)<2 \}$ is contained in $A$. Furthermore, since $Q_1\prec \phi^* \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$, the curve $\phi_i(y+tv,g(y)+t)$ is $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-causal for each $y \in B^{d-1}(1)$ and $v\in \bar B^{d-1}(1)$. This implies that $g$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a closed cone field on ${\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times {\mathbb{R}}$, and let $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times {\mathbb{R}}$ be a trapping domain which is the open epigraph of the Lipschitz function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\lto {\mathbb{R}}$. For each point $x=(y,g(y))$ in the boundary of $A$, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(x)$ the open subset of $({\mathbb{R}}^{d-1})^*$ formed by linear forms $p$ such that $p\cdot v_y <v_z$ for each $(v_y,v_z)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$. The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}:=\{(y,p): p\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(y,g(y))\}$ is open in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times ({\mathbb{R}}^{d-1})^*$.
\[lem-inC\] For each point $x=(y,g(y))$ of $\partial A$, the following statements are equivalent:
- The cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A$ at $x$,
- The Clarke differential $\partial g(y)$ is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(x)$.
If $\partial g(y)$ is not contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(x)$, then there exists $p\in \partial g(y)$ and $(v_y,v_z)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$ such that $p\cdot v_y \geq v_z$. Then for each open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ containing $\{x\}\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$, there exists a smooth timelike curve $\gamma=(\gamma_y,\gamma_z)$ such that $\dot \gamma_z(0) < p\cdot \dot \gamma_y(0)$. This implies that the function $g\circ \gamma_y(t)-\gamma_z(t)$ is increasing near $t=0$, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)$ is not contained in $A$. We conclude that the cone ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is not strictly entering at $x$.
Conversely, if $\partial g(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(x)$, then we consider the cone $\Omega=\{(v_y,v_z): v_z> p\cdot v_y, \forall p\in \partial g(y)\}$. Since $\partial g(y)$ is compact, this is an open cone. We consider an open cone $\Omega_1$ such that $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)\prec \Omega_1\prec \bar\Omega_1\prec \Omega.$$ In view of the semi-continuity of the Clarke differential, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $y$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}$ such that the inequality $v_z>\sup _{p\in \partial g(y')}p\cdot v_y$ holds for each $(v_y,v_z)\in \Omega_1$ and each $ y'\in U$. We consider the open cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ which is equal to $\Omega_1$ on $U\times {\mathbb{R}}$ and empty outside, and prove that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(A)\subset A$. Otherwise, there exists a smooth curve $\gamma=(\gamma_y,\gamma_z)$, which is timelike for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$, and such that $\gamma_z(T)= g(\gamma_y(T))$ and $\gamma_z(t)> g(\gamma_y(t))$ for each $t\in [0,T[$. Then, we have $\gamma_y(T)\in U$ and $(\dot \gamma_y(T), \dot \gamma_z(T))\in \Omega_1$ hence $\dot \gamma_z(T) > \sup_{p\in \partial g(\gamma_y(T))}p\cdot \dot \gamma_y(T)$. This implies that the function $\gamma_z(t)-g(\gamma_y(t))$ is increasing near $t=T$, a contradiction.
De Rham Smoothing {#secreg}
-----------------
\[prop-rham\] For each Lipschitz function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^ d\lto {\mathbb{R}}$, there exists a family $g_s, s>0$ of Lipschitz functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^d $ which converge uniformly to $g$ as $s\lto 0$ and such that :
- $g_s$ is smooth on $B^d(1)$ for each $s>0$, and moreover $g_s$ is smooth on any open subset $O\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ where $g$ is already smooth.
- $\limsup _{s\lto 0}(\textnormal{Lip } g_s )\leq \textnormal{Lip }g$.
- If $V\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d\times ({\mathbb{R}}^d)^*$ is an open set containing the graph $\partial g$ of the Clarke differential of $g$, then $V$ contains the graph of $\partial g_s$ for $s$ small enough.
If $y_1,\ldots,y_N$ are finitely many points in $B^d(1)$, then we can assume in addition that $g_s(y_i)=g(y_i)$ for each $i=1,\ldots, N$ and each $s>0$.
We use De Rham smoothing procedure. We follow the notations of [@BZ], Lemma A.1. There exists a smooth action $a(y,x)$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ on itself (meaning that $a(y,a(y',x))=a(y+y',x)$) such that :
- $a(y,x)=x$ for each $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d-B^d(1)$
- The action of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ on $B^d(1)$ is conjugated to the standard action of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ on itself by translations (there exists a diffeomorphism $\varphi:B^d(1)\lto {\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $a(y,\varphi(x))=y+\varphi(x)$).
- The diffeomorphisms $a_y$ converge to the identity $C^1$-uniformly for $y\lto 0$.
Given a Lipschitz function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^d\lto {\mathbb{R}}$, we define $$g_s(x):= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} s^{-d} g(a(y,x))\rho(-y/s) dy$$ where $\rho$ is a mollification kernel supported in $B^d(1)$. The two first points of the Proposition are proved, for example, in [@BZ], Lemma A.1. Let us now prove the last point.
We cover the compact set $\bar B^d(1)$ by finitely many balls $B_i$ each of which has the following property: There exists convex open sets $W_i$ and $V_i$ in $ ({\mathbb{R}}^d)^*$ such that $\partial g(x)\subset W_i\subset \bar W_i\subset V_i\subset V(x)$ for each $x\in 2B_i$ (the ball of same center and double radius).
For each $i$, we define $n_i(v):= \sup_{p\in W_i} p\cdot v$ and $m_i(v)= \sup_{p\in V_i} p\cdot v$ which are convex and positively one-homogeneous (hence subadditive) functions. There exists $\delta>0$ such that $m_i(v)\geq n_i(v)+\delta|v|$. Note that $V_i$ (resp. $W_i$) is precisely the set of linear forms $p$ satisfying $p\cdot v \leq m_i(v)$ (resp. $n_i(v)$) for each $v$ . The function $g$ is $n_i$-Lipschitz on $2B_i$, which means that $$g(x')-g(x)\leq n_i(x'-x)$$ for each $x$ and $x'$ in $2B_i$. Since the diffeomorphisms $a_y$ converge to the identity $C^1$-uniformly as $y\lto 0$, we have $$\big|a(y,x')-a(y,x)-x'+x\big|=\left|\int _0^1 (\partial_x a(y,x+t(x'-x))-Id) \cdot (x'-x) dt\right|
\leq \delta(|y|)|x'-x|$$ with a function $\delta$ converging to $0$ at $0$. For $s$ small enough, we have $a(y,x)\in 2B_i$ for each $x\in B_i$ and $|y|\leq s$, and $\delta(s)<\delta$. We then obtain, for $x$ and $x'$ in $B_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
|g_s(x')-g_s(x)|
&\leq \int s^{-d}\big| g\circ a_y (x')- g\circ a_y (x)\big| \rho(-y/s) dy\\
&\leq \int s^{-d} n_i\big(a_y (x')- a_y (x)\big) \rho(-y/s) dy\\
&\leq \int s^{-d} m_i(x'-x) \rho(-y/s) dy=m_i(x'-x).\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $dg_s(x)\cdot v \leq m_i(v)$ for each $v$, hence that $\partial g_s(x)\in V_i\subset V(x)$ for each $x\in B_i$. Since the covering $B_i$ is finite, this inclusion holds for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ provided $s$ is small enough.
The function $g_s$ constructed so far does not necessarily satisfy the additional conditions $g_s(y_i)=g(y_i)$. We thus consider the modified function $$\tilde g_s(x)=g_s(x)+\sum_{i=1}^N(g(y_i)-g_s(y_i))h_i(x),$$ where $h_i, 1\leq i\leq N$ are non negative smooth function supported on $B^d(1)$ and satisfying $h_i(y_i)=1$ and $h_i(y_j)=0$ for $j\neq i$. This modified family of functions satisfies the three points of the statements since $g_s(y_i)\lto g(y_i)$ for each $i$, and $$\partial \tilde g_s(x)=\partial g_s(x)+\sum_i (g(y_i)-g_s(y_i))dh_x$$ for each $x$.
Proof of Proposition \[prop-Areg\]
----------------------------------
We first give the proof under the assumption that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})=M$. Since $A_0$ is also a trapping domain for some open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, we can assume without loss of generality that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the closure of a non degenerate open cone field.
We consider a locally finite covering of $\partial A_0$ by domains $$U_k(1)=\phi_k(B^{d-1}(1)\times ]-1,1[)$$ associated to charts $\phi_k: B^{d-1}(2)\times ]-2,2[\lto M, k\geq 1$ which have the property that $$Q_1\prec \phi_k^* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)\prec Q_0$$ for all $(y,z)\in B^{d-1}(2)\times ]-2,2[$. Locally finite means that each point $x\in M$ has a neighborhood which intersects only finitely many of the sets $U_k(1)$. We denote by $x_k$ the points $\phi_k(0)$, $k\geq 1$ and set $x_0=\theta_0$. We moreover assume that the open sets $U_k(2):=\phi_k(B^{d-1}(2)\times ]-2,2[)$ are all disjoint from $F_i$ and $F_e$.
By Lemma \[lembox\], the open set $\phi_1^{-1}(A)$ is the epigraph of a $1$-Lipschitz function $f_1:B^{d-1}(2)\lto ]-2,2[$ such that $f_1(0)=0$. The bounded set $U_1(1)$ contains finitely many of the points $x_i$. We denote by $y_1, \ldots,y_N$ the first component of the preimages of these points. So those of the points $x_i$ which are contained in $U_1(1)$ are $\phi_1(y_1,f_1(y_1)),\ldots ,\phi_1(y_N,f_1(y_N))$.
As in Lemma \[lem-inC\], we define ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}\subset B^{d-1}(2)\times ({\mathbb{R}}^{d-1})^*$ by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}:=\{(y,p): p\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}(y,f_1(y)) \}.$$ Since $A_0$ is a trapping domain for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, the set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^{\circ}$ contains the graph $\partial f_1$ of the Clarke differential of $f_1$, by Lemma \[lem-inC\].
By Proposition \[prop-rham\], there exists a function $g_1:B^{d-1}(2)\lto {\mathbb{R}}$ which is $1$-Lipschitz, smooth on $B^{d-1}(1)$, and satisfies $\partial g_1(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^0(y)$ for each $y\in B^{d-1}(2)$, and $g_1(y_j)=f_1(y_j)$ for $j=1, \ldots, N$. In particular, $g_1(0)=0$, hence $g_1$ takes vales in $]-2,2[$.
Let $A_1$ be the open set such that $A_1\cap (M-U_1(1))=A_0\cap (M-U_1(1))$ and such that $\phi_1^{-1}(A_1)$ is the open epigraph of $g_1$. The cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A_1$ at each point $x$ of the boundary $\partial A_1$. Indeed, such a point $x$ either belongs to $\partial A_0\cap (M-\bar U_1(1))$, and then $A_1=A_0$ near $x$, or it is of the form $\phi_1(y,g_1(y))$ for some $y\in B^{d-1}(2)$. In this second case, the conclusion follows from the inclusion $\partial g_1(y)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^0(y)$, by Lemma \[lem-inC\]. We deduce by Lemma \[lem-loc\] that $A_1$ is a trapping domain for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$.
By the same method, we build inductively a sequence $A_m, m\geq 0$ of trapping domains which have the following properties:
- $\partial A_m$ contains all the points $x_k$ (hence the point $\theta_0$), $F_i$ is contained in $A_m$ and $F_e$ is disjoint from $\bar A_m$.
- The boundary $\partial A_m$ is contained in $\bigcup_{k\geq 1} U_k(1)$, and its intersection with $\bigcup_{m\geq k\geq 1} U_k(1)$ is a smooth hypersurface.
- The symmetric difference between $A_m$ and $A_{m-1}$ is contained in $U_m(1)$.
We denote by $A'_{0}:=\liminf A_m$ the set of points $x$ which belong to all but finitely many of the sets $A_m$. We claim that $A'_{0}$ satisfies the conclusions of Proposition \[prop-Areg\].
Since the covering $U_k(1)$ is locally finite, the intersection $A_m\cap K$ stabilizes to $A'_{0}\cap K$ for each compact $K$, *i. e.* $K\cap A_m= K\cap A'_{0}$ for all $m$ large enough.
This implies that $A'_{0}$ is open, and that $\partial (A'_0)=\liminf \partial (A_m)$. This boundary is smooth, contains all the points $x_k$, and is contained in $U$.
To prove that $A'_{0}$ is a trapping domain, it is enough to observe that the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is strictly entering $A'_0$ at each point $x\in \partial A'_{0}$. Since the sequence $A_k$ stabilizes in a neighborhood of $x$, this follows from the fact that each of the open sets $A_k$ is attracting.
This ends the proof of Proposition \[prop-Areg\] under the assumption that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})=M$.
If we do not make this assumption we consider an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $A_0$ is a trapping domain for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. We can apply the result just proved on the manifold ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}})$, to the cone field $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$. We deduce the existence of a smooth trapping region $A'_0$ for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}})$ which contains $F_i\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}})$, is disjoint from $F_e \cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}})$, and whose boundary contains $\theta_0$. Let $O$ be an open subset of $M$ which contains $F_i $ and whose closure is disjoint from $F_e$, and let $Z\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}})$ be a closed neighborhood of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ in $M$. The open set $A'_0\cup ((M-Z)\cap O)$ then satisfies the conclusions of Proposition \[prop-Areg\].
Existence of Lyapounov functions {#sec-ex}
================================
We consider in this section a closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ and prove several existence results for Lyapounov functions, in particular Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\] and \[thm3\].
Smooth trapping domains and Lyapounov functions
-----------------------------------------------
We associate smooth Lyapounov functions to smooth trapping domains:
\[prop-fol\] Let $A$ be smooth trapping domain, then there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $A=\{\tau >0\}$ and $0$ is a regular value of $A$ (hence $\partial A=\{\tau=0\}$).
If $F_i$ and $F_e$ are closed sets contained in $A$ and disjoint from $\bar A$, respectively, we can moreover impose that $\tau=1$ on $F_i$ and $\tau=-1$ on $F_e$.
We consider a collar of $\partial A$ in the manifold $M-(F_e\cup F_i)$, that is a smooth embedding $\psi: H\times {\mathbb{R}}\lto M-(F_e\cup F_i)$ such that $\psi(H\times \{0\})=\partial A$ and $\psi^{-1}(A)=H\times ]0, \infty)$. We will prove the existence of a Lyapounov function $\tilde \tau$ on $H\times {\mathbb{R}}$ for the cone field $\psi^* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, which has the following properties:
- $\tilde \tau =0$ on $H\times \{0\}$ and $0$ is a regular value of $\tilde \tau$.
- $\tilde \tau=1$ on $H\times [1,\infty)$ and $\tilde \tau = -1$ on $H\times (-\infty, -1]$.
Assuming the existence of the function $\tilde \tau$, we obtain the Lyapounov function $\tau$ on $M$ as follows: $ \tau=\tilde \tau \circ \psi^{-1}$ on $U=\psi(H\times {\mathbb{R}})$, $\tau=1$ on $A-U$, and $\tau=-1$ on $M-(A\cup U)$.
Let us now prove the existence of the Lyapounov function $\tilde \tau$ on $H\times {\mathbb{R}}$. We denote by $(y,z)$ the points of $H\times {\mathbb{R}}$. The cone field $$\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)=\psi^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)=(d\psi_{(y,z)}^{-1}\cdot {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(\psi(y,z)))$$ is a closed cone field on $H\times {\mathbb{R}}$. The cones $\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,0)$ satisfy $v_z>0$ for each $(v_y,v_z)\subset \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,0)-\{0\}$. Fixing a Riemannian metric on $H$, there exists a smooth positive function $\delta(y)$ on $M$ such that $$\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,0)\subset \{(v_y,v_z): v_z\geq 3\delta(y) \|v_y\|\}$$ for each $y\in H$. Then, there exists a smooth positive function $\epsilon(y)$ such that $$\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)\subset \{(v_y,v_z): v_y\geq 2\delta(y) \|v_y\|\}$$ provided $|z|\leq \epsilon(y)$. Let $f:H\lto {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth positive function such that $\|df_y\|\leq \delta(y)$ and $f(y)\leq \epsilon(y)$ for all $y\in M$. Finally, let us set $$\tilde \tau(y,z)=\phi(z/f(y)),$$ where $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}\lto[-1,1]$ is a smooth nondecreasing function which has positive derivative on $]-1,1[$ and is equal to $1$ on $[1,\infty)$ and to $-1$ on $(-\infty,-1]$. The set of regular points of the function $\tilde \tau$ is $H\times ]-1,1[$. At such a point $(y,z)$, we compute $$d\tilde \tau_ {(y,z)}\cdot(v_x,v_z)=\frac{\phi'(z/f(y))}{f(y)}
\big(
v_z-\frac{z}{f(y)}df_y\cdot v_y
\big)\geq \frac{\phi'(z/f(y))}{2f(y)}v_z$$ for $(v_y,v_z)\in \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(y,z)$ since $$|(z/f(y))df_y\cdot v_y|\leq \delta(y) \|v_y\|\leq v_z/2.$$
We will also need a variant of the above result. We say that the open set $A$ is smooth near the set $X$ if there exists an open set $U$ containing $X$ such that $U\cap \partial A$ is a smooth hypersurface.
\[lyapcor\] Let $A$ be a trapping domain which is smooth near ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$. Then there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $A=\{\tau>0\}$ and such that $\tau$ is regular at each point of $\tau^{-1}(0)\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$.
If $F_i$ and $F_e$ are closed sets contained in $A$ and disjoint from $\bar A$, respectively, we can moreover impose that $\tau=1$ on $F_i$ and $\tau=-1$ on $F_e$.
Let $U$ be an open neighborhood of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ such that $\partial A\cap U$ is smooth. Let $V$ be the complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$. Let $T$ be a smooth Lyapounov function of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $U$ such that $0$ is a regular value of $T$ and $A\cap U=\{T>0\}$. We obtain such a function by applying the Proposition to $U$. Let $f$ be a smooth function on $M$ such that $f=1$ on $F_i$, $f>0$ on $A$, $f<0$ outside of $\bar A$, and $f=-1$ on $F_e$. Let $g,h$ be a partition of the unity associated to the open covering $(U,V)$ of $M$. We set $\tau=g T+h f$.
Conley Theory for closed cone fields {#subsec-ex}
------------------------------------
We prove Theorem \[thm1\] and \[thm2\].
If $x$ is not chain recurrent, then there exists a Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x)$ is a regular value of $\tau$ (in particular, $\tau$ is regular at $x$).
There are two cases. Either ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ is degenerate, or there exists an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $x\not\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)$ and such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x) \neq \emptyset$. In each of these cases, we will prove the existence of a Lyapounov function regular at $x$, Lemma \[recreg\] then implies the proposition.
In the first case each function $\tau$ which is supported in the open set $M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ is a Lyapouov function for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. Since $x\in M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$ there exists such a function satisfying $d\tau_x\neq 0$.
In the second case, the set $A_0:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)$ is a trapping domain for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ whose boundary contains $x$. Proposition \[prop-Areg\] gives the existence of a smooth trapping domain whose boundary contains $x$. Corollary \[lyapcor\] then implies the existence of a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $d\tau_x \neq 0$.
Let $x$ and $x'$ be two points such that $x'$ does not belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)$. Then there exists a Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x')<\tau(x)$. If the point $x$ does not belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ then the function $\tau$ can be chosen such that $\tau(x)$ is a regular value of $\tau$, similarly for $x'$.
To prove the first statement, we consider two cases. Either ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)=\emptyset$ or there exists an an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $x'\notin {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}^+(x)\cup \{x\}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}(x)\neq \emptyset$.
In the first case, we take a smooth function $\tau$ supported in a small neighborhood of $x$ and satisfying $\tau(x)>0=\tau(x')$ and $d\tau_x\neq 0$.
In the second case, the set $A_0:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x)$ is a trapping domain containing $x$ in its closure and not containing $x'$. Proposition \[prop-Areg\] then implies the existence of a smooth (near ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}(C)$) trapping domain containing $x$ in its closure and not containing $x'$. Proposition \[prop-fol\] implies the existence of a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x')\leq 0$ and $\tau(x)\geq 0$ and $0$ is a regular value of $\tau$. If $\tau(x)=0$, then $d\tau_x\neq 0$ hence the Lyapounov function $\tau$ can be slightly modified near $x$ to a Lyapounov function $\tilde \tau$ such that $\tilde \tau(x)>0$ and $\tilde \tau(x')=\tau(x')\leq 0$.
We have proved, in each case, the existence of a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x')<\tau(x)$. If $x$ is not stably recurrent and is a critical point of $\tau$, we consider a smooth Lyapounov function $f$ regular at $x$. By composing on the left with a non decreasing function, the function $f$ can be made arbitrarily $C^0$-small. Then the Lyapounov function $ \tau_1=\tau+f$ is regular at $x$ and satisfies $\tau_1(x')<\tau_1(x)$. If, in addition, $x'$ is not stably recurrent and is a singular point of $\tau+f$ then we consider a Lyapounov function $g$ regular at $x'$, $C^0$-small, and such that $dg(x)$ is small. The Lyapounov function $\tau_2=\tau+f+g$ then satisfies $\tau_2(x')<\tau_2(x)$, $d\tau_2(x)\neq 0$ and $d\tau_2(x')\neq 0$.
Finally, in the case where $d\tau_2(x)\neq 0$, we use Lemma \[recreg\], to obtain a Lyapounov function $\tau_3$, which has the same critical set as $\tau_2$, and such that $\tau_3(x)$ is a regular value of $\tau_3$. The proof of Lemma \[recreg\] shows that the function $\tau_3$ can be chosen arbitrarily $C^0$ close to $\tau_2$, hence $\tau_3(x')<\tau_3(x)$. A last application of Lemma \[recreg\] gives a Lyapounov function $\tau_4$ such that $\tau_4(x')$ and $\tau_4(x)$ are regular values of $\tau_4$, and $\tau_4(x')<\tau_4(x)$.
Theorem \[thm1\] obviously follows from the two propositions above. Let us prove Theorem \[thm2\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[thm2\].</span> Let us consider the set ${\mathcal{L}}$ of smooth Lyapounov functions which have the property that they take values in $[0,1]$ and have only two singular values $0$ and $1$. We endow ${\mathcal{L}}$ with the topology of $C^1$ convergence on compact sets. It is a separable metric space. We consider a dense sequence $\tau_i$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$. There exists a positive sequence $a_i$ such that $\tau=\sum a_i \tau_i$ converges in $C^k$ for each $k$ on each compact set. We can moreover assume that $a_{i+1}\leq a_i/5$. We claim that the sum $\tau$ then satisfies all the conclusions of Theorem \[thm2\].
For each point $x$ which is not chain recurrent, there exists a Lyapounov function $f\in {\mathcal{L}}$ such that $df_x\neq 0$ (just take any Lyapounov function regular at $x$ and compose it on the left with an appropriate non decreasing function). As a consequence, there exists $i$ such that $d\tau_i(x)\neq 0$. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)$ contains a nonzero vector $v$, then all terms of the sum $d\tau_x\cdot v=\sum_i a_id\tau_i(x)\cdot v$ are non negative, and one of them is positive, hence the sum is positive. We deduce that $x$ is a regular point of $\tau$.
If $x$ and $x'$ are two chain recurrent points which do not belong to the same stable class, there exists a Lyapounov function $f\in {\mathcal{L}}$ such that $f(x)\neq f(x')$ (once again, we just consider any Lyapounov function $g$ such that $g(x')\neq g(x)$, and compose it on the left by a non decreasing function). Then, there exists $i$ such that $\tau_i(x)\neq \tau_i(x')$, and we consider the first index $j$ with this property. Since $x$ and $x'$ are chain recurrent, the values of $\tau_j$ on $x$ and $x'$ are $0$ and $1$, and we assume (by possibly renaming $x$ and $x'$) that $\tau_j(x)=0$ and $\tau_j(x')=1$. Then $$\tau(x')-\tau(x)=\sum_i a_i (\tau_i(x')-\tau_i(x))\geq a_j-\sum _{i>j} a_i\geq 3a_j/4>0$$ since $a_i \leq a_j 5^{i-j}$ for each $i\geq j$. We conclude that $\tau(x')\neq \tau(x)$.
Finally, let us consider two points $x\neq x'$ in $M$ such that $x'\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+(x)$ and $x\notin {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+(x')$. The first point implies that $\tau(x')\geq \tau(x)$ for each Lyapounov function $\tau$. The second point implies that there exists a Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau(x')>\tau(x)$. By composition with a non increasing function, we can assume that $\tau\in {\mathcal{L}}$. Then, by density, there exists $j$ such that $\tau_j(x')>\tau_j(x)$. The difference $\tau(x')-\tau(x)$ is thus the sum of non negative terms one of which is positive.
More existence results of Lyapounov functions
---------------------------------------------
We will use the following easy Lemma in our next result:
\[product\] Let $\tau_i, 1\leq i \leq k,$ be finitely many smooth non negative Lyapounov functions, then the product $\tau=\tau_1\tau_2 \cdots \tau_k$ is a non negative smooth Lyapounov function. If all the $\tau_i$ are regular at some point $x_0$, then so is $\tau$.
By recurrence, it is enough to prove the statement for $k=2$. The expression $$d\tau(x)=\tau_1(x) d\tau_2(x) +\tau_2(x)d\tau_1(x)$$ implies that $d\tau_x\cdot v\geq 0$ for each $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. Assume now that there exists $(x,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, $v\neq 0$, such that $d\tau_x\cdot v=0$. Then each of the terms $\tau_1(x) d\tau_2(x) \cdot v$ and $\tau_2(x)d\tau_1(x)\cdot v$ vanish, which implies that each of the linear forms $\tau_1(x)d\tau_2(x)$ and $\tau_2(x)d\tau_1(x)$ vanish, hence that $d\tau(x)=0$. We have proved that $\tau$ is a smooth Lyapounov function. If the $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are regular at $x_0$, then $\tau_i(x_0)>0$ and we see that $d\tau(x_0)\neq 0$.
\[proplyapnulcomp\] Let $K\subset M$ be a compact set. Then there exists a smooth non negative Lyapounov function $\tau_+$ such that $\tau_+=0$ on $K$ (hence on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (K)$) and $\tau_+>0$ outside of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (K)$. This implies in particular that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^-(K)$ is closed. The function $\tau_+$ can be chosen regular on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})-\big({\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} \big)
$.
There also exists a non positive smooth Lyapounov function $\tau_-$ such that $\tau_-=0$ on $K$ (hence on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (K)$) and $\tau_-<0$ outside of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} (K)$. This implies that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(K)$ is closed. The function $\tau_-$ can be chosen regular on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})-\big({\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}} \big)
$.
The second part of the statement is a consequence of the first part applied to the reversed cone $-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$. More precisely, we have $\tau_-({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})=-\tau_+(-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$.
To prove the first part, we fix a point $x_0\in M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)$. For each $y\in K$, there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $f$ such that $f(y)<f(x_0)$. If moreover $x_0\not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$, then the function $f$ can be chosen regular at $x_0$. By composing $f$ on the left with a non decreasing function, we deduce the existence of a Lyapounov function $\tau_y$ such that $\tau_y \geq 0$, $\tau_y=0$ in a neighborhood $U_y$ of $y$, and $\tau_y(x_0)>0$. If $x_0\not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$, then in addition $\tau_y$ is regular at $x_0$.
Since $K$ is compact, there exist finitely many points $y_1, \ldots, y_k$ such that the corresponding open sets $U_{y_i}$ cover $K$. The product $\tau_0:=\tau_{y_1} \tau_{y_2} \cdots \tau_{y_k}$ is a smooth non negative Lyapounov function such that $\tau_0(x_0)>0$, and, if $x_0\not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$, $d\tau_0(x_0)\neq 0$.
For each $x_0\in M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)$, we have proved the existence of an open neighborhood $V_0$ of $x_0$ and of a smooth non negative Lyapounov function $\tau$ which is null on $K$ and positive on $V_0$. We can cover the separable metric space $M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)$ by a sequence $V_i$ of open sets such that, for each $i$, there exists a smooth non negative Lyapounov function $\tau_i$ which is null on $K$ and positive on $V_i$. Then there exists a positive sequence $a_i$ such that $\tau:= \sum _i a_i\tau_i$ is a smooth non negative function which is positive on $M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)$.
By exactly the same method we can also obtain a smooth non negative Lyapounov function $\tau$ which is null on $K$ and which has the property that $d\tau_x\cdot v>0$ for each $ x\in M-({\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}})$ and $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$.
By adding the functions $\tau_+$ and $\tau_-$, we obtain:
\[corlyapnul\] Given a compact $K\subset M$, there exists a Lyapounov function which is null on $K$ and regular on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})-\big({\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K) \cup {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}\big)$.
Let us also state the following :
\[proplyapnul\] Let $A\subset M$ be a trapping domain. There exists a non negative Lyapounov function $\tau$ such that $\tau>0$ on $A$ and $\tau<0$ outside of $\bar A$. The function $\tau$ can be chosen regular on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})- ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}\cup \partial A)
$.
We consider an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $A$ is a trapping domain for $\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$.
We first fix a point $x_0\in A$ and prove the existence of a smooth Lyapounov function which is non negative, null outside of $A$, positive at $x_0$ and, if $x_0$ is not stably recurrent, regular at $x_0$.
We consider a point $x_1\in A\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x_0)$. Then the set $A_1:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x_1)$ is open, it contains $F_i:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x_0)$, and its closure is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x_1)$, hence in $A$. In other words, the closure of $A_1$ is disjoint from the $F_e:=M-A$. By Proposition \[prop-Areg\], there exists a smooth (near ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})$) trapping domain $A'_1$ which contains $F_i$ and whose closure is disjoint from $F_e$. By Proposition \[prop-fol\], there exists a smooth Lyapounov function $\tau: M\lto [-1,1]$ (for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$) which is equal to $1$ on $F_i$ and to $-1$ on $F_e$. The non negative Lyapounov function $1+\tau$ is then null outside of $A$ and positive at $x_0$.
In the case where $x_0$ is not stably recurrent and non degenerate, we can take ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ in such a way that $x_0\not \in A_2:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}^+ _{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}(x_0)$, hence $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of this trapping domain. The closure of $A_2$ is disjoint from the complement $F_e$ of $A$. By Propositions \[prop-Areg\] and \[prop-fol\], we find a non negative Lyapounov function $\tau$ which is regular (hence positive) at $x_0$ and null outside of $A$.
By considering a convex combination of countably many of the Lyapounov functions we just built, we obtain a non negative Lyapounov function $\tau_i$ which is positive on $A$ and regular on $(A \cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}))-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
We can apply the same result to the cone $-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ and the trapping domain $M-\bar A$, and get a Lyapounov function $\tau_e$ (for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$) which is non positive, negative outside of $\bar A$, and regular on $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}})-\bar A)-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
The sum $\tau:= \tau_i+\tau_e$ then satisfies the conclusions of the proposition.
Globally hyperbolic cone fields
-------------------------------
We prove Theorem \[thm3\]. We start with an easy observation:
\[lemclosed\] If the closed cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ satisfies \[GH2\], then $\mathcal{J}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^\pm (x)$ is closed for all $x\in M$.
Let $y_n\in \mathcal{J}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}^+(x)$ be a convergent sequence with limit $y\in M$. Let $Y$ be the compact set $Y:= \{y,y_1,y_2, \ldots\}$. The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x,Y)$ is compact and it contains $y_n$ for each $n$, hence it contains the limit $y$.
Let us denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ the cone field which is equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $K$ and degenerate outside of $K$. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a closed cone field and $K$ is a closed set, then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ is a closed cone field. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is causal, then so is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$.
\[lemL\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a causal closed cone field and $K$ be a compact set. Then there exists an open enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ and a real number $L>0$ such that all ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$-timelike curves have length less than $L$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ be a decreasing sequence of open cone fields converging to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$. We can assume that $U_n:={\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n)$ is bounded for each $n$. If the conclusion of the Lemma does not hold, there exists a sequence $\gamma_n:[-l_n,l_n]\lto M$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves parametrized by arclength with $l_n$ unbounded. By Proposition \[proplim\], there exists a complete ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$-causal curve $\gamma:{\mathbb{R}}\lto M$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ has no singular point, this curve has infinite length in the forward direction. Let $\omega$ be a limit point of $\gamma$ at $+\infty$. For each $s>t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we have $\gamma(s)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\gamma(t))$. Since this set is closed (Lemma \[lemclosed\]), we deduce that $\omega \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\gamma(t))$, or in other words that $\gamma(t)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\omega)$, and this holds for all $t$. Since $\omega$ is not singular, there exists a local time function, and this implies that $\gamma$ has another limit point $\omega'$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\omega)$ is closed, we obtain that $\omega'\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\omega)$, and similarly $\omega\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^-_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(\omega')$. This is in contradiction with ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ being causal.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a globally hyperbolic closed cone field and $K$ be a compact set. The stably recurrent set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K)$ is empty.
If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K)$ is not empty, then it contains a complete causal curve $\gamma$ (Definition \[compdef\]). Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ has no singular point, this curve has infinite length, which contradicts Lemma \[lemL\].
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a globally hyperbolic closed cone field, and $K_1,K_2$ be two compact sets. Let $K$ be a compact set containing ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K_1,K_2)$. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K}(K_1,K_2)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K}(K_1,K_2)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K_1,K_2).$$
The second equality is clear. To prove the first equality, we consider a sequence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ of open enlargements of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$ decreasing to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$. By Lemma \[lemL\], we can assume that each ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_1$-timelike curve has length less than $L>0$. This is then true for all ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$. Given $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K}(K_1,K_2)$, there exists a sequence $\gamma_n:[0,1]\lto M$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves connecting $K_1$ to $K_2$, parametrized proportionally to arclength, and passing through $x$. Since the curves $\gamma_n$ have bounded length, they are equi-Lipschitz. Up to a subsequence, they converge uniformly to a Lipschitz curve $\gamma:[0,1]\lto M$ which is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K$-causal by Lemma \[lemlength\], passes through $x$, and connects $K_1$ to $K_2$. This implies that $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_K}(K_1,K_2)$.
We are now ready to prove the existence of a steep Lyapounov function. Let $K_i, i\geq 1$ be a sequence of compact sets such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K_i,K_i)$ is contained in the interior of $K_{i+1}$ and such that $M=\cup_i K_i$.
For each $i \geq 1$, we apply Corollary \[corlyapnul\] to the cone field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_{K_{i+2}}$ and the compact set $K_i$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_{K_{i+2}}}(K_i,K_i)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K_i,K_i)\subset \mathring K_{i+1}$ and since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_{K_{i+2}})$ is empty, we obtain a smooth function $\tau_i:M\lto {\mathbb{R}}$ with the following properties:
- $\tau_i$ is a Lyapounov function on $K_{i+2}$, which means that $d\tau_i(x)\cdot v>0$ for each $x\in K_{i+2}$ such that $d\tau_i(x) \neq 0$ and each $v\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}(x)-\{0\}$.
- $\tau_i$ is regular on $K_{i+2}-\mathring K_{i+1}$, which means that $d\tau_i(x)\neq 0$ for each $x\in K_{i+2}-\mathring K_{i+1}$.
- $\tau_i$ is null on $K_i$.
We also let $\tau_0$ be a smooth function on $M$ which is a Lyapounov function on $K_2$.
We now prove the existence of a sequence $a_i$ of positive numbers such that the sum $\tau:= \sum_{i\geq 0} a_i \tau_i$ is a steep Lyapounov function. Note that this sum is locally finite.
We build the sequence $a_i$ by induction, in such a way that the partial sum $\sum_{i=0}^k a_i \tau_i$ is a steep Lyapounov function on $K_{k+2}$ for each $k$.
The function $\tau_0$ is a Lyapounvov function on the compact set $K_2$, hence there exists $a_0>0$ such that $a_0\tau_0$ is steep on $K_2$. The function $\tau_1$ is Lyapounov on $K_3$ and regular on $K_3-\mathring K_2$. Then there exists $a_1>0$ such that $a_0\tau_0+a_1\tau_1$ is a steep Lyapounvov function on $K_3-\mathring K_2$, hence on $K_3$. Assuming that $a_0, \ldots, a_k$ have been constructed, observe that the function $\tau_{k+1}$ is Lyapounov on $K_{k+2}$ and non degenerate on $K_{k+2}-\mathring K_{k+1}$. On the other hand the partial sum $\sum_{i=0}^k a_i\tau_i$ is a smooth function on $M$ which is a steep Lyapounvov function on $K_{k+1}$. There exists $a_{k+1}>0$ such that $\sum_{i=0}^{k+1} a_i\tau_i$ is a steep Lyapounvov function on $K_{k+2}-\mathring K_{k+1}$, hence on $K_{k+2}$. This ends the proof of the existence of a steep Lyapounvov function.
Conversely, let us assume the existence of a steep Lyapounvov function $\tau$. It is clear that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ is causal. Let us prove that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^{\pm}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$ for each $x$. We consider a decreasing sequence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ of enlargements of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$, which have the property that $d\tau_y\cdot v \geq |v|_y/2$ for each $(y,v)\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$. Given $z\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$, there exists a sequence $\gamma_n:[0,1]\lto M$ of smooth ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$-timelike curves such that $\gamma_n(0)=x$ and $\gamma_n(1)=z$. We can assume that $\gamma_n$ is parametrized proportionally to arclength, hence is $L_n$-Lipschitz, where $L_n$ is the length of $\gamma_n$. The hypothesis made on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ implies that $L_n\leq 2(\tau(z)-\tau(x))$ is bounded. At the limit, we obtain a Lipschitz causal curve $\gamma:[0,1]\lto M$ connecting $x$ to $z$. We have proved that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}^+_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(x)$, hence these sets are equal.
We finally prove \[GH2\]. The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K')={\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K')$ is closed. If $\gamma$ is a causal curve joining $K$ to $K'$, then the length of $\gamma$ is bounded by $\max_{K'}\tau-\min _K \tau$. This means that $\gamma$ is contained in a bounded set, hence that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K')$ is bounded. Being closed and bounded in the complete Riemannian manifold $M$, the set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}(K,K')$ is compact.
Semi-continuity of the chain recurrent set
==========================================
Assume that the chain recurrent set $R_\mathcal{C}$ of the closed cone field $\mathcal{C}$ is compact.
\[semicontinu\] For every neighborhood $U$ of $R_\mathcal{C}$ there exists a closed enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_U$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{\mathcal{C}_U}
\subset U$.
We assume, without loss of generality, that $U$ is bounded, hence $\partial U$ is compact. It is enough to prove the existence of an enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{\bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}}$ is disjoint from $\partial U$.
Let us fix a point $z\in \partial U$. By Lemma \[recreg\], there exists a Lyapounov function $\tau^z$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $a:= \tau^z(z)$ is a regular value of $\tau^z$. Then, there exists a closed enlargement ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ such that $\tau^z$ is a regular Lyapounov function for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z$ in a neighborhood of $\{\tau^z=a\}$. This implies, by Lemma \[lem-trap\], that $\{\tau^z>a\}$ is a trapping region for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z$, hence that $z\not \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z}$.
The open sets $M-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z}$, $z\in \partial U$ thus cover the compact set $\partial U$, hence finitely many of them cover $\partial U$. By taking the intersection of the corresponding cone fields ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}^z$, we obtain a closed enlargement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}$ whose stably recurrent set is disjoint from $\partial U$, as was claimed.
[FP]{}
, Second edition. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1996.
, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [**243**]{} (2003) no. 3, 461–470.
, [*Smoothness of time functions and the metric splitting of globally hyperbolic spacetimes*]{}, [ Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [**257**]{} (2005), 43–50.
, [*Classical Quantum Gravity*]{}, [**24**]{}, no. 3 (2007), 745–749.
, Comm. Math. Phys., **320** (2013), 469–473.
, [*On [L]{}orentzian causality with continuous metrics*]{}, Classical Quantum Gravity, [**29**]{}, no. [14]{} (2012), 145001, 32p.
, Pac. Jour. Maths **64** (1976) no. 1, 97–102.
, SIAM, 1990.
, [*Asymptotic stability and smooth Lyapunov functions*]{}, [J.D.E.]{} [**149**]{} (1998) [no. 1]{}, [69–114]{}.
CBMS Publication 38. Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, 1978.
, [*Partitions of unity for countable covers*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly [**104**]{} (1997), 720–723.
, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**152**]{} (2012), 303–339.
, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. [**12**]{}, no. [08]{} (2015), 12p.
, J. Mathematical Phys., [**11**]{}, (1970), 437–449.
, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A*]{}, [**308**]{} (1969) no. [1494]{}, 433–435.
Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems [**11**]{} (1991) no 4, p. 709-729.
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**126**]{} (1998), 245-256.
, [I.M.R.N.]{} [**4**]{} (1994), [161–168]{}.$ $
, In: “Recent developments in pseudo-[R]{}iemannian geometry”, D. V. Alekseevsky and H. Baum (eds.), Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2008, 299–358.
, [arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06994]{}, [2016]{}.
, [*Trans. of the AMS*]{} [**363**]{}, no. 10 (2011), 5367–5379.
, First edition. Academic Press, 1983.
Topology and its Applications, [**156** ]{} (2009), no. 15, 2426-2442.
, Ann. Henri Poincaré **17** (2016), 1429–1455.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Siconolfi, A. and Terrone, G.</span> *A metric approach to the converse Lyapunov theorem for continuous multivalued dynamics.* Nonlinearity, **20** (2007) no 5, 1077-1093.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Siconolfi, A. and Terrone, G.</span> *A metric proof of the converse Lyapunov Theorem for semicontinuous multivalued dynamics.* Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series A, **32** no. 12, 4409-4427.
\(1957) no. 2, [270–284]{}.
, Invent. Math.,[**36**]{} (1976), 225–255.
[^1]: Université Paris-Dauphine
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the question of magnetic confinement of quantum particles on the unit disk ${{\mathbb{D}}}$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$, i.e. we wish to achieve confinement solely by means of the growth of the magnetic field $B(\vec x)$ near the boundary of the disk. In the spinless case we show that $B(\vec x)\ge \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}},$ for $|\vec x|$ close to 1, insures the confinement provided we assume that the non-radially symmetric part of the magnetic field is not very singular near the boundary. Both constants $\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}$ and $-\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}$ are optimal. This answers, in this context, an open question from [@dVT]. We also derive growth conditions for radially symmetric magnetic fields which lead to confinement of spin ${1/2}$ particles.'
address:
- |
Gheorghe Nenciu\
Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow” of the Romanian Academy\
21, Calea Griviţei\
010702-Bucharest, Sector 1\
Romania
- |
Irina Nenciu\
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
851 S. Morgan Street\
Chicago, IL *and* Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow” of the Romanian Academy\
21, Calea Griviţei\
010702-Bucharest, Sector 1\
Romania
author:
- Gheorghe Nenciu and Irina Nenciu
title: 'On essential self-adjointness for magnetic Schrödinger and Pauli operators on the unit disc in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$'
---
Introduction {#S:1}
============
This note is concerned with the problem of confinement of quantum particles by magnetic fields. At the mathematical level, the confinement of quantum particles in a bounded domain $\Omega$ is described by the fact that the corresponding Hamiltonian is essentially self-adjoint on $C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$. The case when the confinement is due to the presence of an electric field is well understood both at the physical and mathematical levels (see [@Bru], [@BMS], [@KSW], [@NenNen] and the references therein): a sufficiently fast growth of the electric potential will prevent the particle from reaching the boundary of $\Omega$, leading to confinement. Moreover, optimal growth rates are known for the potential close to the boundary $\partial\Omega$, which guarantee essential self-adjointness.
On the contrary, the case in which the confinement is due only to the presence of a magnetic field is much less well-understood; even at the physical heuristic level we are not aware of a clear-cut argument justifying confinement. At the mathematical level, it was proved only very recently by Colin de Verdière and Truc [@dVT] that, under very general conditions, an inverse square increase of the modulus of the magnetic field, $|B(x)|\ge \frac{C}{\text{dist}(x, \partial \Omega)^2}$, $C>1$, close to the boundary of $\Omega$, leads to confinement for spinless particles (i.e. $H = (-i \nabla -A)^2$ where $A$ is a magnetic potential corresponding to $B$). The main technical ingredient of the proof of confinement in [@dVT] is a lower bound of the quadratic form $h_H$ of $H$ in terms of the magnetic field.
In the rest of this note we shall consider the magnetic confinement problem in the simplest setting when $\Omega={{\mathbb{D}}}=\{\vec x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\,|\, |\vec x| < 1\}$ is the unit disk in two dimensions. In this setting, the lower bound in [@dVT] for $h_H$ is an elementary result saying that, provided $B(\vec x) \ge 0$, $$\label{glb}
h_H(u,u) \ge \int_{\Omega} B(\vec x)|u(\vec x)|^2\,dx\,.$$ This, together with general results on essential self-adjointness (see [@NenNen] and references therein), leads to confinement, as long as close to the boundary of $\Omega$ $$\label{C=1}
B(x)\ge \frac{1}{\text{dist}(x, \partial \Omega)^2}\,.$$ As for the optimality of , one can easily give an example (see [@dVT], Theorem 5.8) of a radial magnetic field, $B(\vec x) \sim \frac{\alpha}{\text{dist}(x, \partial \Omega)^2}$ near the boundary, such that for $\alpha \in (0,\frac{\sqrt 3}{2})$, H is not essentially self-adjoint. This raises the question of finding the optimal (i.e. the weakest) increase of the magnetic field near the boundary insuring the essential self-adjointness of $H$. In particular at the level of power like behavior the problem left open in [@dVT] is to find the optimal $C\in [\frac{\sqrt 3}{2},1]$ leading to confinement. Passing to the (most interesting from the physical point of view) case of spin 1/2 particles, i.e. when $H$ is replaced by $(-i \nabla -A)^2-B$, the problem of confinement is wide open, since gives only that $(-i \nabla -A)^2-B \ge 0$, which does not imply confinement, irrespective of the strength of the magnetic field. The existence of magnetic confinement for spin 1/2 particles is one of the main outcomes of our paper.
In this note we report results about optimal magnetic field increase near the boundary leading to confinement. In the spinless (Schrödinger) case, for $B(\vec x)=B_{rad}(|\vec x|) + B_{1}(\vec x)$ and as long as the non-radially symmetric part of the magnetic field, $B_{1}(\vec x)$, is not very singular near the boundary of ${{\mathbb{D}}}$, we prove confinement for $$B_{rad}(|\vec x|) \ge \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-|\vec x|)^2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}\frac{1}{(1-|\vec x|)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-|\vec x|}}\,.$$ Here both constants in front of the leading and subleading terms are optimal (see Theorem \[PSP\] for a precise formulation). In particular this settles, for the case at hand, the question left open in [@dVT]. As for the spin 1/2 (Pauli) case, we prove confinement if the magnetic field is radially symmetric and obeys near $|\vec x|=1$: $$\frac{\alpha}{(1-|\vec x|)^2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{1}{(1-|\vec x|)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-|\vec x|}} \le B(|\vec x|)
\le \frac{\beta \alpha}{(1-|\vec x|)^2}$$ where $$\label{alphabeta}
\beta \ge 1, \alpha \ge \frac{\beta +\sqrt{\beta^2 +3}}{2}.$$ Notice that, from , $\alpha \ge\frac{3}{2}.$ Again the value $\alpha = \frac{3}{2}$ is optimal. By some (tedious) extra work one can add higher order subleading terms of the form $$\frac{\text{const.}}{\bigl(1-|x|\bigr)^2 \ln\ln\cdots\ln\frac{1}{1-|x|}}$$ and determine the corresponding optimal constant.
We wish to comment on the condition that the magnetic field has radial symmetry, which is crucial for our proofs (the non-radially symmetric case for spinless particles follows from the radially symmetric one by perturbation theory). The point is that, as it stands, the “global” lower bound seems hard to improve (if possible at all – see Remark 4.9 in [@dVT]); as already mentioned, this leads to $C \ge 1$. The radial symmetry allows for partial wave decomposition, and thus reduces the essential self-adjointness problem for the whole operator to the one for [*each*]{} partial wave sector (indexed by the magnetic quantum number $m\in {\mathbb Z}$).
We would like to stress that the point of this reduction is not the fact that one ends up with a collection of 1 dimensional problems, for which one uses Weyl limit point criteria; the present day criteria for essential self-adjointness are almost as powerful in the multi dimensional case as in 1 dimension, see [@Bru], [@BMS], [@KSW], [@NenNen] and the references therein (actually the limit point criterion we use is a particular of case of the multi dimensional result in [@NenNen]). What we gain from this decomposition is rather the fact that we are left with the problem of proving appropriate lower bounds for the effective one dimensional potential in each sector. It turns out that this can be done (see Lemma \[Sest\] below), but note that these bounds are not uniform in $m$, in the sense that they are valid only for $|\vec x| > r_m$ with $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty}r_m =1.$
At the technical level, aside from the results in [@NenNen], the main ingredient is the fact that the formula giving the magnetic vector potential in the transversal gauge (see Lemma \[L:3.0.1\]) allows a “nice” transfer of the growth conditions from the magnetic field to the corresponding magnetic potential entering the Schrödinger or Pauli operators (see Lemma \[Sest\]).
The paper is organized as follows: Sections \[S:3\] and \[S:4\] contain our main results and their proofs, respectively. The two appendices have very different character: Appendix \[A:1\] contains a 1-dimensional version of the essential self-adjointness criterion from [@NenNen] expressed as a new, integral, limit point criterion. Aside from its use in the proof of the main result, this criterion might be of interest in itself as a refinement or easier-to-use version of many of the known limit point criteria (see e.g. Theorem X.10 in [@ReeSim], Theorem 1 in [@H]). Finally, Appendix \[S:G\] is included for the reader’s convenience, as it contains some of the known properties of the transversal gauge which we use in our proofs.
Set-up of the problem and results {#S:3}
=================================
As already mentioned in the introduction, we will restrict our attention to the case when $$\label{E:3.1}
\Omega={{\mathbb{D}}}=\{\vec x=(x_1,x_2)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^2\,|\, x_1^2+x_2^2<1\}\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^2\,,$$ and we will consider a magnetic Schrödinger operator, $$\label{E:3.2}
H^S=\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2+q\,,$$ and the associated Pauli operator $$\label{E:3.2.1}
\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2+q \pm B$$ which appears as the nonrelativistic limit of the corresponding Dirac operator [@Th]. We assume throughout the paper that $$\label{cond1}
B\ge 0\qquad\text{and}\qquad B\in C^1({{\mathbb{D}}})$$ This in particular implies that we need only discuss, for the Pauli operator, the nontrivial case, $$\label{E:3.2.2}
H^P=\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2+q-B\,.$$
An important ingredient in proving essential self-adjointness for our examples is the choice of the *transversal* (or *Poincaré*) gauge for the magnetic vector potential. So throughout the paper, for a given magnetic field $B(\vec x)$, $A(\vec x)$ denotes the corresponding magnetic potential in the transversal gauge. From our results, essential self-adjointness follows for all other gauges related to the transversal one by smooth gauge transformations (see e.g. Proposition 2.13 in [@dVT]). For the definition of the transversal gauge and a few properties used in our proofs, see Lemmas \[L:3.0.1\] and \[L:3.0.2\] below; more properties can be found, e.g., in [@Th] or [@N].
We are interested in finding conditions on the magnetic field $B(\vec x)$ near $|\vec x|=1$ guaranteeing the essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ and $H^P$ in the case when the scalar potential, $q(\vec x)$, vanishes (or is uniformly bounded) near $|\vec x|=1$. Since we shall make heavy use of polar coordinates, $\vec x =(r,\theta)$, in order not to obscure the main ideas with irrelevant technicalities related with the singularity of the transformation from rectangular to polar coordinates near the origin, we shall consider the essential self-adjointness problem for $H^S$ and $H^P$ on $C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ where $$\label{E:omega}
\Omega = \{ 0<|\vec x|<1\},$$ and $$\label{q}
q(\vec x) = \frac{1}{|\vec x|^2}\,.$$ We would like to emphasize the fact that, since $q(\vec x)$ as given by assures the self-adjointness at $0$ (see [@ReeSim]), for a given magnetic field the essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ and $H^P$ on $C_0^{\infty}(\{|\vec x|<1\})$ with $q=0$ is [*equivalent*]{} to the essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ and $H^P$ (respectively) on $C_0^{\infty}(\{0<|\vec x|<1\})$ with $q$ as given by .
We are now in the position to state the main result of this note. In what follows, $r$ and $\theta$ are the polar coordinates of $\vec x$.
\[PSP\] (i) Consider the Schrödinger operator $$H^S=\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2+\frac{1}{r^2}$$ defined on $\mathcal D(H^S)=C_0^{\infty}(\{0<|\vec x|<1\})$, where $$\label{BS}
B(\vec x) = B_{rad}(r) + B_{1}(\vec x)$$ with $$\label{BSr}
B_{rad}(r) \ge \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}},$$ for $r$ close to 1, and $$\label{BS1}
\int_0^1\!\bigl|B_1(r,\theta)\bigr|\,dr + \int_0^1\!\bigl|\frac{\partial}{d \theta}B_1(r,\theta)\bigr|\,dr < \infty$$ uniformly in $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$. Then $H^S$ is essentially self-adjoint.
\(ii) Consider the Pauli operator $$H^P=\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2+\frac{1}{r^2} -B(\vec x)$$ defined on ${\mathcal D}(H^P)=C_0^{\infty}(\{0<|\vec x|<1\})$, where $$\label{BP}
B(\vec x) = B_{rad}(|\vec x|).$$ Suppose $$\beta \ge 1, \alpha \ge \frac{\beta +\sqrt{\beta^2 +3}}{2},$$ and $$\label{BPr}
\frac{\alpha}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}} \le B_{rad}(r) \le \frac{\beta \alpha}{(1-r)^2},$$ for $r$ close to 1. Then $H^P$ is essentially self-adjoint.
\(iii) For any $c<\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}$ and $d>\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}$ one can find magnetic fields $ B(r)$ satisfying either $B(r) \ge c\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}$ or $B(r) \ge \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-d\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}}$ for which $H^S$ is not essentially self-adjoint.
For any $c<\frac{ 3}{2}$ and $d>\frac{1}{ 3}$ one can find magnetic fields $ B(r)$ satisfying for $r$ close to 1 either $B(r) \ge c\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}$ or $B(r) \ge \frac{ 3}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-d\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}}$ for which $H^P$ is not essentially self-adjoint.
Proofs {#S:4}
======
Proof of Theorem \[PSP\](i) in the radially symmetric case {#Ss1}
----------------------------------------------------------
We will start by providing growth conditions close to the boundary for the magnetic field in the radially symmetric Schrödinger case. That means that, in the transversal gauge, the magnetic potential $A$ has the form given by Lemmas \[L:3.0.1\] and \[L:3.0.2\]: $$\label{E:3.3}
A(r,\theta)=ra(r)\,\bigl(-\sin\theta\quad\cos\theta\bigr)\,,$$ with $$a(r)=\int_0^1\!\! tB_\text{rad}(tr)\,dt$$ where $(r,\theta)$ are, as before, the polar coordinates corresponding to the rectangular coordinates $\vec x=(x_1,x_2)$.
We argue now following [@ReeSim], [@Cor] (the argument is quite standard but we include it for completeness) that the essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ is equivalent with the essential self-adjointness of $$\label{E:3.13}
\tilde H^S_{m}\equiv -\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{3}{4r^2}+\left(ra(r)-\frac{m}{r}\right)^2\quad\text{in}\quad L^2((0,1),dr)\,,$$ for all $m\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$, defined on $C_0^{\infty}((0,1))$. Indeed, let us note first that, according to Lemma \[L:3.1\], the Schrödinger operator written in polar coordinates takes the form $$\label{E:3.4}
H^S=-\frac1r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\,r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\left(-\frac{i}{r}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}-ra(r)\right)^2+\frac{1}{r^2}$$ We now split the operator $H^S$ according to partial waves. For $$\label{E:3.8}
\psi_m(r,\theta)=\varphi(r)\cdot e^{im\theta}\,,$$ we obtain, using , that $$\label{E:3.9}
(H^S \psi_m)(r,\theta) =\left[-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+q(r)+r^2a(r)^2-
2ma(r)+\frac{m^2}{r^2}\right]\varphi(r)\cdot e^{im\theta}\,$$ acting on the space $L^2((0,1)\times S^1,rdrd\theta)$. Then by a standard argument (see e.g. [@ReeSim], Appendix XI, Example 4) the essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ is equivalent with the essential self-adjointness for all $m\in \mathbb Z$ of $$\label{E:3.10.1}
H^S_m=-\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}r\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{1}{r^2}+r^2a(r)^2-2ma(r)+\frac{m^2}{r^2}$$ defined on $C_0^{\infty}((0,1))$ in $L^2((0,1),rdr)$. In other words, we are interested, for each $m\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$, in the operator $H^S_m$ on the space $L^2((0,1),rdr)$, and more precisely, we want to understand its essential self-adjoiness properties for $r$ close to 1.
Using the general notation and set-up for Sturm-Liouville transformations from [@Cor] (for this particular case see also [@ReeSim],[@dVT]), we define the unitary operator of multiplication with $\gamma (r) =r^{-1/2}$, $$\label{E:3.11}
\Gamma\,:\, L^2((0,1),dr) \rightarrow L^2((0,1),rdr)\qquad\big(\Gamma \phi\big)(r)=r^{-1/2}\phi (r)\,.$$ Then we know from the general theory that $$\label{E:3.12}
\Gamma^{-1}H^S_{m}\Gamma=-\Delta+\tilde q_m,\quad\text{with}\quad \tilde q_m^S=\frac{H^S_{m}\gamma}{\gamma}\,.$$ In our situation, we see from and that $$\label{E:3.13a}
\tilde H^S_{m} = \Gamma^{-1}H^S_{m}\Gamma .$$ The main point of is that $C_0^{\infty}((0,1))$ is invariant under $\Gamma$, so $\tilde H^S_{m}$ is essentially self-adjoint on $C_0^{\infty}((0,1))$ if and only if $H^S_{m}$ is essentially self-adjoint on $C_0^{\infty}((0,1))$. So now we need to look at which growth conditions on $B$ lead to situations for which 1 is a limit-point of $$\tilde H^S_{m}=-\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{3}{4r^2}+\frac{1}{r^2}\left(r^2a(r)-m\right)^2$$ with domain $\mathcal D(\tilde H^S_m)=C_0^\infty\bigl((0,1)\bigr)$, $m\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Recall that this depends only on the growth rate close to 1 of the potential $$\label{E:3.14}
\tilde q_m^S(r)=r^2a(r)^2-2ma(r)+\frac{4m^2+3}{4r^2}\,.$$
To describe the growth condition on the magnetic field, we consider the “critical” magnetic field $$\label{E:3.15}
B_c(r)=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}}, & \text{for $1-r \le e^{-4}$,}\\
0, & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
\[L:3.2\] Suppose that $$\label{E:3.16}
B(r)\ge B_c(r)\,.$$ Then $\tilde H^S_m$ is essentially self-adjoint for all $m\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
According to Weyl theory (see Theorem X.7 in [@ReeSim]), we have to verify that $\tilde H^S_m$ is limit point at 0 and 1. Since $$\label{E:3.17}
\tilde q_m^S(r)=\frac{3}{4r^2}+\frac{1}{r^2}\bigl(r^2a(r)-m\bigr)^2\ge \frac{3}{4r^2}$$ it follows from classical results (e.g., Theorem X.10 in [@ReeSim]) that $\tilde H^S_m$ is limit point at 0.
Concerning the situation at 1, the needed growth rate close to 1 of $\tilde q_m^S(r)$ is provided by the following technical lemma.
\[Sest\] For each $m \in \mathbb{Z} $ there exist $r_m <1$ such that for $r_m <r<1$: $$\label{condA1}
\frac{1}{4(1-r)^2}+ \tilde q_m^S(r)\ge
\left(\frac{1}{1-r}-\frac{1}{2(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}-\frac{4}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}
\right)^2$$ and $$\label{condA2}
\frac{1}{2(1-r)} \le \frac{1}{1-r}-\frac{1}{2(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}-\frac{4}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}$$
Taking Lemma \[Sest\] for granted one can finish the proof of Proposition \[L:3.2\]. Indeed, choosing the function $G$ to be (for small enough $t$) of the form $$\label{E:3.22}
G(t)=\ln t+ \frac12\ln\ln\frac1t + \int_t\!\,\frac{4}{(1-u)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}du\,,$$ one can apply directly Lemma \[L:A.1\], which gives that $\tilde H^S_m$ is limit point at 1.
We turn now to the proof of Lemma \[Sest\].
Let $1-r_0=e^{-4}$. A finite number of constants appearing during the proof will be denoted by the same letter $C$. From , and for $r>r_0$ $$\label{BrBc}
\begin{aligned}
r^2a(r)=& r^2\int_0^1\!\! tB_\text{rad}(tr)\,dt=\int_{0}^r\!\! uB_\text{rad}(u)\,du \ge \int_{r_0}^r\!\! uB_c(u)\,du \\
& = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \int_{r_0}^r \!\!\frac{u}{(1-u)^2}\,du-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{u}{(1-u)^2\ln\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du.
\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the r.h.s. of gives $$\label{main}
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \left(\frac{1}{1-r}-\ln\frac{1}{1-r}\right) +C.$$ We estimate now the second term on the r.h.s. of . Integration by parts gives $$\label{Bcln1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{u}{(1-u)^2\ln\frac{1}{1-u}}&\,du \le \int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du \\
&= \frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}+\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du +C.
\end{aligned}$$ Integrating once again by parts and taking into account that for $r>r_0$, $1-r <e^{-4}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du& =
\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} +2\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln^3\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du +C \\
&\le \frac{1}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} +\frac{1}{2}\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du +C
\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\label{ln2}
\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{1}{(1-u)^2\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du \le \frac{2}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} +C.$$ From and $$\label{sublead}
\int_{r_0}^r\!\!\frac{u}{(1-u)^2\ln\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du \le \frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}+\frac{2}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} +C.$$ Putting together , and one obtains $$\label{argeq}
\begin{aligned}
r^2a(r) &\ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \frac{1}{(1-r)}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}\\
&\qquad-\frac{2}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\ln\frac{1}{1-r}+C\,.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Choose $r_m \ge r_0$ such that $$\label{rm}
\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\ln\frac{1}{1-r} +m -C.$$ Then for $r>r_m$, from $$\label{ar-m}
r^2a(r) -m \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \frac{1}{(1-r)}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}
-\frac{3}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} \ge 0$$ Since (see ) $\tilde q_m^S(r)\ge (r^2a(r) -m)^2 $, from one can check by direct computation (use $\ln\frac{1}{1-r}\ge 4$) that and hold true.
Proof of Theorem \[PSP\](i) in the nonradial case {#Ss2}
-------------------------------------------------
Write (see and ) $$\label{aa1}
a(r,\theta)=a_{\text{rad}}(r)+a_1(r,\theta)$$ where $$\label{a1}
a_1(r,\theta)=\int_0^1\! tB_1(t\vec x)\,dt,\quad a_{\text{rad}}(r)=\int_0^1\!tB_{\text{rad}}(tr)\,dt\,.$$ From and it follows that $a_1$ and $\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial\theta}$ are uniformly bounded: $$\label{A1}
\sup_{|\vec x|<1}\left\{\big|a_1(r,\theta)\big|+\Big|\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial\theta}(r,\theta)\Big|\right\}\le A_1<\infty\,.$$ Here recall (see ) that we always assume that our magnetic fields, in particular $B_1$, are $C^1$-smooth on the whole unit disk, including at 0. This is needed to justify the uniformity of the bound as $r\to 0$.
Plugging into and expanding, one obtains $$\label{HS1}
H^S=H^S_{\text{rad}}+H^S_1\,,$$ where $$\label{Hrad}
H^S_\text{rad}=-\frac1r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\,r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+P_{\theta,\text{rad}}^2+\frac{1}{r^2}$$ and $$\label{H1}
\begin{aligned}
H^S_1
&=ra_1(r,\theta)P_{\theta,\text{rad}}+P_{\theta,\text{rad}}ra_1(r,\theta)+r^2a_1(r,\theta)^2\\
&=2ra_1(r,\theta)P_{\theta,\text{rad}}-i\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial\theta}(r,\theta)+r^2a_1(r,\theta)^2\,,
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{Prad}
P_{\theta,\text{rad}}=-\frac{i}{r}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}+ra_\text{rad}(r)\,.$$
Notice that both $H^S_\text{rad}$ and $H^S_1$ are symmetric on $C^\infty_0(\{0<|\vec x|<1\})$ and, from subsection \[Ss1\], $H^S_\text{rad}$ is essentially self-adjoint. We show now that $H^S_1$ is relatively bounded with respect to $H^S_\text{rad}$, which will complete this part of the proof.
By , the last two terms on the right-hand side of are bounded, and so we need only consider the first term. Let $$\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\{0<|\vec x|<1\}) \,.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl\|2ra_1(r,\theta)P_{\theta,\text{rad}}\varphi\bigr\|^2
&\le 2A_1^2\langle\varphi,P^2_{\theta,\text{rad}}\varphi\rangle\le 2A_1^2\langle\varphi, H^S_\text{rad}\varphi\rangle\\
&\le 2A_1^2\|\varphi\|\cdot\|H^S_\text{rad}\varphi\|\le \frac{A_1^2}{d^2}\|\varphi\|^2+A_1^2d^2\|H^S_\text{rad}\varphi\|^2\\
&\le A_1^2\left(\frac{\|\varphi\|}{d}+d\|H^S_\text{rad}\varphi\|\right)^2\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used the general fact that $2ab\le a^2+b^2$. Putting all together yields $$\|H^S_1\varphi\|\le A_1d\|H^S_\text{rad}\varphi\|+\left(\frac{A_1}{d}+A_1+A_1^2\right)\|\varphi\|\,,$$ which leads to the needed bound when $d$ is chosen small enough. The essential self-adjointness of $H^S$ then follows from the stability of essential self-adjointness against relatively bounded perturbations (see e.g. [@Ka], [@ReeSim]).
Proof of Theorem \[PSP\](ii) {#Ss3}
----------------------------
By the same argument as in the radially symmetric Schrödinger case, one is reduced to the proof of essential self-adjointness of $$\tilde H^P_m=-\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{3}{4r^2}+\frac{1}{r^2}\bigl(r^2a_\text{rad}(r)-m\bigr)^2-B_\text{rad}(r)
=-\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\tilde q^P_m(r)\,.$$
Let $r_{\alpha}$ defined by $1-r_{\alpha}=e^{-2(\alpha +1)}$. Defining $$\label{BcP}
B_{c,\alpha}(r)=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\alpha}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}}, & \text{for $1-r \le e^{-2(\alpha +1)}$,}\\
0, & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and mimicking closely the proof of Lemma \[Sest\] one obtains $$\label{Pargeq}
r^2a_\text{rad}(r) \ge \frac{\alpha}{(1-r)}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}
-\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}-\alpha\ln\frac{1}{1-r}+C(\alpha).$$ Choose $r_{m,\alpha} \ge r_\alpha$ such that $$\label{Prm}
\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}} \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\ln\frac{1}{1-r} +m -C(\alpha).$$ Then for $r>r_{m,\alpha}$ , from $$\label{Par-m}
r^2a_\text{rad}(r) -m \ge \frac{\alpha}{(1-r)}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}
-\frac{2}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}
\ge 0.$$ From , $$\frac{1}{4(1-r)^2}+\tilde q^P_m(r)\ge\bigl(r^2a_\text{rad}(r)-m\bigr)^2-\frac{\alpha\beta-\frac14}{(1-r)^2}.$$ Then from one can again verify directly (notice that from , $\alpha \ge \frac{3}{2} $ and $\alpha^2-\alpha\beta+\frac14\ge1$, and that $\ln\frac{1}{1-r_\alpha}=2(\alpha+1)$) that $$\label{condAP1}
\frac{1}{4(1-r)^2}+\tilde q^P_m(r)\ge
\left(\frac{1}{1-r}-\frac{1}{2(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}-\frac{2(\alpha +1)}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}
\right)^2$$ and $$\label{condAP2}
\frac{1}{2(1-r)} \le \frac{1}{1-r}-\frac{1}{2(1-r)\ln\frac{1}{1-r}}-\frac{2(\alpha+1)}{(1-r)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-r}}.$$ A direct application of Lemma \[L:A.1\] with $$\label{GP}
G(t)=\ln t+ \frac12\ln\ln\frac1t + \int_t\!\,\frac{2(\alpha+1)}{(1-u)\ln^2\frac{1}{1-u}}\,du\,,$$ completes the proof of Theorem \[PSP\](ii).
Proof of Theorem \[PSP\](iii)
-----------------------------
For $B(r) \ge c\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}$ in the Schrödinger case see Theorem 5.8 in [@dVT]. For the optimality of the constant in front of the subleading term choose $$\label{aopt}
a(r)=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\sqrt 3}{2}\frac{1}{1-r}-\frac12(d+\frac{1}{\sqrt 3})\frac{1}{(1-r)\ln \frac{1}{1-r}}-e
(\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}-\frac{d}{2}), & \text{for $1-r \le \frac{1}{e}$,}\\
0, & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and verify that the corresponding magnetic field has the right behavior as $r\rightarrow 1$. At the same time for $r$ sufficiently close to one from and $$\tilde q_0^S (r) = r^2a(r)^2+\frac{3}{4r^2}\ge \frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{(1-r)^2}-\frac{d\sqrt 3+1}{2}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-r)^2\ln \frac{1}{1-r}},$$ and since $d\sqrt 3 >1$ one can apply Theorem 3 in [@NenNen] to $\tilde H_m^S$. The proof for the Pauli case is similar.
Background {#A:1}
==========
In this appendix, we give the particular case we need of the main theorem in [@NenNen], in a form best adapted to its application in this paper.
\[L:A.1\] Let $$\label{E:A1}
\bigl(H\varphi\bigr)(x)=-\varphi''(x)+V(x)\varphi(x)\qquad\text{on}\quad (0,1)$$ with $V$ a continuous potential. Assume that $V=V_1+V_2$, with $V_2$ uniformly bounded and $$\label{E:A2}
V_1(x)+\frac{1}{4(1-x)^2}\ge \left(G'(1-x)\right)^2\qquad\text{for}\quad x\in(1/2,1)$$ with $G\,:\,(0,1/2)\rightarrow {{\mathbb{R}}}$ differentiable and satisfying:\
i. There exists $0<d_0<1/2$ such that $$0\le G'(t)\le\frac1t\,\,\,\text{for}\,\,\, t\in(0,d_0)\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, G'(t)=0\,\,\,\text{for}\,\,\, t\ge d_0\,;$$ ii. For any $\rho_0\le d_0/2$, $$\label{E:A3}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty 4^{-n} e^{-2G(2^{-n}\rho_0)}=\infty\,.$$ Then $H$ is limit-point at 1.
Let $$\tilde V(x)=\begin{cases}
V(x), & \text{for}\,\,\, x\ge\frac12;\\
V(1-x), &\text{for}\,\,\, x<\frac12.
\end{cases}$$ Then the conditions of Theorem 1 in [@NenNen] are fulfilled for $\tilde H=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\tilde V$ on $\Omega=(0,1)$, $\mathcal D(\tilde H)=C_0^\infty(\Omega)$, so that $\tilde H$ is essentially self-adjoint. Thus, by Theorem X.7 in [@ReeSim] it must be limit-point at 1.
Note that the crucial growth condition for the potential near $x=1$ is , but that looks somewhat unfamiliar. In fact, it is equivalent to an integral type condition, at least in the case where we replace $G'(t)\ge0$ by $G'(t)\ge1/(2t)$. The following integral limit-point criterion, which is of interest in itself as a refinement or easier-to-use version of many of the known limit-point criteria (see, e.g., Theorem X.10 in [@ReeSim]), is a direct consequence of Lemma \[L:A.1\]:
\[P:A.2\] Let $$\bigl(H\varphi\bigr)(x)=-\varphi''(x)+V(x)\varphi(x)\qquad\text{on}\quad (0,1)$$ with $V$ a continuous potential. Assume that $V=V_1+V_2$, with $V_2$ uniformly bounded and $$V_1(x)+\frac{1}{4(1-x)^2}\ge \bigl(G'(1-x)\bigr)^2\qquad\text{for}\quad x\in(1/2,1)$$ with $G\,:\,(0,1/2)\rightarrow {{\mathbb{R}}}$ differentiable and satisfying:\
i. There exists $0<d_0<1/2$ such that $$\label{E:A4}
\frac{1}{2t}\le G'(t)\le\frac1t\,\,\,\text{for}\,\,\, t\in(0,d_0),\,\,\, G'(t)=0\,\,\,\text{for}\,\,\, t\in (2d_0,\tfrac12)\,;$$ ii. $$\label{E:A5}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to0+}\int_\varepsilon\! te^{-2G(t)}\,dt=\infty\,.$$ Then $H$ is limit-point at 1.
It follows from that $$\label{E:A6}
\frac{d}{dt}\bigl(te^{-2G(t)}\bigr)\le 0\,.$$ Now let $\rho_0\le d_0/2$, as in the hypothesis of Lemma \[L:A.1\], and denote $t_n=2^{-n} \rho_0$. Then the sum in equals $$\frac{1}{\rho_0^2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty t_n e^{-2G(t_n)} \bigl(t_{n-1}-t_n\bigr)
=\frac{2}{\rho_0^2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty t_n e^{-2G(t_n)} \bigl(t_{n}-t_{n+1}\bigr)\,.$$ Together with , this implies $$\frac{1}{\rho_0^2}\int_0^{\rho_0}\! te^{-2G(t)}\,dt\le \sum_{n=1}^\infty 4^{-n}e^{-2G(2^{-n}\rho_0)}
\le \frac{2}{\rho_0^2}\int_0^{\frac{\rho_0}{2}}\! te^{-2G(t)}\,dt\,,$$ showing in particular that implies , and completing the proof.
The simplest choice for $G$ near $t=0$ is $G(t)=\ln t$, and it leads to the result of Theorem X.10 in [@ReeSim]. The choice used in the proof of Theorem \[PSP\] is of the form $$\label{Glnlnf}
G(t)=\ln t+\frac12\ln\ln\frac1t+\int_tf(u)du$$ with $f(u) \ge 0$, $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}uf(u)=0$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\int_tf(u)du < \infty.$ We send the reader to [@NenNen] for more examples and a discussion of optimality. The case is not covered e.g. by Theorem X.10 in [@ReeSim] or Lemma 3.11 in [@GZ], nor by the particularization to the 1-dimensional case of Theorem 6.2 in [@Bru] or the Main Theorem iii. in [@MMc]. Concerning Hinton’s Theorem (Theorem 1 in [@H]), while the choice $\eta(x)=x^{-1/2}$, given there for the case at hand, also does not cover , one can show that a better choice, $\eta(x)=\frac{1}{x^{1/2}\ln(1/x)^{1/2}}$ near $x=0$, does the job.
We close this appendix with a remark: in order to avoid technicalities, we have imposed smoothness conditions on $V$ and $G$ which are stronger than necessary. For example, the differentiability condition for $G$ can be relaxed. In fact, as can be seen in the classical Agmon paper [@Agm] (see also [@dVT]), it is sufficient to require that $G$ be Lipschitz continuous and the corresponding inequality be understood in an almost everywhere sense.
A few facts about the transversal gauge {#S:G}
=======================================
An important step in proving essential self-adjointness for our examples is the choice of the *transversal* (or *Poincaré*) gauge for the magnetic vector potential. The definition and properties of the transversal gauge used in this paper are well-known (see, e.g., [@Th]), and we provide the proofs for the reader’s convenience.
More precisely, we have the following:
\[L:3.0.1\] Let $$\label{E:3.2.2a}
A(\vec x)=\int_0^1\!\!\! t\vec B(t\vec x)\,dt \wedge \vec x=\left(-x_2\int_0^1\!\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt,\quad x_1\int_0^1\!\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt\right)$$ Then $A$ is a vector potential associated to the magnetic field $B$ and $$\label{E:3.2.3}
A(\vec x) \perp \vec x,\qquad |A(\vec x)|=|\vec x|\cdot \int_0^1\!\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt\,.$$
The two claims in follow immediately from and the assumption that $B\ge0$. So all we need to show in order to complete the proof is that $$\label{E:3.2.3.1}
B=\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_2}\,.$$ But plugging in the definition of $A$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_1}(\vec x)-\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_2}(\vec x)
&=2\int_0^1\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt\\
&\quad+\int_0^1\! t^2\bigl(x_1\partial_1B(t\vec x)+x_2\partial_2B(t\vec x)\bigr)\,dt\\
&=\int_0^1\! \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bigl(t^2B(t\vec x)\bigr)\,dt=B(\vec x)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Given this, we notice the importance of the quantity $$\label{E:3.2.4}
a(\vec x)=\int_0^1\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt:$$
\[L:3.0.2\] For smooth functions $a$ and $B$ on $|\vec x|<1$, we have that $$\label{E:3.2.5}
a(\vec x)=\int_0^1\!\! tB(t\vec x)\,dt\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad B(\vec x)=2a(\vec x)+\vec x\cdot\nabla a(\vec x)\,.$$ Furthermore, $a$ is radially symmetric iff $B$ is, and in this case the equivalence becomes $$\label{E:3.2.6}
a(r)=\int_0^1\!\! tB(tr)\,dt \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad B(r)=2a(r)+ra'(r)\,.$$
The proof of the equivalence from consists of two applications of the calculation from the proof of Lemma \[L:3.0.1\]. Now, if $B$ is radially symmetric, and we set $r=|\vec x|$, then we see directly from that $a$ is also, and $$a(r)=\int_0^1\!\! tB(tr)\,dt\,.$$ Conversely, if $a$ is radially symmetric, notice that $$\vec x\cdot \nabla a(\vec x)=ra'(r)\,,$$ and so it follows again from that $B$ is radially symmetric also, and $$B(r)=2a(r)+ra'(r)\,.$$
Finally, it is important to rewrite the Hamiltonian in polar coordinates:
\[L:3.1\] Let $B$ be a (smooth) magnetic field on ${{\mathbb{D}}}$, $A$ the vector potential in the transversal gauge (i.e., chosen as in Lemma \[L:3.0.1\]), and $a$ as in . Then, if $(r,\theta)$ are the polar coordinates associated to the rectangular coordinates $\vec x=(x_1,x_2)$, we have that $$\label{E:3.2.7}
\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2=-\frac1r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\,r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+
\left(-\frac{i}{r}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}-ra(r,\theta)\right)^2\,.$$
The identity follows by a direct change of variables. First recall that $$A(\vec x)=a(\vec x)\,\bigl(-x_2\quad x_1\bigr)\,,$$ so by expanding the square we see that $$\bigl(-i\nabla-A\bigr)^2=-\Delta+ia\,(-x_2\quad x_1)\cdot\nabla+i(-x_2\quad x_1)\cdot\nabla\,a+|\vec x|^2 a^2\,.$$ The standard expression in polar coordinates of the Laplacian in 2 dimensions is $$\label{E:3.2.8}
\Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac1r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta^2}\,,$$ and we notice that $$\label{E:3.2.9}
\begin{aligned}
(-x_2\quad x_1)\cdot\nabla
&=-r\sin\theta\left(\cos\theta\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}-\frac{\sin\theta}{r}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\right)+
r\cos\theta\left(\sin\theta\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{\cos\theta}{r}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\right)\\
&=\sin^2\theta\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}+\cos^2\theta\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging these two expressions into the expanded square above leads directly to .
[10]{} S. Agmon, *Lectures on exponential decay of solutions of second-order elliptic equations: bounds on eigenfunctions of $N$-body Schr�dinger operators*. Mathematical Notes, **29**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1982.
A. G. Brusentsev, Selfadjointness of elliptic differential operators in $L_2(G)$,and correction potentials, *Trans. Moscow Math.Soc.* [**65**]{} (2004), 31–61.
M. Braverman, O. Milatovich, M. Shubin, Essential selfadjointness of Schrödinger-type operators on manifolds, *Uspekhi Mat. Nauk* [**57**]{} (2002), no. 4(346), 3–58; translation in *Russian Math. Surveys* [**57**]{} (2002), no. 4, 641–692.
Cordes, Self-adjointness of powers of elliptic operators on non-compact manifolds, *Math. Ann.* [**195**]{} (1972), 257–272.
Y. Colin de Verdière, F. Truc, Confining quantum particles with a purely magnetic field, preprint, `arXiv:0903.0803v3`, to appear in Ann. Inst. Fourier.
F. Gesztesy, M. Zinchenko, On spectral theory for Schrödinger operators with singular potentials, *Math. Nach.* [**279**]{} (2006), 1041-1082. D. Hinton, Limit-point limit circle criteria for $(py')'+qy =\lambda ky$, in:*Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations*, edited by B.D. Sleeman and I.M. Michael. *Lecture Notes in Mathematics* [**415**]{} (1974), 173–183.
H. Kalf, U.-V. Schminke, J. Walter, R. Wüst, *On the spectral theory of Schrödinger and Dirac operators with strongly singular potentials*, in *Lecture Notes in Mathematics* **448** (1975), 182–226.
T. Kato, *Perturbation theory for linear operators.* 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1976.
R. Mazzeo, R. McOwen, Singular Sturm-Liouville theory on manifolds, *J. Diff. Equations* [**176**]{} (2001), 307-444.
G. Nenciu, On asymptotic perturbation theory for quantum mechanics: almost invariant subspaces and gauge invariant magnetic perturbation theory. *J. Math. Phys.* [**43**]{} (2002), no. 3, 1273–1298.
G. Nenciu, I. Nenciu, On confining potentials and essential self-adjointness for Schrödinger operators on bounded domains in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, *Ann. Henri Poincaré* [**10**]{} (2009), no. 2, 377–394.
M. Reed, B. Simon, *Methods of modern mathematical physics. II. Fourier analysis, self-adjointness.* Academic Press \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers\], New York-London, 1975. xv+361 pp.
B. Thaller, *The Dirac equation.* Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1992.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.